It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

page: 41
33
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

NO - it is NOT their choice to go out and freeze. They are told continuously that they can smoke OUTSIDE and they are merely following the law that was imposed on them!

So that is what you call giving smokers a "choice" - smoke and freeze to death or quit smoking and we will let you have life-saving shelter? Give up your dignity and bow to me as your master or die?

What excuse can anyone possibly have for denying smokers their own separately ventilated smoking areas?

Go on - somebody tell me that one!

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You also said that you thought I was "telling porkies".

PS: do you know those people from those stories you posted?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

For someone who is so concerned about asthmatics, I am truly amazed that you have not said one single word about how asthma has kept increasing in the face of descreasing smoke exposure.

This is an association that is every bit as strong as the association between smoking and lung cancer. And yet, this does not concern you.

I am just surprised is all.

I hope - at the end of the day - that we don't find out the theory that smoke challenges a developing respiratory and immune system and makes it stronger. That asthma rates will only decrease when children are exposed to smoke. That would make for some pretty strong embarrassment.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

yes I know them personally. When the smoking ban came into effect in 2006, a lot of people were talking about nursing homes and mental hospitals but all of them were anti-smokers. I wanted to see for myself.

I merely walked to a nearby senior citizen's home and talked to smokers when they came out. Very nice people! One lady was so sweet, I kept on visiting her for the next 2 years.

Same thing with the mental patients. That was a little harder and I kind of had to do surveillance for a couple of weeks. They were also more difficult to approach. I chose to speak to only females for my own safety.

I also spoke to people who were only visitors. Some of them under extreme stress.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
NO - it is NOT their choice to go out and freeze. They are told continuously that they can smoke OUTSIDE and they are merely following the law that was imposed on them!

The law was imposed, but they were not forced to go outside, they are forced to go outside if they want to smoke. As they are not forced to smoke, it's their choice.


So that is what you call giving smokers a "choice" - smoke and freeze to death or quit smoking and we will let you have life-saving shelter? Give up your dignity and bow to me as your master or die?

Once more, stop implying I said things I never said, that's not being honest and makes you look like someone that doesn't bother to lie to try to convince other people that he/she is right.

What I said was that smoking is their choice. If they know how to choose between two options they know how to choose between getting cold or smoking. Whatever you call that, it's their choice.

Today we had a cold day here in Portugal (for Portuguese weather), with the minimum around 3º C (I know, it's almost like Summer to a Canadian, but that's our weather). One of my work colleagues (the one that I once told to smoke a cigarette to reduce her stress level) was complaining about the cold but chose to go out to smoke. She wasn't forced to smoke, in fact, this afternoon she only smoked one cigarette because she had too much work, it wasn't the cold that kept her from smoking, only when she saw that almost all work was done did she go smoke a cigarette. In both cases it was her choice; she chose to keep on working without smoking and she chose to go have a cigarette, so yes, it is their choice.


What excuse can anyone possibly have for denying smokers their own separately ventilated smoking areas?

I don't see any problem with that, in fact, I think that would be the best option, I said that already in this thread, don't act as if I had said the opposite.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

Yes Civility went out of this thread days ago. I keep posting information and links to prove a point. You and Krazysh0t keep trying to insult me and get me to back down.

I never appease bullies dear - insult away. You are not the only ones reading this thread and I am sure it has caught the attention of many.

I am also sure that some smokers are getting the idea that it is extremely easy to stand up to anti-smoker bullies. And I am sure that they are asking themselves why they are going so far out of their way to avoid giving offense to people who are determined to be offended!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
For someone who is so concerned about asthmatics, I am truly amazed that you have not said one single word about how asthma has kept increasing in the face of descreasing smoke exposure.

I said, look for it.


I hope - at the end of the day - that we don't find out the theory that smoke challenges a developing respiratory and immune system and makes it stronger. That asthma rates will only decrease when children are exposed to smoke. That would make for some pretty strong embarrassment.

It would, but only if you keep on ignoring what I say, that, at least in my case, that never happened, smoke always made me worse.

I got better of my asthma when smoking in work places started being forbidden. Did that made me think that it was all because of the smoke? No, because I'm not stupid and I know that at that time there were other changes that I noticed in my health (including the appearance of diabetes, something I was expecting).

Although I love statistics, things should not be consider just from a statistical point of view. For anyone, it doesn't matter if they are the one case in a million that reacts in a different way, what matters is that in their case they react like that.

The possible fact that some people may get better when exposed to smoke doesn't mean that all people that are affected by smoke get better, some get worse.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I could say "methink you are telling porkies", but I believe you.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow still in here fighting the good fight.





posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

ArMAP

This thing you have with the idea of choice. Understand this - smoker CHOOSE to smoke. The whole idea of anti-smokers was to harrass smokers to point of FORCING them to quit.

We simply refuse to quit. Get over it. Accept it! Move on!

It doesn't matter what laws you impose. Smokers will not quit smoking.

So anti-smokers can continue to be inhumane in their attitude or can actually seriously start looking at compromise

For one - no one should be setting the rules on smoking on private property.

Nobody HAS to go into a pub or restaurant that allows smoking - they CHOOSE to expose themselves to smoke. All they have to do is CHOOSE to go to a pub or restaurant that doesn't allow smoking.

No patient in any hospital or home setting needs to be exposed to cigarette smoke. The government has designed separately ventilated smoking rooms and has merely to take a pittance of the 10 bn tobacco tax dollars to built them. They don't even have to be in the main building. They can be in a separate building with only a corridor to the main building.

No mental patient should be strip searched for cigarettes and their property should be stored in the locked cabinets along with the rest of their things.

Prisoners should at least be allowed to smoke outside!

Between people of sound hearts and good intentions - there is always a solution and a comprise.

But when one party is out to dominate and subjegate the other - there will never be a solution

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Even if what you say is true - you do NOT require smoking bans to manage your health. Draconian smoking bans are relatively new. How did you manage your health prior to them?

You have stated that cigarette smoke is not your only trigger. Even if tobacco was eradicated, you would still have asthma attacks and still end up in hospital.

Like I said - no one can truly help you

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JessicaRabbitTx

LOL - never let an anti-smoker have the last word!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
This thing you have with the idea of choice. Understand this - smoker CHOOSE to smoke. The whole idea of anti-smokers was to harrass smokers to point of FORCING them to quit.

I know smokers choose to smoke, I am only saying that, if they are the ones that chose to smoke they can also chose not to smoke to be with their friends, nobody is forcing them to go out to the cold while their friends socialize.


We simply refuse to quit. Get over it. Accept it! Move on!

I know that they refuse to quit, it's their choice. But it is a choice and I do accept it (as I accept all personal choices), what I don't accept is people acting as if nobody is affected by tobacco smoke, as that's a lie.


It doesn't matter what laws you impose. Smokers will not quit smoking.

I'm not imposing any law.


So anti-smokers can continue to be inhumane in their attitude or can actually seriously start looking at compromise

The problem is that (today more than ever) it looks like people stopped wanting to compromise: anti-smokers do not want to compromise and smokers do not want to compromise, so we get to these stupid situations where those in power create laws to impose their opinion on other people. Maybe if smokers and non-smokers had compromised 30 years ago we wouldn't be in this situation.


For one - no one should be setting the rules on smoking on private property.

I agree, as I said several times on this thread, while you act as if I had said nothing about it.


Nobody HAS to go into a pub or restaurant that allows smoking - they CHOOSE to expose themselves to smoke. All they have to do is CHOOSE to go to a pub or restaurant that doesn't allow smoking.

I agree, and I said it before on this thread, while you act as if I had said nothing about it.


No patient in any hospital or home setting needs to be exposed to cigarette smoke. The government has designed separately ventilated smoking rooms and has merely to take a pittance of the 10 bn tobacco tax dollars to built them. They don't even have to be in the main building. They can be in a separate building with only a corridor to the main building.

I agree.


No mental patient should be strip searched for cigarettes and their property should be stored in the locked cabinets along with the rest of their things.

I agree, but I have a question: are they strip searched only for cigarettes or for other things too?


Prisoners should at least be allowed to smoke outside!

I agree.


Between people of sound hearts and good intentions - there is always a solution and a comprise.

I agree.


But when one party is out to dominate and subjegate the other - there will never be a solution

That's what I have been saying all the time.

What you apparently can't understand is that when smokers were completely free to smoke wherever they wanted they abused their freedom and forced their smoke on other people, giving the anti-smokers an excuse for the bans. Somewhere along the line someone noticed that there was money to be gotten in the situation and from them on this turned unstoppable, with the extremist positions pro and against smoking get stronger.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Even if what you say is true - you do NOT require smoking bans to manage your health.

It is true, your constant suspicion about what I say makes me think that you are preconditioned not to accept a thing someone with a different opinion says.


And no, I do not require smoking bans, as you could have read on this thread, if you weren't so busy feeling sorry for yourself.


Draconian smoking bans are relatively new. How did you manage your health prior to them?

Talking to you is like talking to a wall, as you ignore almost every thing I say.


There are no draconian bans in Portugal, so my health could not be affected (or not) by those imaginary laws.
I managed my health all my life by making choices, so I would choose my physical health in detriment of my social life, that's why I never went to something like a disco or night-club, as they were always full of smoke. I never went to a concert with friends or family because they were all full of smoke (from tobacco and other products), the only concert I went was an open air concert near my home (making long walks was something I tried to avoid, specially late at night, the time I always feel worse).

It was always a choice I made, but I was forced to make a choice in a situation where most people do not have to make one because of smokers. As I'm not stupid I don't blame them for my health, but I do see them as responsible for imposing some of those choices on me.


You have stated that cigarette smoke is not your only trigger. Even if tobacco was eradicated, you would still have asthma attacks and still end up in hospital.

Yes, tobacco smoke is the most active trigger, but not the only one.
I know that tobacco eradication wouldn't cure me (what I would like was not to have asthma, as I can try to avoid the known triggers), and, as I said before (and you apparently ignored it, like so many things I said) I am against any ban.


Like I said - no one can truly help you

I know that and I have said that, what I would like was for people to think about other people and stop acting as if they are the only person in the world or if everybody has the same tastes and the same problems, not imposing their point of view (pro or against smoking or any other point of view) on other people.

Your fixation on what you see as a persecution of smokers makes you blind to the fact that you are also acting as a bully if you force other people into another room or into a worse health condition by smoking without thinking about them.

If we want to live in a community we should think about other people and our influence in their lives, not just about how their actions influence our own lives.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

And if you were listening to me.... my continual question has been...why does every building everywhere need to be non-smoking.

I am sure, as the anti-smokers say that the bans are popular beyond belief, that even if the bans were lifted, there would be some bars and some restaurants that would choose to provide services to non-smokers. If I am to believe the anti-smokers, 70 % of the population wants a smoking ban. Now 70 % of the population is a significant majority. I am sure that if this is true, then at least 70% of bars and restaurants would WANT to ban smoking.

And then there would be bars and restaurants that would try to accommodate both tastes by having the glass aquariums thingies with separate ventilation.

If you don't like running into smokers on the street, you need to consider getting us inside, at a table with an ashtray.

I and every other smoker I know, has no problem with smoking bans in government buildings, grocery stores etc. Places where ordinary people HAVE to attend in order to conduct the daily business of their lives.

But I don't see why some planes and train cars and boats can't be smoking allowed and other public transportation be smoking not allowed.

It is not the smokers (or me) that are not willing to compromise. It is anti-smokers, who are far more interested in imposing their will and tastes on others.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

ArMap - I don't know how old you are but smokers have been living with smoking bans since the 1960s! It has been over 70 years since people have been allowed to smoke "whereever they like"

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And also remember that in the 50s and 60s, there was 800 % few asthmatics. In my childhood, I can only remember 1 kid in the whole school who had astha. Allergies were also rare!

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Also if you look back at tobacco advertisements in the 50s and 60s, cigarettes were sold based on the "great" smell of cigarette tobacco. more than 50 % of the population smoked! I am sure that a small percentage of never-smokers didn't like the smell (smells are so subjective!) but in general , the smell of smoke was not considered objectionable.

I myself, gag and almost vomit at the smell of roses but most people love it. I don't seek to ban roses because I don't like the smell.

Even never-smokers had an ashtray in their home for visitors who smoked.

It took a lot of propaganda on the part of anti-smokers to change the perception of the smell of cigarettes.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
And if you were listening to me.... my continual question has been...why does every building everywhere need to be non-smoking.

And if you were reading what I have been posting, I don't think it should be like that.

I just finished reading the Portuguese law, and although it says that smoking in most closed public spaces, it also says that special areas for smokers can be created in hospitals, psychiatric services, rehabilitation centres, prisons and almost all other closed public spaces (as long as they are not areas supposed to be for the use of minors), if those areas are separated from the rest to prevent the smoke from moving into the non-smoking areas and have ventilation to send the smoke to the outside.

In coffee shops, restaurants and places like that smaller than 100 m2 the owner can allow smoking if the place has ventilation and is separated from other closed areas. If those places are bigger than 100 m2 the owners can create separate areas for smokers, as long as they don't occupy more than 30% of that place's area, are not part of the area for exclusive of the employees, they are not places where the employees must be all the time and have ventilation and are separated from the non-smokers area.

In hotels and similar, the owners can have rooms, units or entire floors dedicated to smokers, as long as they are clearly identified as such, have adequate ventilation and do not occupy more than 40% of the whole area.

I don't see a problem with a law like this, but I do think that more is an exaggeration.

I almost forgot to say that the law also says that there should created in hospitals, clinics, etc. services to help smokers that want to stop smoking.


It is not the smokers (or me) that are not willing to compromise. It is anti-smokers, who are far more interested in imposing their will and tastes on others.

What I said was that before the situation reached this point, most smokers didn't even bother with other people, they just smoked where they wanted. That was the time to compromise, but as they acted as if their rights were better than other people's rights things reached this point.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: ArMaP

ArMap - I don't know how old you are but smokers have been living with smoking bans since the 1960s! It has been over 70 years since people have been allowed to smoke "whereever they like"

I'm almost 52 years old. The first ban was from urban public transportation, in 1968, followed in 1978 by the banning of smoking in public transportation vehicles during voyages with less than one hour, while for those for longer voyages smoking was allowed at the back of buses or smoker areas.

So yes, before 1968, in Portugal (the only place I know), people could smoke wherever they liked.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join