|
|
| Do you think smoking should be banned from every public place? |
| yes |
|
60% |
[ 9 ] |
| no |
|
40% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:40 am
MonkoftheRealm I think people should only have the right to smoke in their homes. In any public area, it can be inhaled by someone else. Parks and Parking Lots still are areas people can breathe in the secondhand smoke. The person's right to smoke is upheld. while everyone else's right not to inhale the secondhand is protected as well.
The problem with that is, people can't just go home everytime you need a smoke. If someone works at ,say, an office, there should be areas for them to smoke in. People who smoke a pack a day, and then are told they can only smoke in their homes would be less productive, not to mention angry from the nicotine withdraw.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:54 pm
Sseureoji Sin LucRicher Since you have to assume both smokers and non-smokers alike will be using public property, it only makes sense to ban smoking. Your rights stretch only as far as other people's begin, and smoking in public impedes on healthy people's lives. So you get over it, and you stay home to do you thing. I choose to be healthy, and have some sort of endurance.. Why should I have to stay inside or go elsewhere because you're addicted to a toxin? Vehicles. Why not ban them? Traffic releases more toxins into the air that are harmful for you than smoking does. Smog anyone? Next you're going to tell people to stop driving because their exhaust is killing you? First off, smog does kill and groups are aware of this. Why do you think your vehicle must meet certain standards for emission levels? Why do you think automobile companies always try to make their emission levels lower? Why do you think we see more and more hybrids? Because people know it's bad, and that it can be helped. You won't see them lowering the ammount of toxins released by cigarettes... why? Cuz that's what gives it it's smooth taste and makes you want them every other hour of your life. Second of all, being in a cafe and having a guy next to me smoking and being out in the open and having a car drive by is completely different! Vehicle emissions dissipate into the air, which kills the atmosphere more than anything, although now the ammount of vehicles on the road is becoming dangerous to our health as well. Think, the volume of a gas always want to reach the largest that it can... so being out in the open has how many cubic meters of open air? How about a cafe? With 10 smokers? How many cubic meters of smoke does 10 smokers make? You see that quickly, even if venitalted, the room will fill with smoke faster than it can be emptied of it. Eventually, the room has a high percentage of smoke and every breath you take contains cigarette toxins. Take a sample of the air from a restaurant that allows smokers (no such thing here anymore biggrin ) and then one from the side of the highway. Test them for toxins and guaranteed the restaurant is exponentially worse for your health. It shouldnt be illegal to smoke outside. If you wanna smoke, so be it. Outside there's enough open space for me to forget about your nasty habit. Inside a public space is a different story... and yes, I would agree to the banning of driving vehicles in restaurants; if you wanna go comparing the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:56 pm
Black Carpathia MonkoftheRealm I think people should only have the right to smoke in their homes. In any public area, it can be inhaled by someone else. Parks and Parking Lots still are areas people can breathe in the secondhand smoke. The person's right to smoke is upheld. while everyone else's right not to inhale the secondhand is protected as well. The problem with that is, people can't just go home everytime you need a smoke. If someone works at ,say, an office, there should be areas for them to smoke in. People who smoke a pack a day, and then are told they can only smoke in their homes would be less productive, not to mention angry from the nicotine withdraw. They shouldn't make smoking illegal entirely. Smoking outdoors should be perfectly fine, so long as there's no "no smoking sign", which usually has a purpose (avoid cigarette butts everywhere) So to take a break, one would just go out to the back and smoke, I can't see a buisness letting their employees smoke on the floor ayways. EDIT: offices are privately owned, no? It would be at the owner's discretion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:06 pm
LucRicher Sseureoji Sin LucRicher Since you have to assume both smokers and non-smokers alike will be using public property, it only makes sense to ban smoking. Your rights stretch only as far as other people's begin, and smoking in public impedes on healthy people's lives. So you get over it, and you stay home to do you thing. I choose to be healthy, and have some sort of endurance.. Why should I have to stay inside or go elsewhere because you're addicted to a toxin? Vehicles. Why not ban them? Traffic releases more toxins into the air that are harmful for you than smoking does. Smog anyone? Next you're going to tell people to stop driving because their exhaust is killing you? First off, smog does kill and groups are aware of this. Why do you think your vehicle must meet certain standards for emission levels? Why do you think automobile companies always try to make their emission levels lower? Why do you think we see more and more hybrids? Because people know it's bad, and that it can be helped. You won't see them lowering the ammount of toxins released by cigarettes... why? Cuz that's what gives it it's smooth taste and makes you want them every other hour of your life. It shouldnt be illegal to smoke outside. If you wanna smoke, so be it. Outside there's enough open space for me to forget about your nasty habit. Inside a public space is a different story... and yes, I would agree to the banning of driving vehicles in restaurants; if you wanna go comparing the two. Number 1: My state does not have to meet emission standards, just as a note. (I basically agree with most everything else, except I have already said I think it should be restricted to the home or your property.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:29 am
LucRicher First off, smog does kill and groups are aware of this. Why do you think your vehicle must meet certain standards for emission levels? Why do you think automobile companies always try to make their emission levels lower? Why do you think we see more and more hybrids? Because people know it's bad, and that it can be helped. You won't see them lowering the ammount of toxins released by cigarettes... why? Cuz that's what gives it it's smooth taste and makes you want them every other hour of your life. Second of all, being in a cafe and having a guy next to me smoking and being out in the open and having a car drive by is completely different! Vehicle emissions dissipate into the air, which kills the atmosphere more than anything, although now the ammount of vehicles on the road is becoming dangerous to our health as well. Think, the volume of a gas always want to reach the largest that it can... so being out in the open has how many cubic meters of open air? How about a cafe? With 10 smokers? How many cubic meters of smoke does 10 smokers make? You see that quickly, even if venitalted, the room will fill with smoke faster than it can be emptied of it. Eventually, the room has a high percentage of smoke and every breath you take contains cigarette toxins. Take a sample of the air from a restaurant that allows smokers (no such thing here anymore biggrin ) and then one from the side of the highway. Test them for toxins and guaranteed the restaurant is exponentially worse for your health. It shouldnt be illegal to smoke outside. If you wanna smoke, so be it. Outside there's enough open space for me to forget about your nasty habit. Inside a public space is a different story... and yes, I would agree to the banning of driving vehicles in restaurants; if you wanna go comparing the two. That's what I'm saying, smog kills, and there are still cities with smog warnings regularly, had one here not too long ago. I would rather be in a restaurant with a smoking section than somewhere downtown with gridlock traffic. I have no issue with certain places (hospitals, daycares, etc.) with no smoking policies, however, I do have an issue with the idea of restricting someone's liberty to do something completely legal. I don't care how I feel on the subject. I am not for smoking, though I do it on rare occasion (like once a year when someone..-eyes my partner- has something happen to him...like getting shot, that makes my stress level skyrocket) and I don't have an addictive personality in regard to substances. I don't enjoy smoking, however, it does calm me down better in those situations. I think it's a horrible, dirty habit to do continuously, and I have chastised my mother for it numerous times. That does not mean I plan on taking her right to do it away, I just regularly exercise my right to disagree with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:01 pm
If you want me to prove this mathematically I will...
Cigarettes in a small restaurant vs smog in a city.
Let us first consider the ventilation in a restaurant.
Generally, windows are closed when it is cold, which means most restaurants have one of the following.
1) Windows that do not open
2) Windows that open to a small degree
Then, we consider the circulation of air.
Restaurants generally have several fans running at once.
The majority of them push air INTO the establishment, or just circulate air without introducing or removing air.
The fans removing air are in the kitchen, for obvious reasons. But you want the smells to stay in the restaurant to make people hungry.
Now, we have to decide on how much smoke a single smoker creates.
And then decide how many smokers are in this establishment.
Third, we look at the volume of this estalishment to know its capacity to carry gases in the air.
This is a fairly simple equation:
smoke/person/minute*# of smokers = smoke created per minute
then we look at the venitlation and decide
There is X much air, and y much air leaves the building per minute.
Then we find a comparison between the smoke created and the fresh air.
Smoke/Air*100=% of gasses that are smoke.
then we can simply calculate the ammount of smoke that is leaving the building per minute by using the amount of gas leaving in proportion to the % of smoke in the air.
We know know how much smoke remains in the building per minute.
Multiply this by a few hours and you'll see that a large portion of the clean air becomes cigarette smoke.
If you want, we'll use guess numbers to solve these equations... but I think this is fairly simple to follow...
Then, we look at smog production.
Amount of toxic gas created by a vehicle=
smog/vehicle/minute*# of vehicles.
This number will have a much larger volume, there are far more cars in the streets than people in a restaurant who are smoking.
Then we look at natural "ventilation"
How fast does a gust of wind flow?
Consider the winds speeds at high altitudes and you'll notice that nature ventilates much quicker than a restaurant.
Percentage of smog in the air=
smog/air*100.
This is where the real difference is.
how much gas is produced by a vehicle in contrast to the ammount of fresh air available is fractions that of the ammount created by a smoker in comparison to a small restaurant.
Why? Because the open air is x many cubic miles large....
a restaurant is x many cubic meters large.
The comparison can not even be made...
Again, I wish to point this out.
I have nothing against smokers... many of my friends smoke.
If they are at my place, they must smoke outside.. and I odn't care if they smoke next to me outside.
In an enclosed space, it's a different story.
They can sacrifice their health all they want, I don't want to give mine up because they have a craving.
Go on the patch for all I care, you get your nicotine dossage. same for a red bull I suppose, unoxydized vitamin D... also known as nicine. A friendly word for nicotine!
Although its a small enough dose in red bull, its still dumb that they put it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:14 am
LucRicher Again, I wish to point this out. I have nothing against smokers... many of my friends smoke. If they are at my place, they must smoke outside.. and I odn't care if they smoke next to me outside. In an enclosed space, it's a different story. They can sacrifice their health all they want, I don't want to give mine up because they have a craving. Go on the patch for all I care, you get your nicotine dossage. same for a red bull I suppose, unoxydized vitamin D... also known as nicine. A friendly word for nicotine! Although its a small enough dose in red bull, its still dumb that they put it. The number of smokers actually smoking in a smoking section is not that often, few people smoke when they're eating. They usually light up while waiting, which is one cigarette, not all members of a party at a table in the smoking section actually are smoking. Considering you usually have about 8-10 tables in many restaurants that are actually the "smoking section". Optimum smoke level would be reached if all tables were filled by smokers. However, this is barely ever the case. Some people will take a table in smoking just because it's open, even if they don't smoke and some smokers might not even light up while sitting there (they might just like having the option), and some smokers take non-smoking tables. All in all, unless you're in a casino, it's a high level of unlikelihood that you're going to end up with a lot of smokers in a smoking section anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:11 am
Tell that to every sport's bar in the province.
Until they banned smoking in public here, there were far more smokers than non-smokers.
The air when you walked into a sports bar was gray and thick... it was pretty unsettling.
I now enjoy places like Don Cherry's a whole lot more. The places look cleaner, and the air doesn't taste/smell like garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 1:48 pm
I dont smoke, but know alot of people who do. If they want to smoke, I say go for it. Just dont get it near me. Outside, or in an open area is fine, but in a place where I cant avoid it... then it should be illegal. Then again, if there is a certain place like a restaurant or bar, they usually have a non-smoking/ smoking section. I think our laws right now are fine. If you want people to stop smoking, just place some more taxes on those cigarettes. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:09 pm
you think it's rational to spend 10$ on a pack of cigarettes...?
Of course not, taxing it more won't do anything but prove to be a money grab by the government.
Smoking isn't rational, and once they're addicted, the odds are they dont care about the costs.
Having a smoking section and a non-smoking section does nothing.
It's still second hand smoke that fills the air, and believe it or not it will disperse throughout the entire restaurant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:33 pm
LucRicher Tell that to every sport's bar in the province. Until they banned smoking in public here, there were far more smokers than non-smokers. The air when you walked into a sports bar was gray and thick... it was pretty unsettling. I now enjoy places like Don Cherry's a whole lot more. The places look cleaner, and the air doesn't taste/smell like garbage. That's a sport's bar. There is a difference between a sport's bar or any bar, and a restaurant. Of course you're going to have more smokers in a bar, that's two things that generally occur in them, drinking and smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:14 am
So I should have to abandon going to the bars because the air is aweful?
Bars that allowed smoking were essentially abandoned by all non-smokers, and there ended up being 2 types.
Smoking bars, and non-smoking bars.
Thing is, some of my friends smoked, so we could never go out together really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:22 am
If there we as great a need for non-smoking bars as the anti-smoking lobby claim, then more of them would have appeared to cater for this market.
It is, alas, not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:03 pm
You think so?
Then why are ALL the bars in Ontario smoke free?
Obviously SOMEONE important found there was a need to remove smoking from public places...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:29 am
LucRicher You think so? Then why are ALL the bars in Ontario smoke free? Obviously SOMEONE important found there was a need to remove smoking from public places... The state of California doesn't allow smoking inside of any buildings, and Ontario is one province and California is just one state. How many others are there? Yes, one group might have lobbied against the smoking industry, but the only reason that they aren't able to fight like they could is because they're continuously attacked. Forget taxing cigarettes, tax more on alcohol. I see far less people killed in car accidents by smokers than by drunk idiots. As Invictus said, if there was really such a need, don't you think that there would be more around? Not really allowed to drink in strip clubs anymore, smoking however is usually optional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
