New smoking ban

[Bard]

Re: New smoking ban

If it is not a big deal then why are they spending so much time and money on it?

'Cause the rest of us are tired of slowly dying from it Sorry.

[MadAzza]

Re: New smoking ban

This ban is a cruel attack on the civil rights of a class of people called smokers. (etc.)

Ha ha haaaa! This is great satire. Looks like you even fooled a few people.

Great job!

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

I have read the law very carefully. This SB3262 makes its' threats on the bars as " failure to comply", in each case. Failure to comply means not posting signs and/or not informing violators of the law and asking them to please go outside. Oh by the way, the DOH says the same thing when you call them and push through there deceptive fog and get them to admit it.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

The attack is spear headed by a web of professional hate groups called big anti-smoking. They are flush with cash they have extorted and stolen from smokers.

That's the line that convinced me this post was a joke. "Big anti-smoking." Funn-eee! As if the hugely-profitable tobacco companies are worried about THAT.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: New smoking ban

Try standing out in the street in the rain trying not to get hit by cars for 5 minutes at a time every 20 minutes for 4 hours and you will feel what this will be like. Hope my drink is still there and my seat is still open when I come back in. Sure I'll survive, but people go out to have fun, not just to survive.

All that for the sake of smoking? And you smoke for the sake of having fun? And you smoke for the sake of survival?

Something's wrong here.

If smoking meant standing out in the street in the rain trying not to get hit by cars for 5 minutes at a time every 20 minutes for 4 hours...I'd quit cuz it aint worth the tar in my lungs to attempt death by auto or pnuemonia from rain.

If smoking meant taking a drag then blowing it into the air like a fart for someone else to breathe is fun to you, then you're no fun.

If smoking ensured you're survival, then I think you had better re read what the surgeon general once indicated about smoking: That it will kill you.

So far I think this ban will 1) make you reconsider smoking in the rain where you'll get hit by a car, 2) ensure you'll keep your seat when seated, 3) your drink will still be there, 4) make you a boring person because you won't have any more fun dodging cars, and 5) you really will survive because a) you lungs will thank you and, b) you wont' catch pnuemonia from smoking in the rain and being hit by a car.

I think this ban will make you a better person just from your arguements

[AlohaKine]

That's the line that convinced me this post was a joke. "Big anti-smoking." Funn-eee! As if the hugely-profitable tobacco companies are worried about THAT.

According to the "Statewide strategic plan for tobacco control" dated July 2005, 246 Billion dollars is to be taken in the next 25 years nation wide. This money will come from the tobacco settlement which will of course be passed on to consumers. The plan itself admits that most smokers are lower income earners and working class people. I'm sure family farmers of tobacco are real big bowlers themselves. Do many things in your life come from big companies?

Millions have already been spent on anti-tobacco advertising alone, do you think all those ads are cheap.

All that for the sake of smoking?

I think this ban will make you a better person just from your arguements

Well Craig you may very well be right. It give me an incentive to learn more about our government and the way it works. I like most people had never bothered to actually read a state law in full before or be aware of the components typical to such a document.
Why do I care so much? Because most of my smoking friends are in despair over this law and that makes me feel bad to see them like that.
Also it alarms me as an American to see civil liberties and private property rights being churlishly cast aside by the anti-smoker's political friends.
The deceitfulness and unwillingness of the anti-smokers to compromise offends me as a person.
They say this is all we want so many times and smokers have gone alone with it only from them to brake the agreement and suddenly demand more. - This is not what honorable people do, so there lies are offensive as well.

Also I don't want to be forced to quit. I don't want to be socially engineered by the government to fit their narrow model any more than most people. They use the euphemism " new social norm" for this on there websites - As if I don't no what that means.
Please, We just want a little respect and an equal place for us, and you guys can have yours.

[SouthKona]

According to the "Statewide strategic plan for tobacco control" dated July 2005, 246 Billion dollars is to be taken in the next 25 years nation wide. This money will come from the tobacco settlement which will of course be passed on to consumers. The plan itself admits that most smokers are lower income earners and working class people. I'm sure family farmers of tobacco are real big bowlers themselves. Do many things in your life come from big companies?

Millions have already been spent on anti-tobacco advertising alone, do you think all those ads are cheap.

I've read that tobacco settlement money goes to University of Hawaii (Medical School) & children's health insurance, among other things. Both of those uses are beneficial to the public, including lower income earners and working class people.

Please, We just want a little respect and an equal place for us, and you guys can have yours.

I'll respect your right to smoke all you want, as long as I don't have to breathe the toxins from your cigarette smoke. Of course, I'd rather hear that you've given up the habit, and are on your way to a healthier life. Be well!

[craigwatanabe]

Re: New smoking ban

Also I don't want to be forced to quit...We just want a little respect and an equal place for us, and you guys can have yours.

Nobody's forcing you to quit, but as you've indicated everybody wants some respect and that goes for respecting the public spaces where people mingle.

As for the cost of these anti-smoking campaigns costing billions of dollars for the next 25-years, if it will reduce the medical insurance costs of taking care of ill-smokers then I'm all for it. In all fairness that should go for obesity as well.

[1stwahine]

Re: New smoking ban

Why oh why didn't I quit when I had the chance to? I struggled on and off for many years and for the past few months I lost my sense of taste and smell. Only recently I've gotten back some taste. Still, I can't SMELL. I miss smelling the sweet scent of flowers, delicious kaukau, but most importantly the sweet smell of my precious grand-daughter. Funny as it may seem ~ I even miss smelling my grand children's kakas cause I dunno if I have to change their diapers.

Yeah. Smoker's rights. The only right is to cut one's life short and spend ukapila money!

If it's not one thing, it's another. I have to go for testing and from all accounts it not going to be pretty.

Auntie Lynn

[Leo Lakio]

Re: New smoking ban

Why oh why didn't I quit when I had the chance to?

Because it just isn't that simple. Nicotine, like so many other substances, is addictive. Even though I am a non-smoker (and a formerly militant anti-smoker), I do sympathize with those who wish to or try to quit. Some folks can do it cold turkey, others take multiple tries and techniques - but a hearty congrats to those who succeed.

My father was a life-long smoker, until his mid-50s, when he stopped smoking at the same time he stopped drinking. He had a decade of life without those substances, a decade where he felt the best he had ever been. Then lung cancer took him out in just a short few months.

[GeckoGeek]

Re: New smoking ban

As for the cost of these anti-smoking campaigns costing billions of dollars for the next 25-years, if it will reduce the medical insurance costs of taking care of ill-smokers then I'm all for it.

From what I understand it's the opposite. Smokers die more cheaply then the ills that come of old age.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

Second hand smoke is next to harmless. Early studies showed that. Then the anti's where pissed when the results showed it was not a significant health concern so they "created" studies that fit there political viewpoint. The numbers from different studies vary widely which shows that either they don't know what they are talkin' about or they are lying.

Here's a thought, what would happen if everyone didn't smoke? Would there still be lung cancer in non-smokers? YES. The EPA ( which is no friend of smokers ) admits on its' site that Radon gas is the #1 cause of lung cancer in non-smokers and this gas in omni-present in the atmosphere everywhere and always ( some places worse then others ). Non smoker lung cancer rates are up yet the amount of second hand smoke a person has to breath day to day is down dramatically in the last 20 years.
These two trends don't match. It tells me "you got the wrong man." And that second hand smoke is not the "elephant in the room".

Some thing else is effecting this. So what thing has exploded in use in the last 10 years. CELLPHONES. Yes EM radiation from cell phones DOES cause cancer in the body including the lungs. Big cellphone surpresses this data. PCS -call it a personal cancer server. You got jerks that use it standing right next to another person. I got 3 transmission sites within one block of where I live. That way I can get everybody's second hand radiation.

I'm not the only person saying this. Residents of a gov. housing project in Kalihi complianed that a PCS transmission site was built on their roof without their consent and had it removed. If any one gets cancer there you know that the anti's will say it's from second hand smoke - for sure. Same way many times with radioactive radon gas.

decaf-coffee contain benzene - a class A carcinagine. So does the gasoline fumes you have to breath at the pump. Gasoline is about 20% benzene, the things that are said to cause cancer in smoke are there in TRACE amounts.

Try removing the coffee pot from the office and make people go down to the street and stand out in the rain for there "Cup of Joe" and watch non-smokers that drink coffee go insane. It's easy to pick on someone that's not part of your group. Do it - try putting on some one elses shoes and you'll understand.

[SouthKona]

Re: New smoking ban

Second hand smoke is next to harmless.

AlohaKine: it is lucky for the public you were not in charge of passing or not passing the law to protect us from exposure to deadly second-hand smoke. You need to do a bit more research on the subject.

[AlohaKine]

Nobody's forcing you to quit, but as you've indicated everybody wants some respect and that goes for respecting the public spaces where people mingle.

I'd would respect it if the non-smokers would comprimise and let me have seperate areas or maybe 25% smoker friendly establishments.

Since they will not comprimise I say F--K 'em. They won't respect me so I just hold up a mirror to the attitude and say "coming right back at ya". No I won't respect the law and I will smoke in non-smoking areas.

The anti-smoker's tough hard line view creates people like me that otherwise would not exist. It's kind of like the things this country is doing in Iraq is actually creating more terrorists. I believe in peaceful civil disobedance however. I have voed never to quit and always resist the anti-smokers.

AlohaKine: it is lucky for the public you were not in charge of passing or not passing the law to protect us from exposure to deadly second-hand smoke. You need to do a bit more research on the subject.

I've done a lot of research, the thing is that the gov. and the media only present one side of the issue because it is politically correct and the sheeple believe it.

If I was in office, smoking would be mandated by law in all places. The only places where it should not be allowed is if there is a clear and present fire hazard like at a gas station.

[SouthKona]

Re: New smoking ban

If I was in office, smoking would be mandated by law in all places. The only places where it should not be allowed is if there is a clear and present fire hazard like at a gas station.

So, asthma and COPD do not qualify as needing protection from smoke? Exposure to carcinogens is acceptable? Putting your own agenda before the best interest of the public would be your modus operandi?

Like I said before, good thing you aren't in charge.

You know, I think you're actually having fun with us here. Rereading your posts, you are too off base to be serious.