No Smoking

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
ganja4me, if you're at a bar that doesn't allow smoking, would it be an excruciating hardship for you to step outside for a smoke?
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
ganja4me, if you're at a bar that doesn't allow smoking, would it be an excruciating hardship for you to step outside for a smoke?


Maybe if I was drunk. :tongue: I just think it would be more fair for people to have it both ways. Personally it wouldn't be too big of a deal for me but I'm sure there are older people that would have much more trouble running in and out of the bar everytime they want to smoke. Or if an emplyee was a smoker it would be harder on them also.
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Gender
Female
Mandatory, tamperproof smoke detectors in all new cars with some form of alerting or logging system...?
Sell them at the insurance brokers.... make them $100-$200 just like a smoke detector in a home, only remotly wired to set off a computer alarm or something... make it tamper proof...

Ok maybe I'm dreaming... but it is a good idea.
ganja4me, if you're at a bar that doesn't allow smoking, would it be an excruciating hardship for you to step outside for a smoke?
Exactly... the adults who smoke may not care how it is effecting their health, but what about the small children that are accompanying them... do they have a choice how much second hand smoke they inhale... Ganga you said that it takes years... well think if the mother smokes all through pregnancy, and all the way up till the teen/adult leaves home.. that could be a minimum of 16 years exposure to second hand smoke..
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Gender
Female
Maybe if I was drunk. :tongue: I just think it would be more fair for people to have it both ways. Personally it wouldn't be too big of a deal for me but I'm sure there are older people that would have much more trouble running in and out of the bar everytime they want to smoke. Or if an emplyee was a smoker it would be harder on them also.​
Then maybe they should follow Canada... and have the smoking huts 30 feet away from any doors, employee's want to smoke they go outside and freeze their asses off. Have a smoking and non smoking bar would be stupid... most preformers or bands that they would hire would probably opt to not be in smoking areas... so they would probably loose money.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Then maybe they should follow Canada... and have the smoking huts 30 feet away from any doors, employee's want to smoke they go outside and freeze their asses off. Have a smoking and non smoking bar would be stupid... most preformers or bands that they would hire would probably opt to not be in smoking areas... so they would probably loose money.



I know of plenty of bands with smokers in them. They could also lose money if smokers don't want to go to their bars because they don't want to freeze in the winter for a cigarette. Or older people who may even have a physical disability won't want to walk back and forth. If there were bars for both groups of people then nobody would have to freeze their ass of just to smoke a cigarette. People who only want it their way are being selfish and not thinking about the people that do smoke or they are thinking about them but want to make them suffer a little. Either way it is unfair to give one group what they want and not another when both can have what they want.​
 

B_Think_Kink

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Posts
10,419
Media
0
Likes
47
Points
193
Gender
Female
I know of plenty of bands with smokers in them. They could also lose money if smokers don't want to go to their bars because they don't want to freeze in the winter for a cigarette. Or older people who may even have a physical disability won't want to walk back and forth. If there were bars for both groups of people then nobody would have to freeze their ass of just to smoke a cigarette. People who only want it their way are being selfish and not thinking about the people that do smoke or they are thinking about them but want to make them suffer a little. Either way it is unfair to give one group what they want and not another when both can have what they want.​
Ontario decided to also remove the smoking rooms with fume hoods in the nursing homes... because some of the clients needed to be assisted with smoking, and that posed a risk to the workers.. Really I don't care, I think smoking is a selfish addiction, so I don't much care what happens. Hotel rooms still have smoking areas. I clean those rooms, I choke, sneeze, and get headaches... So maybe all of us who are sick of that... not to mention the workers that have to work in the smoking bars... are probably more happy in any case.
 

Duality

Experimental Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Posts
133
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
163
Location
Where you live
Smoking is a choice. It's the wrong choice, health wise, but it's a choice nonetheless. We have free will, and can stop at any moment. To be honest, I myself used to smoke cigarettes, but quit years ago. I found quitting to be quite easy - one day I just chose not to do it anymore. I did exactly the same thing with coke, and more recently, masturbation. As a human, I feel I'm above being a slave to my urges.

Anyways, my point is this: if the government wants to stop smoking in areas frequented by children (i.e. little humans that society dictates don't have as much choice as the rest of us, and thus are forced to live with the choices of those around them) I can understand their reasons. This includes schools, hospitals, bowling alleys, taxi cabs, day care centers... but not bars/nightclubs.

In my neck of the woods, there are numerous bars and clubs that only serve alcohol. You have to be 21 to buy alcohol, and we are always carded at the door. Under 21 = "get the fuck out here asshat". In other words, there are no children in sight (aside from the more foolish drunks, heh), and every customer is 3 years past becoming a legal adult.

As of [SIZE=-1]November 7, 2006 a statewide smoking ban was put in place, yet most of the places mentioned in the previous paragraph still allow smoking, illegally. But why does it have to be illegal? Why can't the state at least allow bars such as these to choose whether or not they're smoke free? They could even force these places to put a big sign up that says 'Smokers here, non-smokers consume liquid poison elsewhere'! Think about it, [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]they're not letting kids in, and everyone that chooses to smoke chooses to enter a bar that tells them before entering that the people inside also choose to smoke. Where's the harm? (aside from their lungs, haha)

Just a thought.
[/SIZE]
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Why do non smokers in Britain think their rights outweigh those of non smokers. None of us smokers are suggesting we want to sit their blowing smoke in the face of non smokers but the non smokers seem to be unable to admit that actually we do have the right to a properly segregated area to smoke in.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
199
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Why do non smokers in Britain think their rights outweigh those of non smokers. None of us smokers are suggesting we want to sit their blowing smoke in the face of non smokers but the non smokers seem to be unable to admit that actually we do have the right to a properly segregated area to smoke in.
Because clean air is favored over dirty air? Also, there's that damn precedent. Clean air is the default condition of air ya' know.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
199
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Did you not notice I said a SEGREGATED area? And clean air is hardly the default condition of air nowadays.
Well, it's kind of hard to segregate air. Smoking section here - non-smoking section there - air goes in the cold air return, circulates through the heating and cooling equipment and comes out mixed. End of story.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
199
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Sorry Princess to be so direct, but I think you are missing the point. You mean separate buildings? Don't we have enough segregation as it is? Do we really need another special rights splinter group?

Separate heating and cooling systems? What do you mean?
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Why do non smokers in Britain think their rights outweigh those of non smokers. None of us smokers are suggesting we want to sit their blowing smoke in the face of non smokers but the non smokers seem to be unable to admit that actually we do have the right to a properly segregated area to smoke in.

Where, anywhere in either thread has anyone said that?

NO, the rights of non smokers don't outweigh the rights of smokers, and this refrain is tired. The rights of those not wanting to breath deliberately polluted air do however outweigh the rights of those doing the polluting to pollute it.

Tangent

Yes, 'clean' air isn't exactly the norm these days but what's meant is the ambient available to all baseline before the addition of tobacco fumes. I imagined that was as obvious to eveyone as it was to me.

/Tangent

Businesses had years, years to provide properly segregated and ventilated smoking areas but for the most part did they do so? - NO. I agree, most smokers are considerate but a good many are most definitely not and will do exactly what 'none of us smokers' say they won't, why? - because until now it wasn't illegal and smokers have rights too, as you remind us ad nauseum.

I don't believe anyone here has said smokers shouldn't have segregated areas, I know I haven't (quite the reverse) but repeatedly you choose to blithely ignore that, instead repeatedly complaining about how your rights are being trampled on interspersed with a single observations how drivers are akin to the Anti-Christ.

You've missed the point - separate sections as in proper sections with walls which is what we smokers want for our money.

I'm glad you mentioned that. You'll get no argument from me on the principle. However, do smokers pay extra in these establishments to support the cost of these establishments? Or, do non smokers therfore obtain a discount for not having required their construction or use? I didn't think so.

A key part of the issue being as I said above that businesses for the most part didn't provide them. Perhaps for financial reasons, after all smokers are unlikely to stump up for their constructon and maintanance. I mean, that would be discrimination and smokers may feel their....rights were being trampled on.:rolleyes:

Trying to make an cogent argument for smoking is crudely akin to trying to make one for spitting. Actually, the direct health risks from spitting are pretty low and it tends not to make one smell for hours aftwards unless of course spitters 'spit' on you. In this analogy that's rather what smokers do.

gangja4me said:
I agree with Duality

In principle I agree with Duality also. The reality, however is a little less clear cut.

Businesses will, naturally, want to maximise their customer base hence profit, consequently it's going to be difficult for them to turf smokers out and thus risk losing business. That tends to mean that voluntary non smoking policies drift toward being token gestures. This leaves them open to abuse. Certainly that seems to be the case in my experience. People are often reluctant to ask a smoker to step outside to smoke, or extinguish because. Why? Because they don't wan't to offend, cause a scene or, as I have seen get verbally (or even as I have seen physically) abused.

That, surely is an unbalanced situation, it means that non/ex smokers (the majority) will be tend toward being less inclined to return, hence hurting the business. The alternative is allowing smoking, hence risking alienating non/ex smokers (and, possibly barstaff) and opening the bar up to potential litigation.

Business owners especially bars, clubs and restaurants, are in general driven far more by the 411 that the health and well being of their clientele. This almost inevitably means that such thorns as a voluntary smoking ban will be more likely to be ignored when the need suits. This is an abuse of faith to those inside who entered on the understanding that it would be enforced. Why should they leave or 'suffer' because the proprietor is too spineless or greedy to enforce a ban they themselves advertised? TMM alluded to this profit based motivation earlier so I know it's not my imagination.

In a nutshell; any policy needs to be enforced, and precedent suggests that voluntary bans tend toward weak enforcement. There is a legal and health aspect to this issue so an overriding legal one has been imposed. I have no idea if it will work but at least it removes a layer of 'angst' from bar owners - they can just blame 'the government' which may, just, ameliorate some irate smokers who might otherwise feel they were being picked on by the owner. Time will tell I suppose.

As has been said to smokers, repeatedly, smoke all you want just do it where it affects only you. If businesses have failed to cater for your habit your beef is with them, not non smokers, they are as much to blame for this situation as anyone. It's a source of continual bemusement how smokers almost entirely fail to get that. Instead they tend to just blame non smokers for ignoring smokers rights in the selfish persuit by non smokers of their desire, nay, right to not smoke.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
... my point is this: if the government wants to stop smoking in areas frequented by children ...
The smoking bans mostly benefit adults not children. Children are an important reason but only one. Other reasons are more relevant to this discussion: workplaces, retail stores, in other words public areas. At a bar or nightclub, I'd estimate the majority of the customers are nonsmokers. Likewise for employees of such establishments. And that's true of most other public areas. I'll say again: majority rules with the rights of a minority being trampled upon.:biggrin1:
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
..I'll say again: majority rules with the rights of a minority being trampled upon.

I wouldn't categorise it as trampled on, merely a natural consequence of a policy decision in a 'nominally' democratic society. Had the decision had gone the other way I'd argue that non smokers (as a majority) would have a more justified recourse to complain their rights had been so trampled.

The sad thing is, it could have been largely avoided. Now, it's so much spilt milk.