I have got something to say

[NoBushSpokenHere]

I am a smoker. I own the building I work in. I pay taxes on the building I work in. I provide a smoking area far removed from any area a non-smoker would be in or pass through. If I choose to smoke inside my building out of the harsh winter elements, it should be my choice to do so. Beginning Friday, I will no longer be legally able to make that choice. All because far too many people misread the smoking ban they voted for. Most of the adamant non-smoking Ohioans I have spoken to regarding the new law was unaware that this law would ban smoking in businesses in Ohio. They believed the law would ban smoking in restaurants and some bars. They had no idea the right would be taken away from everyone to smoke in designated areas within their workplace.

A non-smoker defended the law stating they had a right to breath smoke free air. I agree and as I stated to them I provided a place for smokers and non-smokers to coexist without anyone being forced to breath either smokeless or smoke filled air. They like others stated they didn't know it would stop people from providing designated smoking areas. I stated if they wanted to dictate what I choose to do inside my office then maybe they should chip in with other holier-than-thou-non-smokers to pay my tax bill.

I am seriously allergic to most perfumes, colognes and detergents. While I will become ill in public places in the presence of these perfumes, I do not believe I have a right to propose a bill to ban their use. They have a right to wear whatever scents they want. I have a right to avoid going to meetings inside where these perfumes will be present. I also begin wheezing when going through the detergent aisle of a store. Do I want to propose a law that these are kept inside a locked area? I do wonder the affects of breathing the toxins have on the children and the babes in the carts, but I do believe people have the right to keep their children out of those aisles.

Instead of fighting for legislation to do so, I would rather fight with the corporations that produce the toxins. Do we really need such strong detergents?

If the non-smoking anti-free American brigade would put their efforts into forcing tobacco companies and growers from adding toxic chemicals to the tobacco, then our cigarettes would be less lethal. I still believe even if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a cigarette had no chance of causing cancer, the anti-freedom brigade would be on a kick to ban them. After all, it all really boils down to the odor. Oh and there is the power trip they get out of making us cut off our right hand. Don't forget that, my non-smoking Nazi friends are totally enjoying the power trip.

Yes, to tell me to quit smoking in real estate that I own, real estate that I pay taxes on, is like cutting off my right hand. Right or wrong, I am a smoker; smoking is just as much a part of me as your right hand is to you. Telling me that you hate cigarettes is telling me that you hate me as well. Whether you mean it that way or not, that is how it is perceived to us smokers, the scourge of the earth.

I can't help to think of the people returning from Iraq to a society that tells them they cannot enjoy a cigarette anymore. They have breathed more toxic smoke from the bombings then they could ever breathe in a lifetime of smoking cigarettes. Oh, but the smoking Nazis are happy. What will be the next vice that is removed from our society?

Don't think you don't have any. Chlorine used in pools are bad (and you throw your kids into them every day), restaurants with enormous grill pits are bad (odors permeate the areas nearby), the beer and alcohol you drink is dangerous, and you probably have driven a bit tipsy a time or two, the chemicals your exterminator sprays on your house to reduce nuisance pests are probably quite toxic (your kids could get this on their skin btw), oh and all the people working in the factories under unsatisfactory and outright atrocious safety conditions would really enjoy having someone to work toward making their jobs safer. But you don't care about that. As long as they produce goods that you can buy to keep up with the Jones’s you really don't care what conditions they work in.

You see, you didn't stand up for my rights; you won't stand up for issues that need to be fought long and hard like global warming. You only want to have the power over the nasty smokers. Well you won this one. I hope you are happy. Please watch the cancer rates - I am willing to bet the cancer rates do not drop as a result. By the way, smoking isn't the leading cause of cancer. I understand colon cancer and prostrate cancer ranks higher. Maybe we should make mandatory colon and prostrate removals the law, after all society wants to be rid of disease, right?

Wish me luck on Friday; I may end up in a straight jacket or having to be medicated to survive this mess. Yes, I am addicted, admittedly. And yes, I probably should quit smoking, but I shouldn't ever be forced to do so. American the land of the free? I think not.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. I agree with you and wish you luck.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Do you run a business in this building?

Do you need licenses for such businesses? Do you have to abide by fire codes for this building? Are you subject to fire inspections? Do you have asbestos in this building, and if not, can you install some?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

4. Answers to your questions...

Yes, I run a business in the building. I have a license for the business. I abide by fire codes for the building, I believe I am subject to fire inspections. I do not have asbestos in the building to my knowledge. Why would I want to install some?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Why would you want to install asbestos?

I don't know. For it's rich, smooth flavor?

[Suich]

3. Well said!!!

Good luck to you, NoBushSpokenHere!

:hi:

[Redstone]

6. So just ignore the law. I know several business owners who do.

Redstone

[The Straight Story]

7. Indeed many bars here in Ohio ignore as they did in California

I was there when they banned it in bars in CA. I went to a local bar in Tehachapi and people were smoking. The bar owner did not care, and it helped keep him in business (which is why one can say that such bans don't have a large effect - people just ignore them).

[Redstone]

34. I've long wondered what would happen to anyone who complained in, say, a bar

near the Oakland docks that was full of Stevedores...

I hear the rule is roundly ignored in many pubs in Ireland as well, until a stranger walks in.

Redstone

[NoBushSpokenHere]

10. There is a $2,500 fine for the business owner

if anyone is caught smoking in any public area the business owns.

[The Straight Story]

14. There were fines in CA as well, and we had cops in the bar here in Ohio

one night for a robbery. They didn't care people were smoking either (and the guy who checks ID at the door was smoking) and this is in Columbus, where it is already illegal.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. If you really wanted to quit smoking, you would.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Doesn't Quite Work That Way For Everyone Bub, Sorry.

[TheCowsCameHome]

101. It could if you'd give it a good honest attempt.

Only YOU can do it, when you are good and ready. No one can make you do it but YOURSELF, Bub.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

133. No, It Couldn't. To Say So Is Absurd. Just What Are You Basing This Personal Theory On If I May Ask?

Personal opinion? Do you think your personal opinion really translates into wide-spread global fact for the millions of smokers out there?

Seriously, what exactly can you provide to lend any credence to your declarative opinion that you are trying to pass off as fact? Is there anything additional other than just your saying so?

I look forward to hearing your trail of deduction.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dapper]

113. I said that...

However, I tried to quit several times and failed miserably. I wanted to quit smoking but could not take the withdrawl symptoms.

I finally did it about 2 years ago! It was a tough fight but I used nicotene replacement to get me through the tough times.

Dapper

[JackBeck]

9. Were you quoting Jerri Blank

in your subject line?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

12. Yes, I was quoting Jerri...song is stuck in my head with

lyrics I create to appease whatever is driving me crazy at the time...

I've got something to say, I smoked a cigarette today...etc...maybe I shouldn't share the rest of my creations...

[JackBeck]

16. It's all good.

As long as it's not the "I'm Gonna Sit at the Welcome Table" ditty, you'll be fine.

[kestrel91316]

11. We've had a no-smoking-in-workplaces law in CA for years

and everybody has gotten used to it. There was some complaining at the start, but that's over. It was REALLY nice to not get choked at the bars anymore either (and the bar waitresses/bartenders are much healthier now).

I lost all 4 grandparents and one parent to smoking-related disease. And I occasionally lose one of my feline patients to it (your smoking can give your kitty friends cancer, folks). So I am sorry. You'll get little sympathy from me.

[radwriter0555]

95. You bet, and what's great is what a HUGE incentive it has been to get people to quit!

Where I used to work there used to be at least 10-15 smokers. Over a span of 8 years all but 2 quit, slowly but surely. The ashtrays in the exterior stair wells remain empty for days now instead of being crammed full daily of deadly butts.

Consider the ban to be a great motivator to stop paying the republicans and bush to kill you.

[kestrel91316]

130. And all of society benefits when there are fewer chronically ill older

people, or disabled, due to smoking-related disease. We ALL pay when they get sick. Remember, lots and lots of people have NO medical insurance. Taxpayers (and that's not the wealthy and corporations, mind you) foot the bill.

[CTyankee]

13. Why do you expend such energy on this argument? Why not quit?

How wonderful that would be for you, your business, your health!

I quit a 20 year smoking addiction in 1981. It added to my quality of life, my relationship with my future spouse, my health, and my self esteem. Don't get me wrong; I loved lots of things about smoking. It was a pleasure, it was relaxing and I enjoyed it.

But I got over it. The rewards have been enormous! I have good health, a great love relationship, and I love myself so much more.

No matter what you say, you must feel awful that you still smoke. Give that up! You CAN do it! Here's how I did it: I pictured myself as a nonsmoker. I decided that I did NOT smoke and was not the typified smoker. So I modeled the nonsmoker behavior and found I did not need to smoke to live.

My brother died of a 3rd stroke in 2004 because he continued to smoke after his first 2 strokes. It was a harsh lesson in smoking consequences. I urge you not to be a statistic like him!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

22. I understand your points but

I would like to quit smoking because *I* made the choice to - not because others are making that choice for me. I do not want to be a statistic either, and do realize I should quit, conform, etc. I believe part of the reason I smoke is to keep from conforming. The other parts are the damn addiction. Physical, mental, etc. I have said as many others have, the only one who can make the decision is the smoker. I am angry that I do not have the right to make that decision. I also do not believe the reports regarding smoking being dangerous to your health. I believe cancer is more a matter of genetics predisposing one to the disease and the whole entire environmental problems, carcinogens in our foods, water, etc., sets off the cancer growing cells. Time will tell. If the cancer rate doesn't drop in Ohio we will know...

Thanks for the words of advice, will begin visualization therapy Friday morning :)

[rateyes]

108. I agree with you about being able to have a designated spot

for smokers in your building where non-smokers don't have to go.

But, the decision to quit smoking is not being made for you. You can choose to disobey the law and smoke anyway, or you can choose to quit smoking, or you can choose only to smoke outside the building.

Everything is a choice. Choices have consequences, and you have to weigh them, but the choice remains.

[Bridget Burke]

120. Find a better way to be a "nonconformist"....

Smoking in the boys' room is a bit old-fashioned.

You don't believe the science that says smoking is danger. Are you a Creationist, too?

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. Put the damn things down and do yourself and your family a favor.

Just do it!

[BlackVelvet04]

15. it's about control.......

Have you ever wondered who first made second hand smoke a big issue? Or why?

I’m not sure of the who of the matter but I feel fairly confident of the why. It’s (pardon the pun) SMOKE & MIRRORS.

We have polluted skies because of big industry and automobile emissions that turn otherwise beautiful cities into smog filled nightmares. I grew up in a small town 15 miles from a neighboring town who is host to a paper mill. The air quality is so bad that a film of ash is left on cars, houses, everything in site and the inhabitants of said town breath this in on a daily basis. The local river, which could be a thing of beauty, is nothing but a sewer for the paper mill.

Our food supply is not failsafe as evidenced by the recent salmonella problem with lettuce and spinach. Our water supply is often not fit to drink causing many people to purchase bottled water. Our water supply has chlorine and fluoride in it, chemicals that nobody truly knows are safe for ingestion.

Quite frequently we hear of drug recalls but only after many people have been made ill or killed by the drug that big industry convinced us and our doctors that we need.

I could go on and on about insecure ports, nuclear proliferation, etc. but I won’t. The question is WHY have second hand smoke and to a bit of a lesser degree, gun control, become the liberal battles of choice?

My conclusion is our fellow liberals have harped on these two issues because they feel so impotent against the true abusers of their health. Being unable to rein in big business they have turned on their fellow American citizens to try and CONTROL something while giving big industry a pass.

Doctors, legislators and the media know of all the other huge dangers but choose to make little ado about them. Why? MONEY

[CTyankee]

18. Huh? I don't give big industry a pass!

Please don't pawn this off as giving big industry a pass! It just is not true.

What I did and other did is take personal responsibility for our health and stop smoking. We stopped polluting our own lungs and that of our families.

What a meanspirited thing to say about people who stepped up to their own challenge and did a difficult thing!

[Greyhound]

125. If you are really concerned about your health and that of your family,

and this isn't just a power trip to control the actions of others, you would take your family out of the city and move up into the mountains far away from the terribly unhealthy cities of the east-coast (Maine comes to mind), where everything you eat, drink, and breathe is contaminated with all manner of toxins. But no, you are not willing to make the sacrifice to your lifestyle and are trading the health and life expectancy of your whole family in order to maintain that lifestyle.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. It's also great politics

Clinton's prosecution of tobacco may have been a good idea in itself but it seems that's one great example of a slippery slope.

[BlackVelvet04]

58. A lot of lawyers got really rich

on those law suits.

[Christian30]

25. Amen to that!

You're completely right. I'm still waiting for them to outlaw Ho-Hos. To save the skinny people from having to sit on a plane next to someone who's obese. Or to save the obese person from themselves. I love the bartender/waitress motif that anti-smoking folks get on. I've never met a bartender that didn't smoke. And if we're so worried about their health, what about folks who work in nuclear power plants? Don't they deserve a safe environment away from all the "clean" energy?

[BlackVelvet04]

57. LOL

Yep. I have an EX (thank God) sister-in-law that could go sit in a bar full of smoke and drink half the night but she would walk into my house and start complaining about it. I finally told her if she didn't like it she knew where the door was....seeing how she was getting a free beach vacation she decided to shut up.

I've never seen a bartender that didn't smoke, either.

I'm sick of the militant, holier than thou, wimps. Their whining is noise pollution and I have sensitive ears. :-)

[NoBushSpokenHere]

30. Agree, BlackVelvet... I do believe the studies were

smokescreens for the real polluters. It is a shame so much effort has been spent to ban cigarettes instead of going after the real environmental and social issues of the nation.

[Greyhound]

123. The who is Rob Reiner, the why is that he and his partner's lousy restaurants kept

going out of business because they couldn't compete with the other nearby restaurants that allowed smoking. (it couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that it was Denny's quality food at 5-star prices:eyes:)

He is the "liberal elitist" that the re:puke:s just love to point to, when talking about government intrusion. In Rob's world, only those with $$$ are free to do as they please, all you stupid "little people" need to be shown the right way, and if you disagree, you must be punished.

The obtrusive hypocrisy of this is such a perfect example of why we lose time and again. We rail against how the re:puke:s pander to the uber-rich, while we ignore our own pandering. Dog help us if the re:puke:s manage to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to nominate a relatively sane candidate, and we continue to install the same old, same old, this could easily turn out to be just a two year reprieve.

On the bright side, these laws are routinely ignored as the police, or in some cases like SD, the fire departments, don't have the time, people, interest, or budget, to enforce this crap. Underground networks of smoking establishments will spring up in Ohio as they have in other places that pass these anti-American dictates.

[bbinacan]

17. I'm with you.

If I owned the building and the business, I'd smoke away. Of course being mindful of the smoke nazis. Then, let it go to court and fight it there. Second hand smoke studies, IMHO, are the most biased and unscientific studies done. There's nastier shit out there. Ever been a building with new carpet?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karlrschneider]

23. Jebus, did somebody pee in your gin & tonic this evening?

:eyes:

[roody]

21. Disobey.

[noamnety]

24. as someone who had relatives in concentration camps

I'd like to suggest you find some different terms here. Claiming that severely limiting the places you can smoke cigarettes is the same as gassing people and melting them down for soap is insulting beyond belief.

Be offended, be pissed, talk about your rights being trampled. But if you think this is in any way comparable to genocide, you need to get over yourself.

[JudyM]

124. I agree. And calling people who are trying to ban smoking 'Nazis' is both extremely insensitive and

overdone hyperbole. Addiction is one thing, and I can empathize. But it is almost ridiculing the dead to use these images with disreagard to what Nazis REALLY did. If they were really Nazi's forcing the smoke-out there would be no job left, no freedom to go outside the building, no cigarettes, etc.

[last1standing]

26. If you ban smoking then the terrorists have won!!!!!

I despise it when the right wing nut jobs pull this bullshit and I don't like it any better when I read it at DU.

I can't help to think of the people returning from Iraq to a society that tells them they cannot enjoy a cigarette anymore. They have breathed more toxic smoke from the bombings then they could ever breathe in a lifetime of smoking cigarettes. Oh, but the smoking Nazis are happy. What will be the next vice that is removed from our society?

This argument sickens me with its cynical use of our soldiers in Iraq just to support a filthy habit you should have quit years ago. How vile and cruel it is to use someone else's pain for one's own benefit. There just isn't enough shame left in the world, I guess.

[Christian30]

28. Why don't you find out how many G.I.s smoke

before you rant as you did above? I'd wager, based solely on demographic information on recruits, that a large percentage of soldiers smoke.

[last1standing]

33. Why don't you find out WHY so many G.I.s smoke?

Before you respond to my "rant" as you did above? I'd wager (based on long established proof and data) that a large percentage of soldiers smoke because of the machinations of the tobacco companies pushing their product on them with either heavy discounts or even passing them out for free.

Now, why don't you try and read my post to see what I was actually talking about? Do you think it's a good thing to use the blood of our soldiers to guilt others into allowing themselves to be polluted with smoke? Do you feel its acceptable to use war as an advertising ploy? Just what are you trying to say other than telling me that a lot of soldiers smoke?

[spacelady]

73. Gee, you are not giving soldiers much credit for free will.

[last1standing]

76. Not when it comes to nicotine addiction, no.

I wouldn't give them one iota more credit than I would a heroin addict in terms of free will. Young, bored men and women are hooked into smoking by tobacco corporations as soon as they get into bootcamp. This has been proved time and again, but you want to argue the point? Why not argue that unions don't give individual employees much credit for negotiating skills? Or maybe we're just not giving bush's* torture victims enough credit for their individual ability to withstand pain?

[spacelady]

79. Now who is using the pain of people to further their opinion?

Union members? Torture victims? I certainly did not go there.

[last1standing]

81. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you didn't know the difference between an analogy and a guilt trip.

An analogy is when you compare one thing or situation to another. A guilt trip is when you use the pain of someone to further your own ends. I hope you're able to keep from making this kind of mistake with future posters. It really doesn't help the debate when one side doesn't understand the basic premise or the concepts being used.

[spacelady]

84. Oh! Excuse me, I thought maybe you didn't know the difference!

I must be dumb as a stump. (simile) You are a bag of hammers. (metaphore)

[last1standing]

85. Ok, I'm laughing my ass off now!

Argument or not, that was just Damned funny. I'll let you have the last word in this sub thread just because that was truly a good response. :)

[spacelady]

89. Oh no! I wrote my other reply before I saw this! We live to discourse another

day, OK?

[last1standing]

91. Sounds good. Have a great night. :) N/T

[radwriter0555]

96. If soldiers had free will they wouldn't be in iraq on the battlefield serving the most

corrupt regime in world history. Ever heard the scores of excuses why people join up and serve the military?

[Greyhound]

126. How old are you? Tobacco companies have not given free cigarettes

to the troops for decades, certainly longer than most of those serving in Iraq have been alive.

Do you feel it is acceptable to use this lame non-issue to impose your will onto others? Do you know that children born in Southern California have diminished lung capacity and are many more times more likely to suffer from bronchitis and asthma than the children of less polluted areas, and it has nothing to do with smoking? Oh, but forcing business to clean up their act costs $$ and jobs, so the kids health is expendable.

Hypocrites.

[last1standing]

136. Try having some facts before spewing bullshit.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=158&sequence=8

I can only assume your addiction to nicotine is your excuse for vomiting up random thoughts like that. If you can manage to see through the haze of smoke try thinking about what I'm actually talking about here. It's disgusting to use the deaths of others to support an argument that really has nothing to do with them. If you can't see that, then there's very little for us to continue debating.

Oh! Ten more soldiers were killed today defending your Constitutional right to smoke in public areas. God Bless the tobacco corporations of America! :eyes:

Idiots.

[Greyhound]

138. Why don't you try reading before spewing your mindless vitriol.

"DoD exchanges sold about $240 million in tobacco products (primarily cigarettes) in 1995."

Is there something about the word sold that confuses you?

Fascists.

[last1standing]

139. Is there something about the word "Discounted" that you can't understand?

If you're not able to read the words I'm typing maybe you should get some remedial classes. I think the word "discount" is probably learned at the third grade level. Let me know when you get there.

Drug addled hatemongering morons bathing in the blood of dead soldiers.

[Greyhound]

148. You are the one that said they were giving them away, the discount is from the government dropping

the excise tax, and not a discount from the tobacco companies.

I am not defending the tobacco companies, nor their behaviors.

You posted inaccurate and misleading statements in your vehemence.

The issue is about choice and the imposition of government, or the tyranny of the majority, that our system was set up to protect us from.

[last1standing]

149. If you read the post you originally responded to...

You'll see I mentioned either heavy discounts or even giving them away for free. The government buys cigarettes at a reduced cost then passed those savings, and lack of excise tax, on to the soldiers. As for giving them away for free, that's what the tobacco corporations use the local bars for. They set up in the various bars, especially during heavy drinking nights, and give away packs of cigarettes. I know this happens because I've gotten them there. So, I wouldn't say I was being inaccurate or misleading.

As for the issue itself, I don't care about this law one way or the other, to be honest. As I said in another post, it's not the Constitutional crisis so many are trying to make it out to be and its not analogous to refusing to serve minorities in the south as some on the other side are saying. This is a law, much like a seatbelt requirement, that may reach too far into the lives of citizens for some, but obviously not for either a majority of Ohio voters or their representatives. If you live in Ohio and don't like the law work to repeal it or vote out the reps who enacted it, but don't come onto a forum and call anyone who opposes your opinion a Nazi or try to guilt them by calling up images of soldiers fresh from battle. Those are repub tactics and we should be better than that (referring to the O/P, of course).

Lastly, thanks for discontinuing the attack posts. I make a rule of responding to them in kind but much prefer debating ideas with respect.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

32. The line you quote regarding soldiers returning from Iraq

was written because a Viet Namn War Veteran spoke at a meeting I attended today regarding soldiers who could fight in combat but not smoke when they returned home.

[last1standing]

35. Your veteran friend hasn't been able to smoke since he got back from Viet Namn?

I find that amazing! You're right, we need to do something about that since this law isn't even in effect as yet! Someone has denied this man his lawful right to smoke for 22 years!

Unless you're trying to say that because one guy, who happened to have fought in a war 22 years ago, is unhappy, you now have the right to use all the soldiers in Iraq as a crutch to support your addiction.

If that's the case then I'm calling BULLSHIT!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

40. No, the Veteran stated that under the upcoming Ohio law

veterans who were in combat in Iraq would not be able to smoke in Ohio upon their return. He was stating that the law was bullshit and was speaking regarding the bullshit lies regarding "fighting for freedom" and having less freedoms than before they left for Iraq, upon their return.

[last1standing]

41. So because you'll both have fewer places in which you can smoke...

That gives you the right to use our soldiers as a weapon to pummel others into submission? "Can't you see that these poor soldiers won't be able to smoke? They're fighting for freedom and losing it for themselves!" Don't you realize how cynical that is? Do you not care?

How is that any different from "If you vote Democrat, the terrorists win"?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

43. Because the future veterans need someone to speak for them n/t

[last1standing]

45. That doesn't answer a single question that was asked.

Do you really feel you have the right to use the blood and deaths of our soldiers to guilt others into letting you smoke wherever you want?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

51. Look

Do you remember battles in our country over the drinking age being 21 and the draft age being 18? Do you believe it is fair to tell a man or woman they are old enough to fight in combat but not old enough to drink? What about the business owner who went to Iraq who will have to close his designated indoor smoking area when he returns because he no longer has the freedom to smoke in his establishment? That is my point. It is fine to send him to war, but damn him when he comes home. And if you still don't understand why don't you go buy a pack of cigarettes become addicted to them and then be told you cannot smoke in a designated smoking area far removed from any passersby. Then pretend you just came home from a brutal war and realized that the one habit that eased your nerves was banned.

Maybe non-smokers cannot ever understand this issue because they haven't ever grappled with the addiction. Hard to explain the addiction but it becomes part of us. Doesn't matter if you are a business owner, a patron or a veteran, to a smoker, having had their habit banned is a right taken away. I sure wish we all could see all sides of the coin, maybe then we could strike a happy medium.

[last1standing]

60. Do you absolutely refuse to answer my questions?

I'm not talking about whether you should be able to smoke in your own damned business or not. I'm asking why you're using guilt tactics to shove your opinions down our throats.

Do you honestly feel it's acceptable to use the blood of soliers to make smoking more convenient for yourself? That's the only things I'm concerned with right now.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

65. Answer

"I can't help to think of the people returning from Iraq to a society that tells them they cannot enjoy a cigarette anymore. They have breathed more toxic smoke from the bombings then they could ever breathe in a lifetime of smoking cigarettes. Oh, but the smoking Nazis are happy. What will be the next vice that is removed from our society?"

The above is part of the original post.

Your question "Do you honestly feel it's acceptable to use the blood of soliers to make smoking more convenient for yourself? That's the only things I'm concerned with right now."

Yes it is acceptable. Especially when relating smoking to the larger picture of the issues of personal "American" freedoms. The freedom to choose to have an indoor smoking area is a personal freedom (or was before the new law). Our soldiers have been told they are going to Iraq to spread "freedom through the nation" They are returning to a nation with less freedoms, ie Habeus Corpeus, Anti-Smoking Laws, Illegal wiretapping, etc.

[last1standing]

68. Then I don't think we have anything else to talk about.

I find your willingness to use patriotism for your own benefit to be callous, self-serving and disgusting, as well as a disservice to every single man and woman who has died in Iraq. You're comments are no better than jerry falwell's when he said that 9/11 was the fault of gays, feminists and liberals or those of racists who talk about killing all muslims. They excuse their filthy desires with false nationalism, too.

If this is what addiction does to people then I say ban the whole damned practice. Our nation can't afford the disease of self-serving patriotism.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

74. Maybe you need to spend some time

talking to the Iraq veterans. Ask them how the feel about the issue. I will bet many will have similar beliefs and I believe they would be happy to know that we are thinking of them as well in regard to this issue.

I am from a military family, have spoken to Iraq veterans, have had them ask me to keep fighting for them here to get them home and to work to help keep their benefits, etc.

I will continue to do so, especially when it will affect their rights upon their return here.

I forgive you for the words you spit forth comparing me to falwell, etc. Maybe someday you will realize my right to smoke is an inherent freedom and understand the connection to the veteran. Maybe not, but I guess this is one of the freedoms we have yet today in this country, is the right to debate and the right to disagree.

[lyonn]

141. Last1standing, are you telling us that there is nothing in your life

that you would like to control but are unable to? Medications, food/drink, internet (ha!), you get the picture. How lucky you are. Many non-smokers I know have personal situations they have trouble dealing with and they could be considered addictions.

There are addictive personalities I think. Some conquer them and others find excuses and "logic" to continue. I'm a smoker and have tried many different things for 30 years including Zyban for 3 months. For 3 months I was a zombie that didn't smoke. Zyban is an antidepressant - bad stuff, at least for me. I do envy people that seem strong willed, I have a weak will. Wish me luck

[last1standing]

144. Only my wife.

Seriously, though, I don't have a problem with people being addicted to whatever they want to be. I do have a problem with anyone, be they on the left or right, trying to justify their addiction or desires by using guilt or fear tactics as we've seen here. Nearly 3000 US soldiers have died (at least 10 today) in this war and it wasn't so that the O/P could smoke in more convenient places.

I am lucky in that I've been able to avoid addictions but I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for you and others who have been caught in them. I even had sympathy for the O/P until I read the parts about Iraqi soldiers and calling anyone who disagrees with him Nazis. Now, after he has made it clear that he'll use anyone and anything to get his way, I have nothing but contempt for him.

I do wish you luck, Lyonn. Whether you choose to quit smoking or continue, you have my support.

[lyonn]

145. NoBushspokenhere was saying: Nazi = control of the people

even to the issue of smoking. Our people are over there doing the dirty work for us (sending massive good Karma their way) and NBSH is only making a point that those troops are fighting for our rights while we are losing some of ours and theirs here at home. NBSH posted proclamation from Hitler about not smoking. Hitler wanted total control; control and personal rights, that is the issue. He is not saying that we should be allowed to smoke in public places. He is saying that the govt. is trying to control every aspect of our lives, yet, think Nothing of polluting our globe.

If a business wants to be polluted by cig. smoke that should be their right. Only those that don't care will do business with you. Besides, he was saying that he had an area separate from the regular work place for smokers.

[last1standing]

146. We'll have to respectfully disagree with regards to his intent.

I see his calling up images of war-torn soldiers coming back to a place and being refused basic rights as guilt mongering, no different than the repubs use of them. If you don't see that then I definitely respect your right to disagree with me, but based upon further posts I still think I read it clearly.

As for a business's right to allow smoking, I really don't give a Damn one way or the other. It's not a Constitutional right as some here seem to think and it's not the equivalent of denying service to minorities as others are saying. Businesses have all sorts of rules they must follow, some are silly, but most are there for very good reasons. If the voters of Ohio voted for this, or voted for the people who decided this, then that's what should be done - nobody's basic rights are being infringed by it. If the voters decide they don't like the new law then they'll move to change it. Either way, conjuring images of Nazis and broken soldiers is not acceptable in my opinion.

[dapper]

115. Blah Blah Blah

and they may have to pass through more metal detectors, more security screening, etc, who is going to watch out for them.

Your stupid argument is flawed.


Dapper

[spacelady]

66. The soldiers are nobly serving their country for the ideal of rights and

freedoms we as americans hold dear. They will be coming back to their country with more restrictions on their freedom. The OP OWNS the building, he is not doing anything illegal by wanting to have the freedom to smoke on his own property. Who is exploiting their blood & death more than the very people who make the policy that sent them to this wrongheaded cause? The same lawmakers who are whittling away at the freedoms for which they are sending troops into the misguided war on terra! My how easily some are led.

[last1standing]

70. Wow! That took some real twisting there. Did it hurt?

This is a smoking restriction, not a ban on breathing. Whether one believes the law should have gone into effect or not, there's no excuse to use false patriotism in furthering one's goals. This smoking law does not mean the terrorists win, it doesn't mean the troops aren't supported and it doesn't mean the end of the Constitution. There's no excuse for pulling any of those guilt laden lines into this discussion. It does nothing but dishonor the very people and concepts they are trying to use.

It's strange how easily we all see that when the right wingers try to pull the same bullshit.

[spacelady]

72. Pretzel anyone? Who is the false patriot here?

[last1standing]

77. If you support using guilt tactics, then I'm guessing it's you. n/t

[spacelady]

80. You seem to have immolated yourself on guilt tactics. n/t

[last1standing]

82. I've set myself on fire on guilt tactics?

Or maybe I've offered myself up for sacrifice on guilt tactics? Are you certain you have the right word there? I've seen elsewhere that you seem to confuse words and concepts.

Or maybe your snappy one liners just aren't enough to express a coherent message. I'm really not sure which.

[spacelady]

86. I'm adhesive & I'm stuck on you. Poor sacrificial you. As for tactics

I am not that strategeous, I just go ahead & say it.

[last1standing]

88. Let's just call a truce, ok?

I can't continue this now that I'm laughing. I have to finish some work, anyway. Have a good night and we can fight another time. :hi:

[spacelady]

90. I am in total agreement with you! n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

59. And just WHO the hell are YOU to tell anybody what they

should or shouldn't do? And when they should do it?

Did God die and leave you in charge? I didn't get that memo.

[last1standing]

61. And just WHO the hell are YOU to question me?

I have the same rights you do, but of course that doesn't seem to have occurred to you. :eyes:

If you have no problem with someone using guilt tactics to further their dubious causes then I'm surprised you find it very welcoming here. Most of us don't like being told that if we don't support their causes then we don't support the troops.

I know another forum where they use that kind of debate all the time. Maybe you should look them up.

[spoony]

62. Shelf the indignation, there are plenty of laws

that tell people what to do and when, some of them with good reasons, some of them not. Sometimes voters decide that, and so yes, that poster and lots and lots of other people tell others what they're allowed to do, whether you like the fact or not.

And as far as the OP, it lost me with the angry rhetoric about anti-smoking advocates being "nazis."

[petronius]

29. As a non-smoker, I agree with you

Personally, I don't like smoking, I ask people not to do it on my property, and I avoid smoke-filled establishments when possible. That said, I think people have the right to do whatever damn-fool thing they want (and there's nobody in the country unaware of the dangers of smoking) as long as it doesn't infringe on others' freedom, and there are plenty of ways to reduce the negative impacts of tobacco smoke without resorting to these all-inclusive bans...

[KT2000]

31. I agree 100%

Just the sight of a smoker will become illegal next.

This thing has totally lost any balance. Schools are sprayed with pesticides that can cause brain damage in children; idiots are allowed to bathe their yards in toxic chemicals - neighbors be damned; heart disease is served up for bargain prices at burger joints across the country; EPA and state ecology departments are allowing wealthy corporations to leave persistent toxic chemicals in the ground and waterways for generations to enjoy and get sick on.

[Gemini Cat]

36. I agree. Good post. nt

[Az]

37. A simple fact

You cannot poison people in the workplace. You can poison people in your home because they always have the option of leaving. But in their place of work ... well their welfare depends on them staying. But if you provide a toxic environment for them to work in...

The simple truth is smoke is toxic. Both to the smoker and the innocent bystanders. You can complain about freedoms and all manner of other issues. But as the saying goes your rights stop at my nose. You do not have the right to poison me or anyone else. Yes its true that we didn't think of smoking as poisoning people until recently so there is some resistance to this notion. But facts are facts. If you have the right to smoke in an environment that I have to remain in then I have the right to drop potassium cyanide tablets into sulphiric acid. My habit just kills other people faster than yours.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

55. The people who work in my workplace would like to

continue to smoke in the designated areas of which non-smokers do not go into.

[Az]

63. Ah, My misunderstanding

I assumed the issue was about smoking in the work area. I disagree with a total ban and do agree that as long as there is a smoking area provided workers should be allowed to smoke.

[Deb]

38. Can you remove the smoking area from your business,

at least the square footage from the books, employees and public? If you own the building and business it seems to me that area could be designated your private living space which you then use as you see fit. Just a thought, I know these anti-smoking laws are hard on smokers.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

39. I can partition a portion off and move into it.

I cannot permit anyone else to work in that portion even if they are a smoker, unless I make it a private club and adopt them (relatives are permitted to work in private clubs for relatives). I could not permit any customers to enter my private residence to transact business and the partitioned area has to have a solid wall or two doorways to protect any smoke from mitigating through the doorframe.

I can by law install a smokers patio outside - it can only have two walls and a roof or 4 walls and no roof. Despite global warming (and the climate is getting much warmer in Ohio) we do still have a month of zero degree weather.

[Deb]

47. Hmm, you'll figure it out

I'll bet your smoking employees would appreciate a smoking patio with 2 solid walls, roof and two large canvas shades drawn closed on the other sides, along with a propane patio heater. I've been to clubs here that do that, one used plexiglass panels in place of the shades. Good luck!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

56. We have discussed doing just that

I can see us with our desks, computers, etc...
We even debated the costs of building the patio versus the fine...
Also discussed the two walls being built on tracks so they could be moved depending on wind direction...

Shouldn't have to work in such a cold environment though :(

[mtnester]

103. You are too late on the private club license.

If you did not have it in place before the election was certified, you are now subject to the same smoking bans as everyone else if you elect to file for private club license.

We own a small business, out of our home, and I wrote yesterday on how this new law affects us too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2859708&mesg_id=2860346

[Tatiana]

44. Like parking tickets, this seems to be revenue generating.

It really sucks. Yes, smoking is bad for you. Should government FORCE you to quit?

Super-size Me showed how damaging to our health fast-food can be. Our kids are becoming more obese, likely as a result of this. Do we outlaw all the fast food joints?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

46. If a anti-freedom-non-smoker is FOR fast food, I will fight against it...

that isn't a threat... it is a promise...

the battle lines were drawn on November 7th...

[spacelady]

48. Any thoughts on the heavy taxes smokers pay to keep smoking?

They are used for community venues with non-smoking rules for the enjoyment of all. Should non-smokers boycott everything that cigarette taxes have paid for? Boy I would never see that happen, I'll bet.

[ChazII]

52. Here in Arizona

$.80 will be used to fund early childhood education. The voters passed prop. 203 to add an $.80 to a pack of cigarettes. Even though I am in education I don't want to hear my association bitch when smokers smoke less and the revenues decline. There were several teachers in my building (non smokers) who voted against this prop.

[spacelady]

54. Smokers will buy cigs - that 80 cents a packs will help kids.

I think that smokers are the new fashionable scapegoat & so-called "studies" are questionably trying to fit facts to support scapegoating. It seems to be a game of one-upmanship until smoking prohibition, then there will be a new fashionable group to suppress. There ALWAYS is.

[Greyhound]

127. Yes, just like everywhere else the revenue generated will be withdrawn

from the budget and go into the general fund, just like the lottery $$$. The kids will continue to be neglected in our worst-in-the-country education system, it will put most tobacco shops out of business and be a boon to the reservation cigarette stores and more people will order their cigs on-line.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

[ChazII]

49. I am just waiting

for the day when the nanny's admit that 10% to 12% of our population get lung cancer w/out having ever smoked, worked in smoking environments or lived in a smoking environment. FYI for anyone who gives a damn, my mom died of lung cancer.

NBSH,
I voted no on the smoking prop 201, which banned smoking entirely in all establishments in my state and yes on prop. 206 -- the latter allowed smoking in bars. You own your building, you should be able to smoke. Like you, I have allergies but unlike you, I am ready to go after those who chose to make laws on this. Since the nanny's are no going for the trans-fats crowd, the perfum/cologne folk are fair game.

I do not smoke nor does anyone in my family. I am pissed off at those who fail to see your side.

Would it be better if you did not smoke? Hell, yes. But you are an adult and have the right to make your own decisions.

[Ron Green]

50. I'm sorry for your troubles; you're caught up in a great struggle between the forces of addiction

(mostly the corporations) and the movement toward health and freedom (represented by organizations that seek to bring these about.) It's true that governments have taken away opportunities for people to engage in some harmful activities, but there has been a real decrease in smoking and its destructive effects over the past few decades. Education is a slow and painful process, and sometimes has to be augmented by draconian measures (ask any restaurant owner in the South in 1964.)

Corporations, through their multi-billion-dollar message system, will always promote addiction and slavery, because that's what the market ultimately wants. And they'll always couch it in terms of "personal choice" and "American freedom." I notice they rarely say anything about corporate responsibility in these issues.

If we all really want to do better, we have to cut the "lifestyle police" some slack. Their opponents have most of the money.

Good luck with your health and freedom.

:)

[JVS]

53. .

:rofl:

[BlackVelvet04]

64. That is just mind numbingly stupid.

You are going to FORCE people to be free? I have a suggestion for what you can do with your draconian measures.

My health or lack thereof is none....I repeat....NONE of YOUR or "those organizations" friggin' business.

[Ron Green]

94. That's exactly what a bunch of cracker businessmen said in the 1960's, when

the government told them how to run their operations. "My business or lack thereof is none....I repeat....NONE of YOUR or "those organizations" friggin' business." Of course, they were talking about their right to serve whomever they wanted, just as they had for generations. What I said in the post to which you replied is that change is a difficult process, and is resisted by people with different agendas. How you treat yourself is of course your business, but it's also a public health issue to some extent. This is why we make people wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets, The agenda of the corporations is to sell products, and whether through addictive chemicals or appeals to consumers' insecurities, they will do this with no consideration for health or safety beyond what is forced upon them. They'll also take the side you have so eloquently illustrated, that it's nobody's business but the individual's. This Libertarian position works quite well, keeping corporations and their manufacture of consensus out of the spotlight while they point their finger (and yours, evidently) at organizations that might seek to educate, cajole and even legislate people toward more healthy behavior.

[Greyhound]

128. This is just hilarious.

I think you actually don't see the irony of your "position".:rofl::cry::rofl:

[Ron Green]

129. Why don't you explain it to me?

Seriously.

[Greyhound]

147. The tyranny of the majority is justified simply because they are the majority.

We have flipped the issue upside-down and use it to justify oppression over choice.

[Ron Green]

151. It's on a continuum, after all.

It's not as if smokers are truly oppressed (most of them are still finding places and times to light up), or if it's completely about choice (many smokers in this thread proclaim their lack of choice in the matter.) The truth is that smoking is an awful addiction, made worse by the fact that our culture sanctioned, subsidized and glamorized it for many decades, before the science came into general awareness. As a society, we've gotten better about not killing black people for sport, not making children work in factories, not acquiring fatal suntans, etc. We can get much better about tobacco, too, but it's a hard fight and ringing invocations of "freedom" and "choice" are often used in anti-education.

So at one end of the continuum we find those who would ban tobacco based on its overwhelming harm to public health. At that same end are "food nazis" and those who would disallow private use of vehicles that waste fossil fuel.

At the other end are those who would allow the individual to own military weapons, abolish the USDA, and let all industries police themselves. My view is that the reasonable path is in the middle, but progress for society always threatens individual freedom to some degree.

[WillyT]

67. Hey NBSH... Ask Them This As Well...

How many of the 'ardent' anti-smokers you get replies from, are ex-smokers?

They say there is no more insufferable convert than an ex-smoker, and I really do believe that.

I believe that they come from a place of fad or fashion, and not one of philosophy. Who they were then, would not have tolerated for one second who they are now.

Just askin...

:shrug:

[NoBushSpokenHere]

69. Had a conversation with my Dad today regarding the issue

He said as much as he hated that the law passed, he believes I should quit smoking. He added that it was one of the hardest things he ever had to do but if I were to make up my mind to do it, I could as he did. I said, "Dad, remember, you quit because you WANTED to quit, not because anyone made you do it" There is a difference. He agreed and sympathized with me.

My experience has been the most ardent non smokers have been former smokers. One laughed after arguing me regarding the issue and admitted, "It was because every time they see a cigarette they want one." She added that "They don't want anyone else to enjoy the habit because they no longer do."

[WillyT]

71. Yep... That's Kinda What I Think Too !!!

Good luck in any case!

:hi:

[Stardust]

92. Bullshit. It's because we that have kicked have gone thru hell and

have earned the right to be a little sanctimonious. And your smoke stinks.

[uppityperson]

75. perfumes get you but not smoke? That's harsh.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

78. harsh but true...

you would think the cigs would before the perfume, but not the case.

[spacelady]

83. You are not the only one, my hands & eyes swell & my nose clogs

when using cleaning fluids & it just gets worse over time. Liquid Gold & Windex are especially bad for me. Oily fumes really get to me. Fireplace smoke is not bad to me unless someone is burning very pitchy pine. Outlaw them? Nah, just avoid when uncomfortable.

[eridani]

97. Actually, I don't have a problem with my employer's scent free policy

Doesn't eliminate everything, as there's still stuff from washing or drycleaning clothes, etc., but extra perfume is completely out. It makes our chemists who analyze volatile organics very happy for their baselines also.

[uppityperson]

135. many perfume oils are petroleum based.

I have had allergic reactions to some oils with "perfume" in them, but essential oils (made from plants) are ok. I am very careful what I use in my massage oils, don't want to rub "perfume" oils on people or myself.

[question everything]

87. "Smoke free" "trans fat free" "gambling free"

How has a country, built on rebelling against arbitrary rules, ended up being a nanny state?

I had a long debate here about that. I am not a smoker and will probably stay away from restaurants that allow smoking everywhere. But it is up to the restaurants to choose their policy - of smoking and now, of trans-fat, and it is up to us to make a decision.

I agree that public places and most places of work should be smoke free with rooms that are well filtered for smokers.

I've read some place that there are places where even street smoking is prohibited, so the only place one can smoke is at one's home. And I won't be surprised if social services someday would raid a home where there are children and where there is smoking.

My sympathies.

[kiahzero]

93. So I take it that you think employers have the right to discriminate in hiring, too?

And that people have the right to discriminate in selling or renting housing?

Your argument is a ridiculous straw man - you do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want with your business. Unless you want to live in a Libertarian dystopia, you have to accept that. You can argue that banning smoking in all public accommodations is bad public policy, but to frame as an issue of property rights is absurd.

[Skittles]

98. Amen

I'm reminded of what my conservative, bush-loving neighbor said when I told her I was mailing some cigarettes to some Marines in Iraq (at their request): "You shouldn't send them cigarettes; they are bad for them." :o

Some people really focus on the wrong problems.

[timtom]

99. As a former heavy smoker

and one who hasn't smoked since 1982, I wholeheartedly agree with you. This shit is getting out of hand! And that thing about truckers??!! What is THAT all about. My brain is starting to bleed.

[Alamom]

100. Do you know your BMI? (question to everyone) Sorry OP, about

the smoking ban. I'm sure it will not be long before it's illegal everywhere.
Future headline

SMOKING IS BANNED AND ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE

People everywhere will be happy about this,......but then what's next? We all know there will always be those who will dictate what we do because they think they know what's best for everyone.


Bans on Food, Drink & Type of Entertainment?

FOOD...............OBESITY-MANY, MANY AILMENTS AND DISEASES RELATED TO OVEREATING AND "WHAT" IS EATEN. (this one may come about quick folks. Insurance is paying out big bucks for ailments related to obesity and food choices)
There's already a thread- re:NY "cigs & trans fat"


DRINK.............ALCOHOLISM OR MINOR DEPENDENCE (?)-DUI'S, WRECKS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FIGHTING, RELATED DISEASES, ETC.


ENTERTAINMENT.....ADULT - PORNOGRAPHY-POSSIBLY ADDICTING, MAYBE LEADING TO SEXUAL PERVERSION AND ASSAULTING OTHERS.
...........................KIDS - ONE SIDE "HARRY POTTER" IS WICKED /"HAPPY FEET" WICKED & POLITICAL
...........................THE OTHER "NARNIA CHRONICLES" TOO RELIGIOUS





Taking away personal Freedoms....... Unless we have a an incredibly large population of completely perfect people, something you like may be next on the list.
We could all lose something




edsp

[johnnie]

102. I'm in Ohio too

To me, the whole thing wasn't about smoking, but to a lot of people that is all they concern themselves with. Yesterday I saw where Sherwin Williams in Cleveland is using that ban to ban smoking on their sidewalk in front of the building. They claim that since they have the responsibility to keep it clean and all, they can tell people they can't smoke on it.

It's only just starting, but who gives a shit about our liberties..as long as the evil smokers don't win. :eyes:

[NoBushSpokenHere]

104. The law is a bit ambiguous regarding "Public Areas"

I have been told this is part of the delay in enforcement - *they* are arguing about what constitutes a public area. Some say any area outside a public business is a public area, some say not. According to my interpretation, to legally smoke, we must do so in a patio or in our vehicles, provided they are not used for any commercial purpose at any time.

[johnnie]

105. I have a recording studio in my home

I mentioned on here that if I made it a business, I wouldn't be able to smoke in my own home during business hours. The response I got from most people was "so?"

I'm amazed that so many people would rather see them coming into our homes and telling us what we can and can't do rather than standing up for what is right. Next it will be what we can and can't eat, and then people will freak out when they can't cook what they want.

[Nye Bevan]

106. This is a *perfect* opportunity for you to quit

20 minutes after quitting: Your heart rate and blood pressure drop

12 hours after quitting: Carbon monoxide level in your blood drops to normal

Two weeks to three months after quitting: Your circulation improves and lung function increases.

One to nine months after quitting: Coughing and shortness of breath decrease

One year after quitting: Excess risk of heart disease is half that of a smoker's

Five years after quitting: Risk of stroke is reduced to that of a nonsmoker's

10 years after quitting: Lung cancer death rate is about half that of a continuing smoker's. Risk of other cancers decreases also

15 years after quitting: The risk of heart disease is that of a nonsmoker's

If you decide to go for it, good luck!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

107. The perfect time to quit is when the *person* who is smoking

decides to quit. It is not when laws are passed to *force* them to quit. I will probably quit rather than spend hard earned money fighting for my right to smoke, but I will remain angry about being forced to either quit or stand out in the bitter cold air smoking. Sad thing is, had I not been working my ass off to campaign for Democratic candidates, I could have spent some time campaigning against the smoking ban. I would rather have a Democratic Congress, but oh, what a sacrifice. I sure hope they have appreciated our efforts!

[Lerkfish]

110. as a nonsmoker, I'm sad about the draconian measures passed, for this

reason: I think smokers should have a place they can go. I've proposed in the past that a small number of "smoking licenses" like liquor licenses could be available per community and establishments could apply for them. That's the fairest solution I can think of.

However, also as a nonsmoker, I'm going to enjoy being able to go into a bar and restaurant, and not have my clothes absolutely reek of smoke and set off my wife's allergies when I get home. Strictly a personal POV, but there you go.

[dapper]

111. Boo Hoo Hoo

There hasn't been smoking in public buildings in Years in NY, a smoking ban went into effect about 3 years ago.

People no longer want to be subjected to cigarette smoke.

I quit 2 years ago after I lost my parents to smoke related illnesses (Emphysema, lung cancer) It was horrible seeing what smoking did to them, it was tough seeing the pain they went through.

When cleaning my parents house, the tar? nicotine stank was horrible, cleaning everything was disgusting. That alone made me realize what my lungs must look like.

My personal pet peeve is seeing parents smoke in their cars, windows closed with small children in the back seat. Atleast when I smoked, I didn't smoke when my kid was in the car and I certainly didn't smoke in the house.

I have no sympathy for you.

Dapper

[Zodiak]

112. The nanny-state

Is the single reason why many people do not like nor will vote for liberals.

And half of us liberals cannot stand the nanny-state.

Left-wing authoritarianism is just as bad and antithetical to freedom as right wing authoritarianism, in my opinion.

[HootieMcBoob]

117. Republicans are responsible for the bans in New York

for both cigarettes and trans fat. So, don't blame liberals for that.

[Zodiak]

118. Sad

but those are considered liberal issues. Perhaps the GOP there is taking advantage of that because they know who people will THINK is responsible for it.

[Hubert Flottz]

114. "Take a puff it's Springtime!"

Has become..."Take a puff it's jailtime!"



Where is all the money the tobacco companies are paying out in these big court cases going? Has the government helped pay for anyone's quitting yet?



The Government gave you free smokes back when I got hooked.

[Ron Green]

131. I remember those little 4-packs in the "K" rations. Guys who didn't smoke

would sell or trade them around, but indeed they enabled lots of guys to start, if they hadn't already taken it up by their late teens. Government was then, as now, heavily influenced by the tobacco companies and other big corporations, and its own Surgeon General's warnings hadn't yet made much of an impression on the population. My guess is that in today's military there are many more messages to troops about smoking and their health, whereas 40 years ago we had none, but we did have free cigarettes. The behavior shift of a population regarding such a fundamental addiction as tobacco takes many years, and must be constantly advocated for by various groups who are willing to go up against massive and well-crafted propaganda (look at your Salem ad, above.) I'm catching flak elsewhere on this thread for suggesting that "nanny state" laws are sometimes helpful, even necessary, to effect long-term changes in unhealthy behavior. But you've given a perfect example of what can happen over time: the government no longer gives people 4 cigarettes with their meal, but rather provides better information about smoking and health. Maybe the next step will be, as you mention, to help pay for peoples' quitting.

[Hubert Flottz]

132. I quit two years ago and it's sure not easy to do.

I know, that if I EVER smoke another one, I'll be right back on them. I'd tried to quit several times over my 35 years of smoking them. I'd think I could just have one or two and the next day I'd be back up to half a pack and in a few weeks back to two or three packs a day.

I had two heart attacks the same day I quit two years ago and that made up my mind for me. Knowing how hard a time I had getting off of tobacco, I would never think anything bad about anyone who couldn't quit.

I haven't had a cold or a sniffle since I quit and I was always catching colds and having sinus problems all those years. I have a lot more spending money now at the end of every week, than I did when I smoked. If I had it to do over I'd never light one up!

[NoBushSpokenHere]

116. I should have titled the OP as

"I won't go quietly into the night"

[Tyo]

119. Believe me. Sooner or later, you'll quit smoking

Better if you don't wait for your lungs to make the decision for you.

[Gregorian]

121. I don't think it's about smoking.

Of course it's about smoking. What am I, stupid?

It's about population. It's about the number of smokers. There was a time when the number of smokers in a restaurant became noticeable. Of course it's the sappy shit for brains suburban attitude. But that is where it came from. I can't think of anything that sucks that isn't related to population. And this is no exception. I want a world that has 2 billion instead of the shit we face now. In 1850 the town of Palo Alto had houses on a thousand acres. Then in 1959 it had one on a sixth of an acre. And then came the laws. No parking in front of your own fucking house over night. I'll never forget that ticket. No noise before or after a certain time. No dog barking. No business in your home. And it goes on and on and on. And since almost no one will talk about the real issue, here we are with melting poles and no smoking laws. Talk about absurd!

Take it or leave it. But I think your chances of getting your way are about the same as me getting that nice planet back.

[AngryOldDem]

122. As a nonsmoker, I agree with you 100%

And I heard that there is some kind of suit in the works by Phillip Morris, other tobacco interests, and smokers themselves to put this law on hold.

I just wonder, though, how they are really going to enforce this. I think Ohio has bigger issues to track.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

134. Smoking Nazi's

"Popular health magazines ... contain warnings against the dangers of smoking. The scientific research into the health effects of smoking goes hand in hand with extensive health promotion activities aimed at reducing the prevalence of the habit.
Transportation, workplaces, and public buildings become targets for smoking reduction campaigns. Smoking is prohibited in many individual workplaces and public buildings, including government bureaus, hospitals, and rest homes.
Tobacco manufacturers cannot represent the use of tobacco as a sign of manliness.

Excerpts from Contemporary News?...

No, Nazi Germany 1937 - 1944

At FORCES, we have been accused many times to be out of place when comparing the antismoking propaganda with fascism and nazism. Sometimes, outraged readers have written to us comments like this: "Anyone that would equate Nazism with smoking bans has a screw loose! Go shoot yourself in a bunker!" Many people believe that we are exaggerating, and one cannot compare smoking restrictions to the Nazi environment. Perhaps these people should check their history."



More at link http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/nazi2.htm

[NoBushSpokenHere]

137. Moving to New Thread

New thread located here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2869661

[lectrobyte]

140. Several years ago, Chomsky was talking about the war on drugs

and pointing out the differences between the penalties for crack vs. regular coke, and he pointed out that all this tobacco-persecution that was then starting was because tobacco is now mostly being used by the lower classes. I kind of thought that he was full of it at the time, but now I think he was right.

[Greyhound]

156. He is one of the greats at correctly surmising where these things have

come from and therefore, where they will lead.

[dapper]

142. Notes on what I have read ...

The Army last year banned smoking, except in designated areas, in military offices, barracks, vehicles and aircraft, a policy affecting 780,000 soldiers and 450,000 civilians.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B0DE4DA1538F934A35751C0A961948260

I agree, using the soldier argument was pretty lame especially since we are talking about 1 state (Ohio) and NY has had the law on the books since before the Iraq war.

The article actually has some nice facts to it, it's not like this non-smoking direction is a new thing.

I remember my mother telling me a story about when smoking was found to cause cancer and other health related issues. My mom asked the doctor if smoking would harm her baby and the doctor said "Only if you tip an ash on it". Imagine if a doctor said that today?

Someone mentioned smoking rates vs other cancer related deaths- pointing out that other cancers are a higher rate. Smoking does not only cause cancer, it causes emphesima, copd and other smoking related illnesses.

In the office- I can remember about 20? years ago when you could smoke in the office, I think 15 years ago they banned it in NY and people complained but now no one is complaining. People complained a few years ago when they banned smoking in bars in NY. Sure there were people who ignored the ban, some placed were fined- I remember the owner asking me why I was standing outside smoking and I told him I didn't want to be responsible for him getting a fine. I remember still being a smoker-right after the ban, taking my son (2 years old) to a restaraunt and having some ass smoking right next to him. I yelled at the guy rather rudely "hey, you see a baby here?" - I appologized later.

I was a smoker but atleast I was considerate of other people. Sure you have the right to smoke and I have the right to not breathing your tar and nicotine. I cannot believe in this day and age, people still smoke in their car with their children in the backseat. What I love best is hearing the old ladies saying "smoking while pregnant, smoking in front of my kids never harmed them".

and the complaint that there are so many other chemicals in the environment... We are fighting to get rid of Carbon Dioxide, atleast some of us. We fought to get rid of ozone destroying chemicals, why should we not fight to get rid of other chemicals such as the countless chemicals from Cigarette smoke?

I dated a girl who had asthma, she worked in a non-smoking office and some guy who owned his own business down the hall thought it was safe to smoke behind the door in his office. It just so happens, the smoke was going through the vents and one day she had an asthma attack- This despite her contacting them a few times about this.

It just seems that some smokers think they have the right to smoke where they want, whenever they want. Hey, I was there, at times when I was smoking and these laws were being passed, I wondered where my rights where. Although I started thinking of others, the first time I really understood is when I had quit smoking. About a month after I quit smoking I walked passed the front entrance of the office I was working in, 10 or 15 smokers were gathered around and I nearly gagged from the stank.

You guys can bring up the nanny's, the liberals, the repubs, the soldiers...etc but the bottom line is smoking is becoming less and less of an accepted habit. No one is telling you not to smoke, they just don't want to be subjected to it. Why should I have to breath your smoke? or even the remnants of it?

Dapper

[ComerPerro]

143. Jesus Christ, stop bitching. You should consider yourself lucky that you even

get to stop working and run out for a smoke whenever the fuck you feel like it.

[restante]

150. original message

I do addictions all day long and smoking is the one least amenable to counseling. There is the addiction, the psychological aspect which is the most important, and the emotional problems of those who are extended conduct disorder cases.

In fairness, it is very hard to stop smoking. It is a personal issue as well as a public health issue. What this writer is saying is that he wishes his personal issues to trump public health issues. It is not necessary to watch cancer rates or scrutinize the Constitution to come out of this looking good.

With most addictions ( alcohol, illegal drugs, sexual, etc. ) the addicted do not come out fighting, they just do their thing with their trail of destruction ignored. I think in time tobacco use will reduce to a few angry people and become an underground practice. Presently there is forming a cultural problem with smoking so to counter the problem and remain OK in society, the writer's arguments surface.

NBSH, you are an angry person and that probably affects other areas of your life which make the smoking cessation particularly difficult. With the cigarette thing, remember that each time you attempt to stop is a practice for the real thing. It is not a failure to attempt and not succeed. Anyone who states his contrary case in such length and with so many weak points, really so many, needs to rethink his position.

Living in a peaceful society involves some acquiescence of cultural mores. And, you become easier to live and work with.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

154. Thanks for the advice...

You are right on a couple points. I am an angry person, but I hold my anger inside (my cigarettes are insulation). Actually they are insulation against facing some pain, but they do help to insulate the anger. I am angry because of Bush. I am angry because we could have had a wonderful President in 2000 but the highest court in the land ruled otherwise. I am angry because we could have had another President in 2004 who could have pulled this country out of a major black hole, but he didn't fight. I am through debating the "why" of not fighting and have read enough to not blame him for it. I am angry because the country sat still and let that happen. I am angry because some really good people lost jobs for standing up. I am angry because so many have died in the Iraq War for the greed of corporations. I am angry because the 655,000+ we have killed in Iraq. I am angry because the world will never forgive us (nor should they). I am angry because it has taken this long for the country to wake up to the propaganda we have been fed for an eternity. I am angry because our government did nothing to get people out of New Orleans and because they left them there to die. I am angry because they covered up how many died there. I am angry because bodies are still being found to this day in New Orleans. I am angry because I knew people who died because they didn't have medical insurance and couldn't get medical care. I am angry because members of Congress are being paid off by insurance and drug companies. I am angry because people have lost their jobs and homes. I am angry because every where I look I see depression in one form or another. I am angry because I should be spending my life teaching my son fun things instead of teaching him all about politics. I am angry because he may face having to leave the country or go to an illegal war. I am angry because every American doesn't march on DC. I am angry because of the war wounded. I am angry because the depleted uranium we used on the soil of Iraq. I am angry because Viet Namn Veterans are dying of Agent Orange. I am angry about global warming. I am angry about corporations getting by with having very poor working conditions and risking the health of their employees lives by forcing them to work in carcinogenic environments. I am angry that a few bogus research papers were written that convinced people that cigarette smoking was worse than exhaust from vehicles. I am angry about everything the Congress has done. I am angry because more and more jobs every day have been outsourced to foreign countries. I am angry because veterans and non-veterans are homeless in the good ole US OF A! I am angry because food lines stretch for miles! I am angry because of GITMO and Abu Ghraib. To top it all off the one vice I have that relieves this tension has been banned. Damn straight I am angry!

Do I show this anger to the people in my public or private life? Not really. I just light up another one. You may catch me shaking my fist at a car with a Bush bumper sticker or catch me flipping the bird at the TV when Bush is shown. I do peacefully and calmly try to educate people as to why they should become more involved in politics whether by voting or volunteering.

I am easy to live and work with.

I just don't see why I cannot smoke inside the building I own when my smoke would not infiltrate ANY AREA that a non-smoker would breath? This is especially frustrating when I own the building and pay taxes on it.

I don't believe I need a psychiatrist, I just need to be able to smoke while in the privacy of my private office. Since I can't, what would your suggestion be for me?

[restante]

155. thanks for the advice

<<<<<<<I don't believe I need a psychiatrist, I just need to be able to smoke while in the privacy of my private office. Since I can't, what would your suggestion be for me?>>>>>>>>>

Sure is a long list of anger issues. They are really problems with your level of expectation in regard to the outcomes of government and societal problems. Actually I may be more annoyed over your long list than than you are. One is to be congratulated in the USA of the year 2006 if you know and remain informed on these issues. I see daily folks who are not conversant with national and world news. Hence there level of expectation is not in the same league with you however they can find other things to anger them. Anger is anger and the issues really do not matter. The effect it has on you and those near you is what matters.

I am permanently annoyed over the lack of healthcare in the US for all those left out of the system. It is my government failure pet peeve.

The public smoking laws have been enacted in most of New England and New York with a lot of grumblng in the beginning. We are mostly all converted now. You will have to accept that your case is somewhat unique, owning a building in which you have an office. Suppose the building was not under your ownership? Most office workers do not own their places of business. In NY, special exception cases were heard in the beginning. Some businesses thought they would suffer great losses. In fact, that did not happen. If you were not an owner, the question of your right to smoke would not be an issue.

It boils down to accepting the new order of things. Mentioning your son, you certainly do not want him to smoke. The single most powerful instruction of a child, especially under age 8 or 9, is the parent's example. Consider that and it might soften your opinion on a law that, face it, is not going to change for you.

Go easier on yourself. It is not a loss in the sense that you are currently viewing it. Curiously, those who stop smoking testify to the loss they suffer. Not the smoking per se but the loss of something they often cannot identify which accompanies ceasing smoking. This psychological aspect is particularly hard for the newly smoke free.

My father died when I was 22 years old, from smoking. I stopped that week. The catalyst to stop was very powerful at that time. Try to convert your anger into something useful for yourself. When the hard part is over, most say the victory over cigarettes is itself a great good feeling.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

152. Day 1 ASB (After Smoking Ban)

Well All,

I survived Day 1. I didn't yell at the first person unless you count a scathing email I sent to someone who wanted to rub the loss into me :) It was very difficult to post those non-smoking signs. For those non-empathizing non-smokers reading this, just imagine how hard it would be on you to post your home to be open to smokers. Yeah, now you understand a little (maybe?).

As I drove around the city, I noticed many businesses hadn't posted their signs as required by law. I would imagine they thought there was no need as they thought the ban only applied to restaurants and bars.

I began writing a letter to my future legislators to please ban perfumes and colognes. Their odor just really disgusts me. Time to do something about it, after all, the voters have proved they don't like odors.

Received a phone call today from a friend who said they are going to go ahead and smoke on the job. He said they weld within the mechanics bays they work in. He said the smoke coming from the welding would be equivalent to about 100 people smoking all day in a 10 x 15 area. He personally doesn't smoke, but said he understands and believes there are much worse health risks to worry about.

I also watched the news this morning. New report stated they can now prove sugary drinks to pancreatic cancer. Just takes two a day to cause it. I don't care that much for sugary drinks, I believe I will write a letter to ask for that to be banned as well. After all the sugar drinkers just throw those nasty bottles and cans all over the place. It disgusts me to walk past a trash can and see so many in there. They attract rodents and pests that spread disease.

Yes, I survived the day. I went outside in the blustering cold to smoke. I have been coughing all night as a result. At least my former heated indoor designated smoking area stayed clear of cigarette odor. Those empty walls, appreciated it, I guess.

Hopefully the outdoor temperature will warm some tomorrow.

Edited for bad grammar: shoot me if it offends you

[NotGivingUp]

153. i agree totally...on all counts...and i am an ex-smoker