Enemies to Lovers: The Tobacco Industry and the States

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/11/ten-years-later.html

I just thought this was a very interesting article about the relationship between the tobacco industry and the states receiving tobacco settlement money (46 of them). If you're afraid of articles more than three paragraphs long, I'll summarize: tobacco settlement money has been securitized by many states, leading to the states themselves having a stake in the success of the industry and the expropriation of funds meant to help reduce smoking rates.

So anyway, does anyone else see this for what it is, current politicians taking money away from future politicians in order to assist with current politicians' reelection efforts?
 
This made me lol.

I almost feel bad for the people who feel like they need to defend these idiots. Almost.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Just fucking outlaw smoking and be done with it. It'll happen eventually, just do it now and be done with it.[/QUOTE]

The problem is the slippery slope effect. If you smoke every once in a while, you will be fine. It is when you get addicted and do it on a longterm basis that you get screwed.

Because the argument to ban smoking isn't much different than the one to ban alcohol and many other things. I think everyone who smokes regularly knows they are jeopardizing their health; however that is their choice - these days they have plenty of ways you can get nicotine (or wean yourself off it) without smoking. They even have a fake cigarette which has nicotine refill cartridges.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Just fucking outlaw smoking and be done with it. It'll happen eventually, just do it now and be done with it.[/quote]

fuck that, just legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it.
 
[quote name='Ruined']The problem is the slippery slope effect. If you smoke every once in a while, you will be fine. It is when you get addicted and do it on a longterm basis that you get screwed.

Because the argument to ban smoking isn't much different than the one to ban alcohol and many other things. I think everyone who smokes regularly knows they are jeopardizing their health; however that is their choice - these days they have plenty of ways you can get nicotine (or wean yourself off it) without smoking. They even have a fake cigarette which has nicotine refill cartridges.[/QUOTE]

fuck that. I'm sick of walking around campus and constantly getting cigarette smoke in my face. It's not just the person who smokes that's affected.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']fuck that. I'm sick of walking around campus and constantly getting cigarette smoke in my face. It's not just the person who smokes that's affected.[/quote]

Move out of Ohio? Over here on in Washington we've banned smoking in public buildings, within 25 feet of public buildings, from restaurants and bars and our cops love running around writing people nice big hefty tickets for violations.:D
 
[quote name='camoor']fuck that, just legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it.[/quote]

This.

[quote name='Dead of Knight']fuck that. I'm sick of walking around campus and constantly getting cigarette smoke in my face. It's not just the person who smokes that's affected.[/quote]

The same could kinda be said about drinking (alcohol) and other things as well. Someone who gets drunk could become a liability to themselves and others. Sure banning it would (potentially) protect everyone , but its still someones choice to do it.

As much as I don't like smoking and cigarettes (about half my relatives , mostly on my fathers side do it) if someone wants to destroy their health and waste their money doing it so be it.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Move out of Ohio? Over here on in Washington we've banned smoking in public buildings, within 25 feet of public buildings, from restaurants and bars and our cops love running around writing people nice big hefty tickets for violations.:D[/QUOTE]

They've done that here as well, same exact laws. No one really follows them except that they don't smoke indoors. Constantly there's douchebags smoking right next to public buildings.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Move out of Ohio? Over here on in Washington we've banned smoking in public buildings, within 25 feet of public buildings, from restaurants and bars and our cops love running around writing people nice big hefty tickets for violations.:D[/QUOTE]
i'm in washington and people even smoke on campus.. the only change i've noticed since the law is in bars & restaurants. everywhere else it's the same as it's always been.

tons of people smoke on the sidewalks too, it's a bitch when you're behind a smoker, i usually switch to the other side of the street or walk fast enough to pass them.
 
[quote name='Koggit']tons of people smoke on the sidewalks too, it's a bitch when you're behind a smoker, i usually switch to the other side of the street or walk fast enough to pass them.[/QUOTE]

Same here. I don't know why people think they have the right to blow cancer-causing smoke in my face. Not only is it completely disgusting, but it damages my health.

For those making the comparison between smoking and alcohol, it's really not the same thing. If you drink, you don't force others to drink at the same time just by being in the room. And if you drink at a bar, you don't force the employees to drink as well. The only time when it becomes a problem is when someone drinks and drives, or has too much to drink and becomes violent. But even people who smoke one cigarette a day, if they do it in a public place, force others to put up with the smell and health hazard of their dirty habit.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Same here. I don't know why people think they have the right to blow cancer-causing smoke in my face. Not only is it completely disgusting, but it damages my health.

For those making the comparison between smoking and alcohol, it's really not the same thing. If you drink, you don't force others to drink at the same time just by being in the room. And if you drink at a bar, you don't force the employees to drink as well. The only time when it becomes a problem is when someone drinks and drives, or has too much to drink and becomes violent. But even people who smoke one cigarette a day, if they do it in a public place, force others to put up with the smell and health hazard of their dirty habit.[/quote]

I've found that often the employees at venues that allow smoking often partake in the smoking as well , so obviously it wouldn't bother them. This of course doesn't work in public settings but the easiest solution (when possible) is of course to just not go somewhere that allows smoking. If I'm going to a bar or restaurant and they have an open smoking policy I'll just choose to go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking.

I can understand banning/restricting smoking in certain places (mainly major public areas) but to ban it completely doesn't seem right.
 
I think the people who want to ban smoking usually go about it totally backwards. Why are they so worried about private bars and restaurants?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Same here. I don't know why people think they have the right to blow cancer-causing smoke in my face. Not only is it completely disgusting, but it damages my health.

For those making the comparison between smoking and alcohol, it's really not the same thing. If you drink, you don't force others to drink at the same time just by being in the room. And if you drink at a bar, you don't force the employees to drink as well. The only time when it becomes a problem is when someone drinks and drives, or has too much to drink and becomes violent. But even people who smoke one cigarette a day, if they do it in a public place, force others to put up with the smell and health hazard of their dirty habit.[/QUOTE]
to me the big difference is why smoke? people smoke because they're addicted. that's all there is to it. some say they like they taste but that's baloney.. nobody likes their first cigarette, what they like is the taste they now associate with satisfying a craving caused by a chemical addiction. others say it calms them.. but that's the same thing as taste -- your first cigarette doesn't calm you, but withdrawal stresses you out so when you have a cigarette and the withdrawal goes away you feel calmer.

alcohol actually does something to you -- i think it's a negative something, but i think people should be allowed to do that negative something if they want.

cigarettes don't do anything to you, other than build a chemical addiction, pollute/litter (not the smoke: the butts) and make the world less pleasant for others... no reason to allow that freedom because there's no reason to exercise that freedom.

perhaps my views on it have been heavily shaped by my dad: a 47 year old smoking quitter-in-progress for the past 20 years. he really, honestly wants to quit.. and he actually wishes smoking were illegal because he wishes he were forced to quit.


you know what i actually hate more than people smoking outside? smokers coming inside. the smell dominates a room, like a person wearing far too much bad cologne.

it's worst when a smoker sits next to me in class or on the bus, but even if they're just in the same room it can be bothersome.
 
[quote name='rickonker']I think the people who want to ban smoking usually go about it totally backwards. Why are they so worried about private bars and restaurants?[/QUOTE]

I have no problem not patronizing bars/restaurants that allow smoking. However, it is not fair to the employees of said bars/restaurants to have to work in an environment that harms their health. If OSHA can regulate these sorts of things in other places, why should bars/restaurants be exempt? I don't see anyone complaining that workers on a job site can't be subjected to hazardous substances.
 
[quote name='Koggit']to me the big difference is why smoke? people smoke because they're addicted. that's all there is to it. some say they like they taste but that's baloney.. nobody likes their first cigarette, what they like is the taste they now associate with satisfying a craving caused by a chemical addiction. others say it calms them.. but that's the same thing as taste -- your first cigarette doesn't calm you, but withdrawal stresses you out so when you have a cigarette and the withdrawal goes away you feel calmer.

alcohol actually does something to you -- i think it's a negative something, but i think people should be allowed to do that negative something if they want.

cigarettes don't do anything to you, other than build a chemical addiction, pollute/litter (not the smoke: the butts) and make the world less pleasant for others... no reason to allow that freedom because there's no reason to exercise that freedom.

perhaps my views on it have been heavily shaped by my dad: a 47 year old smoking quitter-in-progress for the past 20 years. he really, honestly wants to quit.. and he actually wishes smoking were illegal because he wishes he were forced to quit.


you know what i actually hate more than people smoking outside? smokers coming inside. the smell dominates a room, like a person wearing far too much bad cologne.

it's worst when a smoker sits next to me in class or on the bus, but even if they're just in the same room it can be bothersome.[/QUOTE]

You're right, the smell can be overpowering and nauseating.

I know what you mean; both my paternal grandparents smoked and it contributed to both of them passing away before their time. Thank goodness my parents didn't take up the same habit.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I have no problem not patronizing bars/restaurants that allow smoking. However, it is not fair to the employees of said bars/restaurants to have to work in an environment that harms their health. If OSHA can regulate these sorts of things in other places, why should bars/restaurants be exempt? I don't see anyone complaining that workers on a job site can't be subjected to hazardous substances.[/QUOTE]

Ideally I would say those employees could do the same thing you're saying you would do. But I understand that would be difficult in today's world.
 
[quote name='Koggit']no reason to allow that freedom because there's no reason to exercise that freedom.[/QUOTE]

I think you've missed the point of freedom entirely. But you do deserve some credit for being honest about your lack of respect for freedom. A lot of people just pretend.
 
I've always been of the opinion that people should be ale to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. If there was a way to confine smoke to a single person, i'd have no problem with people smoking anywhere they want, unfortunately that isn't possible.
 
You can't outlaw smoking, but I have no problem with high taxes. The health problems affect us all by burdening the health care system, driving up costs there, driving up insurance premiums etc.

And I support smoking bans in city bars and restaurants etc. As others have said, non-smokers shouldn't be subjected to second hand smoke. Smokers can step outside and come back in. Non-smokers have no choice but to just not go out to eat/drink at places that allow smoking (which in the past was most bars and restaurants).

Smoking isn't a right, neither is being free from second hand smoke--but you can make a much stronger case that smokers should bear the inconvenience rather than harming non-smokers with their second hand smoke. I have friends that smoke, none of them do much complaining about having to step outside to smoke when we're out for beers.
 
Honestly I don't give two shits whether second hand smoke is or isn't dangerous. But at the least it's harmful to some with allergies, sinus problems etc. who get infections after a few hours in a smokey place etc.

Non-smokers shouldn't be subjected to second hand smoke in restaurants and bars and have to stay home or find the few places that are non-smoking or have well isolated smoking sections as we had to before or still don in places without smoking bans.

When we're talking a behavior that at the least bothers many other people and at the worst causes health problems for some other people, then the burden falls on the people participating to alter their behavior. Stepping outside to have a smoke isn't a big deal, and is much more reasonable than forcing non-smokers to stay away from most bars and many restaurants if there isn't a smoking ban.
 
Or they could do somethin' crazy and let bars decide for themselves if they want to have no smoking, allow smoking, or have "sections" for it.

Allowing businesses to dictate how their businesses is operated is pretty nuts, but I think it might work.
 
Sorry, but in places that do that most bars allow smoking and non-smokers suffer by having few if any options for going out in a smoke free environment.

Normally I'm with you on allowing that freedom, but not on something like this where it has a negative impact on many people (including negative health impacts for some). And that impact outweighs the negative of smokers having to step outside or go a couple hours without a smoke IMO, as that's inconveniencing people participating in the behavior while allowing smoking is affecting everyone in the establishment as well as those who would love to go out with friends but decline because of smoke.
 
Forgive the kind of jab that typically comes from the right, but if this is so infuriating, open your own bar. You have a thing for fine beers, so with an intelligent plan and marketing, why couldn't you succeed on your own?

I'm no fan of Adam Smith, but this kind of "the market doesn't cater to me therefore I should legislate it so it does" is pretty crummy.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']fuck that. I'm sick of walking around campus and constantly getting cigarette smoke in my face. It's not just the person who smokes that's affected.[/QUOTE]
I'm sick of walking around campus and downtown and constantly getting car exhaust in my face. Let's ban cars! It's not only the drivers who are affected.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Forgive the kind of jab that typically comes from the right, but if this is so infuriating, open your own bar. You have a thing for fine beers, so with an intelligent plan and marketing, why couldn't you succeed on your own?

I'm no fan of Adam Smith, but this kind of "the market doesn't cater to me therefore I should legislate it so it does" is pretty crummy.[/quote]

Being that this new attitude is inconsistent with your past posting history, I suspect a self-serving arguement here.

Regardless, you're right that it's a crummy situation when the only way you can get people to consider the plight of others is to regulate or legislate it. Sadly there will always be assholes who consider it their right to let their brats run wild in fancy restaurants, subject public restrooms to their cell phone conversations, smoke continuously in restaurants, etc.

When it's an annoyance I'm willing to let it fly. There's only so much assholery that can be quashed. But when your behavior causes health problems for a significant portion of society then IMO it's time to take action.
 
75897-179649.jpg
 
[quote name='Koggit']to me the big difference is why smoke? people smoke because they're addicted. that's all there is to it. some say they like they taste but that's baloney.. nobody likes their first cigarette, what they like is the taste they now associate with satisfying a craving caused by a chemical addiction. others say it calms them.. but that's the same thing as taste -- your first cigarette doesn't calm you, but withdrawal stresses you out so when you have a cigarette and the withdrawal goes away you feel calmer.

alcohol actually does something to you -- i think it's a negative something, but i think people should be allowed to do that negative something if they want.

cigarettes don't do anything to you, other than build a chemical addiction, pollute/litter (not the smoke: the butts) and make the world less pleasant for others... no reason to allow that freedom because there's no reason to exercise that freedom.

perhaps my views on it have been heavily shaped by my dad: a 47 year old smoking quitter-in-progress for the past 20 years. he really, honestly wants to quit.. and he actually wishes smoking were illegal because he wishes he were forced to quit.


you know what i actually hate more than people smoking outside? smokers coming inside. the smell dominates a room, like a person wearing far too much bad cologne.

it's worst when a smoker sits next to me in class or on the bus, but even if they're just in the same room it can be bothersome.[/QUOTE]

I smoke a cigarette once every few days. I roll my own because they taste better (and they're cheaper). They also calm me down and help me focus. I have never had a physical need for one.
Am I addicted, like every single other smoker, according to you? Hardly.

Could I drop them at any time? Yeah. Would I? No, because I smoke because I enjoy tobacco. My favorite way on consuming it is with a hookah, but those aren't very portable and it's stupid to smoke an entire bowl to yourself, so I'll roll my cigarettes (with a filter, even!) and enjoy them.

Saying that all smokers are addicted is just god damn stupid. And even if some are, who cares? It's their problem, not yours.
 
[quote name='camoor']Being that this new attitude is inconsistent with your past posting history, I suspect a self-serving arguement here.

Regardless, you're right that it's a crummy situation when the only way you can get people to consider the plight of others is to regulate or legislate it. Sadly there will always be assholes who consider it their right to let their brats run wild in fancy restaurants, subject public restrooms to their cell phone conversations, smoke continuously in restaurants, etc.

When it's an annoyance I'm willing to let it fly. There's only so much assholery that can be quashed. But when your behavior causes health problems for a significant portion of society then IMO it's time to take action.[/QUOTE]

Nothing self-serving at all. In determining the role of government as an arbiter b/w individual rights and public order, we all have a line that exists somewhere. Even the most ardent of liberals doesn't believe the government should mandate your individual diet, no matter how much your poor health habits contribute to my financial well-being. And even the most reasonable of conservatives acknowledges the need for some form of government (that is, control) to exist.

So you've found a place where I'm not interested in being super-left. It's not the first time.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nothing self-serving at all. In determining the role of government as an arbiter b/w individual rights and public order, we all have a line that exists somewhere. Even the most ardent of liberals doesn't believe the government should mandate your individual diet, no matter how much your poor health habits contribute to my financial well-being. And even the most reasonable of conservatives acknowledges the need for some form of government (that is, control) to exist.

So you've found a place where I'm not interested in being super-left. It's not the first time.[/quote]

Fair enough.

For the record, I'm all for having bars where people can smoke, just call them cigar bars and keep the licenses restricted (that's what DC does). Most people like drinking alcohol but the government selectively grants liquor licenses and people seem OK with that. Likewise if you're a tobacco enthusiast then by all means you should be able to have a place to go where you can enjoy your hobby. Since there are less smokers, there are going to be less smoking clubs (simple numbers). The rest of us just want somewhere to go where your hobby doesn't have to be in our faces.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']fuck that. I'm sick of walking around campus and constantly getting cigarette smoke in my face. It's not just the person who smokes that's affected.[/quote]

I'll rework a Ra's Al Ghul quote from Batman Begins ...

"If someone stands in your way of clean air, you walk up behind them and stab them in the heart."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Or they could do somethin' crazy and let bars decide for themselves if they want to have no smoking, allow smoking, or have "sections" for it.

Allowing businesses to dictate how their businesses is operated is pretty nuts, but I think it might work.[/quote]

be careful, you're starting to sound like a conservative.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Forgive the kind of jab that typically comes from the right, but if this is so infuriating, open your own bar. You have a thing for fine beers, so with an intelligent plan and marketing, why couldn't you succeed on your own?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I go to bars to enjoy good beer and food that is served to me, and that would be lost with the stress of managing a bar. And I like having a job that contributes something to society rather than just providing a consumer service.

And that's just absurd anyway. People should be able to enjoy a drink or a meal without being exposed to smoke and going home without smelling like an ashtray without having to open their own establishment.

Plus no need to open one, as pretty much every city worth living in has smoking bans these days, only an issue for those of you stuck in honky tonk rural areas for the most part. That cultural battle has been fought in won by my side in most worthwhile urban centers. ;)

[quote name='camoor']. There's only so much assholery that can be quashed. But when your behavior causes health problems for a significant portion of society then IMO it's time to take action.[/QUOTE]

Same here. I don't like that regulation is required. But people are assholes and see nothing wrong with lighting up and possibly harming the health of others, making people leave, making people go home smelling like an ashtray etc.

People should be decent enough to know that such behavior isn't acceptable in a public place where many people are non-smokers, hate being in smokey environments and some have health issues that are exacerbated by smoke. They could just step outside for a smoke, or go without for a few hours, but no the world revolves around them and they think they should be able to light up wherever they damn well please.

[quote name='mykevermin']Even the most ardent of liberals doesn't believe the government should mandate your individual diet, no matter how much your poor health habits contribute to my financial well-being. [/QUOTE]

That's a pretty poor comparison. Bad diet may have some financial impact in terms of health care costs, insurance premiums etc. That's a far cry from thinking it's ok to light up around others, some of who may have health issues exacerbated by smoke. Smoking has an instantaneous negative impact on others around the smoker--be it health issues, annoyance, smelling like an ash tray etc.

That person eating the 1500 calorie meal next to me in the restaurant isn't harming my health, or negatively affecting my night out.

So that's why my line is in a different place than yours, and why I 100% support smoking bans in bars and restaurants and other public buildings.

[quote name='camoor']
For the record, I'm all for having bars where people can smoke, just call them cigar bars and keep the licenses restricted (that's what DC does). Most people like drinking alcohol but the government selectively grants liquor licenses and people seem OK with that. Likewise if you're a tobacco enthusiast then by all means you should be able to have a place to go where you can enjoy your hobby. Since there are less smokers, there are going to be less smoking clubs (simple numbers). The rest of us just want somewhere to go where your hobby doesn't have to be in our faces.[/QUOTE]

I also agree 100% with that. There should be places smokers can gather and enjoy tobacco, and they should be licensed just like liquor licenses.

People get all out of shape over smoking bans being against the spirit of free businesses. We don't have free businesses, we have all kinds of regulations. Need a business license to start. If it's a restaurant you have to meet health regulations and pass inspections. If you want to serve alcohol, need a liquor license.

Now if someone is against all or most of those things, then opposing smoking bans is fine and consistent with their belief system. But smoking bans just get such an huge uproar as many people were used to being able to smoke most everywhere and don't like not being able to anymore. And again the world revolves around them and they don't care that their actions negatively affect others.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I walked past someone yesterday who wore about 8 sprays too many of Acqua Di Gio.

We should ban him.[/quote]

Nah, we should just designate an open space where these people can live outside of captivity, freed from the confines of normal civility. We could call it "New Jersey"
 
^:lol:

[quote name='dmaul1114']Plus no need to open one, as pretty much every city worth living in has smoking bans these days, only an issue for those of you stuck in honky tonk rural areas for the most part. That cultural battle has been fought in won by my side in most worthwhile urban centers. ;)[/quote]

Including the "urban center" you're moving to, Mr. Highbrow false dichotomy of rural = bumpkin, urban = refined??

;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Including the "urban center" you're moving to, Mr. Highbrow false dichotomy of rural = bumpkin, urban = refined??

;)[/QUOTE]

Hey now. I spent 23 years in WV, so I know all about rural areas. :D It's not bumbkin vs. refined as there are idiots everywhere, but I'd shoot myself before living in a rural area again. Not shit to do in most rural areas if you're not into outdoorsy crap. Too hard to find good food, music, beer, museums, art galleries, art house theaters etc. etc.

And yes, as far as I know Atlanta has a smoking ban. I visit my GF often and have never been in a bar or restaurant that had a smoking section there.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I walked past someone yesterday who wore about 8 sprays too many of Acqua Di Gio.

We should ban him.[/QUOTE]
i once had a professor who, in the syllabus, forbade anyone from using more than one spritz of a fragrance on a lecture day
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Just fucking outlaw smoking and be done with it. It'll happen eventually, just do it now and be done with it.[/quote]

That or make them all switch over to electric cigarettes and then charged the hell out of em for the refills, it's a win win all around.
 
Even Obama bent over for the tobacco industry. That tax a few weeks ago looked like it was to punish big tobacco but it was really so big tobacco could put little tobacco out of business.

Seems like with the decline of smokers, cheeseburgers do far more damage to the health care system than smokers. Smokers are already shut out the door because insurance companies won't touch them, but a lardass can sign right up. People who like to treat smokers like lepers should look in the mirror. Or two mirrors side by side if their fat ass can't fit into one.

[quote name='VipFREAK']That or make them all switch over to electric cigarettes and then charged the hell out of em for the refills, it's a win win all around.[/quote]

Hell, you see how much Nicorette gum costs? Unreal. Seems like the condom company is the only one that realizes if you want to sells a preventative measure, charging a fortune for it defeats its purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spare me the drama, lung cancer from walking past smokers? Of course people that smoke a pack a day don't usually get lung cancer until middle age or later, but you'll come down with it from walking by a puff of smoke once in a while? And I have never seen people standing at doorways blowing it directly into the faces of people walking by maliciously as you would have it sound. I don't buy the second hand health issue aside from people who literally worked in smoke filled rooms their whole lives (servers, bartenders) who are free to choose a different line of work or establishment if it's so bad.

I won't disagree with the smell being a problem.. I remember when smoking was permitted in Ohio and waking up after a night at the bar and the pillow smelling like an ashtray from the smell clinging to hair. But hey, why single out one group here? Let's pick on the overweight, the junkies, and the people who run up hospital bills doing downright stupid things constantly. What about those shitbags with genetic diseases.. why not throw them over a cliff at birth if not judged healthy. How dare they run up hospital costs. Let's pick on the people who use too much fragrance, have bad BO, pass gas in public, use cell phones while driving, don't go to church on Sunday, talk too loud, talk too fast, talk too quiet, talk too much, have red hair, have no hair, walk funny, wear glasses....

... OH! Did I get carried away? Sometimes I take a break from the squeaky clean life I lead to bitch about everyone else and trivial things that I don't approve of. My bad :whistle2:#
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because they infringe on my right to not stink. That's why.[/quote]

Is that a right or a privilege, I forget.
 
[quote name='QiG']
I won't disagree with the smell being a problem.. I remember when smoking was permitted in Ohio and waking up after a night at the bar and the pillow smelling like an ashtray from the smell clinging to hair. But hey, why single out one group here? Let's pick on the overweight, the junkies, and the people who run up hospital bills doing downright stupid things constantly. What about those shitbags with genetic diseases.. why not throw them over a cliff at birth if not judged healthy. How dare they run up hospital costs. Let's pick on the people who use too much fragrance, have bad BO, pass gas in public, use cell phones while driving, don't go to church on Sunday, talk too loud, talk too fast, talk too quiet, talk too much, have red hair, have no hair, walk funny, wear glasses....
[/QUOTE]

Because smokers directly, and physically affect others. Smell. Health issues--not cancer but for people with allergies etc. exacerbated by it. Thus I 100% support smoking bans and would be hard pressed to live in a city without one.

Other things like fat people driving up medical costs etc. do need dealt with. But you can't ban unhealthy food etc. as they're only hurting themselves. You deal with those problems directly by having insurance require yearly physicals, and adjusting premiums based on bodyfat percentage etc. etc.

Smoking is unique in that it directly and instantly can affect the health of others in the public setting with allergies etc. and has negative tangible impacts with the smell etc. Thus I have no problems with the ban, since again many are selfish enough to think that it's reasonable to light up around large groups of people--a majority of whom are non-smokers in today's society. Especially in places with younger crowds.

[quote name='QiG']Is that a right or a privilege, I forget.[/QUOTE]

Being able tolright up anywhere is not a right either. And in the case of two privileges, the one that has negative physical impacts on others loses--especially when the only consequence is having to walk outside to smoke or just, god forbid, going a couple hours without a smoke.
 
[quote name='QiG'] I don't buy the second hand health issue aside from people who literally worked in smoke filled rooms their whole lives (servers, bartenders) who are free to choose a different line of work or establishment if it's so bad.[/quote]

Yeah... make others choose a different line of work just so you can keep your bad habit. Sounds good. :roll:

It's funny... all the smokers will usually come in and bitch about how their rights are being taken away or how they don't have freedom to smoke anywhere they are only ones that think smoking doesn't affect their health. Everyone I know it has in one way or another. The other funny part is watching them "try" to quit. I will admit, I'd much rather a smoker around than one that does chewing tobacco. That shit is absolutely disgusting.

[quote name='dmaul1114']a majority of whom are non-smokers in today's society. Especially in places with younger crowds.[/quote]

Wha? Not around here. lol
 
[quote name='Koggit']i once had a professor who, in the syllabus, forbade anyone from using more than one spritz of a fragrance on a lecture day[/QUOTE]

I had one of those in undergrad, too. Thought he was a fruitcake until I realized his allergies were crazy off the fuckin' charts.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Smoking is unique in that it directly and instantly can affect the health of others in the public setting with allergies etc.[/QUOTE]

I want to see some evidence to support the claim that it "instantly can affect the health of others...with allergies." And I want to see it tied to *health*, not merely any allergic reaction.

If we're going to hide behind allergies in our arguments, then shouldn't we ban peanuts from bars before we kill someone with a peanut allergy? Or just put the barrel of peanuts 20 feet outside of the bar?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I want to see some evidence to support the claim that it "instantly can affect the health of others...with allergies." And I want to see it tied to *health*, not merely any allergic reaction.

If we're going to hide behind allergies in our arguments, then shouldn't we ban peanuts from bars before we kill someone with a peanut allergy? Or just put the barrel of peanuts 20 feet outside of the bar?[/quote]

:applause: Nicely played.

I always like smoking arguments because it seems as one side can just come up with thin blanket statements and then fall back on "Well it's my right to yadda yadda/They don't have a right to..." while blatantly ignoring that they actually DON'T have a right to dictate the actions of others. The underlying intolerance never succeeds to hide it's ugly head when this is brought up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top