New Georgia Law will make smoking in your car a crime

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
2-1-2004 Smokers should not have right to endanger others' health

Restrictions on smoking are not an intrusion in people's life; it a matter of life itself. It is not a strange move to mandate smoke-free dining because people do find meaning in the move. Each life saved is worth the effort. Again, it is not a trivial matter or a mad idea but something overdue for a long time.

Hundreds of communities and many states and countries have gone smoke-free and the list is growing. The latest to join is Ireland, which a few weeks ago banned smoking in public places. It is going smoke-free because smoking is harmful to health of the nation.

Perhaps the worst sufferers are restaurant workers who inhale six times more smoke than diners and incur a greater the risk of lung cancer and heart disease. Dining in a restaurant, which is an integral part of our culture, should be a pleasant experience; smoking should not spoil it or imperil the health of diners and workers.

But it is a welcome realization that three of every four smokers who visit a doctor are urged to quit. To quit smoking is the desire of a majority of smokers, though it is within the power of a relatively few of them.

Estimates bear out that 440,000 lives are decimated each year by tobacco, while 8.6 million persons suffer from smoking-related illnesses. This results in $157 billion in health-related costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh darn, less population control if the idiots stop smoking.


1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure

I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.

As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.

If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.

I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.

Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.

Tracy O'Shields Sr.

Gainesville

 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure

I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.

As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.

If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.

I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.

Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.

Tracy O'Shields Sr.

Gainesville
Idiocy is funny.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure

I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.

As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.

If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.

I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.

Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.

Tracy O'Shields Sr.

Gainesville
Here's a wild idea, why not leave it up to the owners of the property to decide if they want to allow smoking or not. After all it is their buisness.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Working in a resteruant I've got concern of second hand smoke. We got one section for smokers, it about the size of family room and barely any ventiliaton. What really gets on my nerves is when you see parents bringing their own 7 year old kids into smoking when its already filled with smoke. It gets pretty thick, if you walk in right from the outside your eyes will go straight into water. They should make some laws not allowing parents to bring their childern into smoking areas. As for smoking, it should be illegalized. Phuck your freedoms and the buzz you get when you use it with other drugs. It kills more people than anything else on earth even war.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,681
362
126
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure

I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.

As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.

If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.

I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.

Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.

Tracy O'Shields Sr.

Gainesville
Here's a wild idea, why not leave it up to the owners of the property to decide if they want to allow smoking or not. After all it is their buisness.
a voice of reason

As for people who dont want to work in a smoking environment maybe they should look for work elsewhere.

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert
 

Sahakiel

Golden Member
Oct 19, 2001
1,746
0
71
Originally posted by: nutxo
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-28-2004 We should let smokers have their pleasure

I am still amazed and shocked at the gall of some people. They try to tell each of us what's best for us and go out of their way to cram their ideas down our throats.

As a nonsmoker, I don't know why other nonsmokers don't leave smokers alone. OK, the government has decided that smoking kills zillions of people a year, mostly nonsmokers. Wow! Wonder why it doesn't kill the smokers? If secondhand smoke is so toxic, how do smokers survive? They get it first and secondhand.

If you don't like to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, go to one that doesn't. One of the main reasons restaurants allow smoking is that smokers generally are better customers. They don't gripe and cry about every little problem and they tip better than nonsmokers. Also, they don't look into nonsmoking to try to see who is abusing their children verbally or through obesity.

I personally request "smoking" because the people are friendlier and more forgiving of mistakes, and my wife smokes. We have had to wait long periods for smoking tables because some nonsmokers requested "either," took up the place of a smoker and griped and complained about the smoke.

Lighten up. Let people enjoy what little peace and pleasure they still have. Please stay in nonsmoking and keep your views and opinions to yourself.

Tracy O'Shields Sr.

Gainesville
Here's a wild idea, why not leave it up to the owners of the property to decide if they want to allow smoking or not. After all it is their buisness.
a voice of reason

As for people who dont want to work in a smoking environment maybe they should look for work elsewhere.
Seperation of church and state. People can't use religion to regulate social behavior, so such attempts have to go through law.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert

Sorry but there is no link between second hand smoke and health problems in non-smokers. This is all a liberal lie....just like the whole global warming theory. There is no real data or evidence to back this up. You are just making this all up.
 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
sorry Dave, but on this case, I'll have to MAJORLY disagree. Let's turn the question around. Did those non-smoker gave permission for smokers to endanger their lives? Didn't think so. Just because smokers takes 1st and 2nd hand smoke, it doesn't justify the unneccesary risk non-smokers have to take through 2nd hand smoke. Personally, I really dislike anyone who smokes. It's bad enough that he/she is killing themselves, but they also endanger those who are around them.
 

Zephyr106

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
1,309
0
0
Sorry but there is no link between second hand smoke and health problems in non-smokers. This is all a liberal lie....just like the whole global warming theory. There is no real data or evidence to back this up. You are just making this all up.
Bwhahahaah fvck those liberals and their "science". Care to back up your claims?

Zephyr
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
As someone with severe allergies, I couldn't disagree more with this.

The main thing you are missing is that a big reason some of us non-smokers remain non-smokers is because we are more affected by it. If the secondhand smoke gets to you enough, smoking yourself is never a consideration.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,425
11,662
136
Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert
Of course it couldn't be the fault of that smog-filled air you breathe everyday right? ;)

edit: the propaganda is very strong in many of you here... very amusing... as always. In 1970, Ralph Nader testified before Congress that 50,000 people would die every year from automobile pollution by 1995. In 1995, the AMA announced that 50,000 people died ever year from lung cancer who were non-smokers. So who did they blame? You know they didn't blame cars, the lifeblood of America...
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
0
I'll take what I said one step further:

Smoking marijuana should be legal. It's just tobacco causing all the problems.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Vic edit: the propaganda is very strong in many of you here... very amusing... as always. In 1970, Ralph Nader testified before Congress that 50,000 people would die every year from automobile pollution by 1995. In 1995, the AMA announced that 50,000 people died ever year from lung cancer who were non-smokers. So who did they blame? You know they didn't blame cars, the lifeblood of America...
I agree Vic, to assume that all of the cases of lung cancer are a direct result of second hand smoke IMHO is naive, I could easily see people contracting lung cancer from all of the pollutants our out of date public transportation puts out along with other loosly regulated commercial vechicle emissions standards.

I also agree that govt is trying to mandate and control social behavior, honestly it should be up to the owners of the local establishments if they want to permit smoking or not, to have these matters decided on by a small group of minority officials IMHO is unfair. I know in the area which I live if it were up to businesses you can bet your bottom dollar they would still allow smoking as there was a huge drop in revinue in towns that outlawed smoking in public eateries and such.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Vic edit: the propaganda is very strong in many of you here... very amusing... as always. In 1970, Ralph Nader testified before Congress that 50,000 people would die every year from automobile pollution by 1995. In 1995, the AMA announced that 50,000 people died ever year from lung cancer who were non-smokers. So who did they blame? You know they didn't blame cars, the lifeblood of America...
I agree Vic, to assume that all of the cases of lung cancer are a direct result of second hand smoke IMHO is naive, I could easily see people contracting lung cancer from all of the pollutants our out of date public transportation puts out along with other loosly regulated commercial vechicle emissions standards.

I also agree that govt is trying to mandate and control social behavior, honestly it should be up to the owners of the local establishments if they want to permit smoking or not, to have these matters decided on by a small group of minority officials IMHO is unfair. I know in the area which I live if it were up to businesses you can bet your bottom dollar they would still allow smoking as there was a huge drop in revinue in towns that outlawed smoking in public eateries and such.
Oh that's right, smoking is good for you. Smells and tastes great too.


 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Oh that's right, smoking is good for you. Smells and tastes great too.
Dm, if you only took that out of my post I must emplore you to pass the doobie...if you think the high cancer rates are only related to second hand smoke and nothing else then you be crazy. Also since when does smell and taste have anything to do with the subject at hand? if you personally do not like the smell or the taste then that is your business and you are free not to smell or taste smoke by avoiding places where business owners choose to permit smoking....

whatever my point is moot anyway as socialist liberals such as yourself that feel your way is the right way are mandating behavior ..only a matter of time before everyone has to abide by the wishes of the minority.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
2
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: chess9
Well, smoke this:

I have been a long, long time runner. I have never smoked, but I was raised by parents who smoked like Con Edison. All my 4 brothers also smoked. In the Marines I was exposed to heavy inside smoke on a daily basis. Last month I was diagnosed with emphysema and have two suspicious "diffusions" on my lungs.

When I went for my lung function test I was told by the technician that she had just finished testing two guys who had worked together in the same restaurant they owned for 22 years. The smoker had a 40% loss of lung function, and the other man, a non-smoker, had a 23% decline in lung function. The are in their mid 50's.

I've never been a fan of cigarettes, but I've always tolerated them. My wife even smoked early in our relationship. But, I now think that tolerance for cigarette smokers is not a good thing. If something you do is going to kill someone else-and dying of lung cancer or emphysema is one of the worst things you can imagine-then I would encourage you to re-think youir habit. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for others.

-Robert

Sorry but there is no link between second hand smoke and health problems in non-smokers. This is all a liberal lie....just like the whole global warming theory. There is no real data or evidence to back this up. You are just making this all up.
Ooooookay, take off the tinfoil hat:

American Lung Association says...

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
Now, given, those "estimates" might be dubious, but the claim that there is NO LINK between SHS and illness in non-smokers and that it's all a liberal propogandizing lie is absolutely rediculous.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0

For once, and probably only once, I agree with Dave :)

- Smoking should be banned in all public indoor areas, and within certain distances of entrances and exits.
- Smoking should be banned in all places of business that service the public, and within certain distances of entrances and exits.


Either that, or since I'm being physically assaulted by chemical agents, then in self-defense I should be legally allowed to put out said cig on smokers forehead.

I also think that police should start enforcing litter and fire hazard regulations for every smoker out there that tosses a butt out the window.

I've run across a few rare polite smokers. 95+% of the rest I've met are selfish pigs, when it comes to their drug of choice.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,425
11,662
136
Ahh... the I-don't-like-something-so-I-think-there-oughta-be-a-law mentality. Pull your head out of your ass.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Ahh... the I-don't-like-something-so-I-think-there-oughta-be-a-law mentality. Pull your head out of your ass.
What does it have to do with "I don't like it"?

Is it legal to walk around and spit on people? Spray Mace? Can I start a pile of maple leaves on fire at a restaurant table, as long as I keep it to a nice smolder? Can I walk around with canisters of "rotten egg scent" and spray it on people? It sure would give me the same pleasure nicotine does smokers, if I could do it to them. Someday, if I get rich, I'm going to try the leaves one in the smoking section ;)

Why are the "rights" of smokers put ahead of allergics, asthmatics, heart patients, cancer patients, immunocompromised people?

Go ahead and chain smoke to your hearts content (pardon the health pun), but keep it out of my face.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
come to think of it, i dont remember seeing any smoking sections in cali for a long time now..:)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,425
11,662
136
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Vic
Ahh... the I-don't-like-something-so-I-think-there-oughta-be-a-law mentality. Pull your head out of your ass.
What does it have to do with "I don't like it"?

Is it legal to walk around and spit on people? Spray Mace? Can I start a pile of maple leaves on fire at a restaurant table, as long as I keep it to a nice smolder? Can I walk around with canisters of "rotten egg scent" and spray it on people? It sure would give me the same pleasure nicotine does smokers, if I could do it to them. Someday, if I get rich, I'm going to try the leaves one in the smoking section ;)

Why are the "rights" of smokers put ahead of allergics, asthmatics, heart patients, cancer patients, immunocompromised people?

Go ahead and chain smoke to your hearts content (pardon the health pun), but keep it out of my face.
None of your analogies are even close to real life.
This issue never has been about smoker's "rights" and never will be. It's about property rights and the rights of individuals.

If a property owner wants people to smoke on his property, then it is his decision, not yours, not the government's. If you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking, and you don't like it, then leave. If you decide to stay of your own free will, then shut the fsck up. After all, what kind of idiot hates smoking but sits in the smoking section?
And who the hell said I smoked? Way to go with that asssumption. I'm against your anti-smoking bullsh!t for the same reasons I'm against the idiotic "War on Drugs", of which this anti-smoking issue is only an escalation. But I guess that makes me a druggie too, right?


Here's some advice: take some responsibility in your life. You don't like smokers and smoking? Great! Don't be around them. In the meantime, you should ponder on why you have an overwhelming urge to force people into living the way you want them to live. My guess would be is that you hate people, and your desire to make what other people do illegal is your way of using the government for your personal spite. Which is why I always oppose people like you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY