Everyone seems to forget how simple all of this is. It's civil liberties. Honestly. Since when is it ok to ban people from smoking outside?

That is like telling someone you cant run, because you might run into someone, or it makes you sweat and thus, stink. Seriously, can it be that hard to see how offensive this is to your rights?

In my opinion, you cannot be pro-choice and also think smoking bans are ok. If its illegal for the government to decide what a woman does with her body, then why should it be legal for the government to decide what I can do with mine in the open air?

/smoker.
//enjoys it.
///card carrying member of the ACLU.

stfu you farking biatch ass coonts

Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay

California Uber Alles

I don't smoke. Don't give a crap about what smokers want. Besides, it's for their own good.

cydcharisse: I don't smoke. Don't give a crap about what smokers want. Besides, it's for their own good.

THIS. Non-smokers win. Smokers win. Government gets extra revenue from the violation. Win-win-win.

Besides, this is just the start. Once nationalized healthcare is in place, these kinds of law are also fiscally necessary.

Transfat? Too bad, we cannot afford fat people, gone. Red meat? Same. It'll be a lot of fun.

The only greater joy than new anti-smoker laws is coming into fark threads and watching smokers cry, whine, and sadly attempt to justify their habit.

Smokers attempting to justify their thought process is just a tad bit weaker than creationist attempting to justify their thought process. Now find me a creationist smoker and that's one pathetic person.

jag164: The only greater joy than new anti-smoker laws is coming into fark threads and watching smokers cry, whine, and sadly attempt to justify their habit.

The funnier thing is that when the pot smokers holding only a joint get slammed because a cigarette gets someone 2 weeks of confinement...

yeah, even I can't follow that through...

Why can't we all just get along?

Do you really want to come out as the Assholes?

Smoker Janine Thompson, mentioned in the article, says smoking's a free choice.

NO it's not.

Smoking is first, an addiction. (Which can be beaten)

Beyond that though, why don't smokers care what they smell like?

Ignore the health issues, smokers are a fire hazard and a danger to public safety.

/Haha, I can't say it with a straight face
//Did have to put out a cigarette fire by the dorms once though
///Please, don't throw butts onto tanbark

albertalaska: Courtesy is legal , politeness is legal, being a gentleman is legal so is being considerate.. Why do smokers miss the boat on those points?

Let's see...

When I used to smoke, I made sure that it was in a designated area. If I was in the city, and I was walking on the side walk, I would stop and move off to the side to have one, so I would not be trailing my smoke all over the place. I didn't smoke around childen or elderly people, and I sure as hell made sure that I didn't smoke around doorways and other high traffic areas. And if I was smoking around a non-smoker, I would always ask and remind them to tell me if the smoke bothers them - if it did, I put it out.

Not all smokers are douchebags. Nowadays, I'm finding that it's the uptight non-smokers that are giving me the douche chills.

I agree that restaurants, bars, etc. should be non-smoking - but they should also have right to designate an out-door smoking area. I agree about banning smoking in entry ways of buildings... but at the same time, at least put up a hut on the side of the building to give the smokers some cover from the elements.

I hate self-righteous non-smokers more than I do the smell of stale cigarette smoke, and the smell of smoke on my husband's breath.

/Mmm... cigarettes....
//Bad, farkerofDOOM!! Bad girl!!

vcoalition: Should we start banning certain kinds of music because some people don't like it. I hate country, I'm sure theres alot of people who hate country music. But it is in no way right to take it from the hardcore redneck country music lovers.

If you want to get technical, there is research which suggests country music increases the suicide rate. So perhaps banning it would be a positive thing?


The Effect of Country Music on Suicide (new window)

Abstract

This article assesses the link between country music and metropolitan suicide rates.
Country music is hypothesized to nurture a suicidal mood through its concerns with
problems common in the suicidal population, such as marital discord, alcohol abuse, and
alienation from work. The results of a multiple regression analysis of 49 metropolitan
areas show that the greater the airtime devoted to country music, the greater the white
suicide rate. The effect is independent of divorce, southernness, poverty, and gun
availability. The existence of a country music subculture is thought to reinforce the link
between country music and suicide. Our model explains 51% of the variance in urban
white suicide rates.

jag164: The only greater joy than new anti-smoker laws is coming into fark threads and watching smokers cry, whine, and sadly attempt to justify their habit.

Smokers attempting to justify their thought process is just a tad bit weaker than creationist attempting to justify their thought process. Now find me a creationist smoker and that's one pathetic person.

Wow. So I guess the Patriot act was totally ok then? I mean, after all, it's for you're own good.

I don't need to justify my habit, and I don't try to. I know the risks, I enjoy smoking. It brings me pleasure. It doesn't hurt anyone when I do it outside, and nobody has brought anything even approaching evidence to the table to refute that statement.

I'm sorry if it doesn't smell good, should we fine people for not showering? What about homeless people, they are unsightly as well, it's totally cool to trample all over their civil liberties in the name of taste right?

Asshat.

As someone who comes from a smoking family and grew up with smoking I can see both sides of the arguement. While I respect smokers right to choose whats best for them, the right to health and clean air is far more important to me.

I don't allow smoking in my car or house. Even though I dont allow smoking, I still have a designated smoking area outside my house(You know, showing consideration for others). Its away from the main front or back door, away from any windows or air intakes, but its still beside a door. Consider it a smoking entrance(My house has 3 exterior doors)

If a workplace has only one entrance and the smokers crowd the door smoking, non-smoking employees and customers have to walk through the smoke to get to the door. Those with sensitivities are having their right to health and safety violated.

Workplaces and public places should have designated smoking areas, away from the doors and downwind. Most people tend to forget that in the northern hemosphere wind generally blows in a North/NorthWest -> South/SouthEast direction. So its easy to plan for the majority of situations.

My university had designated smoking areas always 20ft or more away from doors to accomodate the majority

Back in the old days smoking was the majority, so smokers had all the rights, they could smoke in doors, outdoors, where ever. But now smokers account for less then 25% of the population so the decision of the many outweight the decisions of the few (This is called democracy). So if something goes to a vote, smokers vs non-smokers, smokers win by majority.

I don't think smoking should be outright banned in all public placesm if you want to smoke in your car, or on a walk outside go for it. HOWEVER, smoking should not be permitted within 25-50ft of public entrances, smoking should not be permitted in playgrounds or other areas in close proximity to young children(This includes smoking in your cars/houses with kids).

Comparing smoking to murder is a bit extreme, a better example is comparing smoking to drinking and driving or speeding. All three are conscious decisions you choose to make

Drinking and Driving has the ability to negatively impact others(including death) and cause damage to public/private property if you hit something.

Speeding can also harm yourself and others if you hit someone, or something.

Smoking can harm you, and others if they are forced to breath toxic air(Yes, I am aware that cars pollute more then smoke, remember, majority rules democratic process). Smoking can cause damage to public or private property(Search google for fires started by smoking)


In general, if the actions of someone can cause a negative impact to someone else it should be minimized or restricted in some capacity If it only affects the person doing it, then let them do whatever they want

Winktologist: /and if one smug fark says "Well, heh, stop smoking then!" I swear to god I will come to your house and pistol whip you into a coma

I'll be right behind you with the pliers and blowtorch.

heh... who didn't see this one coming?

I'm going with whatever Chuck Liddell says.

guyinjeep16:

Transportation, cooking, manufacturing are neccesities. Sticking a smoking twig in your face isnt.

Please tell me you can tell the difference.

I can. As a non smoker I can smell shiat that makes your nostrils bleed. Go to any manufacturing plant. Or work at one. Inside or out. Even the most safest ISO certified ones smell like ass compared to a cigarette. You go home with that smell just even spending an hour in them. And you're worried about a "whiff"?

Originally the number that was first generated by the E.P.A. was 53,000 deaths per year. They published this number before even running their "test". The "test" is in fact not a test, but rather what is called a META survey. This survey took 31 different reports and compiled all the data to come up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths that were attributed other undefined causes. The first number E.P.A. published was a piece of hypothetical misinformation. The second number of 3,000 they put forth was a deliberate lie. A Federal Judge by the name of Osteen ruled the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS by the E.P.A. was a deliberate lie foisted on an unsuspecting public. Judge Osteen determined the number of 3,000 deaths was not attributable to SHS and that the E.P.A. told this lie in the expectation to harm the legitimate business pursuits of the tobacco industry. Judge Osteen completely vacated the findings of the E.P.A. So that there is no misunderstanding as to this decision, it should be noted that another court partially overturned Judge's Osteen decision for purely judicial reasons. THEY DID NOT, in any way, repudiate Judge Osteen's basic premise concerning his comments about the E.P.A. or their motives.

I don't smoke. My wife does (some, always outdoors). And I was a severe childhood asthmatic.

People who think outdoor second hand smoke is a health problem are reeee-tards.

You want cardiopulmonary health? Lose weight. Exercise. You probably get more dangerous fumes from the plywood in your home off-gassing.

Not to mentions auto exhaust and background atmospheric pollution rates worldwide. So tackle the real problem.

Duh.

/This goes double for parents.
//(We) don't get paid to raise your kids. --Charles Barkley

Seriously since when has one group of peoples "rights" become more important than anothers?

I can deal with the smoke, I cant stand being in the grocery store behind some chatty biatch that wont get off her phone long enough to treat the cashier like a human and say good afternoon or thank you.

We have far worse problems than smoking outside when it comes to public behavior.

For those of you wondering why, when you try to quit smoking, you get the personality changes, here's a brain scan (and the linked article (pops) tells you all about how nicotine affects dopamine):



No wonder it's so hard to quit.

But people should recognize that nicotine effects the brain. It is psychoactive. As a couple of people on this thread mentioned, they're self-medicating and feel they'd be much more difficult/less productive if they couldn't smoke.

Remove all Republicans: cydcharisse: I don't smoke. Don't give a crap about what smokers want. Besides, it's for their own good.

THIS. Non-smokers win. Smokers win. Government gets extra revenue from the violation. Win-win-win.

Besides, this is just the start. Once nationalized healthcare is in place, these kinds of law are also fiscally necessary.

Transfat? Too bad, we cannot afford fat people, gone. Red meat? Same. It'll be a lot of fun.

I guess the soldiers need to kill more brown people.
There just isn't enough freedom in America yet.

Puke: I guess the soldiers need to kill more brown people.
There just isn't enough freedom in America yet.

THIS. Gahahaha.

Not too surprising.
After all, this is the town of ECOSLO and the Tree-Hugger Allstars.

The town where granola crunchers accost you on the street when you're eating a hotdog and get up in your face about how offended they are that you're eating meat in their presence.
The town where people fall to the floor in a paroxysm of coughing at the mere sight of a fog machine.
The town where there is a heated street debate about who is more environmentally conscious between the injured bicyclist and the driver of the hybrid car that just ran him down.
The town where environmeddlists drive Hummers.

If you hate it that much, why not just ban it outright? The government can apparently do whatever it feels like there anyway. Just ban it and be done with it. Yes people will be angry at and first, but from what I see in the world most people are angry about something anyway.

This law is stupid as well as the one I made up. I don't smoke and I don't care if you do. Just don't do it in MY home or My car and we won't have an issue.

But the government should ban car exhaust too as it contains more harmful chemicals than a cigarette does. No one ever died from suffocation from smoking in a garage all night.

Plus EVERYTHING gives you cancer if you ask a doctor. And if it doesn't it will harm you in some other way.

il Dottore: Not too surprising.
After all, this is the town of ECOSLO and the Tree-Hugger Allstars.

The town where granola crunchers accost you on the street when you're eating a hotdog and get up in your face about how offended they are that you're eating meat in their presence.
The town where people fall to the floor in a paroxysm of coughing at the mere sight of a fog machine.
The town where there is a heated street debate about who is more environmentally conscious between the injured bicyclist and the driver of the hybrid car that just ran him down.
The town where environmeddlists drive Hummers.

It's not THAT bad. SLO is pretty conservative compared to most California cities.

Although from what I hear EcoSLO is just a bunch of jag-offs who can't do anything right except feel self-righteous. And I hear that from city employees who have to work with them.

angst178n: If you hate it that much, why not just ban it outright?

Do you realize how much government revenue there is in cigarette taxes?