Any Smokers?

[Seiben 0]

I'm going to agree with Van Roy on this one...forbidding private businesses from conducting their business as they choose is an abridgment of fundamental private property rights.

 

Second, if I may be permitted to paraphrasing Bastiat, there are always economic consequences to government invervention.  What is seen may be $5 billion dollars added to the Canadian National Healthcare system.  What is unseen, however, needs also to be considered.  Say instead of people going out to pubs and restaurants, they decide to begin hosting their own gatherings in their homes for example.  People aren't just going to stop smoking (as much as the government hopes)...they are going to pursue other avenues in which they can.  In the end, pubs and restaruants will receive less revenues as a result, which means they won't be able to employ as many people, which means that jobs will be lost, which means that you will have more people unemployed who aren't paying into the heath care system, which means that you have less revenues in order to provide quality health care.  That's just one domino effect.  Sometimes the ends don't justify the means (or in this case the sacrifices).  What may look good on paper, may actually be disastrous for an economy.  In this case, I would argue that based upon basic economics, the health care system will probably hurt in the long run more than it benefits.

 

My two cents...plus 1/2 for taxes.

Yes, and what about the rights of customer's in the restarants and bars that don't smoke. I think in Ontario, only 30% of the population are smokers. So, where does that leave the rest of us 70% who don't smoke? Did you know that 1 in every 5 people in US die from second hand smoke each year? It's not really fair for me or an other non-smoking patron to have to be in such a harmful enviroment to my health.

 

 

And besides Grom, you say that the New Anti-Smoking crackdowns are hindering our ecomomy? You're wrong. According the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, since the implementation of the smoke free by law in 1 August 2001 , bars and restraurants did not report any negative impact on sales, nor did the province itself receive any negative impact in tourism and hotel receipts.

 

(Which you can see for yourself here )

 

Smokers do have the right to light up whenever they want, of course. But just don't do it around me.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Seiben

[Dumbass 0]

Ok then lets play it that way, what about employee rights? Should it be fair for someone to work amid all that smoke that is harmful to their health?

If the employees know they will be working in a smoke environment that is their choice. And if their job skills limit themselves to only working in a smoke environment they have much bigger problems than second-hand smoke to deal with.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Dumbass

[Grom 0]

Ok then lets play it that way, what about employee rights? Should it be fair for someone to work amid all that smoke that is harmful to their health?

How are employee rights being violated? He/she chooses to apply where he/she wants to work. <_< It's not like a bar tender is all of a sudden surprised on the first day of work when he/she finds out that there's smoking allowed on the premises.

[LoAmi 0]

How are employee rights being violated? He/she chooses to apply where he/she wants to work. <_< It's not like a bar tender is all of a sudden surprised on the first day of work when he/she finds out that there's smoking allowed on the premises.

It all comes down to the same reasoning we have for requiring fire exits and sprinkler systems in buildings, and hard-hats for construction workers. Employees have a right to a safe working environment, whether they're construction workers or bartenders. It would be one thing if smoking didn't hurt anyone other than the smoker, but it has been shown that second-hand smoke is dangerous. The current laws allow smokers to kill themselves without taking everyone else down with them.

[Images 0]

Well all the bars in Britain have a rule where in a bar you can't smoke at the bar itself so as to not give the barkeep second hand smoke and no smokers complain about that. We aren't madmen who wish to poison everyone around us, we can be pretty damn reasonable.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Images

[Darrik 0]

So, now if you want to smoke here, you gotta do it outside in the -10 degree weather, and 20 cm of snow.

Jeeze, here it's like -10 degree F and 20 in of snow.

[Grom 0]

Yes, and what about the rights of customer's in the restarants and bars that don't smoke. I think in Ontario, only 30% of the population are smokers. So, where does that leave the rest of us 70% who don't smoke? Did you know that 1 in every 5 people in US die from second hand smoke each year? It's not really fair for me or an other non-smoking patron to have to be in such a harmful enviroment to my health.

 

 

We're not talking about equal opportunities to necessities here. <_< We are talking about private businesses. I personally believe that we should err on the side of liberty. I cannot speak for Canada, but in America private property is one of the most fundamental rights.

 

As for economic impacts...ANYtime a government intervenes on the free market there will be benefits in some areas, but unintended consequences in other. For example, in a basic economics course one learns that raising the minimum wage actually eliminates jobs. The benefit is that workers who were working for minimum wage now have more money, the unintended consequences however, is that businesses cannot employ as many workers, thus eliminating jobs.

[Grom 0]

It all comes down to the same reasoning we have for requiring fire exits and sprinkler systems in buildings, and hard-hats for construction workers. Employees have a right to a safe working environment, whether they're construction workers or bartenders. It would be one thing if smoking didn't hurt anyone other than the smoker, but it has been shown that second-hand smoke is dangerous. The current laws allow smokers to kill themselves without taking everyone else down with them.

I just don't see that as the government's responsibility. As I said before it's not like those individuals who work or choose to be patrons at bars/restaruants are being forced to be there. As I've also said before, I'm 100% against smoking too, however, while I do believe that the government has a rational basis for intervening, I do not believe that interest is compelling nor are codes banning smoking in private businesses the least restrictive means in doing so.

[Grom 0]

::grin:: And yes, smoking is bad and Star Trek is cool.

[Darrik 0]

::grin:: And yes, smoking is bad and Star Trek is cool.

wait, isn't it the other way around? <_<

[STSF Laura 0]

We're not talking about equal opportunities to necessities here. <_< We are talking about private businesses. I personally believe that we should err on the side of liberty. I cannot speak for Canada, but in America private property is one of the most fundamental rights.

Beg to differ. I would say that a person's health/quality of life/life expectancy is a fundamental concern. If a person cannot conduct normal activities without having that infringed, there is a problem. So it makes perfect sense to me to restrict the areas in which people can smoke.

 

Now, you talk about the patrons of bars/restaurants not having to be there, so the business's property rights trump the patrons' health needs, but what about businesses that people pretty much have to frequent at some point? A supermarket, for example. That's also a private business. How do we decide what can and cannot be excepted from the rule?

[Grom 0]

Now, you talk about the patrons of bars/restaurants not having to be there, so the business's property rights trump the patrons' health needs, but what about businesses that people pretty much have to frequent at some point? A supermarket, for example. That's also a private business. How do we decide what can and cannot be excepted from the rule?

This is where a relatively uninhibited free market comes into play. It's amazing what happens naturally on its own without government intervention. In the case of a supermarket, it is economically sound for them to offer a smoke-free environment. Why? Well, people aren't going to buy produce or boxed items that are constantly exposed to second hand smoke. It is to the economic advantage of the supermarket that their products not be inundated with smoke.

 

Another example: In my hometown in the state of Connecticut, the company that owned our local mall decided that it would ban smoking inside the mall and provide limited designated areas where patrons could smoke. Their reasoning? A smoke-free environment is a more positive and family friendly environment. They did this without any government interference.

 

A private business must react to the needs of its patrons. In a free market economy, if a private business does not meet the needs of its patrons, it won't profit. If a business doesn't profit, then it cannot exist for very long before it is forced to exit the market.

 

Therefore, I think that this isn't necessarily a question of health or life expectancy, but more a question of economics. Do I believe that there ever is a place for government intervention for health and safety? Sure. For instance, I believe that it was a good thing that the government intervened and passed child labor laws during the Progressive Era. Those were blatant abuses that the free market (conceivably) couldn't fix. In this case, however, I do not believe that government intervention is necessary. I honestly think that over time you will see smoking virtually disappear from almost all restaurants (it already has from many) because it is becoming more economically advantageous for restaurants to do so.

[mtporter 0]

I think that the smokers and non-smokers of the world could live in peace. I smoke, but I make it a point not to smoke around children (like my nephews) and somtimes old people (mostly because my grandma starts to say thing under her breath in spanish, which she knows I understand). Most smokers try not to upset others who don't smoke. all my friends will make sure its ok if they lite up around others. What I dislike is when the non-smokes will walk by me and start to do the fake (are you trying to kill me) hacking noise. Most of the time I will be standing in the corner behind a building blowing my smoke at the wall and they still walk by me and give those looks like "you are killing yourself". I don't get, will someone please explain it to me.

[sasbas 0]

it would be great if in the future they could come up with a way to help us quit smoking but i dont think you will ever see it go. in b.c. they tried to ban smoking from bars the bars lost so much money because everyone stayed home and there was so much stink raised that they then left it up to the owner of the bar to make the choice. i feel it falls in the category of rights of the person. if one can drink an then go behind the wheel what is wrong with smoking??? at least when out smoking i still know who,what,where,when and why plus i dont get behind the wheel and kill someone. smoking bad for you i have seen booze do much more damage than smoking to people. i'm not saying it's great for a person but it is a personal choice as is everything in life and what right do we have to tell someone what they can and can not do. think about it. if we allow the people to say if one can smoke or not what comes next people??? have you ever thought of that one??? will smoking be a thing of the past not on your life it has been around since the begining of time in some form or another... o.k. enough of my lecture on that topic. <_<

[Nemesis 0]

I think that the smokers and non-smokers of the world could live in peace. I smoke, but I make it a point not to smoke around children (like my nephews) and somtimes old people (mostly because my grandma starts to say thing under her breath in spanish, which she knows I understand). Most smokers try not to upset others who don't smoke. all my friends will make sure its ok if they lite up around others. What I dislike is when the non-smokes will walk by me and start to do the fake (are you trying to kill me) hacking noise. Most of the time I will be standing in the corner behind a building blowing my smoke at the wall and they still walk by me and give those looks like "you are killing yourself". I don't get, will someone please explain it to me.

Well that's not always "fake" hacking cough, I have very sensitive sense of smell and the smell of cigarettes actually make me want to vomit. There are also those people who have asthma and that can be very dangerous to them especially people with bad asthma it can cause very bad asthma attack. I shouldn't have to be considerate to you, when you're doing something that is damaging to my own help for your simple cravings.

[Images 0]

Well that's not always "fake" hacking cough, I have very sensitive sense of smell and the smell of cigarettes actually make me want to vomit. There are also those people who have asthma and that can be very dangerous to them especially people with bad asthma it can cause very bad asthma attack. I shouldn't have to be considerate to you, when you're doing something that is damaging to my own help for your simple cravings.

Asthma? My brother has asthma and he takes a drag sometimes even. Man, its a filthy habit but it's still not worth getting nuts about. Whenever a smoker lights up ask if he can stand away, but be nice, we're (barely) human too.

[Dumbass 0]

As for economic impacts...ANYtime a government intervenes on the free market there will be benefits in some areas, but unintended consequences in other.  For example, in a basic economics course one learns that raising the minimum wage actually eliminates jobs.  The benefit is that workers who were working for minimum wage now have more money, the unintended consequences however, is that businesses cannot employ as many workers, thus eliminating jobs.

Not only that, but the jobs that are eliminated would usually have been filled by inner city youths who need those job skills for upward mobility a lot more than the extra $.50/hour or whatever a raise in the minimum wage would get them.

 

People are not locked into minimum wage jobs for long periods of time, or at least they don't need to be. As they work they build up a steady employment history, job skills, etc. and can move out of those jobs quickly with a little effort. When I first entered the work force I made minimum wage for 1 day exactly. But because I was able to use that job to show employers that I was employable I was able to get another job that paid $1.75 an hour more. Such stories are common.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Dumbass

[Dustin_Marks 0]

I think as far as smoking goes it can be boiled down to a few points.

 

1. Eliminating smoking completely would have a very negative impact on the economy simply for the amount of jobs that the Tobacco company supplies by producing their products.

 

2. I don't believe having smokefree places of business is hurtful by any means to the business itself. Personally, anytime I go out anywhere anyways, I smoke outside. Its least offensive to nonsmokers and doesn't seem to bother anyone. (A lot of my friends are the same way.)

 

3. I could see smoking eliminated in the future if the tobacco industry "switched" to producing a different product. However in our financially driven day and age... Its truly hard to find a product more profitable then cigerettes and tobacco.

 

4. I do believe a lot of non-smokers have a right to gripe when being forced to be around a smoker... But on the other hand, you sometimes have to accept the situation or do/move somewhere else. (I worked in a casino bowling alley for two years and saw a lot of improvements for this. A non-smoking portion of the casino was built for this problem and the movie theatre was made smokefree. However, in the bowling center, you have to simply accept that some people will smoke and if you can't handle it, perhaps you should do something else either until the smokers are gone or indefinitely.)

 

Okay, there's my two cents. (Drops it into the bucket)

[STSF Laura 0]

I think that the smokers and non-smokers of the world could live in peace. I smoke, but I make it a point not to smoke around children (like my nephews) and somtimes old people (mostly because my grandma starts to say thing under her breath in spanish, which she knows I understand). Most smokers try not to upset others who don't smoke. all my friends will make sure its ok if they lite up around others. What I dislike is when the non-smokes will walk by me and start to do the fake (are you trying to kill me) hacking noise. Most of the time I will be standing in the corner behind a building blowing my smoke at the wall and they still walk by me and give those looks like "you are killing yourself". I don't get, will someone please explain it to me.

If all smokers were as polite as that, I'd have no problems with them. My very first real job was at a bowling alley; smoking was permitted in all areas. I'm not hyper-sensitive to smoke, but I do dislike the scent and after a long day I became increasingly sensitive to it. So if I passed by someone who was smoking, I would turn my head out of the direct path of the smoke, in order to reduce how much of it I had to inhale. I can't tell you how many times people went out of their way to blow smoke right in my face. There are quite a few smokers out there who seem to think those of us who prefer to avoid smoke when possible are some sort of crybaby.

[Dumbass 0]

Wow. GromVik and Laura are fighting and the Agincourt hasn't even left space dock yet. <_<

[Darrik 0]

I think that the smokers and non-smokers of the world could live in peace. I smoke, but I make it a point not to smoke around children (like my nephews) and somtimes old people (mostly because my grandma starts to say thing under her breath in spanish, which she knows I understand). Most smokers try not to upset others who don't smoke. all my friends will make sure its ok if they lite up around others. What I dislike is when the non-smokes will walk by me and start to do the fake (are you trying to kill me) hacking noise. Most of the time I will be standing in the corner behind a building blowing my smoke at the wall and they still walk by me and give those looks like "you are killing yourself". I don't get, will someone please explain it to me.

well, the tar in the cigarettes goes into your lungs and makes the cilia stick to the sides and cannot filter out the bad things in the air. and, there are those carcinagins that cause cancer, which can be a very deadly deasease. also, the nicotine goes into your blood system and speeds up your heart rate, which is not a good thing. last, if you eat enough reds, you run the risk of having a heart attack.

[Images 0]

well, the tar in the cigarettes goes into your lungs and makes the cilia stick to the sides and cannot filter out the bad things in the air. and, there are those carcinagins that cause cancer, which can be a very deadly deasease. also, the nicotine goes into your blood system and speeds up your heart rate, which is not a good thing. last, if you eat enough reds, you run the risk of having a heart attack.

Okay, firstly it says that on the pack. To smokers IT ISN'T NEWS! <_<

 

Every time someone lists this to me I feign surprise and go "Noooooo, really?" Pretty much every smoker except for a stupid few knows the things are bad for us. Most smokers I know set a date or a rule for their habit whether its quitting at 30 or stopping when they have kids. Some stick to that and some don't, its a fact of life.

 

Secondly...people EAT reds? woah!

[Cptn Moose 0]

Smoking ... what a hot topic (sorry, couldn't resist).

 

As eloquent as everyone has been about smoker's civil liberties, an adult's right to run their own life, and property rights concerning the atmosphere, I think these points meerly cloud the issue (couldn't resist that one either).

 

People smoke because they're addicted to cigarettes. This is not a judgemental statement. Cigarettes are legal, as are caffine and many other addictive substances that are easily obtainable. The difference however, is that cigarettes are guaranteed to kill you if something else doesn't get you first.

 

If cigarettes were invented today, there would be no way they would be allowed on the market. And if they killed you within 20 to 40 days, instead of 20 to 40 years, imagine allowing anyone you love to put one in their mouth regardless of their civil liberties.

 

For those of you who already smoke, it is your personal business how or when you choose to indulge in or fight this addiction. I have enough problems resisting a Hershey bar, and they don't make me physically ill if skip them for a couple of days. I wouldn't dream of judging you on this choice.

 

But people should do everything possible to prevent others, especialy children, from starting to smoke. That includes smokers and non-smokers alike. And resolving "not to smoke in front of the children" just isn't enough. Justifying smoking as a "right to live as I choose" type issue makes it a grand gesture of defiance and personal style. I've never heard any smoker claim that smoking is good for them, but no one realizes that adding the word "but" with any excuse to the sentance "yes, smoking is bad for you" translates to "but it's ok to do it anyway, as long as you're polite about". Quit / don't quit. That's your choice. You already smoke and you don't owe anybody any explainations for that. However, when you justify your actions or do anything to make smoking seem hip or cool, you argue the case that it's ok. Please don't try to convince non-smokers that it is. If someone hasn't started, it's not ok.

 

The laws banning smoking from public places are the only way non-smokers should interfear with smokers who are not their spouses or children. If you're one of the folks that find this inconvenient, them's the breaks. Nobody puts the first cigarette in their mouth because of nicotine cravings. They do it because they're with people who smoke. The perception that "everyone smokes" no longer exists like it did when I was growing up. The smell of smoke doesn't permiate the world anymore, and many people don't even begin smoking because it's too much of a hassle. Many others have been inspired to quit for the same reason. Other than that, unless they're willing to shut down the tobacco industry, society as a whole needs to mind their own business.

 

I hope this doesn't sound judgemental. It isn't. I don't care who smokes and who doesn't, and I'm not offended nor militant when someone lights up near me. Humanity needs comfort, be it food or liquor or cigarettes, and I sure take advantage of the first two to their fullest. I just believe that society needs to stop encouraging the sale of this product, be it implied or direct.

[Guest STSF Sketti]

Well said, Sir.

[Cougar 0]

people who smoke smell.....

 

I slept over at my friend's house last night... his mom and uncle smoke, so the house smelt. I was sleeping for 8 hours in his room which also smelt ( reason for this is that his sis used to live there and she smoked)... so I came home smelly..... clothes and my backpack and my coat...

 

Luckily I changed my clothes before I went to school, my backpack and coat still smelt....