Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 No, I wouldn't want my kids to be breathing in a lot of smoke either but they wouldn't because our lifestyle is such that we wouldn't go to bars or coffeehouses with them. I wouldn't want them to breathe it in...but I don't feel it's write to make McConnell's bar down the street, with all the sad and lonely drunks who happen to like to smoke, be "smoke free" just because I didn't want my kids to smell it if we walk by. And I don't want to force coffeehouse owners to be totally smoke free (partially smoke free is a reasonable law) and lose some business because I don't want to smoke. I feel that alcohol is a much bigger threat to me and my child's well being than smoking ever could be. I also have other concerns that are higher priority...ie their safety walking to a from school, what kind of world they will be growing up in, will there be parks and hiking for them to enjoy, the quality of the food they eat, gangs, criminal activity, the value of the dollar. All of these are bigger worries than the second hand smoke thing. I think it's OK to be against second hand smoke...IF they go after other vices that cause more harm like alcohol. We don't hear of "driving while smoking" because accidents don't happen because of smoking. Nor do we hear about "molestation" during smoking...because smoking doesn't incite these things. Alcohol is far, far worse. If they can't hassle drinkers than I think they should leave the smoking alone...just for intellectual honesty. Kristina In a message dated 2/8/05 9:57:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes: Message: 20 Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:21:38 +0000 (GMT) peter hurd <swpgh01Re: I AGREE!Hey I don`t condone smokers for their antisocial habits per se, I used to be known to partake of the the old jaz woodbine myself in years gone past.But now there is so much evidence on passive smoking that confined spaces are NOT the place to be fumigated in. I certainly dont want my kids breathing in peoples leftover toxins, do you?The Valley Vegan.........happyyogi2003 <lv2breathe wrote:I am going to be controversial here...But I think the anti-smoking crusade is ridiculous and hyprocritical.Alcohol causes MUCH MORE suffering in society than someone smoking does. Alcohol is the cause of many deaths on the road, family abuse, sickness, spousal abuse. Smoking does not cause this. Smoking may cause some bad air around the smokers...but no where near the emotional or psycological abuse of alcoholics or deaths due to "smoking while driving"There is an independent coffeehouse near my house. It is frequented by many leftist types. The owner told me "when they passed the no-smoking rule, 1/2 of my business went south".I don't think it's fair for others to demand that business owners who have put their money into their business make it completely smoke-free. The customers and her were happier without it...yet people who think they know better have caused her business to go down and her smoking customers have one less place to hang out. I think this is fascist...totally. It's forcing YOUR good habits onto others without allowing them to do what they want. I agree in PUBLIC places like planes and trains, and airports and schools (where people basically don't have other choices) should be smoke free...but bars and coffeehouses...I say leave it to the owners..they have the right to decide and their customers have a right to enjoy smoking in there.I have a theory why alcohol is not on the radar of the "anti-smoking" types...it's because the elite who go after smoking enjoy their alcohol and don't want it taken away. So they go after those who smoke, who are usually in the lower economic classes, instead of fighting the habit that causes much more harm...alcohol. I really think it's a crusade against the lower classes since it's mostly the lower classes who smoke! I think it's unkind. Let them have a smoke if it helps them get through the day. Perhaps if you had days like them, you'd understand and leave them alone and not tax them to death.Me, if I lived in a world where people stopped killing each other because of drunk driving, stopped abuse caused by alcohol, were considerate and polite when I take my dogs to the park...I would not care ONE IOTA if they smoked. I'd be happy! Smoking is such a non-issue to me compared to all the bigger issues of the world...drunk driving, outsourcing, abuse of all kinds, the falling dollar, terrorism, gang, crime, government debt, corruption in government, injustice, high taxes, making my bills...I honestly do not care if others smoke or not. In fact, when I was a waittress....the nicest most easy going patrons were smokers and they left bigger tips! If someone took that away from me I'd be mad...why should the government have to decide for me whether or not I'll take a job with smokers where I'll get bigger tips...NO ONE! That should be my decision, period... not some self righteous people who think smoking is all the evil in the world.And this is all coming from someone who is a total health nut.Thanks I feel better now!Kristina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 Hi Kristina > And I don't want to force coffeehouse owners to be totally smoke free (partially smoke free is a reasonable law) and lose some > business because I don't want to smoke. How would you suggest that are "partially" smoke free? If you're talking about having a sealed room specifically for smokers, then I would agree, but the problem with smoke is that... well - it's smoke, which means that it tends to drift into areas where it's not wanted. BB Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 ....but when they are older they may go to bars or coffeehouses by themselves or with friends (without you). You will worry about the effect of smoking on them then. I can't understand why it is that sometimes people say - there are bigger concerns for them. You do not have to limit yourself to one area. You can think about/campaign against several things at once. Jo , lv2breathe@a... wrote: > > No, I wouldn't want my kids to be breathing in a lot of smoke either but > they wouldn't because our lifestyle is such that we wouldn't go to bars or > coffeehouses with them. > > I wouldn't want them to breathe it in...but I don't feel it's write to make > McConnell's bar down the street, with all the sad and lonely drunks who happen > to like to smoke, be " smoke free " just because I didn't want my kids to > smell it if we walk by. > > And I don't want to force coffeehouse owners to be totally smoke free > (partially smoke free is a reasonable law) and lose some business because I don't > want to smoke. > > I feel that alcohol is a much bigger threat to me and my child's well being > than smoking ever could be. I also have other concerns that are higher > priority...ie their safety walking to a from school, what kind of world they will > be growing up in, will there be parks and hiking for them to enjoy, the > quality of the food they eat, gangs, criminal activity, the value of the dollar. > > All of these are bigger worries than the second hand smoke thing. > > I think it's OK to be against second hand smoke...IF they go after other > vices that cause more harm like alcohol. We don't hear of " driving while > smoking " because accidents don't happen because of smoking. Nor do we hear about > " molestation " during smoking...because smoking doesn't incite these things. > Alcohol is far, far worse. If they can't hassle drinkers than I think they > should leave the smoking alone...just for intellectual honesty. > > Kristina > > In a message dated 2/8/05 9:57:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > writes: > > Message: 20 > Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:21:38 +0000 (GMT) > peter hurd <swpgh01@t...> > Re: I AGREE! > > Hey I don`t condone smokers for their antisocial habits per se, I used to be > known to partake of the the old jaz woodbine myself in years gone past.But > now there is so much evidence on passive smoking that confined spaces are NOT > the place to be fumigated in. I certainly dont want my kids breathing in > peoples leftover toxins, do you? > > > The Valley Vegan......... > > happyyogi2003 <lv2breathe@a...> wrote: > > > I am going to be controversial here... > > But I think the anti-smoking crusade is ridiculous and hyprocritical. > > Alcohol causes MUCH MORE suffering in society than someone smoking > does. Alcohol is the cause of many deaths on the road, family abuse, > sickness, spousal abuse. Smoking does not cause this. Smoking may > cause some bad air around the smokers...but no where near the > emotional or psycological abuse of alcoholics or deaths due > to " smoking while driving " > > There is an independent coffeehouse near my house. It is frequented > by many leftist types. The owner told me " when they passed the no- > smoking rule, 1/2 of my business went south " . > > I don't think it's fair for others to demand that business owners who > have put their money into their business make it completely smoke- > free. The customers and her were happier without it...yet people who > think they know better have caused her business to go down and her > smoking customers have one less place to hang out. I think this is > fascist...totally. It's forcing YOUR good habits onto others without > allowing them to do what they want. I agree in PUBLIC places like > planes and trains, and airports and schools (where people basically > don't have other choices) should be smoke free...but bars and > coffeehouses...I say leave it to the owners..they have the right to > decide and their customers have a right to enjoy smoking in there. > > I have a theory why alcohol is not on the radar of the " anti- smoking " > types...it's because the elite who go after smoking enjoy their > alcohol and don't want it taken away. So they go after those who > smoke, who are usually in the lower economic classes, instead of > fighting the habit that causes much more harm...alcohol. I really > think it's a crusade against the lower classes since it's mostly the > lower classes who smoke! I think it's unkind. Let them have a smoke > if it helps them get through the day. Perhaps if you had days like > them, you'd understand and leave them alone and not tax them to death. > > Me, if I lived in a world where people stopped killing each other > because of drunk driving, stopped abuse caused by alcohol, were > considerate and polite when I take my dogs to the park...I would not > care ONE IOTA if they smoked. I'd be happy! Smoking is such a non- > issue to me compared to all the bigger issues of the world...drunk > driving, outsourcing, abuse of all kinds, the falling dollar, > terrorism, gang, crime, government debt, corruption in government, > injustice, high taxes, making my bills...I honestly do not care if > others smoke or not. In fact, when I was a waittress....the nicest > most easy going patrons were smokers and they left bigger tips! If > someone took that away from me I'd be mad...why should the government > have to decide for me whether or not I'll take a job with smokers > where I'll get bigger tips...NO ONE! That should be my decision, > period... not some self righteous people who think smoking is all the > evil in the world. > > And this is all coming from someone who is a total health nut. > > Thanks I feel better now! > > Kristina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 It certainly drifts in the cafes w ehave been in - you can sit the other side of the room and still come out smelling of smoke. As for bars and concrt venues - sometimes it's a job to see through the smoke! BB Jo , " Peter " <metalscarab@c...> wrote: > Hi Kristina > > > And I don't want to force coffeehouse owners to be totally smoke free (partially smoke free is a reasonable law) and lose some > > business because I don't want to smoke. > > How would you suggest that are " partially " smoke free? If you're talking about having a sealed room specifically for smokers, then I would agree, but the problem with smoke is that... well - it's smoke, which means that it tends to drift into areas where it's not wanted. > > BB > Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 I don't agree that there is no such thing as a car accident due to smoking. One of my friends has rear-ended someone for that very reason -- they were distracted when their cig fell in their lap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 As an ex-smoker who has careened through multiple lanes trying to get a cigarrette lit, I have to agree. > [Original Message] > Sara <gagrip5 > > 2/9/2005 12:05:30 PM > Re: I AGREE > > > > I don't agree that there is no such thing as a car accident due to > smoking. One of my friends has rear-ended someone for that very > reason -- they were distracted when their cig fell in their lap. To send an email to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 I doubt it's smoking that is causing all the smog. There are many cities in this country with a lot more smokers than in California but the air is cleaner and fresher. I think it has more to do with the number of cars and industry. Kristina In a message dated 2/10/05 12:30:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes: Message: 6 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:35:47 -0000 "Sara" <gagrip5Re: I AGREE!I'm honestly pretty jealous of California's smoke-free ways, me-self. I can just imagine walking inside on a smog-alert day and the air actually being easier to breathe... OK, now I'm just dreaming. , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote:> tis a bit different then i'm use togetting off the plane was alays a bit of a shock, as its like walking into a smog bank in the terminal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Yeah, I know that. I wrote in a confusing way. I meant that in California the air is actually cleaner indoors (due to no-smoking laws) than outdoors on bad days. In Vegas, the opposite is true, no matter how smoggy outside. Sara , lv2breathe@a... wrote: > > I doubt it's smoking that is causing all the smog. > > There are many cities in this country with a lot more smokers than in > California but the air is cleaner and fresher. I think it has more to do with the > number of cars and industry. > > Kristina > > In a message dated 2/10/05 12:30:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > writes: > > Message: 6 > Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:35:47 -0000 > " Sara " <gagrip5> > Re: I AGREE! > > > I'm honestly pretty jealous of California's smoke-free ways, me- > self. I can just imagine walking inside on a smog-alert day and the > air actually being easier to breathe... OK, now I'm just dreaming. > > , fraggle <EBbrewpunx@e...> wrote: > > tis a bit different then i'm use to > getting off the plane was alays a bit of a shock, as its like > walking into a smog bank in the terminal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.