User Tag List

View Poll Results: do you support a public smoking ban?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, I support a smoking ban both indoors and outdoors

    17 22.08%
  • yes, I support a smoking ban, but only indoors

    32 41.56%
  • no, I do not support a smoking ban/keep things as they were

    28 36.36%
First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 212

Thread: smoking ban

  1. #171
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    This seems to be getting a little personal around here...

    Anyhoo I realised that I had a nice little example of why I abhor politicians so much... a response to a petition which I signed in favour of allowing smoking in private establishments. It was hardly a petition of the sort of numbers needed for a change in the law but I was working under the false assumption that the government gave half a monkey about one of it's people, nevermind a congregation of them. However I was obviously wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Government
    The Health Act 2006, which received Royal Assent on 19 July, provides for all enclosed public places and workplaces to be smokefree from 1 July 2007. This will make smokefree places the norm and deliver real benefits as part of the Government's commitment to protect people from the dangers of second hand smoke, as well as reducing the number of people who smoke and cutting the number of smoking related deaths.

    The Government have announced that England will be smokefree from July, ensuring that the health benefits will reach the public as soon as possible, whilst at the same time providing adequate notice for businesses and local authorities to make the necessary preparations.

    Virtually all enclosed workplaces and public places, including offices, factories, restaurants, pubs, schools, public transport, working men's clubs, private members' clubs and shopping centres are covered by smokefree legislation, meaning the enclosed parts of these places will become completely smokefree when the legislation is implemented in July. There will definitely not be any future exemptions made for private members' clubs; the Health Act and the Regulations made under it are comprehensive and clubs are treated in exactly the same way as other premises.

    Indoor smoking rooms in public places and workplaces will also be against the law, so anyone wanting to smoke will have to go outdoors. It is important to remember that whilst a private members' establishment is for the use of members only, it will also be a work place for those employed there. A Dundee University study showed bar workers' lung function increased by as much as ten per cent just two months after smokefree laws were introduced in Scotland. Those showing symptoms relating to exposure to secondhand smoke fell from 80 per cent to fewer than half. Scientific evidence shows that even if indoor smoking rooms are ventilated, this does not eliminate the health risks associated with secondhand smoke.

    As is plain from that response, they made no attempt to explain this particular facet of this new law other than to say "cause we said so". They, of course, rant on and on that they believe this and that they believe that but at no point do they validate their move and effectively are shoving two fingers up at those who disagree.

    Now I don't care about steps on roads to anywhere, I care about people acting outside of their remit and frankly I think it's about frickin time that people started looking at what is being passed with their supposed support. I know that I never looked at a manifesto with a look to "now who do I think will look after my health best?". Maybe healthcare, yes but my health is my own frickin business as is everyone's. Fine support more measures to support non smokers and non smoking establishments but just to "do the right thing" like this is stepping over their bounds.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    This seems to be getting a little personal around here...
    It's ok I think we are big enough to take a few personal shots. Besides it adds a little spice.

    Now I don't care about steps on roads to anywhere, I care about people acting outside of their remit and frankly I think it's about frickin time that people started looking at what is being passed with their supposed support. I know that I never looked at a manifesto with a look to "now who do I think will look after my health best?". Maybe healthcare, yes but my health is my own frickin business as is everyone's. Fine support more measures to support non smokers and non smoking establishments but just to "do the right thing" like this is stepping over their bounds.
    I agree. The problem is most people don't care until it affects them personally. Then they suddenly want everyone else to help stop the madness. It's not long though before they find out that nobody cares about their losses.

    When companies started firing people for smoking it set off alarm bells immediately for me. Even though personally I wasn't affected by it. So I brought it up in a gathering one time to see if others felt the same way and first there were a few people that had a problem with it, most did not.

    In particular I remember two rather large individuals that talked about the health costs that were associated with smoking and since the government is forcing them to offer health coverage to their employee's then it should be the companies call.

    I pointed out some of the health risks for being overweight and said if the logic was good enough to fire smokers it was good enough to fire people who are over weight too.

    Their response was not unlike many of the responses I have received in this thread. Responses like "Don't be ridicules." or that’s going to the extreme. I sounded crazy to them too.

    But now a few companies are starting to do it. There are even some companies putting in treadmills at computer stations so that people can exercise while they work. This is to encourage weight loss. But what if fat people stay fat at these companies? Of course they will be fired, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

    So now I see some mummers from people that are over weight. "It's not right!" they say. Recently it was the two large guys I talked about earlier, now they care about rights and freedoms but only because they are now affected personally.

    Most people who neither smoke nor overweight could care less. But those who are adrenaline junkies should stand up now before their dangerous lifestyles become banned. The single people and their multiple sex partners should also worry. It may sound crazy but I have seen it before. It happens all the time. Regulators live to regulate and control freaks live for control. Why should it be so different this time?

    Although I don't do it now, someday in the future I might want to ride my motorcycle to the nearest bar, smoke a cigarette, pick up a woman, share a burger with her and take her home for an NSA roll in the hay. I hope the option will still be available then

  3. #173
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    SamIam,
    You seem like a nice Friendly sort

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar Friendly
    : You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
    I'm with you. I've had similar reactions before. Still it's not like it always comes true. The question is if we're just throwing out enough theories to get one right now and then or if we are just that damn good.

    Personally I'm going for the latter
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #174
    Member MadamI'madaM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    1337
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Expanding/defending my fast food analogy

    Smoking kills/cripples users: so do heart disease, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc, etc


    To people who claim/think secondhand smoke is a legitimate danger: first, you'll have to cite something credible (not obviously funded by lobbyists) in defense, and then there's the issue of secondhand fast food. Who has never waffled and eaten garbage simply because a shameless fiend insisted on going to a burger joint? What about parents who take their kids to fast food joints?


    To people "concerned about smokers' health": I'm just as concerned about fat people's health, really. There are even a few in my family.

    To smokers who "want to make it easier to quit": would you ever eat hamburgers if they weren't in front of your face at every goddamn stoplight?

    To people who "find cigarettes disgusting": I find the smell of greasetraps nauseating, and you couldn't honestly like the taste, could you??

    But fast food isn't the only cause of obesity: smoking isn't the only cause of pulmonary disorders or cancer, either; but both constitute a sizeable chunk

    If you would advocate the banning of public smoking and not of fast food restaurants, you seem to be a hypocrite [see: media pawn]

    oh yeah,

    To the prick who told me to "Lay off the drugs" : Lay off the goddamn McGriddles
    innit?

  5. #175
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadamI'madaM View Post
    Expanding/defending my fast food analogy

    Smoking kills/cripples users: so do heart disease, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, etc, etc


    To people who claim/think secondhand smoke is a legitimate danger: first, you'll have to cite something credible (not obviously funded by lobbyists) in defense, and then there's the issue of secondhand fast food. Who has never waffled and eaten garbage simply because a shameless fiend insisted on going to a burger joint? What about parents who take their kids to fast food joints?


    To people "concerned about smokers' health": I'm just as concerned about fat people's health, really. There are even a few in my family.

    To smokers who "want to make it easier to quit": would you ever eat hamburgers if they weren't in front of your face at every goddamn stoplight?

    To people who "find cigarettes disgusting": I find the smell of greasetraps nauseating, and you couldn't honestly like the taste, could you??

    But fast food isn't the only cause of obesity: smoking isn't the only cause of pulmonary disorders or cancer, either; but both constitute a sizeable chunk

    If you would advocate the banning of public smoking and not of fast food restaurants, you seem to be a hypocrite [see: media pawn]

    oh yeah,

    To the prick who told me to "Lay off the drugs" : Lay off the goddamn McGriddles
    Just to point out the obvious - Even if it wasn't dangerous, it does create an unpleasant condition for others around you. Your analogy does not.

    In case you do want to read lots about the issue, the canadian government has a great collection of information. I'd probably take a hundred hours to go through it all plus the references, but there you go. Oh, and it also references tons of studies done in the US on just this topic, ranging from in house, to working in with it... a nice range.

  6. #176
    Member MadamI'madaM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    1337
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Just to point out the obvious - Even if it wasn't dangerous, it does create an unpleasant condition for others around you. Your analogy does not.

    In case you do want to read lots about the issue, the canadian government has a great collection of information. I'd probably take a hundred hours to go through it all plus the references, but there you go. Oh, and it also references tons of studies done in the US on just this topic, ranging from in house, to working in with it... a nice range.
    I don't respect government conducted research from any country regarding media hot button issues.

    your link is bad, anyway, though

    After skimming articles from google, I found a few interesting things

    cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, so secondhand smoke must therefore cause cancer.

    Tab and excessively burnt food also contain carcinogens (ok, so there's less)

    plus loads of empty testimony by "experts" and citations of "studies" without in-depth numbers or qualitative specifics of the research; just that they all "concluded ETS causes cancer"

    I'll buy that it increases the risk of cancer(duh), but I know some middle aged smokers who've sucked down around a pack a day for decades who've never gotten past chronic bronchitis themselves

    hanging out with drunks increases your risk of getting into a fistfight, but if things get too ugly for you, you could always just leave

    and what's particularly pleasant about watching a disgusting slob take a bath in the special sauce?
    innit?

  7. #177
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadamI'madaM View Post
    I don't respect government conducted research from any country regarding media hot button issues.

    your link is bad, anyway, though
    Ah, apologies, not that you seem willing to consider any information then;

    Second-hand Smoke - Main Page

  8. #178
    Member MadamI'madaM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    1337
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Ah, apologies, not that you seem willing to consider any information then;

    Second-hand Smoke - Main Page
    thanks for reposting the link, as I am willing to change my beliefs after I see some hard data backed by at least semi-geunuine research.

    but I clicked on an obscene number of links and I found nothing more than vague references to studies

    is there a reason the actual charts and methods are so damn hard to find?

    do they think we're too stupid to interpret data for ourselves?

    what I'm trying to say is: I'm more able to suspend disbelief about the actual validity of the numbers (which could always be questioned), than about vague references with a PhD or "Association" tacked on to the end.

    "there is no known safe level of exposure to carcinogens"

    well, there is no recommendable "daily value" of cholesterol, fat, or sugar
    (there are recommended limits, not the same thing)
    innit?

  9. #179
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadamI'madaM View Post
    thanks for reposting the link, as I am willing to change my beliefs after I see some hard data backed by at least semi-geunuine research.
    This has more tangible papers, if you are able to look them up (references at the bottom);

    Cigarette Smoke: It's Toxic

    Course, I don't even see this as an argument. The fact that you compare someone eating a sandwhich to smoking tells me you are pretty set in your ways, or just not considering the impositions that smokers have on others. The argument should be over if it is better to allow a public influencing event to be controlled by government, or through isolation by market forces... not if it is an imposition.

  10. #180
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    I think for the firing people bit -- it does make sense in lines with 'productivity' and 'efficiency'. Unhealthy, stressed out workers have more sick days, are less creative, are less able to commit to the job, etc. etc. etc.

    I don't think the 'overweight people' and the 'smoking' analogy is ludicrous at all. It follows naturally from that line of logic.

    In general, I don't think citing productivity issues in people as a basis for termination is descending into madness. It's pretty much the standard reason for anyone getting fired.

    The only caveats I would have is that the employer has a responsibility to provide resources so that employees can stay sane, manage stress, stay healthy and fit, etc. A lot of employers are doing this now with telecommuting, flex days, customizable health care plans, access to subsidized mental health care, making allowances for elder care or basically ANY reason you want to miss work.

    The only problem with the "all overweight people should be fired" line is that overweight people aren't necessarily these walking heart attacks waiting to happen. Lots of overweight people are active and depending on what you are quantifying, are just as healthy as their regular sized counterparts.

    If you want to fire people by how unhealthy they are assuming that less healthy = less productive, brings in less $$, less bottom line deliverables to the company, added costs to the company outweighing what they produce at work -- here's the flaw I see with that and why it's never going to take off in a 'ludicrous' sweepin way.

    Aside from you know, going backwards and throwing out the Americans with Disabilities Act etc. this practive would necessarily fire the MOST productive star employees. I'll bet the highest health risks in the suits walking around corporate America, those that most need medical attention, to stop smoking, to drop weight, to get their cholesterol down, etc. are those with A LOT of responsibility and/or drive. These people are REALLY STRESSED at risk for many things including heart attacks by 40.

    And you know what? These people are often VERY succesful at their jobs, really contribute, and are financially rewarded.

    I just can't imagine a bunch of corporate lawyers being fired for being chain smoking, overweight, high-blood pressured stress cases. We would have no lawyers left. It's a privelege to work a white collar job and some of them really squeeze your for all the blood you have. It comes with the territory.

    Alright, end rambling.

    My point is that these 'slippery slope' arguments don't really work because everything is a step in some direction. You can point at most anything and say it's a slippery slope and you're one step closer to being unreasonable or crazy.

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Smoking Ban
    By WildCard in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 05-02-2011, 12:33 PM
  3. Smoking ban decreases heart attacks
    By burymecloser in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 03:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO