PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom



Dolphins9954
02-22-2012, 11:20 AM
nwIUfLttd0A

Good video.

LouPhinFan
02-22-2012, 11:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdhu1Y9cP1o



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH_JaMH66EA

Dolphins9954
02-23-2012, 12:53 AM
It should be up to the bar and restaurant owners and not the government.

Locke
02-23-2012, 01:34 AM
It should be up to the bar and restaurant owners and not the government.

I would agree with you if there wasn't such a strong correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer. In fact, the correlation is so strong, it's a virtual fact that it's a major cause in lung cancer. People should have the freedom to go wherever they want without worrying about inhaling fumes that will absolutely kill you. No restaurant would ban smoking if other restaurants aren't, that would just chase away customers. This is absolutely a law that should be in place, and I'm glad it is...

CedarPhin
02-23-2012, 02:50 AM
I'd let the people decide with their dollars.

rob19
02-23-2012, 08:20 AM
This is a really interesting topic.

On one hand, this law almost single-handedly killed a lot of pool-halls, whom I'm sure would like the ABILITY to be allowed to smoke there. On the other, man do I feel bad for the wait-staff. They're the only people that spend enough time in the establishment to actually see any negative effects from the second hand smoke. If your going to a place for 2 or so hours to eat a meal, you're not going to get cancer, you sissy. Now you could say that the workers have a right not to work there, but I guarantee you that with the scarcity of jobs right now, some people would begrudgingly take it, and day-in and day-out exposure to second hand smoke eventually will have detrimental effects on health.

Can we consciously submit our workers to conditions that will have detrimental effects on health, even if they are aware of risks, & still choose to work there? It's an interesting discussion. Many people still play football with the knowledge that there is a strong possibility they could get hurt physically, or suffer from brain-damage from repeated concussions, albeit their salary is much higher (for the NFL anyway, for some of these indoor & arena leagues, not so much). So maybe there's a scenario, where you have a wait staff, who they themselves smoke, so they don't mind the smoke, much like the football players who are aware of, and accept, the dangers of playing football. & You have a Pool-Hall owner, who he, and the vast majority of his clientele would like the ability to smoke, should they not be able to smoke? Should we not have SOME places where smoking is acceptable?

The libretarian in me kinda agrees that it should be up to property owners, because I think the majority of bars, & resteraunts would still uphold the no-smoking policy, but there are always going to be a FEW spots where the majority of the people would prefer to smoke, like pool-halls and biker bars. & Who are we to try and protect them from themselves?

WSE
02-23-2012, 10:57 AM
I would agree with you if there wasn't such a strong correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer. In fact, the correlation is so strong, it's a virtual fact that it's a major cause in lung cancer. People should have the freedom to go wherever they want without worrying about inhaling fumes that will absolutely kill you. No restaurant would ban smoking if other restaurants aren't, that would just chase away customers. This is absolutely a law that should be in place, and I'm glad it is...

agreed. There should be designated smoking areas in all public places in my opinion, where people could kill themselves if they choose, but dont subject it to everyone else.

Tunaphish429
02-23-2012, 11:27 AM
This is a really interesting topic.

On one hand, this law almost single-handedly killed a lot of pool-halls, whom I'm sure would like the ABILITY to be allowed to smoke there. On the other, man do I feel bad for the wait-staff. They're the only people that spend enough time in the establishment to actually see any negative effects from the second hand smoke. If your going to a place for 2 or so hours to eat a meal, you're not going to get cancer, you sissy. Now you could say that the workers have a right not to work there, but I guarantee you that with the scarcity of jobs right now, some people would begrudgingly take it, and day-in and day-out exposure to second hand smoke eventually will have detrimental effects on health.

Can we consciously submit our workers to conditions that will have detrimental effects on health, even if they are aware of risks, & still choose to work there? It's an interesting discussion. Many people still play football with the knowledge that there is a strong possibility they could get hurt physically, or suffer from brain-damage from repeated concussions, albeit their salary is much higher (for the NFL anyway, for some of these indoor & arena leagues, not so much). So maybe there's a scenario, where you have a wait staff, who they themselves smoke, so they don't mind the smoke, much like the football players who are aware of, and accept, the dangers of playing football. & You have a Pool-Hall owner, who he, and the vast majority of his clientele would like the ability to smoke, should they not be able to smoke? Should we not have SOME places where smoking is acceptable?

The libretarian in me kinda agrees that it should be up to property owners, because I think the majority of bars, & resteraunts would still uphold the no-smoking policy, but there are always going to be a FEW spots where the majority of the people would prefer to smoke, like pool-halls and biker bars. & Who are we to try and protect them from themselves?


Great comment..I wonder where you copied and pasted this from...HAHAHA...

Honestly I dont smoke....often.. I have not smoked in a few months..but I would once in a while when I was drinking or just felt like having one... I pretty much did it for the look...It looks cool...Sucks that this is law in NYS..I wanted so bad to able to smoke in a diner like in Pulp Fiction and ****...Also smoking in a bar would be pretty cool too..Now you gotta go outside in the dead of winter and freeze to have a smoke....

Locke
02-23-2012, 12:46 PM
This is a really interesting topic.

On one hand, this law almost single-handedly killed a lot of pool-halls, whom I'm sure would like the ABILITY to be allowed to smoke there. On the other, man do I feel bad for the wait-staff. They're the only people that spend enough time in the establishment to actually see any negative effects from the second hand smoke. If your going to a place for 2 or so hours to eat a meal, you're not going to get cancer, you sissy. Now you could say that the workers have a right not to work there, but I guarantee you that with the scarcity of jobs right now, some people would begrudgingly take it, and day-in and day-out exposure to second hand smoke eventually will have detrimental effects on health.

Can we consciously submit our workers to conditions that will have detrimental effects on health, even if they are aware of risks, & still choose to work there? It's an interesting discussion. Many people still play football with the knowledge that there is a strong possibility they could get hurt physically, or suffer from brain-damage from repeated concussions, albeit their salary is much higher (for the NFL anyway, for some of these indoor & arena leagues, not so much). So maybe there's a scenario, where you have a wait staff, who they themselves smoke, so they don't mind the smoke, much like the football players who are aware of, and accept, the dangers of playing football. & You have a Pool-Hall owner, who he, and the vast majority of his clientele would like the ability to smoke, should they not be able to smoke? Should we not have SOME places where smoking is acceptable?

The libretarian in me kinda agrees that it should be up to property owners, because I think the majority of bars, & resteraunts would still uphold the no-smoking policy, but there are always going to be a FEW spots where the majority of the people would prefer to smoke, like pool-halls and biker bars. & Who are we to try and protect them from themselves?

Not once, no. Repeated 1-2 hour exposures over several years? It absolutely will.

As for your last sentence, the law isn't in place to protect the smoker. It's in place to protect the non-smokers in the vicinity who get the worst of the smoke. The smokers themselves have a filter that removes a chunk of the toxins, the second-hand smoke does not. The law is protecting those of us who don't smoke and don't want our children subjected to second-hand smoke. Most people are courteous and smoke out of the way so that they don't effect anyone else. However, there are the few douchemunchers who don't give a **** and smoke wherever they damn please, which is why this law is necessary...

rob19
02-23-2012, 02:26 PM
Great comment..I wonder where you copied and pasted this from...HAHAHA...

What ya mean?


As for your last sentence, the law isn't in place to protect the smoker. It's in place to protect the non-smokers in the vicinity who get the worst of the smoke. The smokers themselves have a filter that removes a chunk of the toxins, the second-hand smoke does not. The law is protecting those of us who don't smoke and don't want our children subjected to second-hand smoke. Most people are courteous and smoke out of the way so that they don't effect anyone else. However, there are the few douchemunchers who don't give a **** and smoke wherever they damn please, which is why this law is necessary...

I understand that the majority of the people want to be in smoke-free zones, which is why I think a majority of the restaurants, bars, or what have you, would retain the no-smoking policy, you wouldn't necessarily need it to be law. Times have changed, this isn't the 80's or 90's. More people are aware of the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, and MOST people would prefer to be in area's where no one smoked, so I think a large majority of the restaurants would carry out the no-smoking policy whether it's law or not.

But for those select few places, like I mentioned above, where both the wait staff, and clientele, both are aware of, and choose to be in, and work at, a place with inherent dangers, than I don't see why you make it illegal for them to do so. They're all consenting to be in there, despite the risks. If you don't want to be in those type of establishments, it's your right to not be there, but to make it illegal? I don't know that that's how you handle it. I think there's a small niche for indoor smoking places, like pool-halls and such, where indoor smoking is popular and makes sense. All you can do is educate the staff and the customers of the ramifications, and they, as legal adults, can make their own decision from there. Just like there are inherent risks in other fields, like football, construction, police, fire-fighter, other sports, etc. I wouldn't do it, but a waiter who's already a smoker might not mind.

This is kind of like seat-belt laws to me. Yes, it's very wise to wear seat-belts, but I don't think it should be illegal for you to NOT wear one. It's also very wise to not get involved with dangerous drugs, but I don't think it should be illegal.

--
The only place I'd agree with the smoking laws, is places where minors are allowed. So maybe if you have a pool-hall, or bar, where you check id's at the door, and all consent to be in a place where smoking is allowed, then so be it.

NY8123
02-23-2012, 02:35 PM
So the next time someone lights a butt up and blows smoke in my face I can just exersise my freedom and punch that ****er in the mouth and extinguish my concern.

I like where this thread is going!

LouPhinFan
02-23-2012, 03:00 PM
I think really the big issue here is that smoking isn't a right that affects only the individual excercising that right. It's not gay marriage or voting. It's not gun ownership or religion. Smoking not only adversely affects the smoker, but also those around the smoker.

Liberatians are hipocrits on this issue IMHO. "Any and all rights are fine as long as they don't hurt other people", isn't that the Libertarian's creed?

"Except smoking. Smoking is alright with us."

rob19
02-23-2012, 03:07 PM
I think really the big issue here is that smoking isn't a right that affects only the individual excercising that right. It's not gay marriage or voting. It's not gun ownership or religion. Smoking not only adversely affects the smoker, but also those around the smoker.

Liberatians are hipocrits on this issue IMHO. "Any and all rights are fine as long as they don't hurt other people", isn't that the Libertarian's creed?

"Except smoking. Smoking is alright with us."

That's not the issue. Again, I said that there probably should be smoking restrictions where minors are allowed. BUT, there should be a place where consenting adults can smoke inside. So like I said, if you have a bar, or pool-hall that checks id's at the door, and everyone, as a consenting adult, choose to be in a place where smoking is allowed, than that should be their prerogative, and THAT shouldn't be illegal.

rob19
02-23-2012, 03:13 PM
Kinda like an Opium Den.

For smokers.

Dolphins9954
02-23-2012, 03:24 PM
What ya mean?



I understand that the majority of the people want to be in smoke-free zones, which is why I think a majority of the restaurants, bars, or what have you, would retain the no-smoking policy, you wouldn't necessarily need it to be law. Times have changed, this isn't the 80's or 90's. More people are aware of the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, and MOST people would prefer to be in area's where no one smoked, so I think a large majority of the restaurants would carry out the no-smoking policy whether it's law or not.

But for those select few places, like I mentioned above, where both the wait staff, and clientele, both are aware of, and choose to be in, and work at, a place with inherent dangers, than I don't see why you make it illegal for them to do so. They're all consenting to be in there, despite the risks. If you don't want to be in those type of establishments, it's your right to not be there, but to make it illegal? I don't know that that's how you handle it. I think there's a small niche for indoor smoking places, like pool-halls and such, where indoor smoking is popular and makes sense. All you can do is educate the staff and the customers of the ramifications, and they, as legal adults, can make their own decision from there. Just like there are inherent risks in other fields, like football, construction, police, fire-fighter, other sports, etc. I wouldn't do it, but a waiter who's already a smoker might not mind.

This is kind of like seat-belt laws to me. Yes, it's very wise to wear seat-belts, but I don't think it should be illegal for you to NOT wear one. It's also very wise to not get involved with dangerous drugs, but I don't think it should be illegal.

--
The only place I'd agree with the smoking laws, is places where minors are allowed. So maybe if you have a pool-hall, or bar, where you check id's at the door, and all consent to be in a place where smoking is allowed, then so be it.


Great post. Agree 100%.

Dolphins9954
02-23-2012, 03:45 PM
I think really the big issue here is that smoking isn't a right that affects only the individual excercising that right. It's not gay marriage or voting. It's not gun ownership or religion. Smoking not only adversely affects the smoker, but also those around the smoker.

Liberatians are hipocrits on this issue IMHO. "Any and all rights are fine as long as they don't hurt other people", isn't that the Libertarian's creed?

"Except smoking. Smoking is alright with us."


Libertarians aren't calling for people to be forced to inhale second hand smoke. What we want is the power for people to make up their own minds on this and not the government. Just like Rob19 is saying, the majority of places will offer smoke-free environments especailly where kids are concerned. But places where it's adult only like bars, night clubs and even restaurants. That decision should be left to the property owner.

Locke
02-23-2012, 03:51 PM
OK, so it isn't right to make it illegal to partake in an activity that actively harms those around you. Where does it end? Should people have the freedom to have sex with children? I mean, there goes our freedom to have sexual relations with whoever we want. Hell, then why is murder even illegal? So much for our freedom to do whatever we want.

Sometimes I wonder if completely anarchy is desired. The entirety of my school career has been spent in human behavior. What you guys are advocating is a system based on the idea that humans are intrinsically good and will take the welfare of others into effect when making their decisions. I can guarantee you that this isn't the case. A single person is well-meaning and tries to do right by others. A group of people is stupid, impulsive, and dangerous. You want to see what happens to a society without rules, look at some aboriginese tribes in Africa pre-colonization. Members of they community took care of each other as well as possible, but that didn't stop rivals for mates, or rival hunters from other tribes being brutally murdered because they were in the way. Rules have to exist, period.

There is a need for some rules. I love me some beer. I'm a beer snob and I thoroughly enjoy drinking as many types of beer as possible. I would love the freedom to walk down the street and drink that beer while shopping. Hell, if I have to put up with the wifey trying on 500 dresses, I should be allowed to at least be buzzed while doing so. My enjoyment of that particular activity doesn't change the fact that I understand why I'm not allowed to do so.

I'm assuming you all who are advocating this are smokers. That makes me think you can't be objective. Yes, it sucks having to leave your table and go outside to have a quick cigarette. It would suck worse for that poor girl who found out she has pre-cancerous cells and hasn't smoked a cigarette her entire life, which is a true story involving a close personal friend of mine. They caught it early and they feel like they can treat it before it becomes full-blown cancer, but it turns out because she hung out with smokers the better part of the last 10 years, while actively inhaling their secondhand smoke, she is now at high risk for lung cancer. Yes, she put herself in that position by hanging out with smokers. But, what about some random businessman who has to meet in restaurants as part of his job? Is it fair that he is now at a higher risk of cancer because a few people don't like that they have to walk outside to smoke?

My stance on this will never change. Smoking is one of the worst things humans do. If you want to do it, then by all means. You have the right to kill yourself if you want. You do NOT have the right to endanger those around you, right or not. If even one single person doesn't get sick because of this law, it is a resounding success in my book...

rob19
02-23-2012, 04:27 PM
OK, so it isn't right to make it illegal to partake in an activity that actively harms those around you. Where does it end? Should people have the freedom to have sex with children? I mean, there goes our freedom to have sexual relations with whoever we want. Hell, then why is murder even illegal? So much for our freedom to do whatever we want.

wow. i don't even..

Dude your talking crazy talk. How is any of that comparable to having a bar or pool hall that only lets consenting adults in with the knowledge that smoking is allowed in THIS particular establishment. I agree that there should be restrictions in places that allow minors inside, but for those places who decide to let consenting adults in with the knowledge that smoking is allowed inside, that shouldn't be illegal. There's a small niche for that, and although unhealthy, it shouldn't be a criminal issue, but rather a health issue.

Are we capable of making concessions on this forum or just getting further entrenched in the position we first took?

rob19
02-23-2012, 04:30 PM
Furthermore, If I would happen to own a place like that, I'd provide & encourage my staff to wear something like this.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/n95maskforfluprotection-1.jpg

rob19
02-23-2012, 04:37 PM
I'm assuming you all who are advocating this are smokers. That makes me think you can't be objective.

You assume wrong. I wouldn't like to work, eat, or be in a place that allows cigarette smoke, so I wouldn't go in. & I think if you allow children into your establishment, I don't think it should be allowed. I do think some places should have the right to allow it though, and consenting adults should have the right to work and go there if they so choose.

I only smoke herb. It's not radioactive so I'm not getting any cancer from it.

Locke
02-23-2012, 04:38 PM
wow. i don't even..

Dude your talking crazy talk. How is any of that comparable to having a bar or pool hall that only lets consenting adults in with the knowledge that smoking is allowed in THIS particular establishment. I agree that there should be restrictions in places that allow minors inside, but for those places who decide to let consenting adults in with the knowledge that smoking is allowed inside, that shouldn't be illegal. There's a small niche for that, and although unhealthy, it shouldn't be a criminal issue, but rather a health issue.

Are we capable of making concessions on this forum or just getting further entrenched in the position we first took?

I make concessions on things all the time. This is something I will not make a concession on.

My point was that if there is one thing that should be regulated, it's an activity that physically harms another person. That's the sole reason for the restaurant/bar ban. It had nothing to do with limiting freedom, or preventing people to do something like. It had everything to do with the fact it is an activity that is extremely harmful to those around it. OK, so maybe only smokers would go to these particular establishments. What about vendors? What about the guy who drops off the beer? What about the night crew who comes in to clean? What about the police officers who will inevitably be called to a bar because lets face it, there is always going to be a bar fight or someone who needs to be forcibly removed. I can think of several other people who need to go into these facilities, despite not being there to hang out. Should they compromise their health too? Or should an employer provide more expensive insurance to these particular employees because they are now at a significantly higher risk of developing cancer? These are the cases I'm talking about...

Locke
02-23-2012, 04:42 PM
You assume wrong. I wouldn't like to work, eat, or be in a place that allows cigarette smoke, so I wouldn't go in. & I think if you allow children into your establishment, I don't think it should be allowed. I do think some places should have the right to allow it though, and consenting adults should have the right to work and go there if they so choose.

I only smoke herb. It's not radioactive so I'm not getting any cancer from it.

Most places do allow it. Almost every restaurant and bar I've been to has a patio where you're allowed to smoke and drink...

rob19
02-23-2012, 04:46 PM
that's outside..

anywho, I wonder how much it would cost to buy some of these in bulk.
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/02/n95maskforfluprotection-1.jpg
Have a big bowl right in the front, like those complementary candy baskets.

Tunaphish429
02-23-2012, 05:05 PM
Here in Syracuse...We have a huge mall called Carousel mall..Your not allowed to smoke on mall property..Lame as ****..Imagine if you were worked at that place? I mean the mall is right by a waste processing center and onondoga lake..one of the most polluted lakes in the ****ing world..and you can't smoke a cigarette in their parking lot?

**** outta here.

Valandui
02-23-2012, 06:49 PM
This to me is a gray area. On one hand, I don't smoke and wouldn't want to inhale smoke while eating. On the other hand, I don't feel that the government should tell people how to run their businesses. I don't necessarily mind having some sort of regulations if they are done in a local level. I also don't feel it's too much to ask someone to step outside to smoke as it does affect everyone. But at the same time, if you know that you're going to a place that allows smoking, I kind of feel that you don't have any room to complain about it. After all, no one is forcing you to go there. I'm kind of torn on this issue.

Valandui
02-23-2012, 06:50 PM
Here in Syracuse...We have a huge mall called Carousel mall..Your not allowed to smoke on mall property..Lame as ****..Imagine if you were worked at that place? I mean the mall is right by a waste processing center and onondoga lake..one of the most polluted lakes in the ****ing world..and you can't smoke a cigarette in their parking lot?

**** outta here.
That's why, man. They don't want anyone setting the lake on fire.

Tunaphish429
02-23-2012, 07:34 PM
That's why, man. They don't want anyone setting the lake on fire.

**** has gone way too far. Pretty soon you wont be able to smoke in your house.

Valandui
02-23-2012, 08:13 PM
**** has gone way too far. Pretty soon you wont be able to smoke in your house.
That's why they tax the **** out of them. We're too stupid to figure out that it's bad, so they'll make it to where we can't afford them. That's what Europe does with gas.

tylerdolphin
02-23-2012, 08:18 PM
I'm assuming you all who are advocating this are smokers. That makes me think you can't be objective. Yes, it sucks having to leave your table and go outside to have a quick cigarette. It would suck worse for that poor girl who found out she has pre-cancerous cells and hasn't smoked a cigarette her entire life, which is a true story involving a close personal friend of mine. They caught it early and they feel like they can treat it before it becomes full-blown cancer, but it turns out because she hung out with smokers the better part of the last 10 years, while actively inhaling their secondhand smoke, she is now at high risk for lung cancer. Yes, she put herself in that position by hanging out with smokers. But, what about some random businessman who has to meet in restaurants as part of his job? Is it fair that he is now at a higher risk of cancer because a few people don't like that they have to walk outside to smoke?

Stories like this scare me when I stop and think how many of my closest friends smoke relatively heavily.

Spesh
02-23-2012, 08:46 PM
This to me is a gray area. On one hand, I don't smoke and wouldn't want to inhale smoke while eating. On the other hand, I don't feel that the government should tell people how to run their businesses. I don't necessarily mind having some sort of regulations if they are done in a local level. I also don't feel it's too much to ask someone to step outside to smoke as it does affect everyone. But at the same time, if you know that you're going to a place that allows smoking, I kind of feel that you don't have any room to complain about it. After all, no one is forcing you to go there. I'm kind of torn on this issue.

But people are forcing you to leave or avoid the place. I feel you hit upon it earlier, that its not to much of a burden on the smoker to merely walk a few feet outside.

As for the subject on hand: I understand the personal freedom, and acceptance of consequences, of it but i feel when you impose your own bad habits onto others then its a problem. And yes, you wont immediately fall down and start decaying the minute you inhale second hand smoke, but i have yet to hear a single positive thing about even being around the smoke. If there is even a extremely small chance of it negatively affecting other peoples health(which lets face it, the subject on hand is), then it shouldnt be allowed.

And for the record, i used to smoke. Until a year ago, i would smoke on occasion when drinking. I still hang out with smokers and even allow it in my car(which is a 2010 GMC truck, thing is a beast, took a baseball bat from a psycho wench with relatively minor damage). I have little problem with lighting up and facing the consequences of my bad decisions later in life, but again, i shouldnt be allowed to effect others with my own choices. I think thats where you have to draw the line.

Locke
02-23-2012, 09:07 PM
Stories like this scare me when I stop and think how many of my closest friends smoke relatively heavily.

Yeah, it sucks. A few of my closer friends smoke heavily. After seeing that go down, it's made me realize that I'm going to outlive all of them, and not by a little. If someone who has never smoked a cigarette her entire life has pre-cancerous cells in her lungs at 26, I can't imagine some of these guys you smoke a pack a day...

Valandui
02-23-2012, 09:53 PM
But people are forcing you to leave or avoid the place. I feel you hit upon it earlier, that its not to much of a burden on the smoker to merely walk a few feet outside.

As for the subject on hand: I understand the personal freedom, and acceptance of consequences, of it but i feel when you impose your own bad habits onto others then its a problem. And yes, you wont immediately fall down and start decaying the minute you inhale second hand smoke, but i have yet to hear a single positive thing about even being around the smoke. If there is even a extremely small chance of it negatively affecting other peoples health(which lets face it, the subject on hand is), then it shouldnt be allowed.

And for the record, i used to smoke. Until a year ago, i would smoke on occasion when drinking. I still hang out with smokers and even allow it in my car(which is a 2010 GMC truck, thing is a beast, took a baseball bat from a psycho wench with relatively minor damage). I have little problem with lighting up and facing the consequences of my bad decisions later in life, but again, i shouldnt be allowed to effect others with my own choices. I think thats where you have to draw the line.
I completely agree. That's why I said I'm kind of divided on the issue. I can understand and agree with both arguments.

tylerdolphin
02-24-2012, 12:44 AM
Yeah, it sucks. A few of my closer friends smoke heavily. After seeing that go down, it's made me realize that I'm going to outlive all of them, and not by a little. If someone who has never smoked a cigarette her entire life has pre-cancerous cells in her lungs at 26, I can't imagine some of these guys you smoke a pack a day...

Its weird though...Im pretty sure its genetic and cigarettes just trigger it. Both of my grandpas were heavy smokers, one until about 70 and the other until 63. The latter was closer to two packs a day than 1. The former used to smoke cigars plus a pack of cigarettes. The one who smoked till 70 died pretty much of old age at 82 and the other is still trucking along at 71 with seemingly no ill effects. On the other hand I know people that got cancer and died in their 50 or live lower quality lives now because of emphysema and such.

Either way, its not a gamble I was ever interested in taking. For all the retarded bull**** Ive ever done, I have only smoked one cigarette in my life and I was blackout drunk when I did that. **** that noise. I look at cigarette filters in the ashtrays and just shake my head...so nasty.

Locke
02-24-2012, 01:06 AM
Its weird though...Im pretty sure its genetic and cigarettes just trigger it. Both of my grandpas were heavy smokers, one until about 70 and the other until 63. The latter was closer to two packs a day than 1. The former used to smoke cigars plus a pack of cigarettes. The one who smoked till 70 died pretty much of old age at 82 and the other is still trucking along at 71 with seemingly no ill effects. On the other hand I know people that got cancer and died in their 50 or live lower quality lives now because of emphysema and such.

Either way, its not a gamble I was ever interested in taking. For all the retarded bull**** Ive ever done, I have only smoked one cigarette in my life and I was blackout drunk when I did that. **** that noise. I look at cigarette filters in the ashtrays and just shake my head...so nasty.

Yeah, I think you're right. I had a neighbor growing up who was in her 80s and smoked a pack a day. She sounded like she was choking on a small rodent when coughing, and her voice would make even Hulk Hogan wet himself, but she was alive. She died a few years ago, 91 or something years old. Of course that's the extreme exception. This dude I work with is in his early 30s, but looks late 40s. Claims to have been smoking regularly since he was 18. To hell with that...

Valandui
02-24-2012, 01:12 AM
Yeah, I think you're right. I had a neighbor growing up who was in her 80s and smoked a pack a day. She sounded like she was choking on a small rodent when coughing, and her voice would make even Hulk Hogan wet himself, but she was alive. She died a few years ago, 91 or something years old. Of course that's the extreme exception. This dude I work with is in his early 30s, but looks late 40s. Claims to have been smoking regularly since he was 18. To hell with that...
All of my aunts and uncles smoked around us growing up. My sister, my cousin, and myself have avoided smoking since. My cousin in Vegas smokes, but he wasn't really around us. That was enough to make me never do it.

The Confessor
02-24-2012, 07:22 AM
As somebody mentioned, this isn't the 70's or 80's anymore. Sometimes as a Society, we actually do get smarter.


I have to ask. Does anybody have an issue with the law banning people from driving with an open container of alcohol? It used to be okay.

I don't see any difference. In both instances, one person is deciding the fate of others around them.
There is ZERO doubt that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer.

I don't think anybody has the right to push cancer on me or my kids.

CedarPhin
02-24-2012, 12:23 PM
What's wrong with the open container law?

DUI penalties are too harsh as well.

CedarPhin
02-24-2012, 12:23 PM
Smoking inside bars is an issue you've got to let the people decide, not state senators and state reps.

Dolphins9954
02-24-2012, 12:42 PM
What's wrong with the open container law?

DUI penalties are too harsh as well.

I totally agree with that. 0.8 is way to low to justify a DUI. My friends and I had a blow device and had some fun with it. I had almost 2 1/2 beers and blew a 0.8 and barely had a buzz. If I ever run for public office my platform will be to raise the DUI limit. Let's see how that goes over.

Dolphins9954
02-24-2012, 12:43 PM
As somebody mentioned, this isn't the 70's or 80's anymore. Sometimes as a Society, we actually do get smarter.


I have to ask. Does anybody have an issue with the law banning people from driving with an open container of alcohol? It used to be okay.

I don't see any difference. In both instances, one person is deciding the fate of others around them.
There is ZERO doubt that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer.

I don't think anybody has the right to push cancer on me or my kids.


You take your kids to bars and night clubs?

rob19
02-24-2012, 01:04 PM
You take your kids to bars and night clubs?

It's like they're not listening

tylerdolphin
02-24-2012, 01:15 PM
What's wrong with the open container law?

DUI penalties are too harsh as well.

No open container laws in the Bahamas. Riding around in my golf cart at happy hour :feelsgoodman:

Valandui
02-24-2012, 03:18 PM
Smoking inside bars is an issue you've got to let the people decide, not state senators and state reps.
This I can get behind. It did suck when I was in a band playing shows at bars where you couldn't breathe, though.

Locke
02-24-2012, 03:29 PM
This I can get behind. It did suck when I was in a band playing shows at bars where you couldn't breathe, though.

Yeah, that was the worst. A few times I started coughing mid-song. Nothing screams punk rock like one of the guitarists choking on nothing randomly...

Eshlemon
02-24-2012, 03:46 PM
I have no problem with this for establishments open to all the general public. I do have a problem with the law applied to private clubs as our ordinace does locally. Well at least those that are for profit, non-profits like the Lions and country clubs the ban doesn't apply.

Funky Fin
02-24-2012, 04:00 PM
Put down the cancer sticks you idiots.