New Smoking Policy

[Nikita]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

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

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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?

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

Based on the data I cited here, 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?

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

I am upset that people use generlizations and stereotypes to define their world.

Based on the data I cited here, a "generalization" or "stereotype" of Utah as a "clean living" (non-drinking, non-smoking) place is actually fairly accurate.

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[theprez98]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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!

EDIT: According to here 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 Utah has the lowest % of drinkers, too.

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[samayra]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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!

[Chris]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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

[renderman]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.

[Thorn]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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.