I Believe

[puffy]

That in the good old USA where freedom is suppose to prevail we need an official definiton of the difference between a public place an a private business.In my opinion(which is is usualy completly ignored by everyone)An owner of a private business (not big brother)should have the right to decide wheather or not smoking is allowed in that place of business.

 

[marmal4de]

I 100% agree, unfortunately, the land of the free is really the land of the obliviously enslaved (Canada is in the same boat, though we don't have the audacity to claim that we are 'the land of the free').
EDIT: I noticed that my post may seem inflammatory, it is just my opinion and I mean no disrespect.

 

[papipeguy]

Agreed. Our B&M here in Pa has to file for a special permit to allow smoking in the shop and prove that less than 20% of his sales are food. The man sells cigars and pipe stuff exclusively but there you have it.

If you're not sure- regulate it. If it makes someone happy- tax it.

 

[fullbent]

Here in Kentucky,the city of Bowlingreen,(home of the corvette plant)is totally smoke free! They are passing a law,that outdoor smoking could result in a fine!Local bar owners are frowning heavily on the consept.Land of the free,and the home of the brave!My personal opinion ,this is taking things tooooo far. :x

 

[pipevilleworld]

Since I've become a pipe smoker, since January of this year, I now feel like I've decided to go walking down just another looooong hall of silly prejudices and unexplained and very prominent injustices. I've never smoked anything before so... I was on the outside... and so... my opinions were like the popular ones; about smoking and the risks of tobacco use. But then... after taking an interest in the hobby of pipe smoking (getting on the inside of it all), after realizing that a lot of great thinkers in history lived very long healthy lives smoked pipes and cigars, I dug a bit deeper and found that there seems to be an covering up of a lot important facts that PROMOTE the use. LOL. So... since I've been smoking, I've found myself a member of the family that gets pissed because he can't find the logic in why ONE CAN'T SMOKE OUTDOORS; or INDOORS for that matter. Tobacco seems to have suddenly become this... "icky" thing; but all because of how the media wants people to think of it.

 

[bootlegbonvivant]

That's exactly it, Pipeville. I'm of also the mind to know that not everyone's body can handle tobacco (genetics, chemistry, whatever). Therefore, you're always gonna find people who had health problems related to smoking as much as you'll find people who can smoke for generations without any adverse effects. I guess what is really needed is a truly educated populace about the risks and the understanding in government that it's each individual's CHOICE to partake or not.

 

[romeowood]

Look at it this way: demonizing tobacco and making it a scapegoat for all the myriad causes of cancer makes it a little easier for the Nestles of the world to pump our diet full of corn and petroleum by-products. Until people smoke more than they eat, food will make more money and cheaper food with less nutritional value makes even MORE money.

I, for one, am working on smoking more than I eat. Just my little bit to tip the scales of balance back. :crazy:

 

[bubbadreier]

Pretty soon your own house will be smoke free, wether you like it or not!

 

[pipevilleworld]

Pretty soon... we'll have to go to the MOON to have a smoke, Bubba! LOL.

 

[capnbellamy]

Here, "public" is defined as basically anywhere with 4 walls/a walled enclosed room that isn't your house. This includes pubs, bars, B&M, anywhere that isnt the street or your house. You can smoke on a pub's property, but it has to be outside. Can't smoke in the local B&M despite the owners being smokers, because other people have access to it and it has all it's walls. Some private property is also defined as "public" in that they don't allow smoking anywhere on site wether outside or not.
I can smoke in the comfort of my own home, or when outside. But not in anywhere that's defenitely a building or somewhere the owner doesn't want any smoking whatsoever.

 

[jimbo]

fullbent said, "Local bar owners are frowning heavily on the consept."
Frowning heavily will get them nowhere. They should be UP IN ARMS!
Call, write, MEET with those who will approve or disapprove of this "concept".
Free men who do nothing to stave off disaster are not worthy of being free men.

 

[PeriqueMyInterest]

Bootleg, I think that genetics might have something to do with it but genetics has a lot to do with cancer in the first place. The problem is that, while the people who do not want you to smoke are not lying, they are putting forth information that, speaking philosophically, "does not follow". Saying that 30,000 (I just made up the number) people die of tobacco related illness a year, is simply built from an illogical argument. The premises might be true, the conclusion might be true (though I highly doubt it), but the conclusion is arrived at illogically. A logical conclusion would be 30,000 people that die of a certain illness every year - an illness that many who have never smoked also die from every year - have smoked. The fact that very many people that have never smoked, or have merely tried smoking, die from the same thing that tobacco is supposed to cause makes their argument just plain stupid.

 

[bootlegbonvivant]

Very true. What I was basically trying to suggest is that with some people the chemicals related to smoking could possibly speed up, or bring forth those genetic traits just as much as you'll find those who did nothing to "cause" their medical conditions. Example being two people in my family, both passed from lung cancer. One smoked cigarettes for decades and had to not only quit smoking, but also had to change his complete diet. The other person being much much younger and as far as I know, never smoked a day in his life. Therefore, I wouldn't think one could definitely state that smoking caused the cancer. Instead, all that we can possibly say is that it might have contributed and I'd be more inclined that there were other factors that helped cause the disease.

 

[PeriqueMyInterest]

Sorry for your losses, I had a cousin that passed from oral cancer, she was quite young and hadn't smoked as well. You're right that it is only possible to say that it might contribute to the cause because any time you try and gain knowledge of the past from present information it is only done by inference. Anything else is "Monday morning quarterbacking", a philosophical fallacy which makes any argument void; most anti-smoking campaigns incorporate this fallacy often. And, while not all propaganda is bad, propaganda has to be recognized as propaganda or else the greater amount of the population look like a bunch of fools.
Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, this topic just makes me angry

 

[bootlegbonvivant]

Sorry to hear that as well, makes no sense. I'll agree to that, lol.

 

[capnbellamy]

If statistics have some way of showing that tobacco smoking is related to cancer, then that's all well and good. That information should be published so that people can make an informed choice. It is still, however, their choice, their health. And they therefore should not be punished in this way for making an informed choice. That argument also works with most crimes, but in this case the production of tobacco is a legal and recognised industry. And therefore, if people make the choice to use the products that this industry creates, having had the necessary information about possible health risks, they should not then be punished. If anything, the industry should be punished for knowingly creating something that carries strong health risks. But, particularly in America where the industry is particularly strong and provides a particularly high income for the economy/government, this will never happen.

 

[unclearthur]

Statistics prove that figures don't lie but lairs can figure.

 

[cortezattic]

Public Place Law & Legal Definition:
A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned,

to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not,

but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.
The following is an example of a state law defining public places for smoking laws.

 

[yoru]

A little late in saying, but you can't smoke on the moon silly.
Anyway, I agree with everything said thus far. Free men must act to be worthy of said freedom, tobacco politics are inane on the opposite side -- no matter what you try to say you end up being thought an idiot or an a-moral ass. . .on and on it goes.
Hell I've been told that smoking a pipe can give you lung cancer. . .I just brushed that one off -- maybe they misunderstand the lack of inhaling bit, whatever. But when someone told me my nasal snuff was going to give me -lung- cancer? I just laughed my ass off. "No hun, nasal snuff is harmless". . .the only thing nasal snuff even MIGHT do by the by, is nasal tumours/growths/infections/etc. What it DOES do? I does cause minor sinus troubles and loss of certain smells with prolonged and excessive use. The tumor thing is cocaine though, and even that doesn't do it all that often.
Besides "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" and all that. Especially nasal snuff. . . in what friggin' world does that affect anyone else at all? What you dun like seeing me blow my nose once in a while, that offends you and your puritanical sensibilities? bah.

 

[pipevilleworld]

Yes you can, Yoru. You'd just need a larger diameter NASA space helmet. And a built in smoke extraction system to port out the smoke. LOL.
Good point, capnbellamy, about it ALL being bullshit; simply because IT SHOULD BE OUR CHOICE. I had gotten pulled over by police, for the umpteenth time, for no seat-belt. The officer began a quaint little anecdote about how he'd hate to see me lying dead in the street after having flown through the windshield in an accident. And... when it was my turn to speak, I asked, "So... you're trying to convince me... that you'd lose sleep as a result of MY death in a car accident?" (I can't stand when people who don't, who can't give a shit about you, try to convince you that they do) I then proceeded to tell him that... I don't want to wear my seat-belt because it's uncomfortable and... I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE IF I WANT TO BE SENT CAREENING THROUGH MY WINDSHIELD IN AN ACCIDENT." He was speechless. Now... this may sound silly to a bunch-a people who wear their seat-belts all the time but... to me... it MAKES SENSE! There should NOT be a law stating that one HAS to put on their seat-belt. Back to topic... if one enjoys partaking in a cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke, LEGAL SUBSTANCES, then they should be able to... despite their no-knowledge or knowledge of the health risks. You know how many people die in car accidents every year? Maybe they should regulate driving privileges more heavily... in order to lower the number of deaths caused per year- period?