New Smoking Policy

[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.

[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.

[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

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

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

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]

Re: New Smoking Policy

"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)