We youth at EvC are in Moral Decline

quote:

---

It's a tough question. My self-interest says, "YEAH! YEAH, I DO! THINK SO!" But honestly, logically, no. If I'm in a crowd of people, I move away from the crowd before lighting up.

---

I'm glad to hear it.You are very much in the minority, as a smoker, in my personal experience.Most smokers, in my experience, have little concept or care of how their smoking affects other people when those people are in a crowd of strangers.I frankly believe that, since nicotine addiction is similar in strength to heroin addiction, smokers are often nearly as irrational, defensive, and inconsiderate as heroin addicts when it comes to getting their fix.

The addiction is part of it, sure. But another big part is when, for example, somebody tries to come along and outlaw smoking in bars. The smoker's reaction is, "Oh, come ON! No smoking in BARS now? Are you freakin' kidding me? That's it, I'm smoking every god-damned place I can. And if you don't like it, EAT IT."Is it the most rational response in the world? Nah. But damn satisfying, in a juvenile way.

quote:

---

The addiction is part of it, sure. But another big part is when, for example, somebody tries to come along and outlaw smoking in bars. The smoker's reaction is, "Oh, come ON! No smoking in BARS now? Are you freakin' kidding me? That's it, I'm smoking every god-damned place I can. And if you don't like it, EAT IT."

​

Is it the most rational response in the world? Nah. But damn satisfying, in a juvenile way.

---

I get you.But don't you also think that this juvenile overreaction is, in part, the addiction talking?I mean, replace "smoking" with "wearing a machine that emits poison gas", and it doesn't seem so ridiculous to make you stop, does it?

Well, that just gets us right back into the whole debate, doesn't it? And as always, if the place you want to wear it is at a poison gas machine expo, then yeah. I think it is pretty ridiculous.

quote:

---

Well, that just gets us right back into the whole debate, doesn't it? And as always, if the place you want to wear it is at a poison gas machine expo, then yeah. I think it is pretty ridiculous.

---

Of course.At a tobacco or smoking festival, I would expect to see lots of people smoking and if I were to go I would not complain about anybody's second hand smoke.I would also pretty much accept that a bar is another place where smoking is to be expected, just due to the culture, although non-smoking bars can and do exist and are successful.However, nowhere else is it part and parcel of the experience, I don't think, and the smoker shouldn't assume that just because he or she is outside, for example, that the people around him or her don't mind that they are smoking near them.I really just think that smokers needing their drug tend to not care who they bother or injure because the emotional anxiety and physical discomfort they experience when in withdrawl or having cravings is much greater than their concern for others' comfort or health.When you add to that the legality of adult smoking and the ready availability to tobacco, I am very grateful every day to the elected officials who passed the laws to stop smoking in nearly every public space.The fact that smokers in these post-smoking ban days can and do manage to sit through and entire movie without lighting up, for instance, means that they didn't absolutely HAVE to smoke in the first place. They just wanted to and didn't care about all the non smokers around them.I support everyone's right to smoke 100% just so long as someone's smoking doesn't interfere with my right to breathe smoke-free air.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-25-2003]

For the most part, I'm with you. What I don't understand, though, is why a lot of people feel there can't be, for instance, a smoking movie theater. If the understanding before you go in is that one of the services available at the theater is the ability to smoke, what's the harm? Don't go there if you don't want a room full of smoke!I'm not saying there shouldn't be non-smoking theaters as well. Far from it. I'm just wondering why it's an all or nothing proposition. As I've been saying throughout this thread, if there's really enough adamant demand for non-smoking businesses, what the Hell do we need a law for?

I think the legislators view the existence of second-hand smoke in closed public areas as a health risk which can be compared to the danger of not wearing a seatbelt when riding in a car. The benefits to the constituents of legislating penalties for failure to perform a certain way are veiwed as overwhelming enough to justify the reduction of individual freedom.Not that I necessarily agree with that reasoning, but I imagine that their reasoning somewhat resembles it.Blessings,::

Even that's not logically consistent, though. Why not just outlaw smoking?

That's the fair and just thing to do. Besides how greatly our overall health would increase; think of the amount of smoke that would no longer contribute to the degeneration of the ozone layer. And how much money could potentially be saved by the smoking populace.....or.....how much money could potentially be lost by the loss of one of America's most profitable taxes.

quote:

---

For the most part, I'm with you. What I don't understand, though, is why a lot of people feel there can't be, for instance, a smoking movie theater. If the understanding before you go in is that one of the services available at the theater is the ability to smoke, what's the harm? Don't go there if you don't want a room full of smoke!

​

I'm not saying there shouldn't be non-smoking theaters as well. Far from it. I'm just wondering why it's an all or nothing proposition. As I've been saying throughout this thread, if there's really enough adamant demand for non-smoking businesses, what the Hell do we need a law for?

---

The reason we need a law is for the previously-stated reasons.Smoke-free air is the default.Smokers, as history shows, generally don't care who is around them in a smoking-optional place. They will smoke if allowed, which automatically makes everyone around them passive smokers, and passive smoking is known to cause deadly illness.These laws save states lots of money because they don't have to pay out as much in medical costs to people who have worked in passive smoke environments for decades and subsequently contract lung disease or cancer. It's also much cleaner and much less stinky to have smoke-free environments, so cleaning costs go down, particularly in historic or ornate theaters. I would imagine that removal of smoking also removes a large fire liability so insurance rates go down for the theater owners, not to mention they eliminate the holes burned in their seat cushions.It's not my problem that some people have gotten themselves addicted to nicotine and that their choice of drug delivery involves burning tobacco and blowing the dangerous smoke all around them.I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to accomodate such people any more than I should have to accomodate people who choose to wear poison gas emitters everywhere they go.As for why there can't be smoking movie theaters, I would imagine that is because in many communities across the country, there is only one movie theater.

My guess is that it has more to do with capitalism. It costs a lot of money to set up a movie theater, and I suspect a smoking movie theater would be popular and make money for about two weeks. Then it would be uncomfortable for all but a very few people, and there would be no attendance.

quote:

---

I see no reason whatsoever that I should have to accomodate such people any more than I should have to accomodate people who choose to wear poison gas emitters everywhere they go.

---

And again... if someone starts a business where one of the services provided is that you can smoke, how is that asking you to accomodate anything? If you never enter the business, it has no effect on you whatsoever.For instance, if someone started a restaurant where the schtick was that waiters were constantly singing to you as you eat, it would annoy the living crap out of me. So I wouldn't go to that restaurant, and I would never have to hear a waiter sing as long as I lived. Not once. It would have no effect on my life at all.Now obviously, being annoyed is not the same as a health detriment. But the ability to avoid the situation is the same in either case. If the business isn't selling what you want, don't give them your time and money. But damn, don't pass a law that says that no one else is allowed to partake in it. That's not people expecting you to accomodate anything. It's exactly the opposite.If someone started a smoking lounge that was open to the public, would you object? Or would you just not go to the smoking lounge?If that smoking lounge served drinks or food, or showed movies, would you object? If that smoking lounge happened to be shaped like a bar, restaurant, or movie theater, why would you care?[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 08-25-2003]

Why couldn't it be plausible to set forth a bill stating all businesses must choose a smoking or non-smoking stance on or before a certain date; whereby the decision must be placed in a visible manner to inform the customer(ie. front entry.) and strictly adhered to upon said date.
Then all employees hired at smoke friendly establishments would also sign a release recognizing they have voluntarily waived their right to smoke free air throughout the duration of their shift(s).In essence, giving the business owners, the patron's, and the employees of every establishment the choice of whether to be in a smoke free environment or otherwise.....------------------
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."

quote:

---

Why couldn't it be plausible to set forth a bill stating all businesses must choose a smoking or non-smoking stance on or before a certain date

---

1) Because presumably, a new business might open at some point, somewhere in America.2) Because the business owner should have the right to change their minds. (Whether they are changing to smoking or non-smoking.)

quote:

---

If someone started a smoking lounge that was open to the public, would you object? Or would you just not go to the smoking lounge?

​

If that smoking lounge served drinks or food, or showed movies, would you object? If that smoking lounge happened to be shaped like a bar, restaurant, or movie theater, why would you care?

---

As long as the stated main purpose of the place is to smoke there, I don't care.However, what you are describing is different from a movie theater, the main purpose of which is to show movies, which also allows smoking.Basically, any business that allows smoking effectively becomes a smoking lounge no matter if that is its stated main purpose or not, which is the reason for the laws, I'm thinking.