3rd Hand smoke, Non-smokers there's just no way out.

EVERYTHING causes cancer, I highly doubt the amounts of carcinogens in '3rd hand smoke' are greater or even near the level or carcinogens in outside air or the average non-smokers home you probably have a better chance of getting cancer from the americium in your smoke detectors.

bootz said:
Motherfuckers need to wake up and realize there is more lethal shit produced by the semi you drive behind on the way to work then there is in "3rd" or even second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Driving behind a Prius on your way to work probably produces more lethal shit than 2nd hand smoke (actually emissions from gasoline engines are more harmful than emissions from diesel engines) Hell, the amount of carcinongens 3rd hand smoke deposits on a couch probabably is just a drop in the ocean compared to the carcinogens in the materials used to make the couch.
 
This is the sort of story that'll drive my sister nuts and vindicate all the shit she's been saying for years. She turned into a bit of an anti-smoking zealot when she had kids, and she doesn't want our mother smoking around the kids. Now she can print this out and wave it and say "See! You shouldn't even be smoking when the kids aren't around because that stuff lingers!"

I don't smoke, but smoking -- second-hand or otherwise -- doesn't really bother me all that much. I think restaurants and bars should be allowed to have smoking sections if they want them, although I certainly don't miss leaving a bar and reeking like an ashtray.
 
You know what pisses me off? 4th Hand Smoke. Like when you are talking to your friend online and they say, "brb, smoke break." I'm all like, "I ordered a Zima, not Emphysema." And then they come back and the IM window reeks of smoke, causing me to cough for days. Pfft, smokers.

Honestly, I don't care if my friends smoke around me. I completely agree with Hal's second little paragraph. 2nd hand drinking is way worse for my health/decision making ability. (2nd hand drinking is when your friends make you drink what they are drinking, regardless of how liberal they were with the Wild Turkey.)
 
Well I guess as this boards resident libertarian i am going to have to go on the limb and state that i think that the local governments crossed the line when they stated that people were not allowed to smoke in side buildings in the first place. The locations themselves should be allowed to make that decision if they choose to do so but it is not the governments place.

Pretty soon smoking will be banned outright in the US because it has been linked to cancer and because when the government takes over health care it will be a way that they can save money. I personally am a non smoker by choice and i have voted against the smoking bans in my area repeatedly but alas they still seem to pass with flying colors. Now in Arizona you cant even smoke in a cigar shop.

Now if your employer wanted to make it so that no smokers are allowed to smoke in his building go for it thats his buisness hell he can ban the drinking of carbonated beverages in his building because they make people burp and that leads to global warming for all i care.. it is his buisness but that is a line the government should not be allowed to cross.

To anyone who stays next to someone who smells like an ashtry... maybe you can remember this tip

you ready?

this is revolutionary...

Dont stand next to them.
brilliant.jpg
 
I've always been the type, if I happen to go to an amusement park and light up, when walking around I tended to always flip my cig up and hide it as best I could from children's sights. When I exhaled I'd do so straight up into the air. Even with all the common courtesies I would practice I felt bad.. I was around children, not in their face, not even with several feet, just the general vicinity.

There are some concerns with Marijuana, however, it is overall less damaging than tobacco use. I stand firm, I would sooner vote tobacco use illegal and marijuana legal. Plus, the world would be a much "happier" place.

Got to love the constant tug-of-war "facts" scientists findings become. Straight answer?? Nah.. lets confuse the hell out of the uneducated public, mwuhahaha.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Smoking_Marijuana_May_Increase_Cancer_Risk.asp

EDIT: And to add, there's always the forever argued healing properties.

Me Mudder (my mother inlaw) has MS, she was offered by her doctor access to medical marijuana and/or the choice and LESSONS to grow at home. We joked with her for a while about seriously considering it as she's pretty old school and wouldn't actually smoke a "doob", and then we did try to educate her a bit on it. Instead her doctor prescribed a weird spray pump she could take before bed to get rid of the chronic aches in her arms and legs that keep her up at night. On the bottle, it said "SativX" , .. yeah lol. Again we chuckled at this but when she described the feeling she would get before bed it sounded as though she had taken a couple buckets, enough to get her pretty blitzed which DID help her considerably.
 
Last edited:
Dejavu said:
Well I guess as this boards resident libertarian i am going to have to go on the limb and state that i think that the local governments crossed the line when they stated that people were not allowed to smoke in side buildings in the first place. The locations themselves should be allowed to make that decision if they choose to do so but it is not the governments place.

Pretty soon smoking will be banned outright in the US because it has been linked to cancer and because when the government takes over health care it will be a way that they can save money. I personally am a non smoker by choice and i have voted against the smoking bans in my area repeatedly but alas they still seem to pass with flying colors. Now in Arizona you cant even smoke in a cigar shop.

Now if your employer wanted to make it so that no smokers are allowed to smoke in his building go for it thats his buisness hell he can ban the drinking of carbonated beverages in his building because they make people burp and that leads to global warming for all i care.. it is his buisness but that is a line the government should not be allowed to cross.

To anyone who stays next to someone who smells like an ashtry... maybe you can remember this tip

you ready?

this is revolutionary...

Dont stand next to them.
Click to expand...

They didn't cross the line. If someone wants to pollute their own lungs and poison their own bodies, great. Personal freedoms and all that stuff. If you wanted to drink motor oil, I wouldn't recommend it, but who am I to stop you? What anyone does with their own body is their own business. But when you're talking about causing other people harm - people who are just going to work or in a situation where they are forced to be in the same proximity as you, then yeah, the government has a responsibility to enforce laws. Just like it's not illegal to drink alcohol but it is illegal to drive under the influence or drive while intoxicated. How long do you think some guy with a spray bottle of toxic chemicals would get away with walking around in a room in a public place and spraying people in the face? Or an employer that put a little radioactive waste in your cubicle because he needed someplace to store it? Obviously those are extreme examples, but you get the picture. Smoking in public places affects everyone in proximity. Not just the smoker. If you are causing physical, proven harm to others by your personal choices, then yes, expect there to be laws restricting your habit.

As for 3rd hand smoke? That sounds a little far-stretching to me. I'd say show me some hard evidence first before more restrictions are put in place.

And Cheebs, smokers like you are actually appreciated. My brother smokes outside his own house so as not to affect his young daughters. He's working on quitting. I'm of a firm mind that smokers have every right to smoke, but they don't have a right to make other people sick with it. Personal accountability is a rare thing these days in a world that likes to say "fuck the other guy, it's my life and I'll do what I want to do regardless of how it affects anyone else."
 
Zyndara said:
They didn't cross the line. If someone wants to pollute their own lungs and poison their own bodies, great. Personal freedoms and all that stuff. If you wanted to drink motor oil, I wouldn't recommend it, but who am I to stop you? What anyone does with their own body is their own business. But when you're talking about causing other people harm - people who are just going to work or in a situation where they are forced to be in the same proximity as you, then yeah, the government has a responsibility to enforce laws. Just like it's not illegal to drink alcohol but it is illegal to drive under the influence or drive while intoxicated. How long do you think some guy with a spray bottle of toxic chemicals would get away with walking around in a room in a public place and spraying people in the face? Or an employer that put a little radioactive waste in your cubicle because he needed someplace to store it? Obviously those are extreme examples, but you get the picture. Smoking in public places affects everyone in proximity. Not just the smoker. If you are causing physical, proven harm to others by your personal choices, then yes, expect there to be laws restricting your habit.

As for 3rd hand smoke? That sounds a little far-stretching to me. I'd say show me some hard evidence first before more restrictions are put in place.

And Cheebs, smokers like you are actually appreciated. My brother smokes outside his own house so as not to affect his young daughters. He's working on quitting. I'm of a firm mind that smokers have every right to smoke, but they don't have a right to make other people sick with it. Personal accountability is a rare thing these days in a world that likes to say "fuck the other guy, it's my life and I'll do what I want to do regardless of how it affects anyone else."
Click to expand...

You apparently completely missed the point of my statement. The owner of the establishment should have every right to say that it is a non smoking establishment and the CUSTOMERS can decide if they want to go to the establishment that does or does not allow people to smoke. With your reasoning i could argue for the banning of smoking in your own house because you could have kids and they are being hurt by the second hand smoke. Well that sucks but thats a choice that you make. Lets take this a step further. You work for a company that allows smokers.. well that sucks if you dont like it find a different job. Why is it that bars were not non smoking before if this was such a thing that everyone was wanting... because there were enough customers that wanted to smoke that the whiners had to go and make a law about it...

With the reasoning that allows the smoking bans you could also argue for the complete prohibition of alcohol consumption outside of your own home because you have to drive then to go home and if you do that you are endangering someone else... even if it is only one drink.

This is a select group of individuals who are forcing their opinions on a large group of people who are otherwise apathetic.
 
Why is it that bars were not non smoking before if this was such a thing that everyone was wanting... because there were enough customers that wanted to smoke that the whiners had to go and make a law about it...

This is a select group of individuals who are forcing their opinions on a large group of people who are otherwise apathetic.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this. I would say places didn't outlaw smoking because that would be something of their own accord that would alienate a portion of their customer base. EVERY place used to have smoking and nonsmoking, so there really was no choice to simply be nonsmoking only.

I would say the majority of people in the US do not smoke and do not enjoy the smell of it when they are having a nice meal. The "select group of individuals" if one exists, would be people who smoke. The majority of people do not smoke. This is a democracy, so majority rules.

Besides, this is a state issue, not a federal government one. If you got a problem with the law, blame the supreme courts that allow it to exist. The government didn't simply wake up one day and decide to outlaw cigarettes. The citizens pushed for it. You guys freak at the government when it doesn't do what we want, but then freak out when it does. You can't have it both ways.
 
Dejavu said:
You apparently completely missed the point of my statement. The owner of the establishment should have every right to say that it is a non smoking establishment and the CUSTOMERS can decide if they want to go to the establishment that does or does not allow people to smoke. With your reasoning i could argue for the banning of smoking in your own house because you could have kids and they are being hurt by the second hand smoke. Well that sucks but thats a choice that you make. Lets take this a step further. You work for a company that allows smokers.. well that sucks if you dont like it find a different job. Why is it that bars were not non smoking before if this was such a thing that everyone was wanting... because there were enough customers that wanted to smoke that the whiners had to go and make a law about it...

With the reasoning that allows the smoking bans you could also argue for the complete prohibition of alcohol consumption outside of your own home because you have to drive then to go home and if you do that you are endangering someone else... even if it is only one drink.

This is a select group of individuals who are forcing their opinions on a large group of people who are otherwise apathetic.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss your point at all. Then you get into separate but equal. A premier company is a smoking office. So tough luck go work at a possibly lesser company someplace else because you don't smoke? Discrimination goes both ways - Everyone has to work, everyone doesn't need to smoke. Unless you're going to have facilities with separate but equal smoking and non-smoking buildings (and you won't) then the solution is: so sorry, no smoking. Have all the habits you want, but have them in your own time and place where the only person being affected is yourself.

And as for your "select individuals" statement, I'm fairly sure that's crap. It would be interesting to see what the statistics are on smokers vs. Non-smokers in the US, and I doubt very much that smokers are the majority. I doubt even more that informed people don't care. But that can be said about any issue there is.
 
What bugged me the most about the bi-law first being put into place in Ontario was they still allowed smoking inside AS LONG AS the establishment installed properly ventilated smoking areas enclosed. Then that was changed to BARS ONLY that had these segregated ventilated areas. Business spent anywhere from $10,000+ installing such areas to keep their business up, and not long after they amended the law to absolutely no exceptions, non-smoking indoors period. This DID force businesses to lose money from not only the expense of installing such areas as guidelines deemed necessary but then overall for a short while at least to the customer base.

That was highway robbery.
 
I acknowledged that it was a ballot prop that i got to vote on in an earlier post and that i did not think that it should be an issue that is even allowed on the ballot state or federal because it is an issue of government intervening on something that should be the choice of the owner of the establishment.

Lets say for example you were a non smoker. (i dont know)

we have 5 restaurants ABCD and E cause i dont fucking feel like naming them and before anything changed they all had the same market share of roughly 20%

ABC and D are all smoking and Non smoking restaurants and E decides to go to an exclusively non smoking restaurant.

Because E is non smoking it gets more customers than the other places because it is diversified (omg i am using a business strategy) and lets say that their market share increases to 32% taking 3% of the total market share from each one of the other companies that are continuing to be smoking and non smoking.

Well D figures out whats going on and decides that they want to do this too to try and see if they can get a little bit of their previous market share back So D and E both the non smoking places go to 23% of the total market share because E is no longer as diversified but they are more diversified than AB and C but AB and C improve because they are some of the few locations that still allow smokers so AB and C are all at 18% and D and E are at 23% market share.

What causes these fluctuation.. it is called the free market... something that this country has not allowed for a long long time.. realistically ever.

If allowed companies will innovate and specialize and all market niches (smokers and non smokers) will be satisfied because where there is a customer with needs one can find profit.

I would not have a problem with it if say half the bars in the city decided to ban smoking i would still attend all of them because i dont care personally. But the business should be allowed to decide just because people have not made that decision in the past is not the fault of the smokers and therefore does not warrant the statewide ban that we are currently under in AZ.
 
Zyndara said:
I didn't miss your point at all. Then you get into separate but equal. A premier company is a smoking office. So tough luck go work at a possibly lesser company someplace else because you don't smoke? Discrimination goes both ways - Everyone has to work, everyone doesn't need to smoke. Unless you're going to have facilities with separate but equal smoking and non-smoking buildings (and you won't) then the solution is: so sorry, no smoking. Have all the habits you want, but have them in your own time and place where the only person being affected is yourself.

And as for your "select individuals" statement, I'm fairly sure that's crap. It would be interesting to see what the statistics are on smokers vs. Non-smokers in the US, and I doubt very much that smokers are the majority. I doubt even more that informed people don't care. But that can be said about any issue there is.
Click to expand...

That is your decision then to put working at a "premier" company over your own health and if it is that important there are definately other jobs out there same as it would be for a smoker to work at a non smoking company.

Number of smokers in the US... 21% meaning 303,824,640 * .21 = 63,803,178.18 smokers
 
Last edited:
Dejavu said:
That is your decision then to put working at a "premier" company over your own health and if it is that important there are definately other jobs out there same as it would be for a smoker to work at a non smoking company.

Number of smokers in the US... 21% meaning 303,824,640 * .21 = 63,803,178.18 smokers
Click to expand...

Ah forgive me for mistyping, though I'm pretty sure you don't have to be extraordinarily bright to realize I dropped an e. If there is a job opportunity out there, it should be available to anyone who is qualified. And in today's market, please spare me the "go elsewhere" garbage. That's just what it is. The government wouldn't allow you to pump noxious fumes into a building where people live and work, they aren't going to let people who don't choose to pollute their bodies with cigarettes be subjected to emissions that can cause them debilitating health problems over time. The only reason they did at one point was because there wasn't enough documented medical research to prove how serious the issue is. To act like it should be a choice whether you slowly poison people around you is pretty idiotic. People can smoke at home. Or outside. They don't need to do it in closed-in public places where they are forcing others to breathe that shit.

And even still there are states that don't have bans. You're so hyped up about freedoms? Go move to a state where they don't care who you kill with your personal habits.

21%. Which is pretty far from a majority.
 
Have you ever heard of the concept of Majority rule and minority rights? I never said that the smokers were the majority i just said the the people who are whining and pushing for the legislation are not necessarily in the majority either. Its a case of 21 people feel strongly one way. 21 the other way and 58% largely dont care.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone else notice in the article how they never actually proved that "third-hand smoke" was harmful? All they have is a poll on people's opinion's and some anecdotes about how you not liking the smell is your brain saying it's bad for you, which is retarded.

They don't talk about concentrations or duration levels, they just say it's bad and leave it up to your imagination to imagine just how bad it really is. Even if this is really true, the concentration levels are no where near as bad as smoking a cigarette or even second-hand smoke, so it's not much of a concern.
 
Bajaratt said:
Did anyone else notice in the article how they never actually proved that "third-hand smoke" was harmful? All they have is a poll on people's opinion's and some anecdotes about how you not liking the smell is your brain saying it's bad for you, which is retarded.
Click to expand...

Even with all the News Coverage I could not find one article that COULD provide any valid proof. None..

It's was definitely meant to point out bullshit reasons to further segregate smokers. That's why I said it was bullshit propaganda.

=)
 
Dejavu said:
Have you ever heard of the concept of Majority rule and minority rights? I never said that the smokers were the majority i just said the the people who are whining and pushing for the legislation are not necessarily in the majority either. Its a case of 21 people feel strongly one way. 21 the other way and 58% largely dont care.
Click to expand...

Sure. Minority rights when it's not poisoning the majority? Absolutely. And I'd wager that a good portion of those people who "don't care" are either totally uneducated or apathetic about what happens to their personal health, or they are unaware of the kinds of risks involved in being exposed consistently to secondhand smoke.

I think I've said all I have to say on the subject. I'll agree to disagree.
 
When it comes down to it, I'd opt for a person's preference rather than anything else.

My mother is actually allergic to cigarette smoke. She developed it after her 30s, easily 10+ years after she quit smoking from a two-pack-a-day habit she had before I was born. She had quit cold-turkey, and never picked up a pack again.

Now? A hint of smoke in the air makes her gag and waters her eyes. I'm okay with that, and I'm even okay with her asking a restaurant hostess (politely) to move her to a table "not so close to the smoking section" when she's asked for a "non-smoking" table.

I'm not okay with it when she gets rude about it (that loud "COUGH COUGH" thing when smokers are nearby), or complaining about having to walk through a smoking section to get to non-smoking, as opposed to just saying "nah, I don't think I'll eat here today".

Conversely, I'm not okay with rude smokers who, after being asked politely in stores or non-smoking areas to please put out their butts, loudly beat the "SMOKERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO YAKNOW" drum.



It is much easier in those instances to change your own behavior or habits, rather than expect an environment to change around you. Don't like smoke? Don't go to bars; don't eat in restaurants that require you traverse the smoking section before reaching your "non-smoking" table; or better yet, go to a non-smoking restaurant entirely.

Don't want people asking you to "please, put your cigar(ette) out in the store"? Don't light it up in the first place, you might have rights, but when there's a sign clearly indicating "no smoking in the store", you end up looking like the fool.
 
You know, I hope smoking does get banned all together for one reason. Working with smokers. I've had some terrible fucking luck with smoking coworkers in my life. Every one of them have taken an unnecessary amount of smoke breaks outside of their normal break time. And as a non-smoker, if I were to take the amount of short breaks they do, I'd have gotten fired. So yeah, I'm all for fucking them hard by making their vice illegal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top