New smoking ban

[turtlegirl]

Re: New smoking ban

I too feel they should have the 'privilege' to smoke, but they aren't doing it with a bubble over their heads, containg that stink, and keeping it from traveling into others space. That's where the problem lies.

There's lots of things that smell offensive,or just plain stink, and yet are legal and accepted.
Baby diapers, bad b.o., the dump, some perfumes/colognes, asphalt, that dead North Shore whale, fertilizer, beef ranches, car exhaust, some fish markets, incense, sneakers, (that sandwich I forgot was in the cooler from last week )...etc. Take your pick! Apparently we all have the privilege of stinking.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

There's lots of things that smell offensive,or just plain stink, and yet are legal and accepted.
Baby diapers, bad b.o., the dump, some perfumes/colognes, asphalt, that dead North Shore whale, fertilizer, beef ranches, car exhaust, some fish markets, incense, sneakers, (that sandwich I forgot was in the cooler from last week )...etc. Take your pick! Apparently we all have the privilege of stinking.

Yeah, but --- how many of 'em have been scientifically linked to medical issues (even death) in those who just smelled them, yet were not the original source? The only one here that could come close would have to be some perfumes/colognes/scented products designed to cover up b.o.

Though I don't want to test this theory with your forgotten sandwich, please, and neither should you.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

It is also interesting to note, the the oldest living human a, French Women smoked until age 117 and only quit because her poor eyesight at that age represented a fire danger. She lived on to age 122.

Do you not see the flaw in using this as an argument, AK? I know smokers who died in their early 20s - that neither proves nor disproves anything. There has to be a high-end and a low-end to any sample, and they represent the rare, the fringe, the extreme - not the norm or the largest percentage of the group.

Birth has a guaranteed mortality rate of 100%.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

Are there examples of #s 1, 2, & 3 ?
Never heard of them.

I'm deffinitely in the #5 camp. You can't go anywhere outside and enjoy fresh air without some BLF polluting it.
I think we can all relate to #3 to some degree, altho I wouldn't say they can't. I just wish they didn't, around me.

There are plenty of smokers contributing to this thread, I'd really like to hear what the big attraction to smoking is for them.

Group 5 ( people that can't stand the presence of smoke ) usually can be reasonable as long as it is not bothering them directly. Such as in a private smoker's bar that they don't go to anyways or at home as long as it doesn't go into their place. That's why it is possible to compromise with them in many cases.

This is unlike the anti-smoking-jihadi's that feel they are on some sort of special mission from God ( but without a God ) to stop all smoking, no matter what and own other peoples decision making processes by force and by law, regardless of the consequences.

If the economy, people's livelyhoods, private property rights, or personnal endangerment occurs as colaterial damage to either smokers or non-smokers "that are in the way ", they don't care. They are by far the rarest group and the most dangerous, since they can't be reasoned with. These are the crackpots Alohakine loathes to the uttermost. These are typically the very people who make a living running anti-smoking groups or sit on their boards.

[timkona]

Re: New smoking ban

First of all, I would pick up a gun to protect your right to smoke, in a bar, or a restaurant, or golfing especially. I have no problem with smoking, in general. It's the libertarian in me, I guess. And you, or I, may eat at other restaurants, who choose to have smokeless dining.

But there is no doubt that on a jobsite, a smoker is useless, and polluting. If I want a one-armed carpenter, can I pay you half the money? And if a $25 mill home is covered in ciggy butts all the time while it is built, think how that looks.

When I politely ask you to snuff it, and you don't, then you should have no surprise whatsoever when a 175 degree plate of fresh spaghetti, with those garlic meatballs, lands on your lap, and burns you well done, with stains.

And to AcousticLady, I see no problem with 3 beers, or 3 ciggys per day. And you can have a whole carton in one whack about every 4 or 5 weeks. Fair enough?

[acousticlady]

Re: New smoking ban

And to AcousticLady, I see no problem with 3 beers, or 3 ciggys per day. And you can have a whole carton in one whack about every 4 or 5 weeks. Fair enough?

As a believer of everything in moderation, I see what you are saying. But here is the rub...... At 3 cigs or 3 beers a day, over, say, 4 weeks, would be 84 total. Now, over that little bit each day, neither would have a serious affect on the body. But, if you consume that same amount in one sitting - even if it is only that one time during the 4 week span - both the smoker and drinker would be in serious trouble. And...... more than likely, the smoker would probably throw up and/or gag long before they were able to consume even only 84 out of the whole carton while the drinker would die of alcohol poisoning long before they hit the 84 mark .

[timkona]

Re: New smoking ban

Everything in moderation. Even moderation.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

Everything in moderation. Even moderation.

I'm in full agreement here - this has long been one of my philosophies.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm in full ... confusion? ... here. What, may I ask, was the purpose of this post? An avoidance of moderation in use of the "x" key, perhaps?

[Amati]

Re: New smoking ban

I'm in full ... confusion? ... here. What, may I ask, was the purpose of this post? An avoidance of moderation in use of the "x" key, perhaps?

Or, maybe the topic of complaining about the law has become tiring?

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

I'm in full agreement here - this has long been one of my philosophies.
I'm in full ... confusion? ... here. What, may I ask, was the purpose of this post? An avoidance of moderation in use of the "x" key, perhaps?

Sorry about that, it was a boo boo.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

Sorry about that, it was a boo boo.

I've been on that territory myself - thanks.

[1stwahine]

Re: New smoking ban

Drum roll.

One Year Smoke
Free!!!



Auntie Lynn

[tutusue]

Re: New smoking ban

Drum roll.

One Year Smoke
Free!!!
[...]

WHOA! CONGRATULATIONS, LYNN!

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

Hurrah! That's great to hear, Lynn.