Public smoking ban.

Montez said:
A few puffs of a cigarette will wake you up more than a cup of coffee. Nicotine is a stimulant along the same lines as caffeine, the difference being it doesn't taste good when boiled with water.

That being said, if you eat an apple in the morning, it has the same effect of drinking about 4 cups of coffee. And it doenst give you, and your family, lung cancer.
 
What's the big fucking deal? So what, it smells a bit bad. So does most peoples breathe, yet nobody here seems to be preaching the glories of mouthwash.

Just suck it up. We live in a glorious nicotine stained, petrol drenched world full of blobs of fatty greasy people. If cigarette smoke gets such a reaction out of you, what about dogshit in the streets or puddles? Cars and red meat are probably more harmful than cigarettes.
 
DarkPoet said:
Montez said:
A few puffs of a cigarette will wake you up more than a cup of coffee. Nicotine is a stimulant along the same lines as caffeine, the difference being it doesn't taste good when boiled with water.

That being said, if you eat an apple in the morning, it has the same effect of drinking about 4 cups of coffee. And it doenst give you, and your family, lung cancer.

That is the silliest thing I've heard today, and this is April Fool's day.

Define effect, and then explain to me own an apple's suger has the same physiological effect as nicotine. Nicotine affects nuerotransmitter activity in the brain, sugar is a system wide short term stimulator.

Four cups of coffee, ha!
 
It's a Chernobyl Apple, Murdoch. Guaranteed to give you cancer ;)
 
Banning of alchohol has already been tried... you may recall the 18th amendment to the US constitution (porhibition of alchohol) and it's effects on society, including the rise of organised crime.

And actually, a few states in the US have legalised small ammounts of marijuana for personal recreational use. Alaska being one of them.

Most countries will never ban products like tobacco, alchohol or caffene though. The ammount of money the sales of these products puts into the economy alone would make banning them foolish.
 
Elissar said:
Most countries will never ban products like tobacco, alchohol or caffene though. The ammount of money the sales of these products puts into the economy alone would make banning them foolish.
True, except tht you could argue that the amount of money saved through reduced health care costs loss of life and productivity improvements would more than offset the loss of tax revenue.

But then again, that lin of thought uses long term planning, something that the US is famous for not doing. :cry:
 
This is one of those all important decisions that government hasn't gotten right yet.

Here's a thought, leave it up to the establishment in question as to whether they wish to allow smoking in thier restaurant, bar, brothel, whatever. I know its crazy has hell, but I think it would work much better than the dumbass regulations they passed in New York. The government there basically banned smoking in all eating, drinking establishments. Direct result? 50% loss in business.

Now, I'm not sure how non-smoker's minds work, I haven't been one in a while, but if I was completely disgusted by people that eat, hmm, lets say bagels, I can tell pretty quickly when I enter an eatery whether or not the people there are consuming bagels. It is up to me to stay and deal with or leave. Same for smoking, if there is enough smoke in the air to bother people, they can tell upon entering the room. It should be up to them to determine if they want to spend their money there or elsewhere. Government should have no say in this.
 
In principle I agree with you Pinky.

The problem is that the goverment has a legitimate financial stake in smoking. Smoking related illness sucks vast amount of money out the healthcare system, money that comes out of society's pocket in the form of higher taxes (to subsidize treatment) and higher health insurance premiums. This money cold be better spent in my pocket of fighting poverty and such.

The logic behind banning smoking in public places shouldn't be to insulate people from second hand smoke. This implies that people aren't smart enough to not patronize a place that allows smoking if they don't like it. Rather, the rationale should be that by restricting where someone can smoke they make it so inconvienient a vice that no one will want to do it anymore.

I do believe that smoking should be banned from public places such as schools, churches and such where you cannot reasonably go somewhere else. But commercial establishments should be able set their own rules about smoking. That is the most equitable arrangement society can make, IMO, of course.
 
Murdoch said:
The problem is that the goverment has a legitimate financial stake in smoking. Smoking related illness sucks vast amount of money out the healthcare system, money that comes out of society's pocket in the form of higher taxes (to subsidize treatment) and higher health insurance premiums. This money cold be better spent in my pocket of fighting poverty and such.

Money ain't the issue. If that were the case, they would just up the taxes on cigarettes...

The issue is general wellfare of the people, which is the job of the government. They can't just say "ah, we make more money from cigarettes than we invest back into healthcare", which is true, and then stop caring.
 
But I don't think that the government's job is to dictate social behavior. It is goverments job to do what the people want, regardless of the self-destructiveness of the want. The only time it is justified for government to interfere in social behavior is when that behavior negatively affects others to a large degree.

Vague, I know, but on purpose. Anyways, this statement is what I base many of my beliefs on. From that context, my previous post follows logic.

Smoking falls under the heading of "that behavior negatively affects others to a large degree" becuase of the economic costs of smoking. Other than that angle, it should stay out of the debate.
 
WaterGirl said:
Tucson found a way to deal with this... They banned smoking in all restaurants, or something like that. I don't smoke, so I didn't pay attention to the law. From what I know, only bars can petition for a smoking license. Dove may be able to clarify on this a little better when he wakes up...
The way it works (not just Tucson, it's a state law) is that restaurants not serving alcohol, can not have a smoking section. Period.

But a restaurant that also serves alcohol, can have smoking. It must have a seperate ventilation system. Usually these places have a "bar", and a seperate dining room. The bar are obviously is where smoking will be allowed. It's easy to have seperate ventilation, different coolers/AC units, and ventilation ducts cannot be connected.
MrMarcus said:
I actually wished resteraunts had a no-children section. I hate having to listen to a baby caterwaul and scream while I'm trying to eat. I shouldn't leave a resteraunt with a splitting headache unless I've yelled at the manager about crappy food.
Damn straight! Imagine having to hear that all fucking day. Some days I just want to get some Depo Provera and make darts to shoot at people who bring their nasty vermin into my restaurant.
 
being a smoker, i'd have to say i have no problem with the banning of smoking in public establishments. even though i smoke, i really don't enjoy being in the smoke, i enjoy the flavor and the smell...but in moderation. when everyone is smoking around me i just feel saturated by the smoke, and when i'm not smoking a cigarette i don't feel like tasting or smelling one, especially while i'm eating. although in a place such as a pub or bar, i'd have to say that i think smoking should be legal. people who drink love to smoke, and since i love to have a smoke while i drink...i'd be willing to put up with a bit of smoke tack.

personally, i think cigarettes should be banned altogether and have marijuana legalized.
 
I think Andy Rooney made an article about this issue, though I am not too sure. He showed that most smokers want to quit and that the problem with a ban is that people are expected to eject a vice they have been indulging in, for years. Without any counseling its kind of hard to kick an addiction.
 
Back
Top