I got back from Luxy and other “smoke as you want” venues now.
yep, I am a smoker (smoked 23 cig
“Honestly don’t mind” is a myth. A figment of smokers imaginations. Too shy, insecure, embarassed to complain is reality. Cigarette smoke really is foul to non smokers. It is obnoxious, revolting, nauseating, disgusting… I don’t know how many more ways there are to say this. Cigarettes stink! Phee whew! Gag me with a spoon…
Wanna be sociable non-smokers hate/loathe/despise/detest cigarettes with a passion that reaches down to every life affirming instinct in them. There will be no honest compromise on this issue. Not until smokers have spent their time out behind the dumpster with the other junkies. By then they should be wise enough to talk to. As it stands it is like talking to a load of narcissistic teenagers with a penchant for bullshit.
Bob, You are heading into a very dangerous direction If you start comparing a smoker with “JUNK’s”
I fear you gonna have some Forumosians against you… count me in for being the first. It is a direct attack on my person. I will not tolerate such a words.
I smoke, and I control my smoking habbit.
Your hate is not against cigarettes, but focused to smokers.
My ex bro-in-law was acting as you…after smoking five years. His way to brainwash his mind that a “cig” is a toy of the devil. Did you ever smoked?
Did your dad died? Was he aware about the danger? Who are you blaming in fact?
I am 39 and smoke, with limitations, since I am 18.
There will come a time I’ll quit. Not know, and certainly not after reading reactions as yours.
I hate drunken people. They harm more to society than smokers do, which harm themselves…
Does that means I have to hate all ALCOHOL? No, but I simply do not drink.
Junkies don’t pollute the air with thier addictions. They do a lot of damage but they don’t do that. A certain percentage of junkies have whatever it takes to get off heroin and a certain percentage of cigarette smokers quit cigarettes. You think your addiction is less. Prove it and quit. Everything else is just more talk.
If the market for non-smoking pubs are so big, why don’t anyone open one???
-and leave us smokers alone…
“is” [sic] so big and some of us have been considering just that.
If I would have more time, I would read your sophisticated texts on your bloodspot attentively to understand your hate…but sorry, no can do.
I am making my r
I hope for God’s sake you are not [sic] me, because then you are in deep shit - this is a place to express opinions about smoking.
I don’t give a shit about correct English grammar - OK!!!???
Bob- I’d be happy to have anti-smoking laws enacted and enforced in public places. But I would defend the rights of people to smoke in private places that are traditionally places for smoking-- such as bars.
That’s why I don’t usually go to bars.
I do go to dance clubs, but I have to pick ones that either have no smoking or good ventillation.
Now people have asked where the right to breathe clean air comes from-- well, I think it would be derived from the social contract. Our freedom to act within our own self-interest is unrestrained until our actions come into conflict with the interests of others in a society. Releasing a poison, even a mild and slow acting poison such as cigarette smoke, is such a violation.
But the social contract allows for personal space and private property, and in private property the rights of the owner gain weight against the rights of the public. Can we expect it to be acceptable for laws to be enacted that force a person to have a non-smoking area in their home, or force a smoker to take their smoking to a discreet place when a non-smoking visitor comes? Clearly the individual right takes precedence here. A bar is closer to a private home than to a public street. I say let the bar owner regulate this as they see fit.
The question of employees is a separate issue. I think there should be provisions to protect employees from harm, but disallowing smoking in a privately owned place is a radical intrusion into property rights. There should be some middle ground for society to protect the interests of its members in general but not to intrude so deeply into the rights of particular members. But to simply toss out individual rights is not a good way to go.
[quote=“puiwaihin”]
But the social contract allows for personal space and private property, and in private property the rights of the owner gain weight against the rights of the public. Can we expect it to be acceptable for laws to be enacted that force a person to have a non-smoking area in their home, or force a smoker to take their smoking to a discreet place when a non-smoking visitor comes? Clearly the individual right takes precedence here. A bar is closer to a private home than to a public street. I say let the bar owner regulate this as they see fit.
The question of employees is a separate issue. I think there should be provisions to protect employees from harm, but disallowing smoking in a privately owned place is a radical intrusion into property rights. There should be some middle ground for society to protect the interests of its members in general but not to intrude so deeply into the rights of particular members. But to simply toss out individual rights is not a good way to go.[/quote]
A bar owner can chose the color of his walls, the size (to a degree) of his establishment, the type of beer he serves, etc. He cannot create a site that is a hazard to his workers without providing MINIMUM safety features. Why is this point so difficult for people to get? Bars must comply with worker and public safety codes. They must have bathrooms, employees must wash after using the bathroom, the must close at certain hours, they must refridgerate meat and discard food and drink after it expires. None of these things are required of an individual in their private residence (though residential bylaws stipulate other requirements).
A bar is not a private residence. It is a business that must operate under the laws of its community. Hence there is no infringment of rights by requiring it to provide a safe working environment as all other businesses in the civilized world are required to do. The market does not decide what saftey features a business will comply with.
[quote=“ceevee369”] I saw a lot of smokers. I did not see junks.
I choose to smoke, and I do not care what others say. I am a grown up and we DO live in a democracy don
I hope for God’s sake you are not [sic] me, because then you are in deep shit - this is a place to express opinions about smoking.
I don’t give a shit about correct English grammar - OK!!!???[/quote]
Who else would I be [sic]ing? Anyway this is forumosa and it exists for plenty of reasons, but if you would rather I didn’t correct your grammar that is OK by me.
Bob, as an ex-smoker I think that you can see why the other side of the argument exists though…
I understand only too well the way addicts think and I certainly sympathize with their plight. Most smokers had to gag back their first cigarettes in an effort to appear cool. Later they realize that they are physically dependent on the nicotine as well socially dependent on the smoking ritual. It is a lovely, soothing, almost infantile thing to have something to do with your hands and mouth when you are feeling nervous in a social setting. But of course this just reinforces the habit and the dependence on nicotine. In fact smoking is one of the worst addictions because people tend to partake in it frequently. Fifteen cigarettes a day, thirty hits off each cigarette. That is a lot of drug taking and non smokers are enablers in the whole process. People like me who tell it like it is are the greatest friends that any addict has. That is my real purpose here believe it or not. I hardly ever go out.
Bob, your problem is that everything seems to be black & white regarding smoke / non-smoke. There is no gray area for you, or even place to accept smokers point of view.
It’s sunday today. As most weekend’s I will propably not smoke today( Oh I did smoke 3 cig’s yesterday evening yep…Blame on me !!)
So ,even without the NIC “shots” today (as you pretend that all smokers are junkies) it will neither change my mind or my habbits. My braincells are OK.
They are not DAMMAGED AS MUCH AS ALCOHOL DID YESTERDAY EVENING TO MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Sorry for shouting, but FACT !
Social smokers do excist you know. Some of us can easily turn the button or say “NO” , even if this is temporary.
20 hours on a plane, nope, I do not need to rush to a smokers “cage” in an airport.
5 hours dinner at a fancy place, serving the best dishes, Would be a shame indeed to lighten a cig at the table.
I decide, not the pack laying in front of me. And I smoke when I want, taking in consideration where, how much, with who.No one will interfear with my will.
You hardly go out you say. that is your choice of course, and I can somewhere understand you more when reading a lot of your postings. There is a 8 year gap between us, but you sound like my grandpa…
Socialize in a anti-tobacco workgroup or something. Your added value will be apriciated.
And, do not correct my English grammar. It is only my fourth language. No one is perfect OK?
I am glad to hear that you have such amazing will power or resistance to addiction or whatever it is that allows you to turn it on and off as you say. Most smokers are not so lucky. That’s a fact. All I am suggesting is that we call this thing what it is, a harmful addiction and deal with it appropriately. If you are not addicted you should have no problem refraining from smoking in public places. If you are addicted a space should be made available where you can nurse your addiction without harming others. You nailed me square to rights on this one. As far as I am concerned there is no grey area whatsoever.
Probaly I am addictied to a kind of “ritual”, but indeed, my will is strong enough and my braincells don’t cry for nicotine (and I do smoke 12mg T/n cig’s)
I had a good education by my parents.
If it was to hot in the car, I asked if I could open the window.
If I was at my grandma’s place, I asked if it was OK to make a mess of here home.
And even now, since I started smoking, I always ask, if people don’t mind I light up a cig (when we find ourselves in a pub or similar).
Certainly there is a grey area: Healty standards for people working in a Pub…
This is where the min. of Health should take z point.
In 2010 or beers will be served on the counter behind a protected double glass 
The grey area is actually just artificial ambiquity developed and then exploited by smokers to avoid facing the fact that they harm themselves and others around them every time they light up a cigarette. The grey area is bullshit in other words. People feel embarassed to deny each other anything in social situations. Any time you smoke at any sort of gathering chances are you are irritating someone.
I get it. That’s why there are two issues here. I’m not confusing them, I’m treating them separately.
No argument from me, except that you say that there is no infringement of rights. All government regulations infringe on the rights of the individual. That is the nature of government. Even when protecting individual rights government is limiting individual rights, namely your right to infringe on others’ rights. It’s not that government isn’t infringing on rights, but that the interest in government to provide employees with a safe working environment outweighs the individual interests of the owner to regulate their private property.
But it is incumbent on government to use the regulation least invasive to individual privacy/property rights when it is protecting the interests of society members. Banning smoking in a bar because it harms the employees there is very invasive. Requiring bar owners to give disclosure of health risks to potential employees, ensure there is proper ventilation, and perhaps even require a bonus for hazard pay would be less invasive.
Bob saying that smoking anywhere where there are other people is automatically uncivil is where most of the argument lies, isn’t it? But I think a bar is a specific exception and the interests of bar owners to allow that behavior should outweigh public interests. The government responsibility to protect employees does come into play, but it should not be done in such a way as to eliminate smoking from bars.
Does anyone disagree with this? Smokers? Anti-smokers?
Bingo. But no I don’t see why businesses should be allowed to profit from providing people with a venue where they can develop or nurse the world’s two most pervasive, destructive, mutully reinforcing addictions.