Smoking

[Phantom]

So of course this is one of those threads that people say are "pointless" because people already know smoking is bad... I don't expect people to jump in and say "I <3 lung cancer", but there are a lot of legal things going on with smoking and I am curious to hear people's reactions. So here are some points I've found through some brief research via google.

This website brought up some interesting points.

Same here

You smoke, you're fired?

Electronic Cigarette?

I've been smoking on and off since I was 14. Still smoke today.


I was never put under peer pressure to smoke, as none of my friends did. In fact my mother was pissed at my father for smoking because my mom had cancer and was more at risk from second hand smoke than others.

I don't know about where you live, but they're bringing back smoking in bars and restaurants here. None of my friends smoke, and I smoke while I am around them, though I am polite and ask if they are ok with it. Most are. Smoking was just, something, I never labeled it as social or anything because I never got "addicted" like other people do. I can smoke a pack then not smoke for another four months then buy another pack.

 

[Tarvos]

Smoking needs to be banned in public areas.

Full stop.

 

[Phantom]

Some states have movements to remove those laws. MN for example.

EDIT: Banning smoking in public areas, IE bars and restaurants, has forced hundereds of businesses to close and puts thousands out of jobs.'

DOUBLE EDIT: At least here it has for certain. MN


Info on the law's "softening"

 

[Tarvos]

It also keeps a lot of neat hardworking people alive and not dead from second hand smoke, you know.

Smoking is fucking terrible. If you wanna destroy your own body - fine. Go ahead. Don't take others with you, that's just assholish.

(note that I support private drug use because whatever people do with their bodies is none of my business)

 

[Coroxn]

Tarvos, what happens if what they do with their own bodies causes harm to others? For example, I take a hallucinagenic drug, think I can fly and leap out of my three story window. You, an innocent non-drug taker, are crushed to death under me.

Drugs are bad, full stop.

My parents smoked for nearly all their lives, and just recently quit due to the recession. The upside to this is, of course, less money troubles, the downside they are more irritable and less relaxed, though that can only improve with time.

 

[Valerunner]

It's bad, full stop, but I'd rather this way than banning smoking outright. Forgive me for using the weed argument but not banning smoking means that it can be regulated. If we banned tobacco outright, thousands of people lose jobs. Primarily because they work in the industry, plus those who can't quit. Now that it's banned, that means they have to pay more and avoid the law. It's too late to ban tobacco.

Instead of JUST banning smoking in public places, here's an idea: permits. Take two similar pubs. One also functions as a family restaurant, the other doesn't. The latter can then apply for a permit to allow smoking in their premises.

 

[Butterfree]

I'm pretty much with Tarvos here. Smoke if you want to in your own private home - it's still a pretty silly thing to do, but none of my business - but forcibly subjecting others to smoke that's not only extremely foul-smelling but outright dangerous to nonsmokers is just not cool, and I really don't give a damn how many jobs are lost because of it because you could use that argument to justify practically anything. (World peace? But what about all the poor workers at the bomb factories?!)

I'm extremely glad that having to wave away smoke whenever you go to a restaurant or café is a thing of the past in Iceland now. I really have no sympathy for smokers who whine about it as if they think they have some God-given right to do their drug wherever they want no matter how much discomfort and potential danger it causes to others.

 

[ultraviolet]

Instead of JUST banning smoking in public places, here's an idea: permits. Take two similar pubs. One also functions as a family restaurant, the other doesn't. The latter can then apply for a permit to allow smoking in their premises.

well, the idea of banning it in the first place is because a) without ventilation, cigarette smoke (especially second-hand smoke) is really, really terrible for your health, much worse than if you were smoking outside, and b) it kind of excludes anyone who doesn't smoke from that restaurant, doesn't it? if restaurants are able to make more money by allowing people to smoke there, guess what the majority of restaurants are going to do? get indoor smoking licences. and then we end up with the same situation as before; non-smokers either have to put up with second-hand smoke, or not go. segregating smoking/non-smoking areas is pointless unless they're actually far away from each other, which is almost never; indoor/outdoor areas are equally pointless because it means that non-smokers can't eat outside, and cigarette smoke usually creeps in through open windows/doors into restaurants anyway.

honestly, I'd consider it a health & safety issue that cigarettes should be kept away from food anyway. people shouldn't have to worry about inhaling potential cancer if they want to go out to eat. :/

Tarvos, what happens if what they do with their own bodies causes harm to others? For example, I take a hallucinagenic drug, think I can fly and leap out of my three story window. You, an innocent non-drug taker, are crushed to death under me.

I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot take this part of your post seriously. :D I understand your point, but do people actually get crushed by falling people? regularly enough that it's actually a statistic worth making into an example? you may want to use a different example. :D

also: everything butterfree said. B|

 

[Eloi]

Ban smoking even for personal use, because personal use may spread to others via peer pressure or affect other people in the home (most people don't live alone), and I don't think this whole "solitary smoking/drinking/doing-drugs-in-otherways-besides-smoking in moderation while never having it affect other people" concept actually exists in reality.

 

[Valerunner]

Ban smoking even for personal use, because personal use may spread to others via peer pressure or affect other people in the home (most people don't live alone), and I don't think this whole "solitary smoking/drinking/doing-drugs-in-otherways-besides-smoking in moderation while never having it affect other people" concept actually exists in reality.

Then you may as well class tobacco as an illegal drug. Which leads to loss of jobs, smuggling, funding that can be used elsewhere being poured into controlling it, among others. Not to mention an increase in young smokers because "it's cool" and "it's against the maaaan".

And as for the permit idea, I've seen it work under a different banner. Some restaurants now ban children under 6 because they're not a family restaurant and their customers are annoyed by screaming children. Now apply that to tobacco. Family restaurants won't allow smokers because they are family-oriented, whereas pubs may give permits to allow their patrons to smoke. Put it this way; would you eat at a restaurant that has a smoking permit? I presume not. Therefore it won't be a case of every single Wetherspoons' or whatever getting the permit because of the type of customers they want. Plus if bureaucracy gets in the way like it usually does, or a hefty payment for the permit is introduced, it may only attract businesses whose main audience also happen to be smokers.

Reading it back, I sound like I'm advocating smoking. I'm not, I'm simply stating that an outright ban is a cobra effect.

 

[Chief Zackrai]

I don't mind smoking or people who do smoke, I just hate the health issues that go along with it because of how it has affected some people close to me. The smell of it can be alright if its not too heavy.

And frankly, I think the electric cigarette is one of mankind's greatest achievements, right up there with Sliced Bread and Electric Cars. Now, maybe fill them with just water and not all those silly things to simulate smoking, we'd really be making progress, but.

This being said, I think that it should be saved for non public areas. Do whatever you want in your own home, I don't care, but a public place is not the best place for it, especially if children are nearby. One of my favorite laws where I live is that you aren't allowed to smoke if there is a child in the car. Now I don't know if this actually stops anyone, but I like it.

I don't smoke, by the way.

 

[Coroxn]

I'm sorry, but I absolutely cannot take this part of your post seriously. :D I understand your point, but do people actually get crushed by falling people? regularly enough that it's actually a statistic worth making into an example? you may want to use a different example. :D

Yes, not the best example. But hallucinogens can cause a dissociation with reality, making the user scared and aggressive, turning them into dangers to themselves and others. If not falling on innocents whilst under the affects, assault on innocents is not uncommon. I'm struggling to find actual figures, but it's enough of an issue to be recorded in the drugs section of our Homework Journal textbook. Of course, the lack of information and statistics sort of renders my point moot, but someone who is completely out of their minds from drugs consumed in their own home is not restricted to their own home. They could easily drive a car or assault someone whilst under the influence. You can see the danger.

I agree with Grimdour, however, on the point of smoking (and all drug consumption) in private. Peer pressure is a serious issue, especially if you legalise it. The issue of people being forced to turn against the law is an issue, but you could try providing free non-addictive alternatives to sufferers.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

I agree with Tavros 100%. I am very glad that the country I live in is making smoking in public as hard as they possibly can because I hate tobacco.
I will admit that I do smoke weed very occasionally (pure, no tobacco mixed in) but always in my house when I'm alone or with friends who are also smoking. There are few things I hate more than people who are high or drunk and go out and piss people off on the street.

Basically yeah what Tavros said, I guess. I just don't understand the point of smoking cigarettes either. The waste of time, money and health risks outweigh the meagre plus points of tobacco so it seems completely illogical to me.

Also yeah I guess it's good when people ask but mostly one's friends will agree even if they don't like smoking, just to be polite. I used to do that all the time but now I'm just honest because I figure there's no reason to lie :v

 

[Tarvos]

It's been illegal for two weeks in Brussels now, has it? That's what my roommates told me anyway

 

[Valerunner]

It's been illegal for two weeks in Brussels now, has it? That's what my roommates told me anyway

In bars and cafes. And they want the EU to strengthen their legislation on the issue. Good move, I say.

 

[Adriane]

In the southern US, there are very lax smoking laws. Little wonder, as the tobacco industry is huge (especially in North Carolina) and about 30% of SC teens smoke (note: SC has the cheapest cigarettes in the US). Needless to say, it's a mixed experience to walk around campus or downtown because I know I'm going to encounter at least a few smokers who ignore the designated smoking areas. Especially when they congregate around building entrances because it's raining or something, ugh. It really isn't pleasant at all. I'm glad Columbia and Aiken have indoor bans, at least. Or, well, at least I think they do. At the very least, I'd like to see smoking banned on college campuses. It's also rather putrid when a good portion of a class smells like smoke.

I'm all for personal liberty, but smoking involves a hell of a lot more than the smoker. I'm similarly on the fence for most illegal drugs because so many lives and families are ruined by them. I suppose "lesser of two evils", but...

EDIT: Oh, and re: electronic cigarettes; from what I've heard about people using them, most people end up back on regular cigarettes within a period of time. And people who work for tobacco companies should know they're in a high-risk environment due to the nature of the product. I have little sympathy, however, as tobacco companies are some of the most corrupt and deceptive of any.

 

[surskitty]

So fucking agreed re: banning smoking in public areas. Also? I have asthma. I still have trouble breathing when I am near someone who smokes. Regardless of if they are smoking right then! Why the fuck should I be expected to put up with being in an enclosed space near smokers when I'm forced to breath shallowly to try to keep from getting thrown into a coughing fit?

Really, I'd much prefer it if nobody smoked tobacco at all, but since banning it's far from ideal, tax it ridiculously. Make the nicotine gum and patches cheaper! It's ridiculous that it's cheaper for someone to keep smoking when that harms other people than it is for someone to try to quit.

 

[Rose]

In the southern US, there are very lax smoking laws. Little wonder, as the tobacco industry is huge (especially in North Carolina) and about 30% of SC teens smoke (note: SC has the cheapest cigarettes in the US).

I can't say anything for North Carolina, and I can't really say anything about any of the other southern states, but I know some places in Florida, and Alabama are.


At the moment in some school systems are saying that they are going to drug test all of their new school teachers, and apparently if they have smoked at any point in time during the six months prior to the test they well not be hired into the job. They are also saying old teachers well be "grandfathered" into the new policy, and predict that all the teachers well be completely 100% smoke free as of December 2011.

Of course for the time being it is only in effect for one county, but some other surrounding areas are also trying to get it approved.

It is also already passed that under no circumstance are you to be smoking, in public, anywhere in the mobile area. It is just hard to enforce simply because half the police force smokes, so no one wants to enforce it.

You know though, while I see no problem with the no smoking in any public place, I kind of have a problem with the teacher thing. I mean I have teachers that smoke, and none of them smoke on campus, not in front of the students anyways. I have seen some walk off campus during their free periods to smoke, but none smoking on campus. It seems kind of unfair to test them for something that is still legal, and then refuse to hire them for that thing.

I am in no way a fan of smoking, I have had cancer from my mom's old smoking habit, but it seems unfair to do this for something that is still a legal substance, I could understand testing for illegal drugs, but they aren't, if they are going to make it so certain occupations are not allowed to smoke under any circumstances, they may as well just make smoking tobacco products illegal.

 

[Adriane]

I am in no way a fan of smoking, I have had cancer from my mom's old smoking habit, but it seems unfair to do this for something that is still a legal substance, I could understand testing for illegal drugs, but they aren't, if they are going to make it so certain occupations are not allowed to smoke under any circumstances, they may as well just make smoking tobacco products illegal.

Even though smoking tobacco is more dangerous than some illegal substances, like marijuana?

 

[Rose]

Even though smoking tobacco is more dangerous than some illegal substances, like marijuana?

I never said it wasn't dangerous. I mean just the smell of smoke makes me sick.

However the thing is that it is still legal, and they can't smoke on campus, and they can't smoke in public, but to tell them that the can't smoke in private seems like an infringement of the fact that smoking is still legal. It is considered censorship, and a invasion of privacy.

In the Untied States it is illegal to deny someone from partaking in something that is legal. And if they smoke on campus, fine fire them, they don't have to work there, but if they don't smoke in public, and they don't smoke in campus, fine, but they can smoke in there home.

I am against smoking, I don't like it, in any way shape or form, but I do not think it is cool to be sneaky about stopping people from smoking, and taking away their jobs for doing something that is legal. If you are going to be sneaky just make it illegal, and leave it there. Don't say, "Well if you are a teacher, or employed by one of these companies you can not smoke not all even on your own private time," because that IS illegal.