Smoking Ban Laws.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Customizer

Banned
Messages
416
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
My city of Lincoln, Nebraska has a city-wide smoking ban for all public establishments, from schools, gas stations and churches to ALL bars and restaurants. Smoking is only permitted in privately owned places, outdoors, in vehicles and inside homes.

The state-wide smoking ban, on the other hand, Will not take effect until July of 2009. However, people in hick towns will continue to do what they please because of the lack of enforcement in the country.

I am neutral on the smoking issue.
 
E

Error404

Guest
Completely for it.

Ban suicide sticks altogether for all I care.
 

chevre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
100% in favor. It's dirty, disgusting, and a serious health risk. I don't enjoy breathing second hand smoke, and neither does anyone else. It's not fair to non-smokers that smokers should be allowed to fill the air with their filth and carcinogens. That said, I don't care if people smoke in their own homes (if they don't have children). In public I'm for bans 30ft + from buildings and away from entrances.

The town where I go to college recently banned smoking in public places. Let me tell you, it hasn't hurt business at all. And now, I can go to a bar and not come back smelling like sh*t. It's a win-win. In fact, when NYC banned smoking in public places, business went up.

The car ban is iffy, but I support it. I don't need smokers flicking cigarette butts out their windows or their smoke drifting over to me at stoplights.
 

Darkfinn

Banned
Messages
3,681
Role
Diaper Lover, Incontinent,
My city of Lincoln, Nebraska has a city-wide smoking ban for all public establishments, ... gas stations ...
Anyone who lights up at a gas station is an idiot.

As far as the cops actually enforcing this crap... it'll just be another one of those laws that noone has time for.

Anyone remember that "Smoking Man" episode of King of The Hill? They ban smoking in the city and Dale goes into all the restaurants and bars and lights up. It was an interesting one...
 

Dream

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,296
Role
Diaper Lover, , Carer
My state just pass a law that took a effect a couple days ago, that ban smoking in public places like all bars, restaurants and etc with smoking only being permitted in casino, outdoor, home, and etc. Anyway I'm against it because I smoke and it should be the right of the business not the goverment to deicide to have smoking or not.
 

starshine

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,277
Role
Private
Let me tell you, it hasn't hurt business at all. And now, I can go to a bar and not come back smelling like sh*t. It's a win-win. In fact, when NYC banned smoking in public places, business went up.
Really? The no smoking ban in public places really hurt business here.

Casino Windsor, as well as all of our Bingos you were able to smoke in. We had a whole bunch of Americans come over so they -could- smoke, because they couldn't over in Michigan. Now that the ban is in place, everyone stays in the US, what's the point of coming over here when you can do the same thing over there?
 

chevre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
My state just pass a law that took a effect a couple days ago, that ban smoking in public places like all bars, restaurants and etc with smoking only being permitted in casino, outdoor, home, and etc. Anyway I'm against it because I smoke and it should be the right of the business not the goverment to deicide to have smoking or not.
Normally I'd agree, but this is different. Smoking is a health hazard, not a business choice. There are health codes for good reason. Restaurants can't have a dirty kitchen, or serve drinks made with dirty water. By that logic, a restaurant should also be able to serve expired food or have a dirty kitchen -- if people don't like it they just won't eat there, amirite?

Really? The no smoking ban in public places really hurt business here.

Casino Windsor, as well as all of our Bingos you were able to smoke in. We had a whole bunch of Americans come over so they -could- smoke, because they couldn't over in Michigan. Now that the ban is in place, everyone stays in the US, what's the point of coming over here when you can do the same thing over there?
Well, it could happen. Here's what I was talking about in NYC:

Bars and Restaurants Thrive Amid Smoking Ban, Study Says - New York Times
 

WildThing121675

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,832
Role
Adult Baby, Carer
Ohio has had a smoking ban for the past year or so. I don't care much for it, but I am a non-smoker, but a lot of my friends are, and they greatly dislike having to go outside to smoke and when the weather is bad it is no fun.

My workplace has suffered a loss of customers at our bar because of it, and we close it earlier now.

My watering hole I hang at, built a patio so they could compete with other bars because of the ban. As for me, I kinda like it because I can sit outside and chill out after work.

Smoking bans have their effects, as case in point in the state of Ohio. Thus far, I doubt there have been any arrests in it.

WildThing121675
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
The car ban is iffy, but I support it. I don't need smokers flicking cigarette butts out their windows or their smoke drifting over to me at stoplights.
Right because smoke magically shoot out the window and into your non moving car. You need to shoot you physics teacher because im pretty sure that's not how it works:rolleyes:.

Now to the subject, Being 16 I don't really go into places where there is alot of smoke. My Dad does smoke in the car but he rolls down the window and most of the smoke gets sucked at as were driving. When we eat out its usually at nice restaurants that have things to prevent smoke from accumulating.

Personally i think that each generation has a buzz word and ours is smoking. We need something to which hunt.(though i've noticed ALOT more of those stupid above the influence commercials then the smoking ones, so maybe a shift)

I personally Don't care if someone is smoking in a building it there choice just as it would be my choice to not go in that building or to move away from the smoker. Maybe people who don't smoke should quit thinking that the smokers should give up everything for them(yes MOST of the people before me are being selfish).I don't smoke tobacco anyways.

P.S. Anti smoking people tend to piss me off a bit.I think its a combination of that im big on personal rights and then my freshman health teach who was a *****.(She said she could tell people who had parents that smoked by a smell then turned around and asked if my parents smoked.Stupid pr*ck)
 
Last edited:

Nexeon

Est. Contributor
Messages
923
Role
Private
I personally Don't care if someone is smoking in a building it there choice just as it would be my choice to not go in that building or to move away from the smoker.
Why should I have to avoid a building or avoid someone because they are being inconsiderate and smoking? What if I can't avoid that building/person for a necessary reason? That does happen, incase you were wondering. Why should I have to breathe their crap while I have to go to these areas? They made the choice, not me.

Maybe people who don't smoke should quit thinking that the smokers should give up everything for them(yes MOST of the people before me are being selfish).I don't smoke tobacco anyways.
Most people here are being selfish? As far as I'm concerned MOST smokers are being selfish. You make it sound like giving up smoking would be like giving away their whole livelihood. Smokers had the choice to start smoking, why shouldn't non-smokers have the right to choose whether they want to smoke or not? Having a smoker smoking around you as far as I'm concerned isn't much different than picking up a smoke yourself and smoking.

The second hand smoke that comes directly off the cigarette butt is actually worse for you than the smoke the smoker is inhaling because the smoke the smoker is inhaling goes through a filter first. Not to mention that the smoker also exhales all that smoke they inhaled for the people near them to breathe in.

P.S. Anti smoking people tend to piss me off a bit.I think its a combination of that im big on personal rights and then my freshman health teach who was a *****.(She said she could tell people who had parents that smoked by a smell then turned around and asked if my parents smoked.Stupid pr*ck)
P.S. Pro smokering people tend to completely piss me off. If your so big on personal rights then what about my right to not breathe smokers secondhand smoke? Why does that not matter at all to you? Why should Smokers get to choose when they want to inhale cigarette smoke and non-smokers do not get to choose when they want to inhale cigarette smoke? As far as I'm concerned I and only I should have the right to choose when I inhale cigarette smoke, not the smoker. If I choose to go to a designated smoking area, then that is my choice, but that's pretty much the only time it is my choice.
 

Dawes

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,805
Role
Diaper Lover
Jabo,

One of the things that people don't seem to understand about the amount of anger smokers have about this is that they are, over the course of several very small years, being slammed unawares between a rock and a hard place. Their rights to smoke when and where they want and to feel like a normal, functional part of human society have been vastly reduced over the past few years.

To smokers, regardless of whether or not you want to acknowledge the importance of their habit to them, removing their right to smoke in all of these little fits and farts really leaves them with no options to feed their desire to smoke *anywhere* except in their house, and that really sucks for them. They are being heavily discriminated against in ways that are civily unacceptable nowadays, but because smokers aren't a race and aren't a color, people think it's totally cool to remove their rights for the sake of "health".

Would you like it if you weren't allowed to drive your car down certain roads because your tires were maybe too bald and you hadn't had a chance to switch them? What about some highways where you wouldn't be allowed on if you didn't hae more than a half-a-tank of gas? Even worse, what if those highways had gas-stations right next to them, and you were invited to use those gas-stations ... but they weren't accessible in any way except by getting on the highway? It sounds like a ridiculous analogy, but similar problems are what smokers are going through. "You can't smoke inside ... so smoke outside, but you can't smoke within 50 feet of a building, and don't expect to do it in your car!"

Both sides need to be more sensitive, need to grab their balls, and be big boys and girls about the whole thing.
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
Why should I have to avoid a building or avoid someone because they are being inconsiderate and smoking? What if I can't avoid that building/person for a necessary reason? That does happen, incase you were wondering. Why should I have to breathe their crap while I have to go to these areas? They made the choice, not me.
Why should smokers have to avoid ALL buildings your putting your needs in front of a whole population of people.(I.E. that where the selfish remark came from)(you can avoid the building just as easily as they can)


Most people here are being selfish? As far as I'm concerned MOST smokers are being selfish. You make it sound like giving up smoking would be like giving away their whole livelihood. Smokers had the choice to start smoking, why shouldn't non-smokers have the right to choose whether they want to smoke or not? Having a smoker smoking around you as far as I'm concerned isn't much different than picking up a smoke yourself and smoking.
Refer to above. It's there choice just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you get to say well you can't do that here. I may think you drive to slow and could cause an accident so you don't get to drive on my streets anymore. Not so nice is it?

The second hand smoke that comes directly off the cigarette butt is actually worse for you than the smoke the smoker is inhaling because the smoke the smoker is inhaling goes through a filter first. Not to mention that the smoker also exhales all that smoke they inhaled for the people near them to breathe in.
You need to do your research. WHy would smoke be WORSE after coming THROUGH A FILTER. It's worse because when exhaled it has even less oxygen and more carbon dioxide then when first inhaled(some one needs to go re learn cellular respiration.)

P.S. Pro smokering people tend to completely piss me off. If your so big on personal rights then what about my right to not breathe smokers secondhand smoke? Why does that not matter at all to you? Why should Smokers get to choose when they want to inhale cigarette smoke and non-smokers do not get to choose when they want to inhale cigarette smoke? As far as I'm concerned I and only I should have the right to choose when I inhale cigarette smoke, not the smoker. If I choose to go to a designated smoking area, then that is my choice, but that's pretty much the only time it is my choice.
I'm not pro smoking. I believe that you could be inconvenienced just as easily as the smokers. You seem to have a superiority complex because you don't smoke. You feel you are better than them and they should be inconvenienced over you.

P.S. smokering isnt a word. It's spelled pro-smoking
 
Messages
281
Role
Diaper Lover, Carer
As a smoker, I think there should be smoking bars, as well as non-smoking bars, and smoking restaurants as well as non-smoking restaurants (because there used to be a smoking section). However, as far as banning smoking in most public places, even outdoors, I find rediculous. I very highly doubt walking down the street smokin a cigarette is going to bother the breathing of anybody around you, due to the fact that it is an open environment. The only way outdoor smoking could bother a non-smoker is if you directly blow your drag of the cigarette in the person's face.

Oh, and the filter on the end of a cigarette is really only usefull after the first two or three drags off the cigarette, then it's full and doesnt really filter much else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nexeon

Est. Contributor
Messages
923
Role
Private
Jabo,

One of the things that people don't seem to understand about the amount of anger smokers have about this is that they are, over the course of several very small years, being slammed unawares between a rock and a hard place. Their rights to smoke when and where they want and to feel like a normal, functional part of human society have been vastly reduced over the past few years.

To smokers, regardless of whether or not you want to acknowledge the importance of their habit to them, removing their right to smoke in all of these little fits and farts really leaves them with no options to feed their desire to smoke *anywhere* except in their house, and that really sucks for them. They are being heavily discriminated against in ways that are civily unacceptable nowadays, but because smokers aren't a race and aren't a color, people think it's totally cool to remove their rights for the sake of "health".
I know, they really did start pushing this anti-smoking thing fast and hard, which does suck for smokers. The main reason why I'm so anti-smoking is beacuse this "health" thing is a huge issue for me. When I'm around people smoking I often start to get bad migranes and throat problems, to the point where I was even hospitalized because of it a couple times. So unlike smokers, they can still go to those places, they just can't smoke. Me, well I kind of have to avoid those places all together with smokers there.

Would you like it if you weren't allowed to drive your car down certain roads because your tires were maybe too bald and you hadn't had a chance to switch them? What about some highways where you wouldn't be allowed on if you didn't hae more than a half-a-tank of gas? Even worse, what if those highways had gas-stations right next to them, and you were invited to use those gas-stations ... but they weren't accessible in any way except by getting on the highway? It sounds like a ridiculous analogy, but similar problems are what smokers are going through. "You can't smoke inside ... so smoke outside, but you can't smoke within 50 feet of a building, and don't expect to do it in your car!"

Both sides need to be more sensitive, need to grab their balls, and be big boys and girls about the whole thing.
I've actually had something like this happen to me. When I got my drivers license I had to take a medical because I have mild cerebral palsy. I passed my medical and I got fully licensed. Then when I went to go get my license renewed for some reason they decided I was not "able" enough to drive a standard. Problem was I owned a standard, and I could drive it just fine, it was also good exercise for my left side(the side of my body midly afftected by cerebral palsy). I wasn't even ever in an accident or anything, so it was mean. I think I could have took some test to get it back, but I decided to just sell the truck and buy an auto because it was a bit annoying driving it in the city anyway, though I was fully capable, that was not the problem. So believe me, I also know what it feels like to be discriminated against.

You are right though, both sides do need to figure out a better solution.

Why should smokers have to avoid ALL buildings your putting your needs in front of a whole population of people.(I.E. that where the selfish remark came from)(you can avoid the building just as easily as they can)
I don't recall saying ALL buidings, maybe because I didn't perhaps? My needs in front of a whole population of people? Firstly more people don't smoke than do smoke.


Refer to above. It's there choice just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you get to say well you can't do that here. I may think you drive to slow and could cause an accident so you don't get to drive on my streets anymore. Not so nice is it?]
I really don't think very many people died from from someone driving too slow. A LOT of people however, died from people smoking around them too much though. Now if you said driving too fast, then that would be different because there's definitely lots of deaths from people driving too fast. However do they get kicked off the streets for it? Uh yes, yes they do. So going by that analogy that you basically created, or at least started smokers shouldn't be allowed to smoke publicly. Why? For killing a LOT of people.



You need to do your research. WHy would smoke be WORSE after coming THROUGH A FILTER. It's worse because when exhaled it has even less oxygen and more carbon dioxide then when first inhaled(some one needs to go re learn cellular respiration.)
Maybe my wording sucked, but that was not what I was saying at all. I was trying to say the smoke coming off the tip farthest away from the mouth (the end not in your mouth) is worse for you because it doesn't go through the filter. Then I was trying to say the exhaled smoke from the smoker adds to it.


I'm not pro smoking. I believe that you could be inconvenienced just as easily as the smokers. You seem to have a superiority complex because you don't smoke. You feel you are better than them and they should be inconvenienced over you.

P.S. smokering isnt a word. It's spelled pro-smoking
Well the main reason I'm so against smokers is because it is really bad for me, like I said above.

Sorry we got into a bit of a bickering fight, you just made it sound like smokers should have most of the rights and non-smokers shouldn't have much for rights when it comes to smoking. So it really bugged me because I for one medically can't stand smokers.

If I could stand cigarette smoke I probably wouldn't be quite so anit-smoking, but I can't, so that's life.

P.S. most people would be able to tell that smokering was a typo and would leave it alone. I probably was changing smokers to smoking and didn't back space enough.
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
Ok diffusion doesn't apply here. When smoke goes out the window it mixes with air and everything else outside your car. Chances are that air is moving and the smoke will move with that air. As per your example sitting at the light the air isn't moving into your car. Perhaps by some obscure chance when you take off and the air starts to move into your car you might catch a little smoke but not enough to do anything.
 

chevre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
Of course it applies, and also in some place we have this phenomenon known as wind :p. If you can create smoke that doesn't diffuse, I think you will win an award.
 

ade

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,261
Role
Other
i smoke, and the only aspect of this whole issue which bothers me is the absolute hypocracy of the anti-smoking brigade and their followers.
and it's to piss them off that i continue to smoke and will do so for so long as it does.

smoking is harmful? sure is.....but so are diesel exhaust fumes, and in fact much more so; the added flouride in your drinking water is also harmful; and the asbestos in the buildings all around you.....oh, and so is alcohol.
just from that small list, you can see that the 'ban' on smoking has nothing to do with any concern for people's health and is more about politics. what those politics are, i can only guess, but it'd be damn easy to simply introduce a complete ban on the importation of tabacco (since we are on an island) if the true concern was health. and a complete ban would aid the de-addiction process by removing temptation.
but of course, a complete ban on importation wouldn't necessitate the creation of government jobs for officials tasked with smoking cessation and the crminalisation of everyday people, would it? and there you have it ;)
 

chevre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,434
Role
Diaper Lover
smoking is harmful? sure is.....but so are diesel exhaust fumes, and in fact much more so; the added flouride in your drinking water is also harmful; and the asbestos in the buildings all around you.....oh, and so is alcohol.
just from that small list, you can see that the 'ban' on smoking has nothing to do with any concern for people's health and is more about politics. what those politics are, i can only guess, but it'd be damn easy to simply introduce a complete ban on the importation of tabacco (since we are on an island) if the true concern was health. and a complete ban would aid the de-addiction process by removing temptation.
but of course, a complete ban on importation wouldn't necessitate the creation of government jobs for officials tasked with smoking cessation and the crminalisation of everyday people, would it? and there you have it ;)
I'm not sure diesel exhaust is any more harmful, and it's not addictive. Besides, using diesel isn't optional -- the country depends on it. The same can't be said for smoking.

Fluoride in drinking water is added to improve dental health, and it does. Though fluoride is toxic, it is not harmful at these concentrations.

Asbestos is only harmful if it is disturbed and becomes airborne. It was used for a long time before we knew it caused mesothelioma. And guess what? We are getting rid of it now. It's being phased out and is not used in new construction.

And sure, alcohol can be harmful, but sitting in a room with a guy who's drinking a beer won't hurt you, whereas sitting in a room with a guy smoking a cigarette will. The comparison really just doesn't work.

Finally, though I would support an all out ban on tobacco, it's simply not realistic. With millions of Americans currently suffering from tobacco addictions, it's not realistic. I think the approach that's being followed is the right one -- tax it, discourage it, and don't allow it in public places. :twocents:.
 

Kip

Banned
Messages
400
Role
Diaper Lover
I'm not sure diesel exhaust is any more harmful, and it's not addictive. Besides, using diesel isn't optional -- the country depends on it. The same can't be said for smoking.

Fluoride in drinking water is added to improve dental health, and it does. Though fluoride is toxic, it is not harmful at these concentrations.

Asbestos is only harmful if it is disturbed and becomes airborne. It was used for a long time before we knew it caused mesothelioma. And guess what? We are getting rid of it now. It's being phased out and is not used in new construction.

And sure, alcohol can be harmful, but sitting in a room with a guy who's drinking a beer won't hurt you, whereas sitting in a room with a guy smoking a cigarette will. The comparison really just doesn't work.

Finally, though I would support an all out ban on tobacco, it's simply not realistic. With millions of Americans currently suffering from tobacco addictions, it's not realistic. I think the approach that's being followed is the right one -- tax it, discourage it, and don't allow it in public places. :twocents:.
Well said. I would also support an all-out ban on tobacco, but, as you said, it isn't realistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top