Is it right to ban ... ?

[NotBlinded]

Smoking is not allowed in stores, restaurants, bars, places of business, clubs or within shouting distance of doorways to any public establishment, private or otherwise.

"Private" too? Not even in your own home or in your backyard?

I think what is meant by that is something akin to a private club, like the Moose lodge or something.

 

I do smoke in my house with my child there...under the exhaust fan, that is vented outside, in the kitchen. I do smoke in my car with her in there...with the window open a couple of inches, holding the cigarette by the crack, with the fan in the car blowing outside air in thus pushing the smoke outside. The ventilation system has to be on fresh air in order to blow the smoke out the window, otherwise it will draw air in from the window in order to circulate the air already in the car keeping the smoke in the car.

 

I will continue to do so as long as I can still breathe.

[Ouroboros]

Here's something I have been thinking about for a while, with what Huai said and Vigile, doesn't it sound like the addiction is stronger or controlled by how it is delivered? I mean, chewing tobacco is not pure tobacco but mixed with a whole bunch of chemicals to give it its consistency, and the same for cigarettes, they are wrapped in bleached paper and contains glue and a bunch more of things. While pipe and cigar tobaccy is pure. A cigar is just leafs, rolled together. If you would put stuff in a cigar, no one would like them. There even used to be a brand that had organic cigars! And all this comes to the thing that I find so strange, that the patches and gums contain more nicotine and yet I don't think they have a warning label like the cigars (This is not a safe alternative to ...) We have a friend that almost got killed by a patch that was leaking.

 

But back to the topic though, how does this relate to religion? Like I said before there are plenty of cases with kids getting killed because their parents refuse medical treatments just because of their religion. This kind of "faith" shouldn't be allowed, but it is. And the same goes for these mega size faith healers. I listened to a podcast about it, and people don't get healed, but many actually are hurt and plenty are killed even when they actually have a treatable illness. They rather believe in the healer than go to the doctor and get healed. And they are willing to give all their money to it, but can't afford a health insurance. I think some countries do have laws against this, and why shouldn't we?

[Ouroboros]

I think what is meant by that is something akin to a private club, like the Moose lodge or something.

Ah, okay. A private club. But that is kind of too far there. For instance we have a couple of cigar/smoke lounges in the area. They have very good ventilation and only smokers go in there. But would that be a private club or a public facility?

 

Maybe the best way would be if it was generally outlawed, but you can get a permit? Like the alcohol license. And some department make sure that the "club" got enough and correct ventilation to get the license.

[Dave]

I hate to be around smoke, but I hate the government creating fresh new ways to criminalize personal choices much, much more.

 

That seems to me to be the Reich Wing's goal. They want smaller government interference in business, but a greater intrusion into your personal life.

[Dave]

I know, and that's the very weird thing, because I'm not addicted!!!...

It's dependent on the amount of nicotine that you keep in your system. Alcohol is addictive but many people use it in moderation without getting addicted. I quit smoking by reducing over time the amount of nicotine in my system; I tapered off over 3 months. It was so easy it surprised me. That was about 20 years ago and I have not had a craving since.

 

That'll work. Maybe it should be stronger push on the truck makers but also the truck owners, through fines etc.

 

It's something they're working on.

 

Zero tolerance is a form of fundamentalism.

Amen. I agree. Like MADD they've gone mad. Next thing will be zero tolerance on dayquil and medicine while driving.

 

I kind of like MADD. My father was murdered by a drunk driver. I was 4 years old and had 2 brothers and 2 sisters. He got a warning and a few years later killed himself in an "accident" and took along with him a mother and her two kids. Should we have any tolerance for drunks murdering over 50,000 people/year?

 

Yeah. But it seems that governments tend to get into this idea of controlling behavior though, and that's why I brought up Hitler before, because he was a health nut and he wanted to change humanity, or make humanity a better, strong, faster, healthier being, through leigslation and force, and see where that ended. Somehow we go in these cycles in history.

 

It seems the NeoCons studied his works.... not so much the health part, but the controlling part.

 

It's a tricky concept, this "freedom", where to set the limits, because without some limits there won't be freedom for everyone, but with too many or too strict limits there isn't any for anyone.

 

I like the idea that your freedom ends where it starts to interfere with my freedom. That leaves a big grey area though.

[Vigile]

I hate to be around smoke, but I hate the government creating fresh new ways to criminalize personal choices much, much more.

 

That seems to me to be the Reich Wing's goal. They want smaller government interference in business, but a greater intrusion into your personal life.

 

Sounds like a good definition of fascism.

[Vigile]

I quit smoking by reducing over time the amount of nicotine in my system; I tapered off over 3 months. It was so easy it surprised me. That was about 20 years ago and I have not had a craving since.

 

Jeez, lucky you. I quit chewing cold turkey a little over 5 years ago and when I think about it at times like now when discussing it, damn if I don't crave it badly.

 

I know it seems like a sick habit to those who haven't had it, but I truly enjoyed it. I quit for my health.

[Ouroboros]

That seems to me to be the Reich Wing's goal. They want smaller government interference in business, but a greater intrusion into your personal life.

I never thought of that, but you're right. What a screwed up view.

[Ouroboros]

It's dependent on the amount of nicotine that you keep in your system. Alcohol is addictive but many people use it in moderation without getting addicted. I quit smoking by reducing over time the amount of nicotine in my system; I tapered off over 3 months. It was so easy it surprised me. That was about 20 years ago and I have not had a craving since.

Yeah, but still. The cigar is very high in nicotine and with some you get the buzz, but it doesn't make you as "wanting" as the cigarette. And not only that, I can't smoke a cigar that is stronger but doesn't taste good. I rather smoke a milder/less nicotine but taste better. So if there's any addiction to it, it's addiction to good taste.

 

Zero tolerance is a form of fundamentalism.

Amen. I agree. Like MADD they've gone mad. Next thing will be zero tolerance on dayquil and medicine while driving.

 

I kind of like MADD. My father was murdered by a drunk driver. I was 4 years old and had 2 brothers and 2 sisters. He got a warning and a few years later killed himself in an "accident" and took along with him a mother and her two kids. Should we have any tolerance for drunks murdering over 50,000 people/year?

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean drunk is not dangerous, but most people don't get drunk by one glass. And the statistics that say "drunk related accidents" include when the victim had had a glass and the driver wasn't drunk. I don't have the statistics or reference available at the moment, but I can try to find it if it's of interest. I think the number was 20% of the reported "drunk related" accidents were not caused by the "drunk". And this information is used to force a 0% tolerance. The problem I think with that is that there are medicine and potentially even food that can show up as "alcohol". For instance fresh bread contains alcohol from the yeast process. Zero tolerance could mean no food, no eating, no drinking and no medicine, before driving. And also, if you've been at a party, and you decide to stay over and it off, the next day it will still show on a test. I think it takes 12 hours or so before it doesn't show. So again with current standards we avoid accidents and it costs a fair price by having the police inforce it, but with zero tolerance we might not avoid any more accidents for quite a high price to inforce it.

 

-edit-

A little story, when I was in school we had a police come and demonstrate the test. And one of my friends got to blow this baloon or whatever it was. It showed that he had alchohol in him. The problem was that he had not and never drank. He had a fruit of some kind just before class, that was it. He was legally still allowed to drive, but with zero tolerance he wouldn't have been.

 

It seems the NeoCons studied his works.... not so much the health part, but the controlling part.

So true.

 

It's a tricky concept, this "freedom", where to set the limits, because without some limits there won't be freedom for everyone, but with too many or too strict limits there isn't any for anyone.

 

I like the idea that your freedom ends where it starts to interfere with my freedom. That leaves a big grey area though.

It sure does. Honestly, I don't think there's any easy answer whichever way we take these things. Someone's freedom will be taken away. Either the smokers (to smoke anywhere they want) or the non-smokers (can't avoid smokers wherever they go).

[Dave]

That seems to me to be the Reich Wing's goal. They want smaller government interference in business, but a greater intrusion into your personal life.

 

Sounds like a good definition of fascism.

Exactly! It's only one small step from capitalism to a corporatism based fascism like Mussolini set up in Italy.

[Dave]

Jeez, lucky you. I quit chewing cold turkey a little over 5 years ago and when I think about it at times like now when discussing it, damn if I don't crave it badly.

 

I was smoking about 2 packs of Bugler (roll your own)/day.

 

Funny thing though. Abut 10 years after I quit I bought a 1973 IH Travelall. It was built like a tank. Still runs great. The first time I sat in it I saw that it had a wing window that I could flick my ashes out of...... then I remembered I don't smoke.

[Dave]

Yeah, but still. The cigar is very high in nicotine and with some you get the buzz, but it doesn't make you as "wanting" as the cigarette. And not only that, I can't smoke a cigar that is stronger but doesn't taste good. I rather smoke a milder/less nicotine but taste better. So if there's any addiction to it, it's addiction to good taste.

If you smoked several cigars/day you would get addicted to the nicotine.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean drunk is not dangerous, but most people don't get drunk by one glass. And the statistics that say "drunk related accidents" include when the victim had had a glass and the driver wasn't drunk.

 

The figures I gave I got from a NHTSA website concerning "accidents" that involved a BAC over .08. They may not have been "drunk" but they were impaired drivers.

 

I don't have the statistics or reference available at the moment, but I can try to find it if it's of interest. I think the number was 20% of the reported "drunk related" accidents were not caused by the "drunk".

 

Many like to doctor the figures but the ones I gave were based on BAC and you can safely assume that if they had a BAC over .08 that BAC was a factor in the crash.

 

And this information is used to force a 0% tolerance. The problem I think with that is that there are medicine and potentially even food that can show up as "alcohol"....

 

Does it matter how the person got impaired? I seriously doubt anyone ever got a DUI from eating bread.

 

It sure does. Honestly, I don't think there's any easy answer whichever way we take these things. Someone's freedom will be taken away. Either the smokers (to smoke anywhere they want) or the non-smokers (can't avoid smokers wherever they go).

 

I have the right to breathe clean air. Does that mean we have to get rid of every car on the planet?

[mwc]

The figures I gave I got from a NHTSA website concerning "accidents" that involved a BAC over .08. They may not have been "drunk" but they were impaired drivers.

I agree with you that impaired drivers are an issue but how do we define "impaired?" Reports show that sleepy drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers. If we make a law banning something as broad as "impairment" it sets things up for a very subjective situation. I'm hesitant to use the term "slippery slope" but it seems apt. At least with drunk drivers you can test for BAC.

 

I guess this is why, in my earlier post, I am so reluctant to "ban" anything outright. Once a law is made it's nearly impossible to modify much less remove it from the books. They just add more and more. Freedoms go away but they're never restored.

 

It's clear I don't have a solution. Without laws we'd have anarchy especially when it came to public safety but at the same time it seems that many of these laws just aren't necessary.

 

mwc

[The Sage Nabooru]

Eeewww, smoking. Seriously. That has to be one of the most disgusting habits ever.

 

Due to its high addiction rate and severe adverse health effects, I personally would have no problem with it being banned. I used to work in a nursing home. I've been around way too many people in their little clouds of acrid smoke puffing away - not because they really want to, but because they can't fight the addiction anymore - and lying dead in their beds in their 50s. I've known people who have tried every possible option offered in the way of quitting, from cold turkey to retreats, and just can't do it. It's got 'em too fast.

 

Being around someone who smokes is an immediate turn-off for me. First, smoking is expensive, what with the taxes these days, I can't imagine how anybody could throw away money like that on a drug. Secondly, it stinks like holy hell and it permeates every single surface they come into contact with. I consider it an insult for people to assume they can smoke in my presence. If you're out on a crowded sidewalk and there's nowhere else to go for you to make your sick mess, then go ahead, although I'll still hate your guts, I resent breathing your pollution. But when anybody so much as dares to even think about smoking in my house, car, or out on a date/outing - you're gone. Get away from me.

 

Plus when I see young people smoking, I think "shallow". Old folks smoke because they got hooked before they knew what was up with inhaling polluted air, but young people were educated in the dangers and still took it up solely for the cause of looking cool and rebellious. If that, and not your own life/health, is what is important to you, then I'm not going to take you seriously.

 

LOL. I guess I'm just with smoking, the way other people here are with religion: it's harmful, does no good, so cut it out. I do realize, this is a right people have, and I have neither the right nor ability to stop them. So go ahead. Make my day! (Seriously, though......smoke in my car.....especially if you don't ask first and just assume you can.......you will be in a bag, by the road, with the gun in the ditch beside you.)

 

I do imagine it will be illegal soon, though. I know it's still fairly popular in Europe and Asia but I know hardly anyone personally in America who still smokes. It's really become an inside habit. I already know of counties where it's illegal to smoke pretty much anywhere outside your own house, and a lot of restaurants that don't bother putting in smoking sections anymore.

[Ro-bear]

By Dave, the WM

 

Should religion be banned from polluting the public domain and influencing pubic policy ...?

 

 

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2007/02...ime-to-ban.html

 

I have always been against letting religion dictate pubic policy. I think one's pubic policy should be private; that's why they call them private parts.

 

[woodsmoke]

Eeewww, smoking. Seriously. That has to be one of the most disgusting habits ever.

 

<snippage of further wonderfulness>

 

I'm not one to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Even though smoking affects me, I'm very hesitant to advocate legislating it.

 

That being said...

 

Will you marry me?

[The Sage Nabooru]

Oh good, someone who agrees with me on this. Seriously, the only thing worse than smoking, is chewing tobacco. No offense to anybody who's done it here, but my God, that's nasty shit. I've known of people who carried around little styrofoam cups everywhere they went to spit their brown, slimy goo into.....just the idea is absolutely disgusting.

 

I was thinking about another possible illegal action, though: What does everyone think of talking on cellphones while driving? I once saw a woman yakking away on a phone, pull right into the middle of a police funeral procession. Now there's those orange flags waving from every window and the dumbassed chick still wasn't thinking enough. I'm sure she was pulled over and given a piece of their mind, but still, I've seen some shitass driving from people on cellphones, and I refuse to use mine while I'm in the driver's seat.

[Rachelness]

Holding and talking on a cellphone while driving is illegal in the UK. You have to use those hands-free sets.

[woodsmoke]

There's a few states in the U.S. have mandated hands-free devices too. It's a wonderful way of dancing around the issue while still placating the sheeple.

 

The problem with speaking to someone on your cell while driving isn't that you don't have both hands on the wheel (though that definitely doesn't help). The problem is your attention is split between driving and the conversation, making you drastically more likely to cause and/or be involved in a hazardous situation or accident.

[Ouroboros]

If you smoked several cigars/day you would get addicted to the nicotine.

Sure, I used to. Then I went with pipe in a day. Then I smoke less. Yesterday I had several cigars, and I'll see if I even will have one today.

 

To tell you the truth, an addiction causes a person to crave it intensively, and even if I smoke 7 cigars one day, I don't crave them the next day. But my wife smokes cigarettes and she can't be without them. She smokes one, and she's hocked.

 

It's either genetic or the form of distribution of the drug.

 

Many like to doctor the figures but the ones I gave were based on BAC and you can safely assume that if they had a BAC over .08 that BAC was a factor in the crash.

From what I understand is that when an accident is reported, and one of the involved parties had any alcholol in their body, the police marks the accident as "alcohol related". If a person drives a car, but is not drunk and didn't have a drink at all, and doesn't show any alcohol, runs over a pedstrian that just came out from a bar, with alcohol in their body, that is called an "alcohol related accident".

 

From "Alcohol Involvement in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes, 2003"

In 2003, a total of 38,252 fatal motor vehicle traffic crashes were recorded in the United States

that accounted for 42,643 fatalities. Of these crashes, an estimated 40 percent were alcoholrelated,

i.e., at least one driver, pedestrian or pedalcyclist had a Blood Alcohol Concentration

(BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or greater. Alcohol-related crashes accounted for about

40 percent of all fatalities in traffic crashes.

About 25 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes had alcohol, i.e., their BAC was 0.01 or

greater (0.01+).

Notice that only 25% of the drivers involved in the fatal crashed had alcohol, and not 100%; that means 75% of the drivers were not drunk or impaired. So who had the alcholol in the 75% of the cases? The drunk pedestrian, the drunk passenger, the drunk dog... maybe it was a drunk officer.

 

Put it this way, if you drive, and you're sober, but your passenger is drunk, and you get into an accident, that is also considered "alcohol related".

 

Now this information is used to force new laws to make sure no one got any alcohol in them while driving. Which isn't a bad thing, but the underlying facts and reasoning isn't correct. If we should have laws, they should be based on correct data.

 

And this information is used to force a 0% tolerance. The problem I think with that is that there are medicine and potentially even food that can show up as "alcohol"....

 

Does it matter how the person got impaired? I seriously doubt anyone ever got a DUI from eating bread.

Impaired at 0.0001%? There's no proof of that. Impaired at 0.08%? Sure, I can buy that. But don't go overboard.

 

For instance there are some chocolate candy that contain a small amount of alcohol, eat one in the car and you'll impaired? They will show, because I know from another instance in school when they showed it. It doesn't show 0.8 or 0.08, but it did show a little amount because of the alcohol in the breath. Now are we willing to spend all that extra tax money to get to non-impaired people. I'm not saying the drunk, or the impaired, but for the ones that actually have a level that is proven to be dangerous. Does it make sense at all? I just don't want to pay 10% more in tax so the police can catch people that are not impaired. Lets get real and deal with the real problems first, before we're chasing ghosts.

 

It sure does. Honestly, I don't think there's any easy answer whichever way we take these things. Someone's freedom will be taken away. Either the smokers (to smoke anywhere they want) or the non-smokers (can't avoid smokers wherever they go).

 

I have the right to breathe clean air. Does that mean we have to get rid of every car on the planet?

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree.

[Ouroboros]

I do imagine it will be illegal soon, though. I know it's still fairly popular in Europe and Asia but I know hardly anyone personally in America who still smokes. It's really become an inside habit. I already know of counties where it's illegal to smoke pretty much anywhere outside your own house, and a lot of restaurants that don't bother putting in smoking sections anymore.

It will be illegal pretty soon. In a few years no one will be allowed to do it anywhere, not even inside or outside their home. And NY is leading the way in this, and they didn't stop there; now they've outlawed racial slur. And in some places they talk about outlawing trans fat. Next is religious blasphemies and religious intolerance. What will be next? Maybe "hate speech" against the president? We're almost there. Think what you want about smoking, but we've started a slippery-slope where moral codes are put in as laws. And this is the same thing the pilgrims fled from in England and Europe. It's not so much about what we like or not, but it's the attitude shift in society, that it's okay to remove freedom from the citizen, while the government is getting more freedom. Bloomberg in NY that led the anti-smoking laws, he had a party a year or two after the laws where active, and they smoked away in a hotel. And I guess it was okay because he is a politician, while it's not okay for a regular citizen. I remember seeing this kind of behavior both with laws and action from politicians... in socialistic and communistic countries.

[Ouroboros]

I was thinking about another possible illegal action, though: What does everyone think of talking on cellphones while driving? I once saw a woman yakking away on a phone, pull right into the middle of a police funeral procession. Now there's those orange flags waving from every window and the dumbassed chick still wasn't thinking enough. I'm sure she was pulled over and given a piece of their mind, but still, I've seen some shitass driving from people on cellphones, and I refuse to use mine while I'm in the driver's seat.

There's something ever worse going on today, people are texting and sending messages and read their emails while driving. Talking on the phone takes away your concentration, but texting takes away your eyes too. Now they don't look at the road, don't think about the traffic, and drive with one hand or maybe their knees.

[Dave]

....Put it this way, f you drive, and you're sober, but your passenger is drunk, and you get into an accident, that is also considered "alcohol related".

 

I'll ask my neighbor. He's a Calif. Highway Patrol officer.

 

Impaired at 0.0001%? There's no proof of that. Impaired at 0.08%? Sure, I can buy that. But don't go overboard....

 

Someone with a .08 is driving impaired. They have done quite a few studies and that was not just an arbitrary number. As for other substances, they have that field sobriety test. It's not just for alcohol. If you drive impaired under alcohol or cough medicine and run over someone, that person is just as dead either way. How one gets impaired is irrelevant.

 

I'm not sure if you agree or disagree.

 

I think we mostly agree. How about I put it this way; the only thing more abhorrent than smoking would be to ban it.

[Ouroboros]

I think we mostly agree. How about I put it this way; the only thing more abhorrent than smoking would be to ban it.

I think we mostly agree too. It's only minor differences and they really don't matter.

 

But I do think that text messaging on your cell phone should be outlawed... and oops, I've done it myself... shame on me!

 

There is one thing I was thinking about when it comes to driving and safety and such, wouldn't be a more efficient step to demand higher requirements for a driving license? I mean, the test here in CA is a parody compared to the one I did in Sweden 20 years ago. And they've raised the level back in my country since then. I had to (back then) do a multiform test that took a good couple of hours. The driving test was done in snow conditions and on small roads and quite demanding. Nowadays I think you'll only get a temporary license for the first years and if you get one speeding ticket, your license is gone and you have to go back to study and retake the tests after a certain time period. For a regular driver it's three tickets and your license is taken.

 

When I'm on the freeway here I feel like I'm playing some kind of snowboard game. You have to drive slalom between the chairs, tires and other junk people drop from their pickup trucks. Last couple of weeks has been terrible. Bricks, steel bars, shovels, you name it. And then you have these guys that drive twice as fast as the rest of the traffic, because they're in such hurry to get up 1 feet behind another car and tag them for a couple of miles. When there's an opening to the left or right lane, they stay behind the other car, but as soon as they have traffic in the other lanes and no space to move, they squeeze in and cut people off. No planning, no foresight, no care. One doesn't have to be drunk to be stupid, that's for sure.

[The Sage Nabooru]

The problem with speaking to someone on your cell while driving isn't that you don't have both hands on the wheel (though that definitely doesn't help). The problem is your attention is split between driving and the conversation, making you drastically more likely to cause and/or be involved in a hazardous situation or accident.

 

I think I once saw a Mythbusters episode that showed that people are actually more dangerous when driving and using a cellphone, then when tipsy. The few times I've tried to talk while driving have scared the hell out of me. I had no idea what I was doing.

 

My dad will spend hours backstabbing on the phone (that is, guys from work will call him or vice-versa, he will stay on literally for about a couple of hours bad-mouthing some other guy, then the other guy will call him and he'll bitch about the first one). He'll spend an entire car trip on the phone (and be on it during the entire time we're in the restaurant and trying to converse with each other......but that's another story). I've seen him pull out in front of full-speeding cars with no warning, I cannot remember him ever using a turn signal in my entire life and I've seen him go into other lanes without so much as looking to see if there's room, etc. I think in France it's illegal to use a cellphone while driving, too, I hope that's one European law that could pass over the pond.

 

As for blasphemy becoming illegal.....well as long as Democrats (and independents) exist I don't see how that could happen, even in the US. But I could see some kind of law that would outlaw speaking about religion or personal spiritual preferences in any time or place other than a religious setting or gathering. You wouldn't be able to come out as a Christian, atheist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. in public or discuss theological or personal belief issues with others in a public, non-religious setting, in the name of not starting disagreements or controversy. So I could see that happening, but it would be much more of an ass-kissing extreme bleeding-heart thing than a Republican thing, which would just outlaw talking about non-Christian religions. A sort of "let's all get along and pretend it doesn't exist" sort of thing.