Jump to content

Smoking ban


Recommended Posts

Is there also a "right not to bathe?" Are you OK with someone ripe and funky sitting on the bar stool next to you? What about 5 or 6 people in the bar who haven't showered in the last 2 weeks? I don't think there's a constitutionally protected "right to stink."

There most certainly is. Try ejecting the homeless from your local public library because they stink, which they do. They always win in court.

 

I feel badly for the folks who have to clean the library chairs in my town. Yecch.

 

 

A library is different because its public funded.. But a "privately owned" business normally does not have to follow such rules.. Except for when things like the smoking ban decide to come in and change the rules..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...Schizophrenic men function much better if they are smokers and 92% are. Oh, but they now must be medicated on heavy anti-depressant pills instead.

 

 

Not true and not true.

 

"Schizophrenic men function much better if they are smokers and 92% are..." Most of the studies were done in places and times when the only relief of boredom were cigs and TV control, and when patients had nothing else to live for or look forward to, other than medication side effects. That's not true any longer and hasnt been for years. I run 2 Psychiatric hospitals, both non-smoking and, although some folks manage to smuggle in cigs, even then they cant possibly get more than 1-2 cigs smoked in a day, compared to 1-2 pack/day older habits. They are healthier & their functioning is better (not that I can attribute this solely to the lack of cigs... far from it and not what I'm saying).

 

"they now must be medicated on heavy anti-depressant pills instead". Uhh, nope. Anti-depressants are mostly used for folks (you guessed it) who suffer from depression. Although some anti-depressants are successfully used as part of the treatment for some folks with schizophrenia, your statement isn't close to accurate.

 

If the gist of your comment was meant to compare intrusive medications (they are) vs. cig smoking, the anti-psychotics used, which minimize the symptoms of schizophrenia allowing folks to function better, are a hell of a lot more life improving than puffing away and coughing ever were. At least, I've never seen any research linking cig. smoking to reduction of voices, flight of ideas or other symptoms. And, I bet if there were any, they'd be listed on the cig. packages. My own opinion would be that, while meds are not the only major factor in increased daily quality of life in schizophrenics these days, smoking was a negative that created a second (health) problem. The meds. currently used have far fewer side effects and allow for activities (educational, interactive, cognitive improving, and physically rehabilitative) that couldnt be done when the person was actively psychotic.

 

Sorry for the lecture, but you opened this door. Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Going back to the nuisance question, Daniel's earlier suggestion is spot on. There should be smoking flights and non-smoking flights in a ratio of two to one. Same with restaurants, bars and everything else. To introduce a blanket ban is an infringement of individual freedom, and (especially with the authoritarian government we have in the UK) a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

 

There was litigation in the US on behalf of older and retired flight attendants. These folks had worked in the days of cigarette and cigar smoking on aircraft.

 

The assertion was that their much higher rates of lung cancer and lung diseases among never-smokers was a result of their continued exposure to smoke in the closed aircraft. It was a huge assertion, something like 10,000 flight attendants claimed some respiratory damage.

 

The court threw out the class action initiative, but allowed individuals to bring suits on their own. A few of these were resolved, mostly for small amounts of damages. Others were dismissed altogether

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only followed this thread a bit, but I remember being offended when the ban went into effect here in California. The goal is to get rid of smoking, but the ban was to protect the workers and my attitude was you knew you would be subjected to smoke when you signed up for the job. Don't insult me. This is a chipping away at smoking rights. If we wanted to help our workers we'd encourage unions and offer universal health care. Call it what it is.

 

I don't smoke anymore so I don't care but I was in a barn visiting a new farmer I might hire last Sunday and a worker who seemed to live in this barn lit up and it was bizarre. I can't remember the last time I'd been indoors with smoking so near, even in the barn.

 

In a cybercafe this Spring in Morelia, a wannabe beatnik was smoking and drinking coffee and it wouldn't have been so bad except he let his cigarettes go down to the filter and the smell was putrid, beyond just smoke.

 

I want a Chesterfield right now and I don't mean the coat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rancho, given how you feel today if the California smoking ban came up on the ballot for renewal would you vote to continue it?

 

I ask because here in New York a number of people on MF who objected to the ban on civil libertarian grounds have muted their criticism over time. I was wondering if you were in that camp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rancho, given how you feel today if the California smoking ban came up on the ballot for renewal would you vote to continue it?

 

I ask because here in New York a number of people on MF who objected to the ban on civil libertarian grounds have muted their criticism over time. I was wondering if you were in that camp.

 

I don't know. The thought of going back to smoking everywhere fills me with a little terror. I was totally addicted and can easily see sliding back. It's pretty smoke free here. I'm weak. And I can see all sides. I wish I weren't so reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thought of going back to smoking everywhere fills me with a little terror. I was totally addicted and can easily see sliding back. It's pretty smoke free here. I'm weak. And I can see all sides. I wish I weren't so reasonable.

You'll be pleased to know that I don't think you're reasonable, just sensible ... which is a little lower down the scale :lol:

 

There is no doubt that a full smoking ban will encourage existing smokers to quit, and will discourage young people from starting to smoke. So it has its good side.

The problem arises in introducing a ban, which has a huge impact on existing smokers. At the very least, smokers ought to be offered proper advice and services to help them to quit (which has nothing to do with nicotine replacement products), and those who just refuse to quit or are unable to succeed must be offered at least some reasonable alternatives. There must be some range of places where they are allowed to smoke, provided that non-smokers are not obliged to be there.

 

Smoking was a legal activity, in many ways encouraged by government or at least sanctioned well beyond the time when its risks were well established. Smokers are drug addicts, and it is usually not within their own immediate control to quit. Under those circumstances, it is quite wrong to introduce legislation which makes them social pariahs, and which will increase the serious adverse effects which their addiction has on their lives.

 

The situation in Britain on 30th June was entirely adequate to protect non-smokers, and none but a tiny minority of zealots had a problem. The new legislation is nothing less than smug do-goodery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation in Britain on 30th June was entirely adequate to protect non-smokers, and none but a tiny minority of zealots had a problem. The new legislation is nothing less than smug do-goodery.

You remind me of H. L. Mencken. ”Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
At the very least, smokers ought to be offered proper advice and services to help them to quit (which has nothing to do with nicotine replacement products), and those who just refuse to quit or are unable to succeed must be offered at least some reasonable alternatives.

I expect that in Britain, just as in America, there are many sources of information and services to help people quit smoking.

 

There must be some range of places where they are allowed to smoke, provided that non-smokers are not obliged to be there.

Private homes.

 

By the way -- why don't we merge this thread with the two or three other "smoking ban" threads and link to the two or three "smoking ban" threads that we all participating in on eG? And, we might as well lump in the threads on "tipping," subjectivity of taste and whether eG should be included in the axis of evil. Perhaps a new forum "Beaten to Death."

Link to post
Share on other sites
That may be annoying, but I am confident that there is zero evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke outdoors poses any health risk whatsoever.

How confident are you?

 

Quite confident. How would you do the study, for example?

 

Just living in LA affects people's lungs.

 

Yes, but that's not because of second-hand smoke. The dilution of smoke by air even in a large room is dramatic, let alone outdoors.

 

Being cooped up with smokers can't be beneficial.

 

I said outdoors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just heard on the news the smoking ban was snubbed by a bunch of bar owners.. This one owner asked non smokers to stand outside for 10 minutes.. Pretty funny..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...