New Smoking Policy

[shepchap]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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/librar...actsheet6.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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[astcell]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[converge]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[TheCotMan]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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/htm...nokids06m.html I can see why you might be willing to lay down and take it.

[Nikita]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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....

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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).

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.