Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 1:16 pm
You last visited August 19, 2017, 12:31 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Smoking Banned Around The World


Last Edited: January 24, 2008, 3:06 pm

This isn't a political statement.  Just some facts.  

As many of you know, France just passed a ban on smoking in public places, including restaurants.  A survey shows that 70% of its citizens approve of this ban.  This figure sounds about right to me.  When Florida citizens voted on a statewide ban, it passed by a landslide of 70%.  

Stange, but I am continually reading/hearing complaints by smokers about their rights. So I decided to look for articles on smoking bans and, to my surprise, most countries have such laws.

In 2004, Ireland became the first European country to introduce a comprehensive ban in all workplaces, including pubs and restaurants. Sweden, Italy, Norway and Malta soon followed. In Sweden, smoking was banned in restaurants, cafes, bars and nightclubs in 2005.  In 2006 Britain voted by a huge margin to ban smoking in pubs, restaurants, factories and other indoor public spaces.

Throughout Brazil smoking has been banned in most public areas including airports, government offices, rest rooms, banks, hospitals, supermarkets, shopping centers and malls. Chile bans smoking in schools, hospitals, government offices, shopping centres, supermarkets, pharmacies, airports, buses, subway networks and other public places. Many countries like Greece, which has the highest concentration of chain smokers in Western Europe, have strict bans, although smokers around the globe have been battling smoking bans for years. I googled Turkey, but all I got was a bunch of recipes!  lol

The list goes on and on and on.  Some countries allow smoking in designated areas in restaurants and others allow the province or state to decide on specific regulations.

So to those of you who keep complaining that this is a government conspiracy to control us, I guess it would have to be a worldwide plot.  Maybe it's because secondhand smoke has been scientifically proven to cause cancer and other diseases.  Could it also be because young children, whose lungs are still developing, are at increased risk for ear infections, bronchitis, pneumonia, allergies and asthma?

Ya think?




Entry #117


spy153Comment by spy153 - January 24, 2008, 5:05 pm
my husband still smokes. He refuses to take ANY of my advice, even though I have been quit now since July 2006. I wish he would get on the bandwagon already! It may sound cheap to you where you live, justx, but my hubby pays almost 5 dollars per pack he smokes. He doesn't chain smoke, like I did, though.
four4meComment by four4me - January 24, 2008, 5:15 pm
Did you know at one time doctors were on TV commercials recommending certain brands of cigarettes to smoke. And they even differed on what brand was better than another brand.

Of course all this was be for they started putting various chemicals in tobacco.

No Matter what big brother shouldn't be dictating what we should be allowed or not allowed to do. If there so admit about people smoking then they should ban smoking products altogether. Then you can ask them where their going to get the money they need to run the government.

Tobacco products are one of the things that made this country what it is, made thousands of people rich and the money they receive in taxes supports this county in many ways.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 24, 2008, 5:38 pm
Spy, $5 isn't cheap to me at all. FL has low cigarette tax compared to other states. I think the average pack of cigarettes is around $4, but I really don't know for sure.

Four4me, I realize that many people have relied on the tobacco industry for income, including working families. I never said that cigarettes should be banned. I said that worldwide there are bans so it's not some big conspiracy, but because cigarettes really do make other people sick. I started out by saying my blog was political, but maybe my last comment changed that. However, I frankly don't care if people want to smoke. But when I see mothers with babies on their laps smoking, I feel the same way as I do about when I see them smoking pot in front of their kids. Actually, the pot is probably less harmful, but children have a right to grow up with healthy lungs and I have the right not to inhale someone else's poison, just like you have the right to smoke.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 24, 2008, 5:40 pm
typo in my last comment - darn. one word can change the entire meaning. I meant "I started out by saying my blog was NOT political, but maybe my last comment changed that. I admit it would be next to impossible for me to post something about smoking without having a personal opinion.
JAP69Comment by JAP69 - January 24, 2008, 7:37 pm
Interesting article.
Next thing you know they will ban chidbirth.
four4meComment by four4me - January 24, 2008, 8:10 pm
You know it kills me that our government won't own up to the fact that cancer around the world is more or less their responsibility for detonating atomic bombs in the desert in the early 40's and 50's this spread cancer causing substances all over the world into the food chain and people have been getting sick ever since i strongly believe that if your predisposed, have the gene no matter what you libel to get cancer.

I rather breath cigarette smoke in a restaurant than the grease coming off of the frier's and grills. which is just as harmful if not more.

The facts are cancer causing elements are everywhere and in many products we use today. Yet i don't see them baning many of them. In fact gasoline products are slowly killing us all yet they continuously make it readily available every day.

Cigarette smoking while a stinky disgusting habit is being banned not because it causes cancer in some people it's being banned because the non smokers don't want smokers in their areas period. Smokers have no rights so it seems but non smokers can dictate policy. If i own a business that i am paying for or paid for with my money then i should have the right to dictate whom can smoke or not in my establishment. With the laws that are in place now business owners don't have a say so in the matter. Big brother dictates to them what they can and cant do in their businesses.

I say when big brother is paying my bills and taxes on my business then they can dictate to me how to run my business if i want to have a smoking section in my business then i should be allowed to providing i have air purifiers in place to protect the non smokers for coming into contact with tobacco smoke.

Or for that matter place a sign on the door that reads this is a smoking establishment and non smokers are warned.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 24, 2008, 8:36 pm
Four4me...That was the best response I ever heard in my entire life. In no way am I condoning smoking, but you show the hypocrisy of other concerns not taken as seriously.

What you wrote must've come straight from the heart. Most of the time in any artistical expression, the one that comes off the cuff is the best one.

Great work. You would make great editorials in newspapers around the country. Submit this...You never know.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 24, 2008, 8:43 pm
I should've said.."Artistic impression"...lol

BTW...Who's next, overweight people? No butter and syrup for you.

Or...Beer and spirits drinkers.

OK....Let's start with ugly people and work our way up.

Big brother can kiss my asphalt.
four4meComment by four4me - January 24, 2008, 9:22 pm
Pac how i feel started many years ago when gov. Glendening said we couldn't smoke in the workplace any more. I worked in a machine shop breathing every kind of noxious fumes imaginable including cancer causing substances. But we couldn't light up a smoke. To say this was the straw that broke the camel's back is about a weird as it could get. People would sneak off to the rest rooms or go behind the machines and or outside so instead of getting 6 hrs out of an 8 hour shift the bosses we lucky if they got 3 because everybody was taking a smoke break ever 10 minutes.

At the end of every shift there were more empty cigarette packs in the garbage cans than there were when we were allow to smoke on the job. Unbelievable.

In Maryland on February 1st there is a smoking ban in every establishment in Maryland. If your a smoke your going to have to step outside. I can just see the signs now no smoking within 50 feet then they'll be 100 feet for this establishment. And well Fells Point has a bar or restaurant every 50 yards or so from one another. Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for some people they won't smoke unless they are drinking.

Therefor if they cant smoke where they used to drink they'll be doing it at home which i know is perfectly ok for the non smokers but some of the bars in Baltimore city cater to a lot of heavy drinkers and smokers they are the ones who will be hurt the little guys that own the corner bars around town.   

So what i wrote here and in the other post was from the heart regardless of the fact whether i smoke or not peoples rights are being violated on all sides. If they want establishments to ban smoking then they should stop selling tobacco products all together and pick up the pieces of the nicotine addicted smokers who will be climbing the walls for months to come.
jarasanComment by jarasan - January 24, 2008, 9:45 pm
Wow. You know what I think of now when you mention smoking now, Amy Winehouse hitting that crack pipe, it is on You tube. England and the rest Europe are hooked on the cocaine, smoking it, not snorting it, cigarette bans, what a joke, they can't even stop the weed, the hash, can anybody say Amsterdam? They can measure cocaine in the Thames! Meth in the Midwest, heroin in Seattle, anything you want, banning tobacco is like banning porn, it ain't going to happen. Second hand smoke is a joke, there are many worse things in the enviorment. Drugs are the problem not global warming.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 24, 2008, 10:31 pm
Wow jarasan. I've never heard that side of you...lol That was genius.!!!

We are so distracted by media input that some don't think for themselves.

The real woes of society lie deep within the individual, which will eventually lead to the demise of the whole race, if unchecked.

The only good news is that if enough people can send this good message along the byways and highways, folks might change their way of thinking and make not only their lives better, but all those around them.
Rick GComment by Rick G - January 24, 2008, 10:36 pm
Four4me said,

"If i own a business that i am paying for or paid for with my money then i should have the right to dictate whom can smoke or not in my establishment."

I agree totally. This is the CRUX of the issue. It is not up to the federal government or state to prohibit LEGAL behavior in our home or our business. I don't care if 99% of the world hates smoking, if a restaurant or bar owner is paying the rent to run his business, it is up to him and him alone, to decide if smoking is allowed on his premises or not. Smoking is still legal, right?

Here is a simple solution that will make everyone happy: If a business owner wants to allow a legal activity on his premises and you don't like it, find another place that disallows that activity. The market will decide the issue, not Big Brother. Very simple, and even us idiots that took economics in high school understand that in capitalism, the market is the ruler not the whims of disgruntled P.C. activists to control our poops and when we make them.

Can someone please direct me to the constitutional point of law that allows the federal or state government to decide on which LEGAL activities we can pursue in our business or home premises?

Comment by pacattack05 - January 24, 2008, 10:50 pm
I worked in a market research company in N.Y.C. I occasionaly moved files in the basement littered with asbestos on the ceiling and such. To this day I kick myself for not reporting their unscrupolous ways but too many ads on T.V. wanted proff that methoslomia was present. Just because I don't have it now dosen't mean in the future.

Ironically I went to school on how to remove asbestos. My first job involved removing the asbestos infested tar on the roof of Sing Sing Prison. I had to go throught the prison to climb to the roof.

At one point I looked over 3 stories down into the courtyard. One of the inmates looked up at me and said..." Why don't you fall on my _ _ _ K.

I quit at the end of the day.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 25, 2008, 12:16 am
its getting to the point to where next i've heard they'll start having state controlled thermostats where you can't even control your own heat and air.we'll be talking about our own 'good 'ol days' here soon...one man to the other 'remember when we actually had rights',the other one replies 'yeah i remember when i could flush my toilet in the middle of the night'. these suckers are going to keep on barging in on every damn right we got slowly but surely.they just installed cameras in the damn traffic light here and caught some guy walking across the street to his car when the light was red and the media was in an uproar.this world is getting very strange and very backwards,ignorance reigns the day.....
four4meComment by four4me - January 25, 2008, 12:48 am
As for the smoking issue i don't know where the police are going to find time fighting crime if they have to police smoking laws on top of all the other duties they have. I can see the headlines: woman robed and beaten by thugs while the police were issuing citations to a local tavern owner and a patron.... the police were unable to answer the call even though they were just around the corner.

Man shot around the corner from a restaurant wile police were actively pursuing a patron who ran from police when questioned about smoking inside a restaurant. The wounded victim died on the way to the hospital. The perpetrator of the shooting fled prior to police arrival.

You are going to hear stories like these when the media gets wind of these happenings. As it is now in Baltimore and the surrounding counties the police are actively trying the stem a killing spree that has gone practically unchecked for a few years now. Every day practically someone is killed or wounded in a drug war that the police will never win. Now they have to fight the war on illegal tobacco use.

We have blue light cameras in many troubled neighborhoods and the drug dealers stand under them all night and sell drugs.

Police officers to captains we were actively searching bars and restaurants last night for illegal tobacco use and didn't have time to catch and thugs.
four4meComment by four4me - January 25, 2008, 12:54 am
Oh and i forgot to add all the crime that will go unchecked or answered because of police pursuing illegal tobacco use so the non smokers can have fun ,enjoying their nights out and hardly ever leaving a tip for the good service and clean smoke free ambiance of the nice restaurants and bars they are in.
Rick GComment by Rick G - January 25, 2008, 1:07 am
Mike, good point. I think it's California that wants state-controlled thermostats.

Hey Terminator, please, you were good in the movies as a cyber dude but even you can't decide what temperature an individual must live in his home.

justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 1:34 am
I always welcome all comments on my blog and enjoy reading them. However, I've got to say that some of these comments are the most ridiculous statements and excuses I've ever heard. It's obvious that nobody who is supporting smoking in public is listening or wants to listen.

Four4me, do you think the voting booths were rigged? Pac, if you feel so strongly about this, why didn't you vote in the last FL election against the ban? Over 70% - yes, I huge landslide for any question of the ballot, of the people here voted YES on banning smoking in restaurants. What I wrote above wasn't an article, JAP. Although maybe you meant post or blog. I read that France passed a rule and then googled to see how many countries have proposed or passed smoking laws. Many people who were interviewed like to smoke, but they also said they don't enjoy eating in a smokey restaurant.

By the way, for almost 2 months I was home feeling as if I wanted to die because of a terrible cluster headache or sinus infection. Sometimes it's hard to diagnose these problems, but every doctor has always said to stay away from any area where there is smoke. Smoke can trigger attacks of asthma in adults and children and other illnesses that put others at risk or in pain. How selfish is that?

Rick, I always enjoy your blogs and posts, but I sometimes disagree with you. In this case, I am shocked. To compare controlling a homeowner's thermostat with smoking in public and making others sick is totally absurd. In fact, I now believe the time I spent writing my blog was completely wasted since obviously nobody read a single word except "smoking" and "ban."

What I always find completely mind boggling is that people who smoke talk about their right to make others smell the by-product of dirty addiction. Nobody is telling you not to smoke in privacy.

Since this is my blog and nobody can accuse me of hijacking LOL I want to tell you a story. Many years ago before I finally realized that men are from Mars, I used to date. A man I thought was handsome, smart and funny asked me out and I accepted. Knowing I don't like smoke, he lied to me. Apparently he sneaked a smoke in the men's room because he definitely didn't smoke in front of me. Anyway, when we got back to my place he started to kiss me and I could really taste the smoke. I tried not to care, but I couldn't continue because I felt so nauseated by it. So as gorgeous and charming as this guy was (and as horny as I was) that was the end of the relationship! :-) So now I guess someone here is going to tell me "it's all in your head." How would I know? I knew he smoked the same way I can smell body odor or when someone has gas or doesn't wash his behind.

Y'all have a nice night!
Rick GComment by Rick G - January 25, 2008, 2:03 am

The single point I was making is the decision to allow smoking (which is a legal activity) in a bar or restaurant is entirely up to the owner of the establishment and not Uncle Sam, you or me.

That's pretty straight forward. If you disagree with that statement, fine, I'll agree to disagree.
four4meComment by four4me - January 25, 2008, 2:07 am
Justxploring obviously you don't get it you are a non smoker and we can respect that. But when it come to someone whom owns a restaurant or bar the GOVERNMENT shouldn't dictate who can or cannot smoke in their establishment. The government isn't paying the bills the tavern and restaurant owners are, i already realize there is no way to convince a non smoker that smokers should be able to come in the same establishment as you in a designated smoking area and eat or drink what ever they want. Only that will never happen here in Maryland come Feb 1st. A smoker will not be allowed to smoke in any place except outside or in their car or homes period they will never again be allowed to sit in a restaurant or bar and smoke even if the whole bar is void of no smokers and everyone in the place is a smoker he or she will not be allowed to light up.

I cannot even open a bar or restaurant and ONLY allow smokers to enter even if my whole staff are smokers. But i can allow anyone who wishes not to smoke to enter. This is discriminatory in either case.

If you cant see our rights being taken away then you must be wearing blinders.
got to wear a helmet, got to wear a seat belt, cant smoke only in designated areas outside by the way these designated areas are shrinking also.

Do i think voting booths were rigged "could be" ask Al Gore he truly thinks they were in Florida. And there have been accusations about pole tampering in every state at one point or another.
Rick GComment by Rick G - January 25, 2008, 2:21 am
If you go to a sushi restaurant you get raw fish. If you go to a cooked-fish sea house, you get cooked fish. You pick your favorite restaurant based on food, service, price and air quality.

We don't need the government to tell us what restaurant to go to.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 2:39 am
In Florida people can smoke in bars. Many countries and states give restaurants the option of a non-smoking and smoking section. I wouldn't care if you want to open up a bar and allow smoking because I wouldn't go into it. But it's not just about smoking.

There have been lawsuits against the tobacco industry where people have won millions. So how can it be both ways? These people say that they didn't know smoking caused cancer and were addicted to cigarettes because of all the added chemicals. Now people have been warned for a long time that it's bad, yet they complain when health insurance companies want to charge them more or not cover them at all.

I'll sound like a real *B* here, but my next door neighbor has lung cancer and, as soon as he found out about 4 yrs ago(yes, he's lasted that long) the first thing he did was apply for soc sec disability. Okay, so someone who smokes because he thinks it is his right now wants to collect a check for an illness that was caused by his addiction. Then, because he isn't getting very much, he applied for Medicaid. He started chemo and radiation and continues to get medicine, oxygen and his trips to the ER for free. He also smokes like a chimney - actually more.   

Now, if everyone who got sick from smoke said "okay, if I get lung cancer or heart disease or any of the smoke related illnesses, you don't have to pay for it" I might say the government has no right to tell you what to do. But we all end up paying for it in the end.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 11:03 am
People put money into soc.sec. so it's their money not the govts. Overweight people who get diabetes, i'm sure get medicaid. Why not have a big uproar over fat people?

I'd rather it be that there were non smoking restaurants, than some kid leaning over a booth and staring at me smoking, trying to give me a guilty complex.

Like I've said in my other blogs, People won't see it coming until it's too late, and then they'll bitch left and right, but by then we won't have any control over anything. This country is being run by a Fascist group of individuals from not only here but abroad.

Here in Florida, they make a big stink about wearing a seatbelt, yet they lifted the helmet law for motorcyles. Just goes to show that if you have enough money and enough people to go rally in Washington, you'll get what you want.

There are about 60,000 alchohol related deaths every year,and it's legal. But god forbid if you smoke pot. You are labled as some druggie. I'm not condoning the use of pot. Just showing the hypocricy in this country. The two main contributors to the lobbyists of anti-pot use is the right wing fundmentalists christians, and the alchohol industry. And that's a fact. They team up with each other. HMMMMM...I guess christians think it's ok to kill yourself to death by drinking. What a joke.
four4meComment by four4me - January 25, 2008, 11:11 am
We could hash out the smoking debate forever. Granted smoking products aren't good for you. But who's to say how someone gets cancer. They say now if women eat grapefruit they run a higher risk of catching it. I'm not bragging here but i have came into contact with just about every cancer causing agent there is worked with the stuff got it on my body and ingested it into my lungs possibly even ate the stuff when eating lunch etc. If anyone should have gotten cancer it should have been me. So far I'm cancer free.

There are so many reasons why people get cancer it's pathetic. No doctors i know can pinpoint the cause of many cancers. Because there are so many things that cause it.

Because of this fact people cant assume if the got lung cancer it was from breathing second hand smoke or actually being a smoker. The main reason people get cancer is because of the bombs that were dropped in the 40's and 50's when our parents were eating and drinking they were ingesting the microbes from the fallout this in turn caused them and their offspring to inherit a bad gene. ( maybe gene isn't the right terminology) in either event now they had something inside them that predisposed them to catching cancer if they come into contact with a substance and that substance mutates in their body. This bad gene is passed down from offspring to offspring.

Before they dropped those bombs how many people were dieing from cancer ---- not nearly as many as there are now the fact is now the cancer patients are in the millions.

Is our government going to take responsibility for this no. Reason why is because they would have to foot the bill for all the cancer treatment and they aren't ever going to do that. As far as i know no group has went before congress and fought for the people concerning this matter.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 11:33 am
You make a good point four4me. How about all the hormones in the meat we eat. Anti-biotics are also bad. The flouride in the water. The list goes on and on. It's rediculous to pinpoint it on just smoking.

It couldn't possibly be from all the exhaust from cars and planes. Nope, can't be. It couldn't be from all the government chemical trails left by planes in the sky that we inhale, and also causes skin lesions, like morgellons disease. It couldn't be from all the chemicals we use on a daily basis, like women and their lipstick, and hairsprays, makeup and so forth. It couldn't be from being zapped by cell phone towers and the cell phones themselves. Or by high power lines which recently was linked to a bunch of cows that died in some state I forget. How about all the dues in food, or that tub of crap millions of people buy, which is margarine. Margarine and many other products contain Partially hydrgenated oils which wreaks havoc on the body. Two countries have banned it from being in their food supply.

I find it strange that there so many cases of people getting cancer that never smoked or drank or did drugs. HMMMMMM
spy153Comment by spy153 - January 25, 2008, 11:39 am
Pac, I think it is Michigan who has passed laws about overweight people. An employer has the right to fire a person or not hire them at all because they are overweight. And if they do get lucky enough to get hired, they are not required to carry them on their insurance policies. I know, I was shocked to hear this from my birth state! And yes, I can't believe what they are doing in california with the thermostats. I have to agree with you all on the employers having the right to do what they want when it comes to their own businesses. But, for that matter, then, why regulate them at all? Maybe because they typically abuse their power? For instance forcing people to work ungodly hours just to keep their jobs? In Tennessee, they can fire you for not working overtime. Did you know that? There's nothing you can do. Every week, my husband is FORCED to work overtime or be fired., regardless of how many hours he's put in throughout the week. Supposedly, they can't do that in KY, but our government here is so corrupt there is no one to turn them in to. To top it off, if he gets seriously injured (one more time) he can get fired also. Now he works underground in the coal mines, so it's a pretty dangerous job. To say you will not get hurt there is rediculous! That is the kind of abuse big brother is suppose to be regulating in workplaces. Not smoking. If my husband lights a cigarrette up underground, he is fired on the spot--federal law. Doesn't make any sense does it?
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 11:52 am
I agree spy, this whole world is messed up. Laws that make no sense, and only have an agenda behind them. Have you ever heard of a poor politician?

I heard about that Michigan law too. Where does it stop? It won't, it'll just get worse unless there is a revolution in this country. That won't happen either because we're to busy buying the lates phone gadget and sneakers with lights in them, picking our nose, and carrying that fanny pack around our waist looking for the next distraction this society wants us to involve ourselves in. We're too busy worrying over what football team is gonna win, and what Brittany Spears is going to do next.

As far as the thermostat thing goes. That's a hard one for me, because of a show I saw a month ago on T.V. about the crisis in California, and how the electric company has to juggle the juice around to avoid blackouts. They showed this one guy who was the floor manager in the main control room full of panels and lights and people constantly trying to mange the power load. And he was in charge to oversee that everyone was doing their jobs correctly. I wouldn't want his job thats for sure. He was on the phone constantly calling different manufacturing plants around california area asking them if they could shut down the production lines temporarily so that an overload would not happen.

So there is no easy answer for that one I must say. I really don't want them to regulate the air in my house, but until they can figure out a better way to manage the power at peak times of the day, it really isn't that bad of an infringement in my opinion. Unless of course it gets so hot in the house that it's unbearable or too dangerous.
four4meComment by four4me - January 25, 2008, 11:53 am
I also forgot to add

If people think only people were affected in Europe you got a another thing coming the fallout for this traveled world wide also and so did the cancer rates.

If people knew what they were breathing everyday you'd probably wear a gas mask all the time. People come into contact with a variety of cancer causing agents every day.
I heard on the news if you freeze bottled water and drink it later you could catch cancer I've been doing this for 15 years now how many millions of others do too.

Simply put no one really knows what ailment they will get from one minute to the next.
time*treatComment by time*treat - January 25, 2008, 12:56 pm
Jxp, some plots ARE worldwide. It would take too much space to explain why the smokers are being picked on, but the health factor is secondary.
Pac wrote: "People put money into soc.sec. so it's their money not the govts."
In Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Supreme Court ruled that Social Security is not an insurance program -- thus payroll taxes are not contributions that guarantee a benefit, but are taxes like any others.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 1:16 pm
time treat..So the definition is what it is..technically, yet everyone knows it's for the people when they needed, if they contributed. Obviously the govt. is paying out for people in need, even though the whole program has IOUs in the drawer...lol
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 1:18 pm
Four4me...I never heard of the frozen bottle theory. What happens when you freeze water, that makes it bad?
four4meComment by four4me - January 25, 2008, 2:00 pm
Pac like i said i heard about it one the news in health watch.
here is a small link about it. snoops


supposedly when you freeze the water it absorbs the compounds in the plastic therefor they are released into the water, when it thaws and your drinking it your exposed.

I worked with plastics of every kind for many years and while i agree there are harmful elements in plastics. I've heated them machined them sawed them did just about every kind of machining you can do to them. Only PVC affected me it made me feel like i had the flu all time i worked with it. When i stopped working with it and moved on to a different type of plastic the symptoms went away. Several other people claimed the same thing about the PVC.
None was diagnosed with cancer from working with it in our shop.
Coin TossComment by Coin Toss - January 25, 2008, 2:09 pm
The state of Nevada is something like 47th in population and 1st in respiratory diseases. (Think smoke filled casinos and most of the state's workforce being in them).

That considered, no one should have to come down with breathing problems because of other people's habits.

What you have in casinos is a 24 hour stream of people all saying, "Well I don't smoke in here that much".

In the late 1980s talk started about by the year 2000 the bankers wanted a cashless society, and the medical types a smoke-free society.

Looks like it's coming.

Smoking is slow suicide, but if someone marketed a brand of cigarettes called "SLOW SUICIDE" it would probably sell like crazy.

Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 2:37 pm
In that case coin toss, they should make cigarettes illegal. They tax the heck out of it making it nearly impossible to afford and then turn around and punish you for using it. The great logic of the govt. at work.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 2:51 pm
I just signed on and there are 31 posts, which makes me feel good & bad at the same time. I enjoy debates, but I'm sad that nobody seems to care that smoking makes life miserable for so many others. I am sad that it's a scientific fact that infants who have smokers for parents develop ear infections much, much more often than those who don't. I'm sad that smokers don't consider that someone who might want to enjoy a meal might have an asthma attack or get a severe headache because they feel like lighting up. It's so inconsiderate and selfish.

I remember the times I'd go to a restaurant with a friend and someone in the non-smoking section would light up. The smoke would blow over to my table and I'd feel sick. So I eventually stopped going out altogether. As early as the 1980s I also remember restaurants that were completely non-smoking, but they were very rare. The workplaces I had to endure were living hell for me. I was with a company for over 20 years. One District Mgr they hired was a chain smoker, that is, until he had a heart attack. At first he'd call me into his office and once he said he wouldn't promote me because non-smokers didn't have th energy a smoker has. That didn't bother me as much as what I had to inhale. He probably would have fired me, but the Regional Mgr would never let him. Anyway, the company ordered an expensive air cleaner which eventually became a plant table after the guy had his heart attack. Of course our group insurance paid for that too. I was so happy when Doug was fired. The next District Mgr didn't smoke. However, even back then most companies asked their employees to go outside to have a cigarette, but he was also one of the selfish smokers. My clean work record and longevity saved my job.

Spy, will you please post the Michigan law. I can't find a thing about it since it must be recent. I'd also like to know about the group insurance law you mentioned. AFAIK Michigan didn't even pass the proposed smoking ban. I am not criticizing you or attacking you (I hope you know that :-) I just don't like it when a person who wants to make a point posts a rumor and then other respond to it. I never heard of any company firing someone because he or she is overweight if that person can do the work. I have a bad back and I haven't been hired anywhere that requires lifting. Last year our local post office had an opening that paid very well and, of course, had great benefits. I had already passed the fed tests, but I couldn't lift 70 lbs which was a requirement. Why isn't that discrimination? I can tell you why - because the job requires it. However, I also went to the few stores that were hiring. "Can you lift?" was a common question. If I had trouble sitting for long periods and the job was a customer service position where I talked on the phone for 8 hours, why do they have to hire me? In my almost 57 years I have never in my life heard of anyone being fired for weight unless that person didn't do his/her job. If that were the case, the unemployment rate (which is already too high) would triple!   As far as personal preferences, some people don't hire women, men, blondes, old people, people with accents, etc. Of course racial discrimination has been going on for decades.

Regarding smoker's rights at work - I worked in an office where several people took cigarette breaks. I'd be stuck with all the phones for 10 minutes every hour. Add that time up people! One day I went out and left the place empty and the manager got furious. I said that that extra hour and a half the others were taking should be given to me too, even if it is just to take a walk. If anyone can explain why not, please let me know.

Regarding the comment about health insurance - why should someone with a bad habit be covered? Seriously, whether it's smoking or eating habits, insurance is a business where they make big profits. I wish everyone had the right to medical care and affordable health insurance. That's another issue for another blog (too long)   Same neighbor I mentioned asked me if she could buy life insurance for her husband. Duh? He has cancer. So in other words, people who have paid premiums for 30 years who have been healthy should pay for the person who gets sick and THEN decides to by it? Same with health insurance. Believe me, I fight for people's right to get coverage, but I'm talking about common sense here. People try to get home insurance AFTER the fire or the flood. Someone who didn't get adequate insurance for their car gets upset when it's stolen or he's in an accident. I pay for maximum coverage. I get a discount for being a safe driver. A safe lifestyle when applying for life or health insurance always has been considered by the underwriters. Again, the weight charts are so liberal that you might be talking about someone who is seriously obese, but I doubt if a law against overweight people exists in any state. In fact, Michigan was one of the first states to pass a law to protect people against discrimination because of their height and weight, so please post a link that backs up your statement. Maybe you heard something about repealing that law that has been in effect for 30 years.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 2:55 pm
It's like the head shops. They can legally sell all sorts of paraphernalia, but it's illegal to use them for their original reason. Wink Wink

It's like saying...here... we'll sell you the missle launcher, but you'll have to buy your own missles, and if you use them, we'll throw you in prison...lol

justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 2:58 pm
Oops - I wish I could edit a comment. The last few sentences were supposed to go under the third paragraph. Sorry.

Yes, Coin Toss, I agree with your comment. Thank you. Good to have just one other poster here that agrees smoking is bad for you. Even after all the evidence, all the people with COPD and other respiratory problems, heart problems, cancer, etc., from smoking, intelligent people here are posting stuff like "how do you know where the cancer came from?" Actually nobody knows. Maybe a person with lung cancer would have gotten it anyway. I'll stop here, because I do know someone who died from second hand smoke (my aunt last year) but that's so personal I'd get too upset if someone negatively responded to that. Her husband had a quadruple bipass. He smoked cigars. BTW, she never smoked.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 3:04 pm
I don't know about Michigan being the state, but I did hear about it on the news a few months ago.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 3:17 pm
Detailed Guide: Lung Cancer - Non-Small Cell
What Are the Key Statistics About Lung Cancer?

Most statistics concerning lung cancer include both small cell and non-small cell lung cancers.
Lung cancer (both small cell and non-small cell) is the second most common cancer in both men (after prostate cancer) and women (after breast cancer). It accounts for about 15% of all new cancers. During 2007, there will be about 213,380 new cases of lung cancer (114,760 among men and 98,620 among women).

Lung cancer mainly occurs in the elderly. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are older than 65; fewer than 3% of all cases are found in people under the age of 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70.

Overall, the chance that a man will develop lung cancer in his lifetime is about 1 in 13; for a woman, the risk is about 1 in 16. These numbers include both smokers and non-smokers. For smokers the risk is much higher, while for non-smokers the risk is lower.

Black men are about 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than white men. The rate is slightly higher in black women than in white women. Both black and white women have lower rates than men, but the gap is closing. The rate of lung cancer has been dropping among men for several years and is fairly stable among women.

Lung cancer is by far the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. There will be an estimated 160,390 deaths from lung cancer (89,510 among men and 70,880 among women) in 2007, accounting for around 29% of all cancer deaths. More people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.

Slightly more than 40% of people diagnosed with either type of lung cancer are still alive 1 year after their diagnosis. About 27% are still alive after 2 years. Only about 16% of people diagnosed with lung cancer survive this disease after 5 years. Statistics on survival rates based on the stage (extent) of non-small cell lung cancer are discussed in the section, "How Is Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Staged?"

Despite the very serious prognosis of lung cancer, some people are cured. More than 400,000 people alive today have been diagnosed with lung cancer at some point in time.

Justx...Sorry about your aunt.

I don't think anyone here responding is saying that smoking has any good qualities at all. I'm trying to smoke less myself. It's a terrible habit, I totally agree. But the fact that restaurants can't open a smokers only eatery is just too much. Or the fact that you dismiss the reasoning that others and I have given concerning other types of carcinogens people inhale on a daily basis, that might contribute to lung cancer is being selfish. But I still like you anyway...lol
angelmComment by angelm - January 25, 2008, 4:01 pm
My husband quit smoking a few months ago.I still smoke and I don't mind the smoking ban in public places.I have tried to quit but stress has alot to do with why I smoke.I don't want to bother anyone with my smoke in a public business.I know second hand smoke is harmful.
Comment by pumpi76 - January 25, 2008, 4:12 pm
The right of the government is to protect it's citizens even against diseases...And i think they are doing a good job since they were the ones (the government) who introduce cigarettes....
Comment by DoubleDown - January 25, 2008, 4:23 pm
Add me to the list ( yes, I am still alive...) of those that oppose smoking in public places .
A smokers freedom ends at my nose. It is a vile disgusting addiction and subjecting those that don't smoke to the perils of second hand smoke is tatamount to having sex with a person that is HIV positive and doesn't care if you get it from him or her and/ or lied about it.

Sidenote: good to see the lively debate !!!

By the way, I just found out that skim milk gives me the runs, so I am boycotting milk as well.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 4:44 pm
Hey, DD! I was just thinking of you. (honestly!)   Nice to see you on LP again.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 4:48 pm
Oh, DoubleDown, regarding milk ... it gives me terrible gas, but I do drink it once in a while. However, I stay in my own home. So when it takes effect, nobody else has to be subjected to...(trying to be a lady here) Anyway, you all get what I'm saying. :-)

Great point, Pumpi.
Coin TossComment by Coin Toss - January 25, 2008, 5:23 pm
Casino related again, but consider this. When The Mirage opened in Vegas, employees WHO HAD CLOCKED OUT AT THE TIME OFFICE were threatened with being fired if they smoked before they got off the property.

In other words, they had finished their shifts (of being exposed to 8, 10, or 12 hours of heavy secondary smoke), but they themselves could not smoke until they had clocked out, got in their vars, and were out of the parking lot, onto a public street.


justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 6:34 pm
Wow - great analogy Coin Toss. Pac wrote something and I just say that my comment about my neighbor getting disability was in no way judging people who collect. The problem with these discussions is that people take a few words and then respond to them rather than the entire message. After I mentioned the soc sec disability I said he is on medicaid as well.   That's because even before he got sick he was a drunken bum who smoked too and also got paid (when he did work) under the table. I shouldn't know this but his stepson is a big blabbermouth. There are a few members here who have written that he/she doesn't pay income tax or soc sec & doesn't believe in it, etc., etc. I am curious where the soc sec check you say he is entitled to, which many deserving Americans are, would then come from? The same people who b**ch and moan about the payroll deductions are often the first to apply for assistance. Again, to my friends who are currently receiving help due to illness or unemployment, that's different and I never, ever said that.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 6:54 pm
Re: Obesity. Since I am thin it would be unfair for me to even discuss this. I really started a blog about smoking in public places, not weight. Many people battle weight all their lives. It's different than smoking. If someone is heavy he isn't poisoning me and unless he's smoking, he's not polluting my air.

I still think the comment about MI is wrong, but I can't say for sure because I don't live there. I'd like to know. In fact, if anyone is interested (it is 6 pages long) the Boston Globe had a 6 page article about Michigan's law and is proposing a similar one to protect obese people from discrimination.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 7:22 pm
I have to say that I think this might be the first time ever that I saw 47 replies plus this one making 48 in a blog...lol

Justx. I only mentioned obesity because you were bringing the medicaid point up.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 25, 2008, 7:59 pm
my mother smokes three packs a day.we've tried warning her but the cigs have a strong hold she can't break.i quit in december of 2000.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 25, 2008, 8:00 pm
50th post.
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 8:16 pm
Good for you Mike. How did you do it? If i quit smoking, I'd have to quit drinking. They are like a perfect marraige made in Heaven.....lol
Comment by pacattack05 - January 25, 2008, 8:25 pm
3 packs a day..WOW!

You know....I know a person who is among others in his age range who've been smoking for 50 or more years and I'm still talking to them....LOL

It's in the genes too. But this has nothing to do with the subject at hand....lol

This must be the 333rd response.....
spy153Comment by spy153 - January 25, 2008, 8:52 pm
Justx, the MI weight law thing was a huge issue in 2006.   I tried to google the news for it, but all they go back to is Dec 2007 on that topic. However, give me some time to dig it up. I don't know what ever did happen to it.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 25, 2008, 9:08 pm
Don't worry, Spy. I think you might be talking about employers charging more for insurance premiums for people who are very overweight. Is that it? I can explain why I understand this, Spy. I'm not saying it's fair or not fair. I mean, is it fair that I have a pre-existing condition?
spy153Comment by spy153 - January 25, 2008, 9:14 pm
Okay, here is what I found initially.

It is talking about Michigan being the only state to try to fight against obesity discrimination. But the reason they had to was because Michigan employers were firing people for being overweight. I do not think it is mentioned in the article, but you will read they had to make a law against it because it got so bad.


I am not an obese woman. But my daughter is getting there. I have to look out for her because she isn't going to. How do you tell your daughter you love her unconditionally, but she needs to lose weight without causing a complex? I don't know.
spy153Comment by spy153 - January 25, 2008, 9:21 pm
Pac's article was pretty to the point too. Although they don't mention Michigan specifically, they are saying the same thing I was. I got my law backwards though. They must have been trying to make it a law in Michigan to fire people for being overweight., and the result was the fight against discrimination on the basis of weight. Lol ! It was in 2006. A huge controversy. And now, I can hardly find anything on it.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 26, 2008, 12:24 am
my grandmother lived to be 80 and smoked a couple packs a day.died of natural causes and pretty much smoked up until the last few weeks she was alive.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 26, 2008, 4:46 am
LottoMike, just because some people live long lives who smoke, doesn't mean it's safe. I don't know what her quality of life was like either. People also do a lot of dangerous things and live to tell about it. That would be like saying war isn't risky or being a cop or firefighter isn't risky. I know people who ate lots of greasy foods and fat and lived until 90. So what?
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 26, 2008, 4:54 am
Thanks all for your comments. I began this blog by writing about smoking, not discrimination against people because of the way they look. Very different subjects. I've worked with overweight people who could outsell me and teach me a lot of things too, so that's never been an issue with me. I do have issue with laws that tell small business owners that they can't fire people for whatever reason. FL never pays much attention to the law anyway and employers lie too. Unless you are talking about blatant bigotry or sexual harassment, I wouldn't want to be forced to keep someone I didn't like if I owned a business. By sexual harassment I don't mean "that's a pretty dress" so please don't anyone start that argument. Unless you've had a boss grab your ass, try to feel you up or come right out and ask for sex if you want to keep your job, you have no idea what it's like. Nobody should be harassed for any reason at a job. I worked with a man who was prematurely bald and there were always remarks about his head (he was 28 I think) I could tell he didn't like it at all. That's harassment and shouldn't be tolerate, but should the government pass a law saying you can't tease a man who loses his hair?

Wow, this is way off-topic. But if I owned a store and felt like firing someone because he grew a beard, gained too much weight, wore plaid pants or bad cologne, had bad breath or I just didn't like his jokes, I hope it would be my choice. The reason I complained about the boss who smoked in the office was that I was already working there for many years. Not long ago a man tried to sue a company because they fired him for getting tattoos or wearing earrings and body jewelry. If that's their rule, he should have thought about that or been more discreet. If an office says you can't where a blouse where half your chest is hanging out or a skirt so short you can see your private parts, they have that right too. It might be unfair to discriminate against someone because of looks, but where will it stop? Doesn't Hooters disciminate? What does looking sexy and wearing a tee shirt have to do with the taste of buffalo wings? However, they look for a certain type. Don't modeling agencies do the same thing?

So now maybe RickG's point about being able to have patrons who smoke makes more sense, although I'm certainly happy I don't have to live of fear of getting a headache if I go to the post office and stand in line. I already said many times, if not on this board, on others that have discussed this issue, that if there were smoking and non-smoking restaurants, bars, etc. it wouldn't be a big deal to me. It did have a negative effect on me when smoking was allowed because I couldn't attend company functions without feeling sick. Most people don't enjoy sitting in smoke-filled places anyway which is why bans have passed by a landslide when put on the ballot. I don't know if it's still there, but Naples has always had a cigar bar and I never went inside. I don't care.

I have to chuckle a little when people use the word conspiracy, unless the polls were rigged. That might also mean you think that only non-smokers are registered voters. I would be a hypocrite if I said I want the government to tell me how to live my life, but I thought it was a fair and just proposal and the people decided.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 26, 2008, 9:11 am
how many states have banned smoking indooors?
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 26, 2008, 11:58 am
I agree with four4me and Rick G. A business owner should have the right to have smoking and non-smoking sections. It should not be dictated by the government.
four4meComment by four4me - January 26, 2008, 1:55 pm
I wasn't going to add anything more to this blog because smokers cant defend their rights against non smokers. It's almost a mute subject. A waste of time.

People who smoke are addicted to nicotine a substance comparable to heroin people who smoke heavily depend on their fix, need there fix because their mind tells them to put nicotine into their system. No mater what a smoker does or says to himself things like i know I'm killing myself or smoking is bad for me they keep lighting up.

Now if the government wanted people to quit they have many options to get people to stop smoking, raising the prices and cutting places off from where people can smoke is a small step. This might help some people but not all. However if they forced the tobacco industry to gradually cut the amount of nicotine placed in tobacco products they could in effect wean people off of it for good. If nicotine wasn't in tobacco products no one would want to smoke. However this will never happen.

The government depends on the tobacco industry for the revenues they collect to run this country. The tobacco industry instead of cutting the amount of nicotine placed in smoking products has added more of it to offset the fact that more people are quitting and they are making less money. By increasing the amount of nicotine placed in products they have effectively hooked more smokers into needing the nicotine fix.

The only way to win the war on smoking is to stop selling it, take it off the shelves and make it illegal. Will this stop everyone from smoking, no but it will put a big dent in it.

justxploringComment by justxploring - January 26, 2008, 2:28 pm
I wasn't going to add another post either, but I think smokers should be able to enjoy a cigarette or cigar or pipe (and a joint too) in their own homes. That's why taking it off the shelves isn't the same to me as prohibiting it in areas where non-smokers might be affected by the smoke. Then that definitely would be violating your rights. There are many things you can do in your own home that you can't do in a public place. I don't need to list them, but even simple things like wearing pants.
ToadSchmodeComment by ToadSchmode - January 26, 2008, 3:43 pm
Coin Toss sure is quick to point fingers! Nevada has a lot of retired citizens! Do you think any of the "1st in respiratory diseases" people might have moved there and took the respiratory diseases with them??? Nah!!! Probably not! They got it at the casino after they moved to Nevada! Smokey casinos are everywhere now, not just nevada.   My mamaw's doctor recommended for years that she move to the southwest due to her respiratory problems. Lower humidity and dry air is good for people with respiratory problems. I wonder if this has anything to do with nevada's stats? Nah, Probably Not! I live 5 miles from Laughlin and it's 80% retired people. I'm sure you'll find a high percentage of diabetes, heart disease, liver-kidney, and all the other problems older people will get from the game of life!
jarasanComment by jarasan - January 26, 2008, 6:03 pm

Copy & paste link. The indigenous peoples of the Americas are at fault, I say we sue them. I want justice! I demand tobacco reparations! They knew all along the evil weed would get us in the end. They are still at on-line, selling their stinky leaves!
Coin TossComment by Coin Toss - January 26, 2008, 6:17 pm
That in now way changes the stats about being 47th in population and first in lung ailments.
Try bouncing your theories off of a doctor.

Granted, there are three, and only three groups that live in/ near Laughlin, retirees, casino workers, and bikers, but Laughlin is a needle in a haystack compared to Vegas and Reno.

As for "lower humidity and dry air", well, so many Easterners moved to Nevada over the years and insisted on lawns and sprinklers that they finally had to pass "desert landscaping" rules when the humidity started going up.

Oh yeah, as for "pointing fingers" I lived and worked in Vegas from 1979 to 1993.

The American Lung Association used to run an ad that said, "When you can't breathe, nothing else matters." Bad enough people do that to themselves, but to wind up like that because other cretans couldn't kick a habit is pathetic.

Illinois just passed a smoke free in the work place policy as of Jan 1 2008- I think it includes casinos. Prior to this part of the hiring procedure on some of the river boats was people having to sign a paper that said they realize they will be subjected to heavy doses of secondhand smoke and would not sue the casino.

Nevada will probably be the last holdout on this, but unfortunately, the lung ailment to population ratio will just prove itself over and over.

four4meComment by four4me - January 26, 2008, 6:18 pm
justxploring wrote smokers should be able to enjoy a cigarette or cigar or pipe (and a joint too) in their own homes. Let's exclude joints it's illegal to smoke drugs in most states. Not cigarette

See this is another thing Maryland has limits on. If i call you to come to my home to do any type of repair, and you are a non smoker. You walk into my house.. while there i light a cigarette you are part way into doing your job have charged me from the time you left your business to come to my home. You say put out that cigarette i am a non smoker.

At this point i have the two choices ask you to leave or put out my cigarette if i ask you to leave i still have to pay you for your trip to the house, even if you didn't effect the repair.
If i continue to smoke you can call the police and have me dealt with.

So in reality i cant smoke in my own home in some instances. It's Maryland's law.

The government is making smoking illegal in many instances without it being illegal. They are telling smokers what they can and cant do concerning a legal substance. The are infringing on business owners rights as well as patrons.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 26, 2008, 6:40 pm
I'm moving to Maryland! OMG, I am so afraid of in-home sales because of the few times someone has been smoking. If I told them to put it out, they wouldn't buy from me anyway, but that would be so nice for me.

Four4me, I had no idea there was such a law. Maybe they've gone too far. (I was only kidding about the marijuana, although I don't care if someone wants to get high as long as drinking is illegal. I don't smoke anything at all or take illegal drugs.) Still, if someone has to fix your pipes or your cable tv or internet and will only get paid by his company if he walks into your smoke-filled home, I think it's only right to put out your cigarette while he is there. I've been in homes that are worse than smoke-filled cars. One poor young girl on the block is 12 and stinks like stale cigarettes. Well, that's another subject, but you understand (or not) what I am saying. I am getting paid to enter your home at your request. So why do I need to put up with your smoke for the short time I am there? Are you that addicted? Sales is different because 9 times out of 10 the salesperson initiates the call.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 26, 2008, 7:45 pm
i'd love to live anywhere with a warm but not real hot climate.
Comment by LOTTOMIKE - January 26, 2008, 7:46 pm
i'm wondering what states are very lax in enforcing this law and ones that bring a hard line against it.these bars run the risk of alienating their customer base by having them not smoke,a lot of drinkers do smoke and more so when drinking.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 26, 2008, 8:00 pm
There was a survey done after laws were passed Mike and most smokers enjoy the cleaner air. Many of these same people complained vehemently when the laws were passed and it doesn't seem to be affecting business. That was a big concern here too. The stand alone bars have smoking still (I believe) but not restaurants. People can walk outside for a minute and have a smoke. Again, I can't state it enough, how is it government control or a conspiracy if the people vote for something?
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 26, 2008, 8:07 pm
Justx said: how is it government control or a conspiracy if the people vote for something?

The same way the wrong people get into office
four4meComment by four4me - January 26, 2008, 9:45 pm
justxploring of course I'm not going to smoke if i let a service person into my home who request that i not smoke while he she is in the house. Especially if i need something fixed that i cannot do myself or is on a warranty and they are supplying the service as part of the warranty.

You still don't see or get the point I'm trying to make because as a person who is against smoking dislikes smoking doesn't smoke in the first place i don't expect you to understand.

This is my damn home i paid for it with my money and i should be allowed to do anything within the law that i want to in it. However when the state made a law that says i have to put out my smoking products when some service person is in my home and request me to do so. I don't remember me having a say so in the matter or whether or not this was a state enacted law or people voted on it. Regardless of that fact when we call service personal they should say before they leave the office whether this is a smoke free environment. Not upon entering my home tell me what to do in regards to me smoking in my own home.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 29, 2008, 7:23 pm
I agree that there should be no laws that tell people how they should act in their own homes, but to a degree. After all, there are laws to protect children from abuse. Some parents feel it is their right to beat the crap out of their kids in their own home. I've walked into smoke-filled homes and had to wash my hair later that evening because I could still smell the smoke on me. I also had the same problem once when I visited a woman who had several cats and probably hadn't cleaned the litter box in a year (if she had one)   

I wish people wouldn't say I am anti-smoking. I've said this before and I'll say it 100 times more, that if smoking didn't bother me so much, my life would have been so much easier over the past 20 years.   Let me tell you a story, please. Indulge me. One day I was invited to a party. I was very excited because I liked this couple and they had a couple of friends I wanted to meet. They smoked inside their home and so did their guests. I was embarrassed but had to sit on the other side of the room and didn't chat with anyone up close or join them at the table when they sat down to eat. There was a handsome doctor there too (yes, he was smoking) but I excused myself and left. I didn't have much of a choice. Of course she never invited me to a party again. Seriously, why would you call this anti-smoking? I do not think I am the one who is being stubborn. Maybe you would put your cigarette out, but many people will not and don't care if someone else is offended by it or even gets sick. Then that person is forced to inhale the smoke. In a lot of cases, whether people smoke or not doesn't matter. My neighbor's place is worse than any bar. Before some laws, there were many things I couldn't do because people smoked inside. Is that fair to me? You can always go outside or get in your car if you are having nicotine fit, but I can't put my lungs on hold. I guess until you are forced to repeatedly face such a situation, you will never be sensitive to this and relate to things like giving up a job or telling someone you really like that you can't see him/her any more. It not my choice, but it is yours.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.