Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

To Smoke, or Not to Smoke


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
188 replies to this topic

#1 of 189 RyanAn

RyanAn

    Screenwriter

  • 1,523 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 05 2004

Posted January 17 2006 - 10:32 AM

I know that nationally, more and more cities are becoming smoke free inside of resturants and now there are recent reports that you can not smoke outside as well. I am not trying to get in a heated debate with anyone, but I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on banning smoking in public since my township is deciding whether or not to pass a law against it and I have been discussing it with friends.

I personally do not smoke and wish that people would not smoke in a public area around other people who do not smoke or wish to have it around them. With things like the depletion of the O-Zone, and honestly not liking the effects and smell, it just makes it something I do not want to surround myself with.

What does everyone think on the matter?

Are there any smokers who think public smoking should be banned?

Ryan

#2 of 189 Garrett Lundy

Garrett Lundy

    Producer

  • 3,764 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2002

Posted January 17 2006 - 10:52 AM

Smoking is a filthy habit and you should quit. Should they ban it? NO. If I want to smoke, do heroin, drink absinthe, huff spraypaint, and inject crack-cocaine into my eyeball with a caulk gun I should be able to. The government (both federal, state & local) telling people what they can and can't do to themselves or at home for "their own good" is the very definition of creeping socialism. And a system which has been, and will continue to be abused on behalf of special intrest groups to the privledge loss of everyone else.

Just because you can do it doesn't mean you sdhould, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean nobody else should be allowed to.
"Did you know that more people are murdered at 92 degrees Fahrenheit than any other temperature? I read an article once. Lower temperatures, people are easy-going, over 92 and it's too hot to move, but just 92, people get irritable."

#3 of 189 Rob Gardiner

Rob Gardiner

    Screenwriter

  • 2,950 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 15 2002

Posted January 17 2006 - 10:52 AM

Environmental tobacco smoke is hazardous to the health of non-smokers.

We already accept tremendous restrictions on where we are allowed to drink alcohol (only in private homes, or in licensed businesses but only in designated areas and during designated hours, never outdoors). Smoking tobacco is MUCH more intrusive to the person next to you than drinking is.

Since this is a free country, we should have the freedom to control the substances we put into our own bodies. This goes both ways -- the smoker should have the right to inhale tobacco smoke, just as the non-smoker should have the right to remain free of the substance. I belive that all drugs should be legalized for private use but smoking of all substances should be prohibited in all public places. No one should be forced to inhale the fumes of another.

EDIT:

Garrett,

Ryan made it clear that his town is considering a ban only on public smoking.

#4 of 189 Garrett Lundy

Garrett Lundy

    Producer

  • 3,764 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2002

Posted January 17 2006 - 10:57 AM

Quote:
This goes both ways -- the smoker should have the right to inhale tobacco smoke, just as the non-smoker should have the right to remain free of the substance.

This has been argued a bajillion times on behest of religion. basically the law says that Freedom to do XXX does NOT entail Freedom from XXX. This is how we cannot get Flouride-free water, or sue the government if we get sick from breathing car exhaust fumes on the side of the road.

I'll admit the system is far from perfect. And you can drink alcohol outdoors in NY, at least at certain venues.

Quote:
Ryan made it clear that his town is considering a ban only on public smoking.

For now ......
"Did you know that more people are murdered at 92 degrees Fahrenheit than any other temperature? I read an article once. Lower temperatures, people are easy-going, over 92 and it's too hot to move, but just 92, people get irritable."

#5 of 189 ChrisMatson

ChrisMatson

    Screenwriter

  • 2,181 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 14 2000

Posted January 17 2006 - 11:07 AM

The government (both federal, state & local) telling people what they can and can't do to themselves or at home for "their own good" is the very definition of creeping socialism.

Who pays for the consequences of these behaviors (i.e., jails, health care, foster care, etc...)?
It would seem to be more fiscally conservative to prevent the behaviors in the first place to avoid paying for the costly consequences.

#6 of 189 Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter

  • 1,916 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted January 17 2006 - 11:18 AM

If a business owner wants to permit smoking in his facility then he should be permitted to do so. I wouldn't have a problem with the government mandating that an 8x10 copy of the Suergon General's warning be posted on every entrance to a building that allows smoking but that's as far as the law should go. As long as it's known in advance that smoke will be in the area people should have the freedom to go there or to not.

#7 of 189 RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,423 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted January 17 2006 - 11:26 AM

Quote:
Environmental tobacco smoke is hazardous to the health of non-smokers.
I'm a non smoker, and don't want people smoking around me, but that's a scientifically questionable contention. It's arguable that the U.S. EPA's study claiming so was not based purely on science, but on, shall we say, other factors.

Quote:
Who pays for the consequences of these behaviors (i.e., jails, health care, foster care, etc...)?
It would seem to be more fiscally conservative to prevent the behaviors in the first place to avoid paying for the costly consequences.
I would not accept the notion that any private action which affects anyone else in any way is grounds for nulling the private nature of the act. This goes for smoking, violent video games, eating fast food, watching porn, or ANY other act that involves no initiated violence or fraud.

#8 of 189 Shane Martin

Shane Martin

    Producer

  • 6,017 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 1999

Posted January 17 2006 - 11:35 AM

Public Smoking should be banned. Smoke in your car, smoke at home, but don't smoke around others unless they are ok with it. That's my stance atleast.

#9 of 189 Rob Gardiner

Rob Gardiner

    Screenwriter

  • 2,950 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 15 2002

Posted January 17 2006 - 11:36 AM

Robert,

How about the Surgeon General's study from 1986? To my knowledge that has never been debunked. (EDIT: US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 1986. (Publication # HPS 87-8398))

In my opinion, it is extremely foolish to entertain the notion that second-hand smoke is not harmful. The tobacco molecule (or smoke particle, or whatever it is) does not know whether the person who just inhaled it is the one holding the cigarette. Why not just go all the way and claim that first-hand tobacco smoke isn't harmful? The tobacco companies made that claim for decades.



Carl,

Quote:
If a business owner wants to permit smoking in his facility then he should be permitted to do so.

Here in Washington State, we just passed a public smoking ban that prohibits smoking in privately owned businesses. The rationale is that an employer is not allowed to maintain an unsafe workplace for his employees. Prevously, we had laws on the books that guaranteed clean air for all employees in the state, with the exception of bartenders and waitresses. They tend to be on the lower end of the income scale, and also tend to lack health insurance, so they were in particular need of protection. Now that the ban is in effect, ALL employees in the state can enjoy a smoke-free workplace.



Garrett,

I doubt any level of government in the US will ever completely ban tobacco smoking, because of the tax revenue alone.

#10 of 189 Carl Miller

Carl Miller

    Screenwriter

  • 1,461 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 17 2002

Posted January 17 2006 - 01:26 PM

I quit smoking nearly a year ago, but I think open air outdoor smoking bans are absurd...Indoors, no problem. Outdoors in closed in areas, no problem. But outside on the street while coming and going to work or shopping or wherever? Ridiculous.

There are a lot of things I wish people would stop doing outside too...Things that put my life in immediate danger, such as speeding on the highway, weaving in and out of traffic recklessly, driving drunk, or driving while on cell phones.

There are also things I wish people would stop doing outside or in closed spaces indoors that jeapordizes my health in smaller ways such as spitting on sidewalks, and not covering one's mouth when sneezing or coughing. Believe me, if you rode the NYC Subway to work everyday, you'd know what I'm talking about on that.

There are also many things I wish people would stop doing outside which effects my overall quality of life.

Bottom line is that few people on this earth are without fault when it comes to how their own actions can potentially impact the health, well being and quality of life of those around them.
Carl

#11 of 189 DaveF

DaveF

    Executive Producer

  • 13,198 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted January 17 2006 - 01:45 PM

I live in NY state, which has been fully smoke free in all restaurants and bars for a couple of years now. As a non-smoker, I think it's great. And I'm always suprised when I return to Indiana, visiting family, and have to suffer the barbaric question of "Smoking or non-smoking" when I go out to eat.

What I've found over the years is that there is no such thing as a "non-smoking" section. If there is smoking in the restaurant, then the rest of the restaurant is at best "less smoking". If you're unlucky, you'll be walked through a smoky haze on your way to your seat, and then placed on the "non-smoking" side of a half-wall, with the smokers polluting your dinner from six inches away.

Political considerations aside, I recommend adopting non-smoking policies.

#12 of 189 Carl Johnson

Carl Johnson

    Screenwriter

  • 1,916 posts
  • Join Date: May 06 1999

Posted January 17 2006 - 02:43 PM

I'm sure it can be argued otherwise but I find it hard to believe that there are a significant number of people out there are only able to find work in a restaurant or bar and who's only choice of location is one that would allow smoking if not for a city wide ban. I'm not allowed to open a restaurant that specifically caters to smokers because the waitress can't hold down a job stocking shelves at the grocery store across the street?

#13 of 189 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 17 2006 - 02:58 PM

I lost my mom 2 years ago to cancer because she was a heavy smoker, so taking that into consideration I personally am all for banning it EVERYWHERE.

Tobacco companies are murderers who sell legalized deadly weapons and don't give a shit who they hurt or even kill as long as they make tons of money, doesn't matter to them that thousands die a day from that crap they sell.

Bold statement? Yep, but I watched my mother slowly deteriorate in a nursing home as a result of smoking, so you'll please excuse me if I feel strongly about this issue, I earned the right to speak strongly against it I think.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#14 of 189 Michael_K_Sr

Michael_K_Sr

    Screenwriter

  • 1,336 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 14 2005
  • Real Name:MichaelK
  • LocationChicago 'burbs

Posted January 17 2006 - 03:59 PM

I love going to NY and California where I know I'm not going to have to deal with secondhand smoke in restaurants, lobbies, etc. Posted Image Posted Image They just enacted a smoking ban in Chicago, so now I don't have to deal with it in most restaurants (yes, there are a few loopholes that allow restaurants to allow smoking in separate bar areas until 2008) and I can board my train every night without having to pass through a carcinogenic cloud to get there.

#15 of 189 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 17 2006 - 04:06 PM

I never understood the non-smoking section in restaurants anyway Posted Image, a non-smoking section in a restaurant is the same as a non-peeing section in a swimming pool.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#16 of 189 Jack Fanning

Jack Fanning

    Second Unit

  • 296 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 2001

Posted January 17 2006 - 04:15 PM

My city, Huntsville, AL., just adopted a no-smoking policy in restaurants that basically leaves it up to the owner. BUT, if the owner chooses his place to be a smoking establishment, no one under 18 can patronize or be employed there.

I bet 95% of the restaurants have went totally non-smoking, since families are excluded otherwise.

#17 of 189 Chu Gai

Chu Gai

    Lead Actor

  • 7,270 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 29 2001

Posted January 17 2006 - 10:48 PM

I don't like it. I see the current smoking thing as politicians carefully weaving a path so that they can create the appearance of being benevolent, caring individuals while still retaining the ability to tax the smokers to generate money. If they really, really wanted to end tobacco it would've been done already. Doing so though would then bring back bootlegging and smuggling by organized crime and the politicians can't have that because then there's nothing to wet their whistle. Can't have organized crime competing with politics. Too bad though because at least organized crime paid off better on the numbers, the drugs cost less, and the hookers were cheaper. Lawyers though will support this because they support anything that they can sue and get their 1/3.

The other thing is that if you examine society, I think you'll find that it seems that people need someone or some group to hate. Once it was the Indians, then the Blacks, or the Chinese, or gays, or fat people, people who drank, big business, doctors, and now it's smokers. It's the current cause celebre. Once they've finished with smokers, it'll be some other group like McDonalds, Godiva, power transmission companies, maybe carpet manufacturers. Me, I'm thinking of raising some tobacco.

#18 of 189 Garrett Lundy

Garrett Lundy

    Producer

  • 3,764 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 05 2002

Posted January 17 2006 - 11:57 PM

Quote:
I doubt any level of government in the US will ever completely ban tobacco smoking, because of the tax revenue alone.

No kidding, in 1601 James 1st of England raised the tax of tobacco four thousand percent, and people still smoked. Of course at the time it was probably laced with opium which would have meant substantial savings on Tylenol and model airplane glue.
"Did you know that more people are murdered at 92 degrees Fahrenheit than any other temperature? I read an article once. Lower temperatures, people are easy-going, over 92 and it's too hot to move, but just 92, people get irritable."

#19 of 189 Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor

  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted January 18 2006 - 12:04 AM

Ban smoking but allow big macs and fries? Seems hypocritical to me. People have to make their own descisions.
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus

#20 of 189 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted January 18 2006 - 12:12 AM

Big Macs and fries are food, the human body needs food when it's hungry, it doesn't need tobacco smoke.

Regarding cigarettes, as Nic Cage put it in The Rock..."it's one of those things I wish we could dis-invent."
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan


Back to After Hours Lounge



Forum Nav Content I Follow