New Smoking Policy

[L0nd0]

Just thought I would post a little blurb from the hotels new policy.

Smoking Policy: Important News!
The Riviera Hotel and Casino in accordance with the Clear Air Act now prohibits smoking in all public spaces except for the casino proper, bars in the casino area, and designated outdoor smoking areas by the pool. No smoking is allowed in any of the Convention areas, or any of the corridors, lobbies, restaurants, special meeting rooms in the Hotel. The APP supports this change and encourages all attendees to comply with the new regulations.

This is also in affect for all other casinos as well.

[Nikita]

Excellent! I didn't smoke in any of those places anyway. I'm glad to hear people wont be coming to the registration desk or the store blowing smoke our faces. Id rather smoke my own cigarette. I'm a smoker, but i cant stand that. Besides, its not like the smoking areas will be THAT hard to get to. Hopefully I will finally quit by this years defcon and not be tempted by clouds of smoke everywhere i go.

Just thought I would post a little blurb from the hotels new policy.

Smoking Policy: Important News!
The Riviera Hotel and Casino in accordance with the Clear Air Act now prohibits smoking in all public spaces except for the casino proper, bars in the casino area, and designated outdoor smoking areas by the pool. No smoking is allowed in any of the Convention areas, or any of the corridors, lobbies, restaurants, special meeting rooms in the Hotel. The APP supports this change and encourages all attendees to comply with the new regulations.

This is also in affect for all other casinos as well.

[patsprou]

I agree. I'm not a smoker, but I think that those who want to should be able to however I don't like the smoke being blown in my face.

[Deviant Ollam]

geez, i must be one of the few non-smokers left who doesn't give a damn what other people do. not directly putting down anyone else here, please understand, but i couldn't give a rat's ass whether anyone smokes anywhere at con as long as it's not in my personal room which i am paying for. yeah, my clothes may smell a bit and my hair might reveal that i'd been at a party or sitting next to chris the following day... but we live in a world that got its hands around the whole "soap" technology thing somewhere in the sixth century. nowadays, tide detergent and suave shampoo are available at every corner store for almost no cost.

yeah, i hate smelling like smoke just like most everyone else i know (smokers and non-smokers alike) but it's a very brief inconvenience and it comes right out. personal freedoms shouldn't be trod upon simply because they pose a minor inconvenience to others. (when these laws are debated the politicians speak as though they're fighting a scourge akin to people setting up lawn sprinklers that pump sulfuric acid in the middle of crowded rooms.)

:mad:

[converge]

the few, the proud, the free.

This brings a few observations to my mind:
1) This is not a Riviera directive, nor the Riviera saying 'no more smoking for those evil hackers'. This is effective at all hotels in the area and would be the case no matter where the con pointed tail.

2) At Alexis Park the average con experience was 50% outdoors, 35% indoors, 15% offsite. At the Riviera the average con experience is 75% indoors, 5% outdoors and 20% offsite. These are hard numbers crunched by me in approximately 20 seconds of whim, so rest assured they are 101% on mark. You get the idea. 'Passed out' is a state in one of these three specified locations.

3) Riviera smoking control is likely to be heaviest around the outer edges of the con where their security directly interfaces with attendees and generally tries to contain our somber-chaos from spreading to the rest of the institute. Lighting up in the heart of the conference area, during a talking, or passing through the vendor area will likely not gain a swarm of hotel thugs on you with a fire extinguisher.

4) Organizers and security goons will set the rules and overtone for how this is handled. History shows they are insanely liberal and laid back about these kinda stupidities.

5) In this light, if something more strict comes down.. I would suspect it being at a serious threat of getting the event shut down if such activity is not controlled to the satisfaction of local authorities and proprietors.


All my thoughts thusfar .. won't expound on the smoking vs nonsmoking thing, since I already did within memories reach of a similar post.

[jur1st]

Considering how difficult it was to have a central location for people to just mingle, designated smoking areas might help. When I was in Ireland, I probably met more locals smoking than I ever did when I was inside the pubs.

Although I am disapointed that more restrictions are coming to one of the last paradises for smokers in the US, it might make for a more social con this year.

[Nikita]

Considering how difficult it was to have a central location for people to just mingle, designated smoking areas might help. When I was in Ireland, I probably met more locals smoking than I ever did when I was inside the pubs.

Although I am disappointed that more restrictions are coming to one of the last paradises for smokers in the US, it might make for a more social con this year.

I totally agree with you.

I can say that when they went to non smoking in the bars up here, i was pissed, I was like wtf, it's a bar for crying out loud. But I got used to it, and find that i actually enjoy being outside on the patio drinking and smoking and talking with folks. Ive seen the "smoke break" pack mentality start . (They say addicts never like to use alone. hehe ) Started those single serving conversations and I've developed a few drinking mates because of that, people i probably wouldn't have just gone over to and chatted up before.

[Rance]

I don't know if I'm right about this but considering you need to pay your way in to Defcon wouldn't that mean that it isn't public?

[reb00tz]

But the casino itself invites members of the public - so I would imagine that it applies to the building not just the convention centre part..

Just my 0.02p/c/$/yen worth

[theprez98]

Despite the fact that the casinos are owned by private individuals or companies, they exist to serve the public and are thus "public accomodations" which essentially means that a whole host of laws can be applied to them.

[owl]

As a non-smoker let me say: Hia!!, that is great! :biggrin: My only complained of the move to the Riviera, was the smell of smoke on the hallways. As an asthmatic, I kept feeling like I was aficiating everytime that I was in the hallway, and even when I went to the sitting are, there would be people smoking seating all around me, that was horrible.

[SrvZro]

Coming from the California perspective, it was nice for those moments it lasted ... It just means that the outside will become the smoking bar. Just hope for shade, cold <cheap?> beer and maybe a mist machine or three.

There wasn't enough ash trays in the corridors anyways.

[goathead]

Somewhere along my travels, I began having severe reactions to cigarette 2nd hand smoke. I play in a band and it was very common to have severe lung and sinus issues for days after playing on an elevated stage in a bar or club for a single event. It didn't help to have fog machines (mighty nasty) and fumes from metal grinders (extremely caustic) as well. I used to smoke cigs but quit over a decade ago. Back then it didn't bother me at all, but now, well... sucks to be me. I have a family member that has severe hay fever and I can sympathize with him that he has to choose where he's going to expose himself and whether he thinks that feeling miserable is worth the activity. I would not want to hang up my creative outlet or my source of stimulation because of it's environment's effects, but time will tell.

I wish that it could be Porn Theater rules... aka Keep your actions (and mess) to yourself and we're cool... but its not the nature of smoke to be controlled.

However I am a lover of freedom (and inanimate objects when drunked) and would never want to put my preferences above another person. I just wish it was just a matter of preference instead of a physical reaction. Then I could just take solice that it was a choice and that I can get over it.

So a free environment would not sadden me at all, but crushing other people's good time could take away from the good energy and vibe that the Con has. I do miss the setup of the AP for the same reason.

Hail Porn Theater Rules~!

[astcell]

If they outlaw cigarettes an I do nothing because I do not smoke,
then they outlaw alcohol and I do nothing because I do not drink,
then when they outlaw what I love, who will come fight with me?

[Deviant Ollam]

If they outlaw cigarettes an I do nothing because I do not smoke,
then they outlaw alcohol and I do nothing because I do not drink,
then when they outlaw what I love, who will come fight with me?precisely.

the creep of regulation happens most often due to the fact that any restrictions or new policies can usually be adopted at one of two levels: the "sensible for a reason" level, or the "laws just for regulation's sake" level.

you may have a scenario where some restriction might actually make a bit of sense on paper. but politicians, lobbyists, and legislators will often do their best to blur the line between those two standards in an effort to either roll over everyone's rights all at once, or to quietly push an accepted restriction even farther down the road with the argument "look, you guys basically already accepted this."

two examples...

seat belt laws

there is a recognized, albeit slightly over-reaching, reason for seat belt laws. we compel citizens to protect themselves while motoring because in the event of an accident involving injury it is likely that they will be the recipients of some sort of public healthcare funds should they lack insurance. in an effort to mitigate such financial impact, society has a valid interest in attempting to compell citizens to wear seatbelts. this encouragement is best given out in the form of small fines, tacked on as a secondary offense to other routine police stops like speeding, illegal turns, etc.

however, while seat belt fines may be defensible as a secondary infraction, in almost ALL states i can think of right now where they were passed as such (often with emphatic assurances from politicians that they would remain as such) they were quietly bumped up to primary offenses. now, law enforcement are capable of of stopping and detaining citizens for yet another reason (and one that's highly flexible... oh, it "looked" like you didn't have that on... "are you sure you didn't just slip that on right now when i was following you?") which oversteps the spirit of the law.

smoking bans

this is the big one for me, and as many of you know... i don't even smoke.

societies have a valid interest in previnting the choices of one citizen from having an undesired impact on another citizen who is not making the same choices. thus, a risky activity like skydiving is perfectly legal for me... but i don't have the right to drag you along if you don't want to accompany me. smoking is perfectly legal for a person to do since we don't live in a totalitarian regime yet and some harmful choices are still allowed. however, society can attempt to make some regulations that address highly-concentrated second hand smoke. however, attempting to ban 100% of all smoke is just silly, in my opinion. it crosses the line from stopping harmful smoke and starts targeting annoying smoke.

look, if i go out for the evening i should expect to encounter some smokers. in this modern world society has deemed certain "vices" as part of the citizen's repertoire of past-times... drinking and smoking among them. don't like to see drinking or smoking because it offends you? stay home or move to utah or the middle east or something. i expect, as should others, to sometimes be near a smoker. i understand that sometimes i'll passively experience some of their second hand smoke. the state has an interest in preventing highly toxic conditions for me (and also especially for employees in places like bars) but they do not have the right to just stamp out an activity by pushing it further and further to the margins.

i can understand laws that require some clean air steps to be taken (i think the most sensible would be "if less than 50% of the walls in any given room of an establishment do not consist of open windows then you need some sort of a regulated and certified air cleaning aparatus" since this would allow smoking where it makes sense -- on patios, porches, and other semi-enclosed spaces -- and help purify the air somewhat indoors for health reasons) but laws that totally rule out smoking 100% anywhere within a football-field length of other humans are crazy, in my opinion.

in the USA you have the right to not be harrassed... you do not have the right to not be annoyed.

[renakuzar]

<quote>smoking bans

this is the big one for me, and as many of you know... i don't even smoke.

societies have a valid interest in previnting the choices of one citizen from having an undesired impact on another citizen who is not making the same choices
</end quote>

Part of the reason (their justification - not mine) for this particular piece of legal intrusion is actually the folks who have to work the establishment don't have the choice of not getting the second hand smoke. Too often the choice to work elsewhere just doesn't really exist.

So this is somewhat a worker's rights issue.

[Thorn]

Part of the reason (their justification - not mine) for this particular piece of legal intrusion is actually the folks who have to work the establishment don't have the choice of not getting the second hand smoke. Too often the choice to work elsewhere just doesn't really exist.

So this is somewhat a worker's rights issue.Employees have the right to quit if they don't like the environment.

[Deviant Ollam]

Employees have the right to quit if they don't like the environment.indeed... but that's a bit of a harsh statement (only slightly, though)

the argument i often hear pertains to the "career" aspect... if someone's whole "career" is in the service industry (ok, something probably went wrong in your life if "waitress" is your career from age 18 to 65, but i could sort of see the argument as far as professional bartenders are concerned)

a bartender who works in a state with no smoking restrictions basically is required to be exposed to smoke (often quite a lot of it) without any choice if they want to make a living. now, there's a pretty valid point to mention that they should have known this before they went into that field... but i can see the way a person makes the "forced to be unhealthy to earn a living" claim.

however, again... i think my middle of the road point best addresses the matter: the establishment can be compelled to have adequate air-flow through means of large open windows/half-walls everywhere or they can install a filtration system.

it's fair that the bartenders could be prevented somewhat from working in unhealthy conditions... but their union doesn't have the right to ask that everyone stand outside to smoke just because the bartenders go home at night and have to listen to their sig-o's complain about their clothes smelling.

[barbu]

as a hardcore smoker of...a variety of substances..., let me assure you that a smoking ban is not a big deal.

I live in Ottawa where the (3 year old) smoking ban means standing outside the bar in -25 C (or worse..) weather to smoke. As a smoker and an adult, i can accept that. I do not smoke in my home either, it has become quite natural to just go outside. I do not know *anyone* who allows cigarette smoking in their house these days. If we can go outside all winter, i don't see how anyone in Las Vegas in the summer can complain, unless it's about the heat :>

Furthermore, I would like to string up whomever was smoking those gawdawful clove smokes throughout BH/DC last year. Everywhere i went that odour made me wretch! Banning all indoor smoking is totally worth it to avoid that stench :X

To sum up, smoking outside is a great way to meet & greet, and enjoy the lovely Nevada summer.

[Thorn]

indeed... but that's a bit of a harsh statement (only slightly, though)

the argument i often hear pertains to the "career" aspect... if someone's whole "career" is in the service industry (ok, something probably went wrong in your life if "waitress" is your career from age 18 to 65, but i could sort of see the argument as far as professional bartenders are concerned)

a bartender who works in a state with no smoking restrictions basically is required to be exposed to smoke (often quite a lot of it) without any choice if they want to make a living. now, there's a pretty valid point to mention that they should have known this before they went into that field... but i can see the way a person makes the "forced to be unhealthy to earn a living" claim.

however, again... i think my middle of the road point best addresses the matter: the establishment can be compelled to have adequate air-flow through means of large open windows/half-walls everywhere or they can install a filtration system.

it's fair that the bartenders could be prevented somewhat from working in unhealthy conditions... but their union doesn't have the right to ask that everyone stand outside to smoke just because the bartenders go home at night and have to listen to their sig-o's complain about their clothes smelling.

Truly, I don't have a problem with a middle of the road compromise of the issue, I just hate to see false "rights" bandied about in place of real rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "Worker's Rights" too often means that the worker doesn't like something, and tries to push around the guy who's actually footing the bill. It comes of having your cake and wanting to eat it too. The option to find another job is often overlooked, or looked at as being impossible as if the employees were indentured.

If the governments' interest in this was really to just keep the air clean for people, it could be done simply enough by establish a standard for x parts per billion, and make the establishment determine how to go about that. Whether by forced air systems, ionization, open windows, a ban (imposed by the establishment), or some other means, it could easily be left up to the management Such requirements and the systems to monitor them are already in place for companies that have truly hazardous atmospheres.

However, the "we'll protect them from themselves" attitude prevails, the outright ban is seen as essential by the governments doing as an blatant effort to modify social behavior. That's what I object to.

[renderman]

As I've noted before, I don't like smoking, but I'll put up with it.

I do think that on some level the hotel will like being forced to impose a ban (since it's all hotels, their not seen as the bad guys). Less damage over time to paint/wallpaper, carpet, etc, can over time add up to alot of savings.

If you choose to smoke, you'll have to do it outside, and as noted by others, this is often a really good networking opportunity. It's now my choice as a non smoker to join friends out there (preferably upwind) to take advantage of the small talk.

If your in a place that allows smoking, just be considerate. I've asked people at cons in the past to switch seats so I could be upwind, or move outside, but I don't recall ever asking someone to stop.

Shmoo is smoking, Defcon is Non-smoking. It evens out on some level I guess.

[Chris]

I have to be careful because this issue pushes my buttons more than any other, so I will choose my words carefully to avoid offending people.

Whiney non smokers can kiss my fucking ass. These laws are fucking ridiculous. Smoking is legal. I would prefer them pass legislation banning the growing, manufacture, processing and sales of cigarettes to these laws that force people to behave as a second class citizen because they choose to use a legal product in the exact means it was intended.

If smoking is so evil that we have to segregate the smokers off to avoid the mere possibility that someone might inhale a little smoke off the end of my cigarette then the government should continue to exercise it's duty to protect us all from ourselves and make it illegal. Stop taxing the fuck out of it. Stop the laws to make it uncomfortable. Stop taking insane amounts of money from the tobacco lobbies, shut down the tobacco companies and shut the fuck up.

As long as this is not the case then people should shut the fuck up and leave me the fuck alone for doing what I want.

Idiot example from last week. Marriott hotels went completely non-smoking a while back. A decision that I couldn't be more displeased with since I travel a lot and was Gold Elite with them at the time. I wish they hadn't made this decision, but I didn't bitch...because it was a BUSINESS decision they made. No one forced them to do it, just like no one forces me to stay there.

Last week I was traveling to Atlanta and stayed at the Marriott Century Center. I wasn't thrilled to be staying at a Marriott because I know their policy, but just as I have chosen to stay elsewhere since the policy was put in place, I CHOSE to stay at this Marriott because it was very close to the place I was going to be working. No biggie, I'd go down stairs to smoke.

My travel profile shows my room preference as smoking so our travel agent always requests a smoking room.

Here was my check in experience at the hotel:

Me: Hi, I have a reservation, here is my credit card and ID
Bitch: 2 nights?

Me: Yep.
Bitch: We are a non-smoking hotel.

Me: I know
Bitch: No, there are no smoking rooms at all

Me: I know
Bitch: You may not be aware of this, but Marriott is a completely non-smoking chain. There is no smoking in any of our hotels.

Me, getting pissed: Yes, I have been aware of that ever since you made that horrendous choice.
Bitch: Most of our customer prefer clean air.

Me: I am not most of your customers
Bitch: You should quit.

Me: Give me my fucking room and stop telling me how to live my life
Bitch: You can only smoke outside

Me: I FUCKING UNDERSTAND GIVE ME MY FUCKING KEY.


They have a right to choose not to let people smoke inside their properties. I have a right to stay somewhere else. Bitches like this chick should be kicked squarely in the cunt.

Have a nice day

[samayra]

Don't like to see drinking or smoking because it offends you? stay home or move to Utah Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states? I live in Utah and i smoke occasionally and drink, usually at the same time. With that in mind I hate when people smoke in public areas. This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference. Change is good!

[Thorn]

This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference.
<sarcasm>
Sure, we should all just "adjust" and not question anything that the government says, as it is all for our own good.
</sarcasm>

In case you haven't figured it out, it's "called trampling on your rights." People bitch about the things that are arguably legal such as the NSA doing toll analysis or the TSA taking their nail clippers, but roll over like a whipped dog whenever pseudo health issues are raised. If the Feds ever figure this out, they'll just centralize everything under the CDC.

[theprez98]

Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states? I live in Utah and i smoke occasionally and drink, usually at the same time. With that in mind I hate when people smoke in public areas. This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference. Change is good!
I think the reference to Utah is stereotypical given the high percentage of LDS and their "clean living" way of life. It doesn't mean *all* people in Utah don't smoke or drink! :wink:

EDIT: According to here (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5253a1.htm) Utah does in fact have the lowest % of smokers out of all 50 states; 12.7% while the next closest is 4% higher.

EDIT 2: According to here (http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/ch3.htm#fig3.1) Utah has the lowest % of drinkers, too.

[Chris]

Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states? I live in Utah and i smoke occasionally and drink, usually at the same time. With that in mind I hate when people smoke in public areas. This is a good change and eventually when everyone is adjusted It wont even make a difference. Change is good!


Just so I understand....

You AREN'T upset about silly laws trampling on your rights but you ARE upset that someone made an offhanded remark about the state you live in. Priorities are teh hard.

[samayra]

Just so I understand....

You AREN'T upset about silly laws trampling on your rights but you ARE upset that someone made an offhanded remark about the state you live in. Priorities are teh hard.

Ok, first I'm not upset about an off hand remark. I am upset that people use generlizations and stereotypes to define their world. People, places, things, and ideas are much more than this. And secondly, what about trampling on the rights of non-smokers. Let me get this straight non-smokers should be denied the experience of DefCon because they don't smoke? So, if it was turned around you would be ok with not attending DefCon because you smoke? (which is obviously not true) Somebody's rights have to trampled, you cannot have two opposing views living happily (atleast not in this case) beside each other. Which begs the question: shouldn't whose rights get trampled be based on the issue of which does worse damage to society as a whole? In this instance that would be smoking.

[theprez98]

I am upset that people use generlizations and stereotypes to define their world.
Based on the data I cited here (http://forum.defcon.org/showpost.php?p=85114&postcount=25), a "generalization" or "stereotype" of Utah as a "clean living" (non-drinking, non-smoking) place is actually fairly accurate.

[samayra]

Based on the data I cited here (http://forum.defcon.org/showpost.php?p=85114&postcount=25), a "generalization" or "stereotype" of Utah as a "clean living" (non-drinking, non-smoking) place is actually fairly accurate.

First off, this information wasn't orginally in your post, you edited it. To be honest that doesnt even matter and neither do the statistics. Why? Where do statistics come from? Well mostly questionaires. Did you know that a garbology study done @ Arizona State questioned people about their drinking habits and then studied their trash found that most lied on their questionaire about how much they drink. With that in mind do you still trust statistics?

[samayra]

You guys didnt even answer my quesiton? Whose rights should be trampled and why? Aren't you essentially saying that by arguing smoking should be allowed that it is ok to trample somebody's rights as long as their not yours?

[theprez98]

First off, this information wasn't orginally in your post, you edited it.
Yes, that's why I typed (in caps even) EDIT and EDIT 2. It's a small yet subtle hint that I did indeed edit my post to add amplifying information.
To be honest that doesnt even matter and neither do the statistics. Why? Where do statistics come from? Well mostly questionaires. Did you know that a garbology study done @ Arizona State questioned people about their drinking habits and then studied their trash found that most lied on their questionaire about how much they drink. With that in mind do you still trust statistics?
One "garbology" study (without citation) is not going to change my mind. I made a simple statement (with citation) that there was empirical data to back up the "generalization" and "stereotype" (which generally exist for a reason).

However, this has now derailed us from the original topic so I will type no further about clean-living in Utah and return it to the smokers debate.

[Deviant Ollam]

Let me get this straight non-smokers should be denied the experience of DefCon because they don't smoke?that's not what we're saying at all. Non-Smokers shouldn't be denied any experience because they don't smoke. in fact, non-smokers are never denied any experience (except maybe lung cancer and it's a rare person who is upset about not being on that boat)

If there were clouds of smoke coming from every room of defcon, you still wouldn't be denied anything, any more than someone who dislikes electronic music or vinyl pants is "denied" attending defcon because those things are there in large quantities, as well.

You, like all other non-smokers (myself included) have to make a choice as to what is important to you and what isn't. in my life, i have decided that friends and good times are more important than how my hair or clothes smell for one evening. hence, i go out to bars or parties and attend defcon amid the many smokers which are all those places.

clearly, smoke in the air is enough to deter you from going places. you aren't denied the pleasures of something like defcon, however... you are self-selecting and choosing to not come.

So, if it was turned around you would be ok with not attending DefCon because you smoke?that doesn't apply at all, because no one is ever denied defcon for any reason (short of being under 21 in an alcohol-related party)

you cannot have two opposing views living happily (atleast not in this case) beside each other.there aren't two views... there is one view: people have the right to do whatever they please as long as they are not directlyaffecting the well-being or rights of anyone else. being near a smoker, i'm sorry to say does not affect your health or impact your rights. you may not enjoy it, but it's not killing you. (not at that concentration)

Whose rights should be trampled and why? Aren't you essentially saying that by arguing smoking should be allowed that it is ok to trample somebody's rights as long as their not yours?again, you do not have the "right" to not be annoyed. people have the right to do whatever they damn well please to themselves (this includes smoking) but they do not have the right to force any behavior upon others.

so, Chris has the right to smoke, but not the right to stick a lit Marlboro between your lips. you have the right to not hang out around him if his choices bother you... and he has the same right and (i might guess) would likely not hang out around you. :wink:

in a free country, you have the right to not be harassed, you don't have the right to not be annoyed.

[Voltage Spike]

I feel like I'm being trolled, but my fingers ... won't ... stop ... typing.

Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states?

Maybe because you have to be a "private club" (including sponsorship) to serve anything stronger than 3.2% alcohol?

Because you have a law against Double Jack and Coke?

Because leaning against a building is actively prosecuted as loitering?

Because the last time I drove through there chewing gum was essentially non-existant in towns (not a law, but still weird).

Because you guys proposed (and, I believe, passed) a law that states schools can't teach safe sex with respect to sodomy?

But mostly because you guys put up with it.

Let me get this straight non-smokers should be denied the experience of DefCon because they don't smoke? So, if it was turned around you would be ok with not attending DefCon because you smoke?

If you don't see the difference, then you aren't doing much to improve the image of your state. Fortunately, Deviant Ollam has done a good job of pointing out the error in your logic.

[Nikita]

First:

Originally Posted by samayra View Post
Why is that everybody assumes that people from Utah are different in some way from other states?

Guilty by association that's why, it's natural, been happening for years, don't get offended. I thought the same thing before, till i met some pretty hard core kick ass punks from Utah. Plus a few other regular defcon folk to prove that utah isnt the blind drink the kool-aid society everyone thinks it is.

People tend to believe Mormans rule the land down there as if it is the found holy land and are buying up all the corporations like coca cola and blockbuster...they see "progressive" changes in the % of alcohol in beer and notice that you have "a law that states schools can't teach safe sex with respect to sodomy?" They fear it may drift on over to their "holy land" (Even though a lot of states still wont discuss anything other than abstinence and sex in the missionary position, with very little regard to contraception) and because everyone likes to pick on Utah.

You guys didn't even answer my question? Whose rights should be trampled and why? Aren't you essentially saying that by arguing smoking should be allowed that it is ok to trample somebody's rights as long as their not yours?

Here's the thing, I've accepted my own opinion/observation that it is now impossible for our society to turn the other cheek, walk away, or settle differences on our own. It seems that instead of addressing the problem we have run to mommy and daddy one too many times and now we are no longer trusted to make decisions for ourselves. The American Public is acting like and being treated like a bunch of toddlers who will subscribe to almost anything the babysitter tells us. I've accepted this fact, I play by the rules, therefore I no longer get outraged like i did in my "youth".

Who's "rights" do i think should be trampled on...well Smokers, if you are going to put it that way. I am a smoker and I can accept the fact that, (although it's addicting as heroin) I choose to smoke. I am also a minority. The person sitting next to me on a plane, bus, dinner table, conference room, did NOT choose to smoke. We BOTH equally have "RIGHTS" to sit at the same table. A non smokers admission to the movie theatre is no less valid than the smokers. I am choosing to add another element into the equation, smoke.
Deviant said-
people have the right to do whatever they please as long as they are not directlyaffecting the well-being or rights of anyone else. being near a smoker, i'm sorry to say does not affect your health or impact your rights. you may not enjoy it, but it's not killing you. (not at that concentration)
Agreed.

Do I believe 2nd hand smoke will kill you? No. Does it make it uncomfortable and hard to breathe, does it smell bad, does it leave residue on computers, smoke out the projectors, can it be harmful for an asthmatic or child? Yes. And Just as Deviant said.... i think in most cases it does not affect your health or impact your rights either. However.....

Do non-smokers have to be insanely demanding and rude, no. Same to be said for smokers. There was a time, when our grandfathers and the rest of society, gave each other the common courtesy to say "Mind if I smoke?" Now, Nary a reach around is given. What happened to that? Why do smokers decide that their need to smoke outweighs the simple decent courtesy of those around you. I'm planning on quiting soon, but Ive always considered those around me, Ive been smoking for almost 15 years. I've always taken into account that in some situations its not appropriate/considerate to smoke, I can either wait or go outside. I was raised with some sense of manners and one additional habit that hasn't yet broken was asking before I make changes the environment that may irritate others.

This is what I think smokers need to consider. Not saying they have to believe it or do it, but hear out the argument.

Bob and Alice decided to buy a house together. Bob and Alice pay equal share and both have a right to the house, its contents and the type of atmosphere it provides.

Alice is sitting in the living watching TV. Bob comes in, rearranges the furniture and opens all the windows.

Does Bob have a right to rearrange the furniture? Sure, It's his crap too. He is hot, he wanted to cool the place down, he has needs.

But Now Alice can't hear the TV and she is too cold.
Does Alice have a right to watch the TV? Sure, She pays the bills too. Now she is uncomfortable, should she leave? There are no other tv's in the house?

What are the options here? Do we tell bob he never has the right to change the furniture it will be wherever Alice damn well pleases? No obviously, Bob could've asked first. In which case Alice can ask if he could he wait a reasonable amount of time before distracting her from the show. There is no reason bob can't wait for a reasonable time. But Bob is hot, he NEEDS to cool down, So Alice can offer that bob open one window and sit near it to cool down, that shouldn't make the place too cold. Situation solved. This same logic works with smoking, has worked for years. Which is why we created smoking sections. If you don't like the location of where you smoke, you should have been a part of the conversation deciding it. I can't bitch about the smoking within 25ft law, because I was registered in the wrong area. Alice and Bob have MADE their agreement, they have decided that's the way it is in their house. I would be expected to follow those rules if I was in their house. Las Vegas, is someone else's crib, yo. Deal with it.

I don't understand the insistence that your rights are being trampled on as a smoker? Do you realize we have not been allowed to smoke at the movies for.... I'm guessing the last place in the south stopped in the 70's? No body cried discrimination or injustice then. It is no different watching a presentation at the con than sitting at Imax. We, society as a whole, seems to have changed to the point where we cry rape if the cashier doesn't count our change back to us. We call ourselves changed, progressive, diverse, we are so much more sophisticated than our elders were. My grandfather knew it was rude to fart in the elevator and that there outta be a law against that.

Like I said, I've been smoking for 15 years, I know I need a smoke roughly every two hours and it takes 5-7 minutes to smoke it. I made my choices, It's not that big of a damn deal to go over here ---> or go outside to do it. You want to really bitch about smokers rights one way or another, how about the right to seek fair and equal assistance from the health care industry. The insurance company will gladly pay to send me to a inpatient clinic for 1 month, food, service, medicine paid (..I think at 90%.) if i was a drug addict or alcoholic. But they wont pay for a single pill, therapy, doctors visit, or smoking cessation course. I cut out 3 paragraphs whining about this, cause this is long enough.

/rant
Apologies for length.

[samayra]

there aren't two views... there is one view: people have the right to do whatever they please as long as they are not directlyaffecting the well-being or rights of anyone else. being near a smoker, i'm sorry to say does not affect your health or impact your rights. you may not enjoy it, but it's not killing you. (not at that concentration)

You mean to tell me that you honestly believe that smoking has adverse side effects? So Lung cancer, emphysema, mount & gum cancer are more prevalent amoung smokers because?????DNA??? In Las Vegas the concentration of smoke can be rather high and has been previous years. Different people react differently to drugs. So, where you might not have problems with it others might. For, instance an asthmatic probably would. It just makes good sense to limit (not prohibit) smoking @ public venues.

[samayra]

I'd just like to say i enjoyed discussing this topic and have learned alot. Sorry if I offended anybody (and your probably right about Utah I just dont like sterotypes, they demean everybody whether they may be accurate or not). Mind has not changed about smoking, but i will still attend this year as i have done in past.

<sarcasm>
Sure, we should all just "adjust" and not question anything that the government says, as it is all for our own good.
</sarcasm>

In case you haven't figured it out, it's "called trampling on your rights." People bitch about the things that are arguably legal such as the NSA doing toll analysis or the TSA taking their nail clippers, but roll over like a whipped dog whenever pseudo health issues are raised. If the Feds ever figure this out, they'll just centralize everything under the CDC.


I would like to point out however that no matter how much talking (or typing) anybody does in this forum it will make no difference. If you are that upset about the new laws in Las Vegas, why dont you write the Nevada legislature about it. Start a rally, or protest even a petition would do the trick. This is how citizens get heard and affect change. The government doesn't know how you fell unless you tell them. And unfotunately I dont think any of the Nevada legislature reads this forum (and maybe the do).

[Chris]

I'd just like to say i enjoyed discussing this topic and have learned alot. Sorry if I offended anybody (and your probably right about Utah I just dont like sterotypes, they demean everybody whether they may be accurate or not). Mind has not changed about smoking, but i will still attend this year as i have done in past.



I don't think you offended anyone. I just get irritated at non-smokers who are more than happy to see laws pass that limit, restrict or ban smoking because they don't like it. How will those same individuals feel when something they like falls out of favor and starts to be restricited. I am not talking about illegal activities. I am talking about legal activities.

Lots of deaths are caused each year by drinking alcoholic beverages. Between the ill effects of alcohol on the consumer's body, the drunk drivers, the reduction in judgement that leads to an increased liklihood of criminal and/or violent activity.
Let's not forget the increase that each of us pays on our insurance because alcoholics that can't afford it need rehab, uninsured people need medical attention to deal with the damage they have done either to themselves or others as a direct or indirect result of drinking.
Perhaps we should make it illegal to consume alcohol. Oh, wait, we tried that once. Didn't work out so well.

That's just alcohol. You can pick almost anything that you like and make a case against it, against how an individual's use or enjoyment can cause hardship or in some cases ill health effects or death, to others.

It is a similar argument, in my opinion, to why Jerry Falwell should have been supporting Larry Flint in the days of their feud. If someone finds Hustler offensive, isn't it just as likely that someone else finds the Bible offensive? Falwell could never see the logic in that....just like it seems non-smokers have a hard time seeing the logic in taking away another person's right to use a completely legal product in exactly the way it was intended to be used might somehow be fucked up just because they don't like it.

[Thorn]

I would like to point out however that no matter how much talking (or typing) anybody does in this forum it will make no difference. If you are that upset about the new laws in Las Vegas, why dont you write the Nevada legislature about it. Start a rally, or protest even a petition would do the trick. This is how citizens get heard and affect change. The government doesn't know how you fell unless you tell them. And unfotunately I dont think any of the Nevada legislature reads this forum (and maybe the do).If I ever move to NV, maybe I shall take it up with the the legislature there, but right now I have enough time taken up dealing with the morons in my home state's legislature.

I truly see this as a rights issue, and it send a chill down my spine that people buy into this so completely, and are willing to make others second class citizens for any reason, never mind that which is based on questionable data.

Just for the record, I gave up smoking some years ago. It was done or economic reasons, not because I was scared by the fear mongering. When I was spending more on the taxes than I was for the product it was nothing short of ridiculous.

Also, all that stuff about "more addictive than heroin" is bunk. One merely quits.

[Nikita]

Also, all that stuff about "more addictive than heroin" is bunk. One merely quits.

Some people work differently. One brain is different from another. The way nicotine works and the way your body reacts is different for every person. Hormones, chemicals, Diet, exercise, lifestyle and support all play factors into how successful someone is at quitting.Some people can smoke for 20 years and just quit. Some people have addictive personalities and it is difficult, they need help. Some people never quit at all because to them, they just can't.

Second class citizens? If you apply that logic that would mean that I, the smoker as the minority, should received preferential treatment as a first class citizen, and that smokers feel they deserve to smoke whenever and wherever the hell they want. W00t! Smokers Affirmative Action, here I come.
..
just like it seems non-smokers have a hard time seeing the logic in taking away another person's right to use a completely legal product in exactly the way it was intended to be used might somehow be fucked up just because they don't like it.
No one is stopping you from smoking, some people cant seem to read the sign "Non-smoking" and not crap themselves with fury. NO ONE is" taking away another person's right to use a completely legal product in exactly the way it was intended to be used", SMOKED. You smoke the cigarette, it's not like the government came down and said all smoking is hereby disallowed unless being consumed rectally on the third week of march in a 2x2 square with no less than 8 medical professionals bearing witness... The request to move us over into another area or if not able, god forbid outside, is not unreasonable to me. 13 hour flights to Europe and no place to go smoke is. They could make ONE of those bathrooms smoking with little tiny super vents....

[Chris]

Some people work differently. One brain is different from another. The way nicotine works and the way your body reacts is different for every person. Hormones, chemicals, Diet, exercise, lifestyle and support all play factors into how successful someone is at quitting.Some people can smoke for 20 years and just quit. Some people have addictive personalities and it is difficult, they need help. Some people never quit at all because to them, they just can't.

Second class citizens? If you apply that logic that would mean that I, the smoker as the minority, should received preferential treatment as a first class citizen, and that smokers feel they deserve to smoke whenever and wherever the hell they want. W00t! Smokers Affirmative Action, here I come.
..

No one is stopping you from smoking, some people cant seem to read the sign "Non-smoking" and not crap themselves with fury. NO ONE is" taking away another person's right to use a completely legal product in exactly the way it was intended to be used", SMOKED. You smoke the cigarette, it's not like the government came down and said all smoking is hereby disallowed unless being consumed rectally on the third week of march in a 2x2 square with no less than 8 medical professionals bearing witness... The request to move us over into another area or if not able, god forbid outside, is not unreasonable to me. 13 hour flights to Europe and no place to go smoke is. They could make ONE of those bathrooms smoking with little tiny super vents....


Well....you have some valid points...but not all. You see, I happen to live in Maryland. Home of Montgomery County Maryland. Home of the "If you smoke in your own house with the windows open and a neighbor smells it and calls the cops you can be ticketed and fined" law. So, yeah, these laws do, indeed, lead to people not being allowed to use a legal product in their own home exactly as it was intended.

Is the NV law as extreme as the Montgomery County, Maryland law? Not yet. Give it time. Of course, since you live in Washington state, home of this little gem: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003558717_nokids06m.html I can see why you might be willing to lay down and take it.

[TheCotMan]

then when they outlaw what I love, who will come fight with me?
Is that the thing that you love that you aren't allowed to do in public or another one? ]:>

An idea in law in the US is for humans to have rights to freedom in action and speech so long as it does not tread on the rights of other people.

Are there health risks associated with cigarette smoke as second hand smoke? Do we have evidence of this? Are all people involved at a location with smokers consenting adults? Can an adult consent to being "damaged" or "harmed" by another human, or by their own action?

This last question is the one that seems to be the sticking point. Is it acceptable for laws to be created and enforced, which limit humans rights in order to protect people from themselves? (I'm not going to answer this as that would be political.)

We have speed limits to protect people from themselves and each other, but driving is not a right. We also have laws about DUI, and seat belts in some places but again, driving or riding are not rights, so let's remove moving violations from the scope of this post.

Let us consider freedom by choice of action:

Let's look at foods high in fat, cholesterol, calories, and things like high fructose coorn syrup. Super-sized meals, famly sizes, mega-drinks, soda.

People may choose to buy these kinds of food, and also choose how much to buy and how much to eat. There are presently no age requirements to be met in order to purchase foods, like there are for tobacco and alcohol.

How does obesity tread on human rights of non-obese people?

Public funds may be spent on research, and medical care or prescriptions for people suffering from any of the diseases associated with obesity. Resources spent on people for self-inflicted damage as a result of their own choices in life are resources NOT spent on research to cure diseases or illnesses which are genetic or contagious.

Obese people may take up more than one seat on a bus, and on planes. When they are on planes, some airlines with charge for each seat. When the obese are in those carts, they may take up more than 2 seats on busses and planes.

Now compare this to the issue of smoking. How is smoking similar to overeating? Both are choices, and are used by humans to make themselves feel better, at the cost of potentially damaging them over time. Alcohol is also in this group, and laws were created to prohibit consumption of it as well.

This is not meant to be a FUD and slippery slope, but the following will appear to be just that:

If laws are made to restrict smoking to only take place in certain places, and away from bars, casinos, and places to eat, what is next? Could laws be created to make smoking illegal? What would happen to all of the taxes that are levied against smokers?

City governments have started working their way into foods too. Perhaps you have heard about the bans of trans fats in resteraunts. Anti-smoking groups started in a similar way, with "no-smoking" sections on airplanes. Now there is no-smoking at all on domestic flights.

This is not a slippery slope, since I acknowledge that there is no guarantee for the government to get involved in food as they have been involved with tobacco and alcohol. FUD still exists to a small degree, but the fear is only of an unknown future.

HOWEVER, the groundwork is being built to make it easier, as the same arguments used against smoking can be slightly modified to create laws banning certain foods, or ingredients.

What is the future? As I see it, more laws will be created to further restrict and limit smoking. As a result, people will eventually be forced to stop smoking, at such levels as to cause a huge drop in smoking. However, this will also mean that the government will lose revenue as a result of tobacco companies losing revenue (customers.)

Some states have even passed laws to tax foods, if they were prepared. When I was in California and visited a Sandwich shop called, "Subway," I found they tax hot sandwiches, but not cold sandwiches.

Where will the government look to replace the lost revenues present found in the purchase of tobacco? Food. A "Fat Tax." Buy a triple whopper with triple cheese, and pay a fat tax. Super-size that drink those fries and that sandwich, and pay a fat tax. If you order dessert, then pay a fat tax. Even large food chains are yeilding to city laws on trans fats. This tax market is obese and ready for liposuction to pull green fat out of your wallets.

Will it happen like this? The only people that know for sure are Chris and Noid. They will only tell people the future if they think they are worthy. If they say they don't know what you are talking about, then they just don't think you are worthy.

When a human encounters an environment that is not comfortable, do they choose to change the environment (pass laws restricting behavior), or change themselves (decide to move to a new location or ",adapt," neither, or both? Perhaps it is a matter of laziness, as it is easier to ask others to change, than it is for an individual to change themself.

[Thorn]

Some people work differently. One brain is different from another. The way nicotine works and the way your body reacts is different for every person. Hormones, chemicals, Diet, exercise, lifestyle and support all play factors into how successful someone is at quitting.Some people can smoke for 20 years and just quit. Some people have addictive personalities and it is difficult, they need help. Some people never quit at all because to them, they just can't. ...I've never bought the "I can't stop taking, it's an addictive substance, and because of that I can't quit." It's a lowly excuse not to quit. It doesn't matter if it's heroin, cigarettes, booze, sex, or rock'n'roll. If you want to continue, you do it. If you want to stop, you stop. Period. Anything in between is excuses and whining.

[converge]

I see the word 'rights' flying around shamelessly. The right to smoke. The right not to smoke. The right to non-smoke filled air. The right to stick your thumb up your ass. People like to attribute any quantifiable action and situation into a right. A fundamental deserved quality that belongs to you purely by means of existing. Fuck you and your shallow perception of truth.

If 'rights' are precedented by the ability to engage in an activity that is deemed legal by the government and supported by many of its citizens.. in the context of 'freedom' the 'right to clean air' argument gets kicked twice in the balls and once in the forehead.


I realize this is a hot topic and am keeping the thread open until further signs of decay show face.

[Chris]

I see the word 'rights' flying around shamelessly. The right to smoke. The right not to smoke. The right to non-smoke filled air. The right to stick your thumb up your ass. People like to attribute any quantifiable action and situation into a right. A fundamental deserved quality that belongs to you purely by means of existing. Fuck you and your shallow perception of truth.

If 'rights' are precedented by the ability to engage in an activity that is deemed legal by the government and supported by many of its citizens.. in the context of 'freedom' the 'right to clean air' argument gets kicked twice in the balls and once in the forehead.


I realize this is a hot topic and am keeping the thread open until further signs of decay show face.

I don't really think smoking is a right. I guess you could make a flimsy case that I express myself through smoking, and therefore have a right to express myself that way...but that's pushing it. I think it would be better to think of smoking (drinking alcohol, eating 'unhealthy' foods, etc) as freedoms.

I am constantly amazed at how people are willing to give up freedoms in America if they don't personally exercise them. We start by taking freedoms from people in the name of 'safety' or 'security' but then we move on to restrict the freedoms of other's that we don't like such as smoking or over eating.

If you continue to allow people who do something you don't personally like to have their freedoms restricted or taken away, how long do you really think it will be before you have something you like restricted or deemed unsafe.

[astcell]

An idea in law in the US is for humans to have rights to freedom in action and speech so long as it does not tread on the rights of other people.

Your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins.

[theprez98]

An idea in law in the US is for humans to have rights to freedom in action and speech so long as it does not tread on the rights of other people.
And a good idea it is. This is the same concept behind asserting a right to free speech such as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It causes panic, injuries, costs to public health, etc., and punishing the individual afterwards by not protecting it is a good idea.

[shepchap]

Your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins.
I am a non-smoker and I agree with this. If it didn't hurt my eyes which it does. Or cause me other physical problems than I wouldn't mind. I also wouldn't mind if it was odorless. Imagine someone bringing some chemical that made your eyes itch and your clothes smell bad. Would that be tolerated? I wouldn't mind if there was a way to contain it to ones person like wearing a mask or something but if it gets out in my air its bad for my health. The surgeon generals papers on smoke says even the smallest amount of smoke is bad for you. There is no safe amount of smoke. So in public places I think it should be banned.

If it got to the point where governments did nothing about others health than I am sure there would be fists flying from both sides smokers and non-smokers alike. These rules are just here to keep the peace.

[Deviant Ollam]

The surgeon generals papers on smoke says even the smallest amount of smoke is bad for you. There is no safe amount of smoke.i dispute this figure and wish for a citation, both of the SG's comments and of the research to back up that finding.

yes, all smoke is "bad" for you in the same sense that any amount of alcohol, UV light, and loud noise is bad for you. in all cases, however, there's a threshold somewhere... below this is "bad but ignorable" and above this is "bad and potentially permanently harmful"

people can be subjected to regulations that curtail exposure to "bad and potentially permanently harmful" levels of anything. regulation of "bad but ignorable" matters is just silly and wrong, in my view.

[shepchap]

i dispute this figure and wish for a citation, both of the SG's comments and of the research to back up that finding.

yes, all smoke is "bad" for you in the same sense that any amount of alcohol, UV light, and loud noise is bad for you. in all cases, however, there's a threshold somewhere... below this is "bad but ignorable" and above this is "bad and potentially permanently harmful"

people can be subjected to regulations that curtail exposure to "bad and potentially permanently harmful" levels of anything. regulation of "bad but ignorable" matters is just silly and wrong, in my view.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

#5 The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence

* Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

[Deviant Ollam]

alright, i do not dispute that this information was published by a recognized figure and that their findings are in accordance with your summary of the matter in the discussion above. it doesn't make me any happier, mind you, and i have minor suspicions whenever any "results" are drawn up regarding such a politically-charged topic. still, it does appear that the bulk of published data available at the present time (i did some googling myself, too) classifies all smoke, even secondhand smoke, as a health risk.

i would imagine the health risk applies much more directly to children, the elderly, or people who already have certain respiratory conditions... hence, why i've personally never cared an ounce about secondhand smoke.

[Rain]

Well, I am a smoker, and I'm completely heart-broken with this horrific news... They didn't ban beer from the lobbies, though, did they? :(

[goathead]

So in the spirit of being constructive and trying to mitigate my own issues with smoke... because it's my lung sensitivity that makes it difficult for me to enjoy many situations and events, not just Con... My band has taken to playing Eugene Oregon more than Portland due to Eugene's smoking policy... which sucks for us since we're out of Portland. There are clubs that we play in Portland which have excellent HVAC and smoke goes straight up and is expelled elsewhere.

Does anyone know of medication that would lessen sensitivity to irritation? Benadryl?

I've already thought about booze for a solution, but that does proportionally increase my irritation of others.

[telemonster]

Forget the health issues, smokers are sheep... slaves to the corporations that are guilty of manipulation of people thru media and marketing. It's amusing that subcultures that are supposed to be enlightened and against this sort of thing support it so heavily.

[Deviant Ollam]

It's amusing that subcultures that are supposed to be enlightened and against this sort of thing support it so heavily.you miss the point, i suspect. Most of the people in this thread are speaking out in support of freedom, not smoking. Folks like Thorn and myself are good examples... people whose lives do not involve cigarettes but who do not feel it is anyone else's business what the fuck you choose to do with your own life.

People disappoint me so much when they try to draw some sort of line between failure to condemn or outlaw a behavior and acceptance or encouragement of such behavior. You see this a lot with illicit drugs... the notion that unless you're shouting at kids 100% of the time about how horrid drugs are and how one puff of a joint will result in prison, no job, and routine anal rape someone will claim that you tacitly support drug use and want all kids to be hooked on the speed and diesel that you're selling out of the back of your van.

[telemonster]

you miss the point, i suspect. Most of the people in this thread are speaking out in support of freedom, not smoking. Folks like Thorn and myself are good examples... people whose lives do not involve cigarettes but who do not feel it is anyone else's business what the fuck you choose to do with your own life.

People disappoint me so much when they try to draw some sort of line between failure to condemn or outlaw a behavior and acceptance or encouragement of such behavior. You see this a lot with illicit drugs... the notion that unless you're shouting at kids 100% of the time about how horrid drugs are and how one puff of a joint will result in prison, no job, and routine anal rape someone will claim that you tacitly support drug use and want all kids to be hooked on the speed and diesel that you're selling out of the back of your van.

Last I checked there were no laws against smoking outdoors, away from building entrances. I can totally see the argument that private property is private property, and a business owner should be allowed to make the decision to allow smoking in her establishment. Unfortunately no one has really used non-smoking establishment as a business sell in bar settings and what not.

Drugs are another issue. While I tend to take the stance that people should be allowed to partake in whatever self destructive activity they desire as long as it doesn't effect me, darwinism will take it's role... the issue does effect me and the rest of productive society. Check out cinematic masterpieces such as _Crackheads_gone_Wild_ and the other one about the large group of homeless people in NYC who make their homes in some abandoned subway station. Straight up one of the people says the reason all of those people are homeless is drug addiction. I do believe help would be a much better move than prison for drug offenses. It does cost the taxpayers when it comes to treatment and hospitalization costs, violence, etc. Silly gov't, trying to protect people from themselves.

Speaking of which, SAY NO TO TAXPAYER FUNDED BAILOUTS OF HOME MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES! Lots of people participated in what is known as the housing bubble due to greed. Now that they are about to get pwned by their loans, stupid politicians are talking about plans to bail these people out. Write your senators and congresspeople, as these people signed the paperwork for the loan. We don't bail gamblers out that loose at the slot machines, we shouldn't bail out flippers and other people who believed the realtor lies that real estate only goes up, and whatever other garbage spewed from the useless mouths of the slime known as realtors.

[Deviant Ollam]

Lots of people participated in what is known as the housing bubble due to greed.i would note that it's partially greed and partially being duped by the banks. lately, the banking lobby has had absolutely unfettered power in washington and has been given every single law and deregulation that they've asked for. personally, i don't see how something like a 50-year mortgage could be allowed... since to get someone to sign up for one there's almost a guarentee that you have to lie your ass off to them or they'd have to be below the medically-accepted line of mental retardation.

i would almost put business behavior like that on par with being in the snake-oil business. (another trade which has been outlawed by regulation and government action.) you have a product that is so useless that a person can be doing absolutely nothing short of pissing their money away on it. in my opinion, that should either be prevented from sale or be required to carry a prominent warning label that says "you are a moron if you waste your money on this" or something like that.

now, does that make me a hypocrite? (not being sarcastic... really seek opinions on this) is that protecting people from themselves (which i disdain) or is it closer to protecting people from charlatans who seek to defraud them?

that's my question of the day: are banks drug dealers (with whom i have no moral problem) or snake-oilers (who i want to see die in a fire)?

[theprez98]

that's my question of the day: are banks drug dealers (with whom i have no moral problem) or snake-oilers (who i want to see die in a fire)?
If you had a child, family member, or relative die from an overdose or from a bad batch of drugs (not that I have, just a hypothetical), would you feel differently about the drug dealer who sold that person the drugs?

[Deviant Ollam]

If you had a child, family member, or relative die from an overdose or from a bad batch of drugs (not that I have, just a hypothetical), would you feel differently about the drug dealer who sold that person the drugs?not entirely. and i have had numerous friends (not typically very close friends... some were closer to being acquaintances) who have passed under these circumstances. (almost never from overdoses... but actually shooting something that was stepped on so badly/improperly that it killed them)

i am upset first and foremost over the fact that i live in a nation which has created an artificial black market in this trade. you (i say it in the collective sense, typically referring to governments nowadays) can't stop commerce. if people want to buy and sell things then they are going to. all you can do to reduce it is to target demand. anytime you drive something underground (by targeting supply and not demand) it will do two things and two things only... drive up price and drive down quality/safety.

while i am upset at any dealers who choose to fuck with their supply so badly that it kills people, i blame the system that they are in more than anything. only the most rare and horribly unscrupulous of dealers care so little about their client base that they would actually bring harm to them intentionally. while they are often scumbags, they want their customers to keep on living if for no other reason than to keep their money flowing.

i am also in all instances upset at these friends who have chosen to party in wildly unsafe ways. there are plenty of ways to get high out of your mind if that's your thing without jeopardizing one's health in any significant way. yet, for whatever reason, some folk choose to party with substances like heroin, crack, and meth. that's on them. i express my views without being preachy about it, and inform them that they'll be immediately kicked out of my pad if they are ever have anything like that on them (i've even told people who weren't carrying that they couldn't hang if i've suspected that they pushed off shortly before stopping by... that's just not my scene and i don't care to be near folks under those vibes.)

however, my opinions and choices end where someone else's life begins. i can't make the call for them and if they want to flush themselves down a drain, well, that's their call. fortunately none of these people have ever had kids. maybe that would make me feel very different. in the absence of scenarios like that, i don't know what to say other than "their life is not my life and i can't legislate away someone right to be a dumbass, no matter how much i may want to."

so yeah, this scenario illustrates rather well how my three life rules can apply to almost any situation...

1. legalize everything
2. don't be a dumbass
3. leave me alone

[mouseling]

If you had a child, family member, or relative die from an overdose or from a bad batch of drugs (not that I have, just a hypothetical), would you feel differently about the drug dealer who sold that person the drugs?

I am in that situation right now. My sister is committing suicide a meth bag at a time, and she won't live much longer. I love her dearly, but she is an adult and she must be allowed to make her own choices. Various interventions might have been tried, but all would force her into the role of a child (or worse, a slave), where someone else, some authority figure would make her choices for her. And then she would be "Free" only if she lived the way that authority dictated.

She began using meth as a way to escape what was to her an intolerable situation. Should someone else have the right to force her back into that hell?

In order for *anyone* to be free, free to read, worship, eat, drink, move, dress - you name it -live as one likes, *all* must be free to do so. And that right *must* include the right to self destruction.

I hurt for the pain she's caused herself, but to her the pain of living may be worse, and I am not arrogant enough to believe I know which is stronger.

-mouse

[Bounty]

"Smoking Banned at Underground Hacker Conference" ha... so much for underground. I was at the Black and White ball, when they had to shut it down for being too loud.... I used to picture DC like the techno-bar scene where Neo first meets Trinity, from The Matrix....

So now my vision of DC is a nice quiet room... sitting at ergonomically correct chairs and a table. Maybe a few plastic cups with green tea, sitting on coasters. No offensive tee-shirts, wearing slacks. No hacking (that's evil too) Maybe discussing how great WEP is. Soft grey light....... Maybe like first interrogation room scene from the Matrix.

OK enough of that... I think smoking should be up to the business. You choose to go in there or not. If breathing smoke is one of the features of the business (like trans-fat) then it's up to you to go in or not.

(ex-smoker, almost... I smoke 2 packs a year, usually at DC. Guess I'll have to go hang out by the pool at night and smoke.... oh wait, pool's closed at night... damnit)

[alklloyd]

I think you all know I feel about this thread...I'll be in the casino so you can reach me there.

Al

[Abby_Normal]

So now my vision of DC is a nice quiet room... sitting at ergonomically correct chairs and a table. Maybe a few plastic cups with green tea, sitting on coasters. No offensive tee-shirts, wearing slacks. No hacking (that's evil too) Maybe discussing how great WEP is. Soft grey light....... Maybe like first interrogation room scene from the Matrix.

Perhaps we could get all crazy and read quietly to ourselves! Or just sit in a corner with our hands folded.

I know quite a few people who have decided they just aren't going to bother with defcon anymore if this is how it's going to be.

[astcell]

How about a sit-in like was done in the 60s?

[Deviant Ollam]

How about a sit-in like was done in the 60s?a smoke-in! that's an awesome idea. imagine everyone making the panther salute, but with a cig sticking out of everyone's clenched, upraised fists.