Poll for "smoking ban" (Isis thread) -- how biased are we?

This is a 'problem' that can easily be solved by any air conditioning system built after about 1975. The argument sounds good, in a shallow, simplistic way.... but it's nothing more than a question begging emotional appeal.

Woohoo, we win by absolute majority! Take that you chimneys

Woohoo, bigotry is fun! I'm glad you're proud. It's not something I'd brag about, personally, but knock yourselves out.

Yep... you and the Shrub have your mandate I guess....

I don't know, maybe all the restaurants I go to have outdated air conditioning systems. I can always smell the smoke coming in from the smoking area. Used to be like that on planes, too. Do you also disagree with banning smoking on commercial aircraft?

Commercial aircraft have a canned air system, it's not exactly a good comparison. That having been said I'd like to see smoking sections in planes. Seal that part of the plane off if you have to, but make it. There also need to be smoking lounges in airports, especially with modern security. (Going in and out of an airport for a smoke is an amazing pain in the ass these days.)

I agree with bans on aircraft. The space is too enclosed and not adequately filtered. There's no reason why they couldn't offer smoking and non-smoking flights though and allow people to choose their preference. If your complaint is based soley on the fact that you can smell something you don't like, that's hardly justification for new laws. I hate the smell of most perfumes, personally. I would never advocate making it illegal to wear in public. Without solid proof of harm caused to non-smokers there's no adequate justification for smoking bans. Not liking the smell of something is insufficient justification for discrimination.

As for aircraft, having fire in a small space isn't safe. Planes have caught fire in the past from ciagarettes. (I seem to recall a plane in Canada crashing onto a runway, engulfed in flames, because someone was smoking on board. I'll have to look it up.)

Also, the reason they don't offer smoking and non smoking flights is because a)it's not safe to have a flame on a plane and b)they'd lose money doing that. They couldn't make money offering smoking or non smoking flights, because they wouldn't be able to fill every flight.

I don't need any scientific proof to know that second hand smoke is bad for you. SMOKE is bad for you. People aren't supposed to inhale smoke. Firefighters would have a much easier time if smoke was okay for people to breathe in.

It's your disgusting habit -- I shouldn't have to live with it. Go smoke in your own home or something.

Typical. So you're in favor of purely discriminatory laws based on your subjective tastes. That's the same basis used for gay marriage bans, and for justifying "whites only" establishments.

I am a smoker (smoking right NOW!) and I support a ban. The way I see it, it's my problem, it shouldn't be someone elses'. But believe me, if it were so easy to quit, I would have done so years ago. You cannot make judgements about people until you've walked in their shoes.

Careful Chip. You can't choose your race or sexual orientation, but smoking is a voluntary choice, so I don't think the 'discrimination' label is entirely appropriate. Nobody I'm aware of was ever born with a cigarette in their mouth.

That being said, I have no problem with people smoking in public places, or in privately owned establishments, provided the owners permit it, of course. Ciggy smoke has never really bothered me (except when I'm trapped in a moving car with someone smoking), since I kinda grew up with it.

As for my part, I have NO idea how anyone survives long enough to get addicted to those things. I've smoked ONE cigarette in my entire life, and almost died.

Cross,

Well, that is one way of looking at it.

Personally I have never believed in forcibly making people wash, use breath fresheners, stop drinking when they have to appear in public, talking incessantly about themselves, and so on and so on.

I tolerate all these things, as I think do most of us. Why, then, are people so intolerant of smokers, unless they have been brainwashed by the junk science that tells them that other people's smoke will kill them?

I think this poll is an accurate guide to intolerance in modern society.

The physical reaction that many people have to cigarette smoke is certainly part of it. People always make invalid comparisons to other annoyances versus cigarette smoke, which is quite childish. OH, I don't like your kids, so they should ban those too! A better example would be to play loud music to the point of causing physical pain to those around you. No one would tolerate that, in fact we have laws against it, but it is fine to affect those around you with cigarette smoke.

If you are drinking, eating yourself into oblivion, if your children are wailing, you are not causing physical harm and discomfort to those around you, or putting their health at risk. You can talk about junk science all you want (which is often paid for by the tobacco companies themselves, and we all know how incredibly forthright they are!), I know the effect cigarette smoke has always had on me, as both someone with asthma and a genetic heart condition. After spending a few hours in a smoke filled club (because there are no non-smoking ones without laws in place for force them to be, so the argument that people can just go elsewhere is utter bullshit), I would often have breathing problems and would spend the next day coughing because of it. If these fictional alternative non smoking places actually existed without a fucking court order, then you know what, I would say more power to the smokers, let them have a place they can go to. This has not been the reality at all in the US, and so now the playing field has been levelled.

The fact that a person is addicted to smoking cigarettes and does not have the willpower or sense to stop does not mean they have the right to inflict their habit on those around them. You think it is amazing how intolerant people are? I think it is amazing how pathetically arrogant smokers are.

Bravo, you have now taken your examples to the most ridiculous extreme possible! Too bad it does not even remotely apply.

my fiance is allergic to smoke. so it's not just a matter of long term exposure.

An amusing viewpoint.

If someone were boozing it up, and kept splashing their drink all over you, I'm pretty sure you'd object rather strenuously.

BO makes me physically nauseous.... as do some perfumes. Your 'physical reactions' aren't the only ones that are valid. Besides, none of these stupid laws are being passed because 'cigarette smoke smells bad.' Why? Because that approach has been tried. What happened?

You got told to suck it up.

So next we go to the junk science.... like the biased EPA study and the misinterpeted WHO study. THIS is what these laws are being passed on, and most people still don't realize that they're complete garbage.

I didnt vote becuase my answer doesnt fit in a category.

Basicall,y I am in favor of public bans .. if thats what the public wants .. AND if by public it means public property or places that receive public funds.

Private business owners should not be mandated what policies they may or may not set.

As far as I am concerned no one has the *right* to go into a bar. It is a privately owned establishment and the owner gets to call the shots.

Anything else is asinine and should be outside the governmental sphere of control.

There are those who will argue its a health hazard etc. and its for the good of the employees .. yet these same employees get their best tips from smokers and oppose such bans for the most part.

It's borderline retarded paranoia.

-AP

That's actually not entirely true Taggy.

For example --

Stadiums and arenas can be privately owned establishments that are still affected by various bylaws such as "no smoking."

Same with apartment and condo elevators and hallways.

Even bars aren't immune to this -- they are required in some places with bylaws to be wheel-chair accessible. They are also required by law to be tolerant of every person regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, or disability.

If it's a publicly accessible business -- ie: one that opens it's doors to a street and can serve patrons without each patron duly becoming affilliated with the business, then it is public.

So... whether business owners should be told what they can or cannot do -- so far this argument holds little strength.

Cris! You know that me being arrogant is mutually exclusive to my smoking!

LOL it has nothing to do with cigarette smoke smelling bad. Someone wearing overly obnoxious perfume or with body odor you can generally move away from - and you don't have an entire room filled with people doing the same thing. It does not fill the room with a cloud of smoke/. People get physically ill from cigarette smoke, myself included. It is the cigarettes that are complete garbage, not the laws being passed to ban their use.

Yeah, plus the purse offsets the arrogance.

Country music makes me ill too.... shall we make all bars and restaurants required to play all U2 all the time? I'm thinking no.

Again, if you don't like it, I don't see anyone holding a gun to your head forcing you to go in. There are bars and restaurants out there that don't allow smoking. Before our ban up here, I was free to vote with my wallet and not go to establishments that don't have a smoking section. Now, I can't do that.

Why exactly is your dollar vote so much more important that you get to nullify mine?

bars are privately owned businesses that serve the public. as bars and cafes serve as common spaces for the community they fall under bylaws that regulate public spaces.

i think there are ways around this. one is to create clubs. then it becomes truly private.

Again, why make ridiculous arguments like "country music makes me ill". Making light of the effect that cigarette smoke has on others (who often have severe allergic reactions to it) doesn't change the fact that it occurs, and is a partial reason for the bans. You can make all the false analogies you want. Ultimately the bans will either win out, or they will be overturned - it comes down to the will of the voters and which side lobbies the hardest.

I would imagine the reason your dollar doesn't get to nullify the dollar of those who are opposed to smoking in places served by the public (as Jauani correctly pointed out) is that you are not being harmed by not being able to smoke in a club/bar or restaurant, while continuing to allow the minority of people who smoke affect the majority of those who do not has become politically and socially unpopular. Who knows, the tide could turn in your favor and you can smoke your little heart out all over the place again. Until then, as more and more cities, states and even countries enforce these types of bans, it seems that it will become more difficult for that to happen.