New York statewide smoking ban signed into law

[Joe Cancer]

Glad I don't live in N.Y. or Cali. Cough,Cough

 

[Buick From Hell]

I'm almost 50 years old, and I've known a LOT of people in my life, one way or another. Say, 300 or so...sound fair?

Some are young, some are old, most are still alive, some are dead; some are relatives, some are friends, some are friends of friends, yada yada blah blah...

I smoked for 30 years before I quit, going on 3 years ago. But I still smoke cigars occasionally, and my wife still smokes. Probably 40% of all the people I've known smoke(d). This means that most of the 60% have AT LEAST been around "2nd hand smoke".

Like I said, most are still alive, some are dead.

According to what you see on TV, if you use tobacco, you're doomed, end of story...and if your AROUND someone who uses tobacco, YOU'RE also doomed, just might take a bit longer...

So someone please explain to me...

Why is it, that out of everyone I know who's ever lived or died, not a single one of them---ZERO---has ever had lung cancer?

Not saying it doesn't happen, I know cigarettes aren't healthy, and some folks on this board have had family members with lung cancer, and cigarettes have killed a few famous people (Yul Brynner [4-5 packs a day] comes to mind.) A couple of people I've known had Emphasima (sp?), and a couple of people have had heart problems...

But according to MY personal survey, my findings about cigarettes & lung cancer don't quite match what I see on TV...

Speaking of my personal survey, there IS a clear-cut winner as to the most common cause of death...

Automobile accidents, and usually alcohol is factored in...

So all you New Yorkers, while you're weaving the car home with one eye closed after you've finished that juicy steak and the bottle of Vino-Blanc, you can now relax, knowing that someone elses cigarette smoke won't kill you...

 

[whitehot84]

Originally posted by Buick From Hell
I'm almost 50 years old, and I've known a LOT of people in my life, one way or another. Say, 300 or so...sound fair?

Some are young, some are old, most are still alive, some are dead; some are relatives, some are friends, some are friends of friends, yada yada blah blah...

I smoked for 30 years before I quit, going on 3 years ago. But I still smoke cigars occasionally, and my wife still smokes. Probably 40% of all the people I've known smoke(d). This means that most of the 60% have AT LEAST been around "2nd hand smoke".

Like I said, most are still alive, some are dead.

According to what you see on TV, if you use tobacco, you're doomed, end of story...and if your AROUND someone who uses tobacco, YOU'RE also doomed, just might take a bit longer...

So someone please explain to me...

Why is it, that out of everyone I know who's ever lived or died, not a single one of them---ZERO---has ever had lung cancer?

Not saying it doesn't happen, I know cigarettes aren't healthy, and some folks on this board have had family members with lung cancer, and cigarettes have killed a few famous people (Yul Brynner [4-5 packs a day] comes to mind.) A couple of people I've known had Emphasima (sp?), and a couple of people have had heart problems...

But according to MY personal survey, my findings about cigarettes & lung cancer don't quite match what I see on TV...

Speaking of my personal survey, there IS a clear-cut winner as to the most common cause of death...

Automobile accidents, and usually alcohol is factored in...

So all you New Yorkers, while you're weaving the car home with one eye closed after you've finished that juicy steak and the bottle of Vino-Blanc, you can now relax, knowing that someone elses cigarette smoke won't kill you...

It may not kill me but it still freakin stinks and no amount of arguing can stop that. Period. I don't want to be around it and I shouldn't have to. Thank you very much.

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by whitehot84
It may not kill me but it still freakin stinks and no amount of arguing can stop that. Period. I don't want to be around it and I shouldn't have to. Thank you very much.

I think this is the most indefensable argument presented. I think everyone in here has expressed this:

A.) If you want to kill yourself it's your right and we respect that. We'd prefer to keep our loved ones around as long as possible.

B.) Cigarette smoke stinks! We don't appreciate being exposed to it against our will, no more than you'd appreciate being spit on by a tobacco chewer, or urinated upon by a beer drinker. The comparison here is exactly the same.

Next time you light up near people who aren't smoking look behind you. Imagine the couple in the next booth spitting "tobacco juice" on you and your food as you eat. Get the picture?

 

[Buick From Hell]

First of all, I never said smoke didn't stink.

Secondly, I didn't, haven't, nor will I EVER advocate smoking.

Thirdly, I didn't, haven't, nor will I EVER advocate smoking around people who don't LIKE it.

HOWEVER...

PLACES to smoke are no different than the channels on your televison set. People have been trying to ban R rated movies from cable TV for years. Why aren't they banned? Because NO ONE FORCES YOU TO WATCH, just "don't go there." Likewise, why should smoking be banned from ADULT VENUES like bars & night clubs? And no matter WHERE smoking is allowed, if you KNOW there's going to be cigarette smoke there, then DON'T GO THERE! If you don't like smoke, and you insist on entering a place where smoking is permitted, then you only have YOURSELF to blame for your stinky clothes afterwards!

Come to Utah and try going for a swim on sunday in Provo. You can't, because the mormon city council took it upon themselves to ban all public pools from being open on Sunday. WHY? Well, since THEY don't swim on sunday, why should anyone ELSE?

Banning something from EVERYONE just because SOME don't care for it is ridiculous, and dangerous. Pretty soon you find you can't even go swimming on sunday? ...what the hells next?

So yeah, just keep letting them take our freedom away...

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by Buick From Hell
If you don't like smoke, and you insist on entering a place where smoking is permitted, then you only have YOURSELF to blame for your stinky clothes afterwards!

This same argument can be used for tobacco chewers. If you happen to be somewhere I am when I spit don't blame me if you get spat on. You chose to be there so blame yourself for being around a legal product and having tobacco laden clothes. It washes out just like the stench of the smoke. Don't like getting spit upon, then leave.

 

[whitehot84]

OK so now considering the nature of the business they do in Bars, drinking liquids, we are going to pass legislation to allow anyone who has to, but doesn't want to stand in a line, to piss in the floor. Of course it's nasty and foul smelling but you don't have to go all the way to a restroom or outside now. It's of course ok because this is an adult oriented business and anyone who doesn't like it can go somewhere else. Of course now ALL the bar owners are going to buy into this because they don't want to take the chance of losing any good customers. In which case there are no piss free bars and no where else to go.
Hey it sounds like a good argument to me.

 

[TurboJunky]

Now we're getting the essence of my point.

There's no logical argument against this analogy. If you don't like being in that environment then leave. Whether it be piss, tobacco smoke or tobacco spit. I haven't given permission to be spit upon, nor do I give permission to be infected with smoke. There is NO difference. At least piss and spit wash off and don't get into MY bloodstream like inhaled and unwanted tobacco smoke. That is unless you piss or spit tobacco juice into someone's mouth. In either of the 3 cases sited it's pretty friggin gross, not to mention disrespectful.

 

[bandwidthpolice]

Lounges, bars and restaurants have bathrooms to do your deficating and urinating in. They have cups to do your spitting in. They have cushions on the chairs that you can flagellate into until you mess your pants. You can pick your nose and wipe the boogers on the napkins they provide; you can also blow your nose in them too. You can burp into your own hand and wipe it on said napkin. If you don't like the food, you can vomit on the floor though it would be thoughful to run for the bathroom (this even happens to non-smokers). These establishments provide all these conveniences to everyone; they also provide smoking non-smoking areas. It appears that to a non-smoker, the line of acceptable public behavior is drawn where only they have interests to protect above that line.

 

[TurboJunky]

Yup, establishments profide those items and facilities. Just like cars have ashtrays which are rarely used. If smokers could contain their offensive smoke to themselves I don't think anyone would complain. It's just that the smoke indiscriminately goes where the "wind blows" I equate that to a tobacco chewer indiscriminately spitting into the air. Wherever it lands it's the fault of the target. They shouldn't have been there. They simply chose not to use the provided spit cup just like a smoker chooses not to use the provided ash tray.

Here's one: I take a "stink bomb" into a local eatery. You know, the ones that smell like rotten eggs. I enjoy the smell to no end and decide to enjoy it after my favorite meal. I pop it open which offends everyone but I don't care, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Remember, it's my right to enjoy what makes me happy, plus it's a legal product. Don't like it? Go outside or leave, it's not my problem.

Tell me there's a difference.

 

[bandwidthpolice]

As long as you sit in the stink bomb section, there shouldn't be a problem. You know, this could all be solved by establishments physically sectioning off the smoking/non-smoking areas. Instead of being cheap and just designating tables, have doors. It's a reasonable solution to what appears to be a huge problem for lots of people. Cigar rooms are that way from what I've seen. Seems the elitests can get what they want while commoners must play the hand they're dealt. Well, I'm going to bow out of this debate; there's no real solution.

Maybe in the next debate, we can discuss banning children under 6 from eating establishments and flying since crying is particularly disturbing to those without children. I got a real problem with that.

 

[TurboJunky]

Great Idea!

Now that's a great idea - Sectioned off smoking/non-smoking areas via a self closing glass door. It'd be so easy!

I'm 110% in favor of that. I see no downside.

Then another section for those with children 6yrs old and under with a soundproof door.

 

[Two Lane]

Part of this ban goes into effect at midnight, tonight, right?

 

[motorhead]

Re: Great Idea!

Originally posted by TT/A1233
Now that's a great idea - Sectioned off smoking/non-smoking areas via a self closing glass door. It'd be so easy!

I'm 110% in favor of that. I see no downside.

Then another section for those with children 6yrs old and under with a soundproof door.

We have these in Ontario. I can think of a local Tim Hortons and A&W that have these containers. Sometimes, I like to stop, point, and laugh at the exstinked members of society. You really do look pathetic when you are in there. The only issue I have is with the poor HVAC systems they install in these goldfish bowls... the stink comes pooring out when the door opens.

Have you ever wondered why we have an unspoken and infused public awareness and respect not to "fart" in the presence of others? Afterall, it is rather offensive. It would be funny to excrete my smell on a smoker after a spicey meal... and ask them how they liked it?

I am kinda bored tonight... I think that I am going to hit the local Timmy's and tap on the glass. And fart on whoever comes out.

 

[Buick From Hell]

Originally posted by TT/A1233
I haven't given permission to be spit upon, nor do I give permission to be infected with smoke. There is NO difference.

Speaking of "no difference", did the environmentalists & other Algores near your location give you permission to infect their airspace with the exhaust fumes from your car last time you drove it?

The issue that I'M trying to get across isn't whether or not you like smoke, cars, getting spit on, or even being able to crap in your pants while your sitting at the counter at Denny's...

The issue is the simple fact that you're letting those in power arbitrarily outlaw whatever THEY don't like! If it suits you for the moment (at this moment it's cigarettes), it's fine...but what about when they come for your guns and fossil-fuel burning air-polluting automobiles? Once their foot is in the door, they don't like closing it...

 

[TurboJunky]

Originally posted by Buick From Hell
Speaking of "no difference", did the environmentalists & other Algores near your location give you permission to infect their airspace with the exhaust fumes from your car last time you drove it?

This argument isn't the same. If there were competitively priced alternative fuel vehicles and re-fuel systems I'd be all for it. There isn't. Not to mention one is a choice the other is necessity and neither are rights.

For those not schooled in the law, rights are NOT absolute as some would like to believe. The Supreme Court has ruled in many instances that your right to do XXX must not exceed the right of others to enjoy XXX. I'm sorry you feel your ability to infect others with poison and stink in a closed environment is your "right" but don't be surprised if courts feel otherwise.

I stated this before which was either ignored or not addressed which was:

What particular section of the US Constitution addressed the "right to smoke cigarettes"? I've covered the document start to finish and don't recall reading that section.

I must address the comment regarding the "Algores" and permission to pollute with car exhaust. Yes, I do have permission to pollute with vehicle exhaust via the Federal EPA and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. I don't believe the "pro-smoking anywhere" crowd would appreciate if I put a hose from my car exhaust in your favorite restaurant "because I enjoy listening to my turbo V-6 idle".

PS. I'm a devout Conservative and vote straight-party ticket since the Clinton impeachment hearings thanks to C-Span.

 

[charlloots]

THE ONLY THING IM SMOKIN IS MY TIRES AND A HAPPY STICK EVERY ONCE AND A WHILE .

 

[Buick From Hell]

1233, why do you say it's not the same arguement? I'm assuming you can walk, and can ride a bus, therefore "necessity" doesn't apply to your car, either. Just ask anyone who's had their drivers license yanked how necessary the Judge thought their car was!

granted, I'm walking the very thinnest of edges with MY arguement!

But I live in a state (Utah) where those in power huddle together with the LDS church behind closed doors and do whatever they please "in the insterests of the community". No swimming on sundays? Know what the Provo legistlators arguement is for this is? "it's noisy"...of course this skirts the LDS churches involvement Fine law for the church since they don't swim on sundays anyway, but EVERYONE ELSE SUFFERS.

About 3 months ago, the church officials and county legislators around here had a closed-door meeting, and decided "in the interest of the community" to raise liquor-license fees from $100 to $3000 (3000%!)...this is intended strictly to put beer-bar owners out of business. This meeting raised many hackles and protests (the most prominent protests coming from the Catholic church!) since NO ONE ELSE had a chance to voice their opinion on the matter. Have a meeting, pass a law, done deal. Screw the public.

My arguement is lame? I agree, but where I live that type of arguement is the norm.

 

[TurboJunky]

Your recourse under such "rogue" legislation is state and federal courts. Whats so wonderful about this country is the checks-and-balance system. I'm not an attorney but it sounds like your local board is overstepping it's bounds. Not to be funny, but it sounds like you live in the same town the movie "Footloose" was about where dancing was illegal.

I don't blame you, I'd be pissed off too.

 

[zam70]

TT/A1233
Your argument is EMPTY
If you willfully go into an establishment where pissing and spitting on people is allowed...would you go? If you did decide to go, would you have a right to be upset if you got pissed or spit upon?

ONCE AGAIN - this is not pro or con smoking
It is about Big Government and them taking something else away (freedom of choice). As usual, it makes some happy, others it upsets. I wonder how you'll feel when something is taken away that you want.

Ever heard "give them and inch, they'll take a mile"? This statement applys to this situation.

The more we allow our government to protect us from ourselves, the less freedom of choice we have.

Two situations come to mind that totally baffle my sense of logic -
Seatbelt laws
Suicide or assisted suicide

Why is it a punishable crime to not wear a seatbelt or kill your self (or attempt)? Neither one of these situations put anyone else at risk in anyway shape or form...

The smoking thing is a debate that has NO right answer, there isn't one. I just worry about when it all stops. Todays VICTORY could be tomorrows CURSE...don't say you weren't warned.