$250 Fine for Smoking

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

I agree with kevinpreston8 - it's the "nanny" laws that bother me. I'm an unrepentant smoker but I hope I'm one of the considerate ones - I don't smoke around non-smokers, I don't smoke in my house when I have guests, etc. etc. I do however have a problem with the never ending laws that are to "protect" us. Here in Vancouver, where smoking has been banned for a number of years in bars and restaurants, most of them built patios for the smokers. Now of course, the next law is coming down to ban smoking on the patios. C'mon. You want house insurance? Sorry, that knob and tube wiring has to go plus that stove isn't CSA approved (my friend just had to tear out their 1920's wood burner or no insurance)and oh yeah, it's illegal to sell a house now that has an oil tank in the basement, even though they were installed that way for years. The best one of late though is in the new year, it will be illegal here to idle your car for over 3 minutes. And so we go....
 
The issue with Marriott does not appear to be a law at all, it is a policy set up by a company as part of the terms of doing business with them, nothing more.

Here in Midland and Odessa, TX. the law states that restaurants, bars, etc. must either:
Allow smoking anywhere in the establishment
or forbid it altogether.

I think this is a fair law: those places who have a mostly smoking clientele have allowed it and most places have totally forbad it. "No Smoking" sections in restaurants never stopped the smell from getting to me and I'm glad they don't have that anymore.
 
No, perc, I'm not angry...

I'm just going to continue to do what I want to do.

The streets belong to me, just as much as any non-smoker.

The whole "second-hand smoke" canard has already been thoroughly debunked by a host of experts, and that whole excuse for infringing on my personal freedoms flies straight out the window (or, rather, down the street) when you stop to consider that there is wind and air movement pulsating all around us, on that street.

I've experienced a host of health problems over the course of my life (none due to smoking, I might add), and I've managed to work at managing my symptoms and triggers without haranguing anyone else around me for setting them off, to a point where virtually no one ever had any idea I had problems in the first place!

That's called independence. That's called self-reliance.

That's called tolerance.

My philosophy in regards to people in my personal life, and why I don't suffer tobacco fascists for long, is this: if this is how you respond to something that I do, that has such trivial, if any, consequences for you, well, how will you respond when a real-life emergency or drama pops up? Is this how?

This is the way I have to think of it. If I choose to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, wear leather/fur/etc., eat meat, whatever....what gives you the authority to even comment upon it, unless I give you such authority first? If you don't know how to behave and exhibit yourself in a polite and civilized manner, shouldn't YOU clean up your backyard, before launching into stormtrooper mode in regards to my alleged transgressions?

In short, my guess is that public smoking is something you'll have to learn to come to terms with. Essentially, I really have no problem.
 
Right to smoke...

If you have a "right" to blow a hazardous, noxious irritant in my face on a public sidewalk, then I should have a "right" to do the same to you. Now where did I put my can of mace? ;)
 
Hey, go for it, baby.

I can hear you screaming from Rikers already, lol....

Frankly, the Eisenhower carrier is only five days from reaching the coast of Iran....

My guess is that our energies are better spent worrying over more pressing issues on this planet.
 
oxydolfan1 writes, "Now... if some little trollop walks out of the office building and plants a puss on her face or launches the false-coughing-hacking routine, I've no problem blowing the smoke in their direction....also I light up ON the subway steps, rather until waiting till I hit the street.... "

That's just ignorant and arrogant. Period. You do have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, as long as it doesn't affect my health and well-being.

As for debunking the theory of second-hand smoke, as you've said so many experts have done, everyone who looks at the big picture knows that each study can be skewed to suit the people paying for the study. Without even looking, I think I can safely guarantee you that there are many more studies showing ill effects from second-hand smoke than debunking the theory. But, they may be skewed as well.

I can tell you that when I, a former smoker but non-soapbox lecturer on smoking, encounter second-hand smoke, it not only stinks, but envokes coughing, choking or gagging depending on the concentration. I, too, might give a little signal, like a cough, if you were non-deliberately blowing smoke my way. That would be a subtle, courteous way to tell you you've done it. If you persisted, and I thought you might not have caught the hint, I might ask you to please blow it the other way. If you deliberately blew smoke in my face, I'd be inclined to infringe upon your right to remain upright. I would hope my sensibility would prevail, and I'd like to think I could have you arrested for personal endangerment, citing all those studies proving second-hand smoke as dangerous and deadly. If you want to go ahead and kill yourself smoking, that's your choice and I RESPECT THAT. What I won't tolerate is you affecting my health when I have no choice in the matter.

I also wouldn't have a problem with you or anyone else smoking, if it didn't cost me money. Millions of health care dollars are spent every year on smoking-related illness, driving healthcare costs up and up.

If you deliberately set fire to your house, knowing it will damage it, you don't get insurance money. It's called arson. It should be the same for smoking. It's well documented and commonly known to cause health problems. If you experience health problems DIRECTLY related to smoking, you shouldn't receive health care (i.e. insurance) benefits. It's called stupidity.

But, it's your choice to smoke and accept the risks, just the same as it's your choice to set your house on fire and get an arson charge. That's OK!!! Just don't let it affect me by giving me health problems and costing me more money through higher insurance premiums.

And, yes, I too have lost best friends due to smoking. My grandmother in her 70's and my mother, barely past 50.

This is the Chuck half of perc-o-prince, and not Rich.
 
If we are standing out in the street, you have one acceptable choice: to move yourself to another, presumably more "alpine-fresh" area. I don't smoke in queues and I haven't been known to loiter (lately), so there's absolutely no reason for you to stand on top of me while I go about my business. There's also no need to eye me up and down like a restaurant menu, go into spasmodic performance art to advise me as to your comfort level, or otherwise express your distress. It's called personal space, and, frankly, if you can't handle the smoke from a passer-by's cigarette, you really aren't in any position to be waltzing around the streets where you may have to come in contact with (gasp!) a BUS, or (just to keep it all seasonal) a roasted chestnut cart.

Again, the streets belong to the people. I am a people. And my right to LEGALLY do what I wish to do is in no way going to be relinquish to a stranger's whims and desires?

My insurance? Do you intend to cover my premiums and co-payments for any length of time? How do you know that I do not pay through the nose for a smokers' premium rate, just so I have such bases covered? Are you a field underwriter, or a medical biller for my carrier, who determines what charges shall be paid, and what will not? Didn't think so. Trust me, I've got it covered, and if we need you, we WILL be in touch..

Stop blaming myself and other smokers for your health afflictions, infirmities, and deficiencies. We didn't cause them.

And I'm quite tired of having our nightlife and well-established, safe, well-run nightspots being run out of business, over sheer foolishness and failure to assume responsibility.

I'm a smoker, and I assure you, I'm not going anywhere.
 
just as I read.....

.....somewhere in the comic strips (can't remember which one), but it was WWWWAAAAAAAAYYYYYY back in the '80's...predicting the Nicotine Wars of the '90's, except it is about a decade late.....I, too, have no problem with others smoking, as long as I don't have to breathe their noxious fumes. Some say it is their right....maybe so, but would these same people have the "right" to shred asbestos into the air??? Seems to me that tobacco smoke is about the same.....
 
Lets hear it for PROGRESS!!

On my way to Florida for spring break, I stopped at a hotel just south of Atlanta. I asked for a non smoking room, but it reeked of stale smoke just the same.

Even in unprogressive Indiana they are trying to pass laws that make smoking against the law in all public spaces. Hope the law goes through here. Would love to go to the clubs, but cannot stand the smoke. I think at this point most business would increase in most places if they banned smoking totally. There are just more people that do not smoke than do smoke today in the United States.
 
Chuck I understand your arguments,

and they do have merit, but you said:

'I also wouldn't have a problem with you or anyone else smoking, if it didn't cost me money. Millions of health care dollars are spent every year on smoking-related illness, driving healthcare costs up and up.'

The same could be said about people who have drinking illnesses, illnesses from social diseases because they refused to wear protection, heart disease and obesity from overeating. How about car accidents caused by careless distractions? Sports injuries?

Every one of these things is as preventable as not smoking, if we are talking about insurance here. Don't fall into that trap, that is PRECISELY what the insurance lobbies want you to do to pass these laws.

ALWAYS follow the money trail. Who is really behind the anti-smoking agenda? I believe it truly is the insurance companies. Look what horrible, disgusting damage the drug culture does to our society, and it doesn't get the same press, because the insurance outlays aren't as pronounced.

Life is about risk. The whole point of insurance is that EVERYONE's risk is covered. Some days you skydive. Your neighbor may smoke (and pay more for his insurance as stated earlier). Some days I drive my car too fast. It's all about risk that is precisely why you have insurance. But the corporations want to find ways to cut down payouts, and hey, they go after whatever they can to do it. Seatbelt laws? Motorcycle helmet laws? Please give me the logic that you have to wear a bike helmet but you can tow your kid in a flimsy canvas trailer at 30mph behind your bike, and THAT is ok.

Shouldn't you have a right to own a "smokers bar"? Yes, I think you do. I don't smoke and I don't want to be around it, but we are supposed to live in a free country. So many of my friends here seem to just post "GOOD", because they don't like smoking. To me, this is like saying I am OK with them outlawing ice cream because I am a diabetic and can't eat it, and it annoys me no end to see others eating it.

Ask yourself this question. How would you feel about these laws if there was no second hand smoke threat, and the smoke smelled good and fresh. Would you feel differently, or is it just that the unpleasantness of it to you allows you to be ok with someone's freedoms being tossed?

Again, no one has answered my question asking how are YOU bothered by a privately owned facility that allows smoking? I don't get how that affects people who DON'T have to frequent it. To be honest, I don't go to bars because I don't like drinking, and I don't like being around people who drink too much. Drinking causes tons of accidents and deaths. Should drinking in public be outlawed? Think of the insurance claims that have been paid out because of alcohol.

Again, don't be so eager to see rights being taken away, simply because they are rights that YOU are not exercising.
 
A private smoking facility doesn't bother me-since I don't smoke-I would have no need to go there.I also don't like bars-they are loud,obnoxious places-and sometimes dangerous-drunk bar patrons can get into fights-and these can involve knives or guns.don't want to be around this.I know someone who works in a bar here-and that is the major hazard-drunk guests.I don't want anyon es rights taken away-and that is dangerous grounds for everyone.then they cannot persue the activities they want to do.Sometimes the anti smoking folks do go overboard.If a smoker lights up in an open outdoor area-whats the problem?The smoke will be safely dissapated.You also have room to move away.I am not to anxious about banning things others do hazards or not.I feel if someone wants to operate a smoking bar or regular bar thats their right.I don't have to go there.
 
The Seat Belt Law

It all began with a seat belt law in 1972 (Washington State) supposedly in our best interest, then away went outlets on stoves, lawnmowers had to have dead man brakes, ad naseum and somewhere in there came Homeland Security, the right of the the government to Wiretap and Search and Sieze. It is appears innocuous and soon become insidious, in our best interest. It was designed to lower our resistance with some good for all stuff first. Then like automatrons we say, "Yes Big Brother, anything you say Big Brohter, thank you Big Brother."

That said, it is disingenuous of the government to involve themselves in the smoking issue when so many Billions of government dollars are given to tabacco subsidies.

Businesses, are in fact, a business. They have the right to impose any sanction they choose that is not illegal. The customer base will dictate it's degree of success. And frankly, if businesses aren't about making a profit, how would they pay employees and taxes!

Kelly
 
Here in Washington, they tried to have a reasonable ban on smoking (no restaurants that serve kids, etc) but the restaurant association and casinos wouldn't budge, so this very draconian policy was voted into place. Although you might still be able to smoke at the Indian casinos. I've never been, even though they do have some shows that sound interesting.

As far as the seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc. you can complain all you want about them, but they have saved lives: Not only kept from people being killed, but from being turned into retarded people who would otherwise become wards of the state.

I only wish - to beat my particular drum again - that people would get as engaged and emotional about what Congress has done to the bill of rights with this latest torture bill. These "checkout aisle" type of indignities are nothing compared to some of the real nasty stuff that has been quietly made into law recently.
 
Thank You

Thank you Dalangdon for supporting my point.

Everyone indignantly puffs up and says how wonderful the seatbelt law is. I agree, using restraints in a moving vehicle, may reduce the severity of injury.
In the very next statement you lament the insidious intrusion of governmental manipulation of our rights.
It all began with something sounding good and soon we said yes to everything that sounded good. Once we were anethetized, the cuffs were quietly placed on our personal freedom and protection.
Kelly
 
Even smokers who have health insurance will have Medicare as their primary insurance at retirement age, so more government money is going to pay for smoking's damage to people. And yes, it is inconvenient to have to run on a crowded sidewalk to get in front of a smoker when you wind up behind one and the breeze blows the smoke back in your face. And even when smokers are not smoking, their breath smells like smoke. If a friend has a cigarette outside and finishes it before we get to my car, once we are inside the car with the windows up and the AC on (after putting them down to get the heat out), their breathing puts a smokey smell in the air. It comes out through the skin and elsewhere. The smell is not just in their clothes.

I remember when I was a child and smoking was allowed in grocery stores and how it would make my eyes water when we were in line with smokers around us. The laws restricting smoking are not like prohibition where alcohol was illegal to posess and buy. The new smoking policies are less restrictive than alcohol policies which prohibit its consumption in most outdoor public places. Businesses can most times get licenses to allow sales and consumption of alcohol inside and even on a private outdoor patio, but you cannot legally, in most public places, carry the drink outside and drink it as you walk down the street. Smoking is usually allowed while walking.
 
I love smoking

I live in California where we have a complete smoking ban. No smoking at the workplace or in restaurants or bars. There are exceptions such as a bar where only the owners work, they can allow smoking so there are some of those. And the Indian Casinos are not subject to any California laws, so there is lots of smoking there.

I started to smoke when I was about 16, my cousin taught me how. Lots of people smoked then, probably the majority. I quit when I was about 27, but started again when I was 40. Then I quit again 5 years ago. I told myself that I could start up again when I turn 80 as a way to help myself quit. I didn't use the patch or other devices, there are drugs to help also. This is a very addictive habit, although one that brought me a great deal of pleasure. I do think about smoking, still. There are so many times where it is so satisfying to smoke, after a meal, with a cup of coffee, talking on the phone, driving a car, chatting with a fellow smoker.

It is kind of an odd thing, too. You'd think that you might just occassionally have one, and there are those odd people who just have one or two now and then. But most of us end up with a pack or two or three a day.

The health issue is definitely there, although you read about the 90 year old who still smokes. There have been studies that showed that Social Security would save money on smokers because they die before collecting much.

As far as being civil and polite, if I still smoked, I would try to not offend others. But personally, I love the smell of a cigarette, not the smell of a smoke filled room, like a casino, but that smell of a fresh cigarette the first smoke in the air.
 
Well, I'm not sure I understand the Medicare rationale. I can imagine any number of activities that some could point to as leaving oneself open to various illnesses and diseases, and such comparisons and references would be roundly denounced.

What's next, for the chopping block? Day-Glo Speedos? Dolce & Gabbana cologne? Bhangra music? All of these personal choices in taste have those who are revulsed by them, and I'm sure valid cases could be made that these sights, sounds, and smells have detrimental effects to the physicalities and central nervous systems of some. What do you think our nation's founding fathers would have thought about that?

The day will come, where there will be one checkout line at the market, and there will be those who protest my insistence in paying for my purchases in cash. They will say to me, why don't you just get the microchip implanted in your shoulder, like we all did? Then you won't have to be in my way, annoying me, wasting my time? Get outta my way, you're OFFENDING me!

Will I be expected to just shuffle off to the side, and submit to your wishes, then?
 
It amazes me

the time wasted by industry. Industry should have got off it's fat ____ years ago. admitted the truth, and put resources into better things. We as a people could be spending our efforts on planting trees or fighting global warming instead of wasting effort denying it. Life would be much better for everyone. And that isn't just the tabacco industry.
(did I say I hate republicans and that whole sleeeeeazy lifestyle)

Luv ya
 
I don't hate Republicans, myself.

I just have no patience for the neocon version.

I'd kill for the old days, when I used to debate with Republicans about things like supply-side economics, the national debt, and issues like that.
 
"Even thought the law was passed in the uk for a ban on smoking in bars and resturants, I would welcome a TOTAL SMOKING BAN IN PUBLIC. To me this would mean and out right ban, I have the right to breath clean air as I my self have asthma. A smoker should not have the right to polute a non smokers to breath clean air, smoking is unsexy its dirty it makes you stink AND IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID AND UGLY. I dont smoke so please why the hell should I breath in your crap."

I don't think that a total smoking ban would be a particularly good idea. It would be tantamount to making nicotine products illegal and that would cause many problems. To be perfectly honest, cigarette smoke in the air is causing less problems than pollutants put out by poorly maintained vehicles, electricity power stations and the like.

Also, did you know that nicotine used to be recommended as a treatment for asthma? It's a relaxant and can actually help, although there's so many chemicals added to it now that it's different. I don't think anyone would officially medically recommend it.

As for it making someone look stupid and ugly, well, that's your own personal thought and really has nothing to do with the discussion of whether a ban would be worth it or not.

The difference it has made to pubs, bars, restaurants etc. is amazing up here.
 
Neocon?

OK, I've heard this before on here and sorry, I'm actually not very political even though I mostly vote repub.

What is a neocon anyway? And please NO hateful comments, just tell me what it is.
 
From Wikipedia...

This is the most relevant passage I can think of, from the "Clean Break" memo....

"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, commonly referred to as the "Clean Break" report, was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle. The other participants were James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.

The report was prepared as a proposed new policy for the government of Israel, and presented to then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July of 1996.

The principle recommendations were:

* A repudiation of the concept of "Land for Peace," which was the basis for the Oslo Accords
* Armed incursions into Palestinian areas under the rubric of the "right of hot pursuit"
* Armed incursions into Lebanon, and possible strikes against Syria and Iran
* The removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq
* A repudiation of the tenets of Labor Zionism, and a change to Economic liberalism

The authors of the report are all prominent Neoconservatives. Perle, Feith, and David Wurmser assumed important positions in the administration of President George W. Bush. Commentators Karen Kwiatkowski and Phyllis Bennis have pointed to the similarities between the proposed actions in the Clean Break document, and the subsequent 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict."

I guess one could say proponents of neoconservative policies include George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Benjamin Netanyahu, Tony Blair, etc.

Some visible media personalities include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, etc.

They differentiate themselves from past conservatives and neoconservatives like William F. Buckley, Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan, etc.

That's about as neutral as I make it, lol!

I set myself in disagreement with essential neocon doctrine.
 

Similar threads

L
KDTM604KPS
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
lakewebsterkid
L
petek
Any ductless mini split experts?
Replies
6
Views
85
sarahperdue
sarahperdue
D
Well... That got interesting quickly!
Replies
20
Views
189
wft2800
W
W
Whirlpool service just left stove back in operation
Replies
5
Views
26
washman
W
W
Beginning year 4 as a homeowner
2
Replies
32
Views
388
washman
W

Latest posts

Back
Top