PDA

View Full Version : You can't smoke there!


SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 10:33 AM
http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/135725.html

Pa. Senate OK exceptions to smoking ban bill

HARRISBURG -- Senators carved loopholes into legislation Monday to ban smoking in many public and work places in Pennsylvania, inserting partial or complete exemptions for slot-machine parlors, private clubs, bars and cigar bars.

A single amendment creating the exemptions passed, 29-21, setting up the newly changed bill for a final vote as early as today. It was not clear late Monday if the House would take up a similar bill today.

Two hours of debate on the bill revolved around protecting public health versus preserving individual liberties, although opponents of the exemptions took most of the time to lambaste them as watering down legislation for the public good.

The amendment also would upend the ban put in place last year in Philadelphia and outlaw other local governments from enforcing a smoking ban.

From wire reports

Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, who sponsored the original bill and has worked for a decade to pass such a ban, pitched the bill as a way to protect hospitality-sector workers who are exposed to smoke on the job and have far higher cancer rates.

"So we're basically saying we're throwing those people away healthwise," he said.

Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Allegheny, called the exemptions "disgusting gobbledygook," and Sen. Anthony Williams, D-Philadelphia, said the changes were like "a pig in lipstick" being billed as a beauty queen.

"There's nothing that we're banning here," Williams said.

Sen. Charles McIlhinney, R-Bucks, who wrote the amendment, said a broadly worded smoking ban did not have the votes to pass the Senate, and insisted that individual liberties deserved a place in the debate.

"This is not to be taken lightly, we are stripping away individual public liberties here," McIlhinney said.

He said the exemption would apply to just a few thousand out of a million-plus publicly accessible buildings. However, Greenleaf said most of those buildings still in the ban were already smoke-free, and Ferlo challenged the liberties argument, saying the right to smoke is not being taken away.

Twenty-seven states have approved smoking bans, albeit some with exemptions, and Illinois is poised to become the 28th.

Gov. Ed Rendell has made an indoor smoking ban a part of his broader plan to cut health care costs, breathing life into an issue that has had little traction in the Legislature.

The bill would ban smoking in arenas, stores, restaurants, convention halls, shopping malls and more, but would exempt private homes, one-quarter of the rooms in a lodging establishment and tobacco-related businesses, like wholesalers and retailers.

The changes added exemptions for cigar bars, private clubs, bars where food is one-fifth or less of its gross sales, charitable fundraisers where cigars are sold and one quarter of the gambling floors at slots parlors.

The private-club exemption, echoing language in state liquor law, would apparently extend to veterans' clubs, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars posts; Elks and Moose lodges; volunteer fire and rescue halls; political clubs; and country clubs.

Greenleaf said he worried that some establishments, seeking to avoid the ban, would find creative ways to fit into the exemptions.

Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria, tried unsuccessfully to tighten the exemption for private clubs, saying many are nothing more than "drinking holes" that should be held to the same food-to-drink sales threshold as the exemption for bars.

Buzz05
06-26-2007, 10:40 AM
Maryland just passed the law that you cant smoke in bars and restaurants. That takes effect in Feb. and Im not looking forward to it. Im a social smoker but still its going to suck in the winter. Guess thats just a reason to quit totally.

83-Steelers-43
06-26-2007, 10:46 AM
Keep taking away those freedoms big brother.....good job PA! :thumbsup:

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 10:54 AM
I know Allegheny County Passed an ordinance that says you can't smoke in some of the places stated in the article. I know PNC Park is one of them just from going to a Pirates game earlier this year and I'm predicting Heinz Field and maybe Mellon Arena(even though they have a designated area outside the arena) to follow suit.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 11:07 AM
Isn't it amazing that PA wants to ban smoking but still charges us smokers a huge tax on every pack/carton of cigs which benefits non-smokers as well? :dang::dang: This year on my PA tax return, I am claiming an exemption for all of the cigarette tax I've paid this year - I'm keeping track of it religiously.

If this bill is ultimately approved (and once again, probably will be smacked down by the courts) I am taking the same stance as I have taken with PNC Park. The first drunk that I see in a restaurant, bar or other facility, I'm lighting up. :smoker: Sucks, though, that when I get thrown in a jail cell, I won't be able to smoke there either - LOL!

rbryan
06-26-2007, 11:09 AM
Heres a news flash, smoking is really bad for you.

I don't smoke. I don't want to breath anyones second hand smoke. If you want to kill yourself thats your perogative, but don't go sign up for medicare and expect me to pay for your oxygen tank and all the medical bills that go along with your future health problems.

Banning smoking in public places isn't taking away anyones rights, it enforces everyones right to breath clean air.

83-Steelers-43
06-26-2007, 11:25 AM
Either ban tobacco all together or don't ban it at all. Last I checked it wasn't on the list with crack or reefer. We already have smoking and non-smoking sections. If that doesn't make enough people happy than too bad. It's funny, a guy can go into a bar, drink himself silly, get in his car and kill a family of four, but watch out for those smokers who are secluded to their own area of the joint!!! lol. If these joints want to ban smoking, go for it. But I do have a problem with big brother telling me where and when I can smoke a perfectly legal product.

What cracks me up about this whole joke of a bill. Countless numbers of hours have been spent analyzing the in and outs of a smoking ban. How many feet from a door we can smoke, how much revenue a restaurant must generate to be considered smoking or not, etc. etc. etc.. Yet ... "The law is not clear as to what constitutes neglect and abuse" as far as leaving children home alone, according to the Butler County district attorney. Five kids ended up dead two weeks ago because our 'priorities' are needed elsewhere...lol.

Eitherway, I see the courts throwing this one out. At least I hope they do.

verks36
06-26-2007, 11:44 AM
Isn't it amazing that PA wants to ban smoking but still charges us smokers a huge tax on every pack/carton of cigs which benefits non-smokers as well? :dang::dang: This year on my PA tax return, I am claiming an exemption for all of the cigarette tax I've paid this year - I'm keeping track of it religiously.

If this bill is ultimately approved (and once again, probably will be smacked down by the courts) I am taking the same stance as I have taken with PNC Park. The first drunk that I see in a restaurant, bar or other facility, I'm lighting up. :smoker: Sucks, though, that when I get thrown in a jail cell, I won't be able to smoke there either - LOL!

SMOKEING IS BAD FOR YOU

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 11:52 AM
Heres a news flash, smoking is really bad for you.

I don't smoke. I don't want to breath anyones second hand smoke. If you want to kill yourself thats your perogative, but don't go sign up for medicare and expect me to pay for your oxygen tank and all the medical bills that go along with your future health problems.

Banning smoking in public places isn't taking away anyones rights, it enforces everyones right to breath clean air.

When the government is enforcing that ban, that is exactly what they are doing. The politicians like Ferlo say "nobody's taking away anyone's right to smoke," and of course the sheeple fall for it hook, line and sinker. They should leave it up to the individual business owners, plain and simple. Most public places are already smoke-free and plenty of restaurants, clubs and bars are already smoke free. So if you don't want to be around second-hand smoke, then go to one of those places, and leave the smokers alone.

And BTW, this is coming from a non-smoker.

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 11:56 AM
SMOKEING IS BAD FOR YOU

So is drinking. Don't hear about the government trying to ban that, do you? It didn't work too well the first time they tried.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 12:01 PM
So is drinking. Don't hear about the government trying to ban that, do you? It didn't work too well the first time they tried.

Yeah it didn't work when they tried to ban it. Those Beer and alcohol companies bribed congress enough to bring it back.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Well, Denver has already adopted these smoking bans in bars and restaurants here - as a smoker, I've adjusted.

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 12:25 PM
(insert long winded rant here)

As the child of a family of smokers.... Mom, Dad(now dead some 13 years. Yeah he died of lung cancer), brother, aunts, uncles, etc... you get the point...

As the child of a family of smokers, one of my earliest memories of my Dad was of me getting down off his lap when he would light up. As a toddler I knew I hated it. I still do.

I'm sick of seeing people toss their butts out the windows of cars. I'm sick of driving through that last huge exhale they blow out the window which then wafts into mine. I'm sick of the stench. That's right. STENCH. It smells like to death to me. I'm sick of having to walk through a ****ing cloud of smoke to get into the door at work, or the door at the grocery store coz all the smokers are outside on the benches.

Don't give me this smokers' rights shit either. 50% of all people who smoke will die from their addiction. 50%!

If ya ask me a smoker should be made to earn their right to smoke. Here's how ya do it. Since half of them will die from it any way. Each smoker one by one is handed a revolver. Half of the chambers have bullets in them and half do not. Spin the cylinder, gun to head and pull the trigger. It's the same damn thing as lighting up day after day. It just doesn't take as long to achieve the same end result.

This is a product that eventually kills half the people that use it. This product is also so addictive that well over 90% of the people who try to quit this product can't. Why isn't this product outlawed? Because the government can make a shitload of money off of these dumbass drug add-icts. (for some reason the word "addi cts" gets censored but shitload doesn't) Also because what will those poor tobacco farmers do otherwise? Oh please...

For you smokers out there who think you're not an addict.... Try quitting. Just wait until you get the shakes, chills, agitated headaches, insomnia etc...

Smokers are a huge DRAIN ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. I believe smokers should have no rights at all to government funded health care. Why should taxpayers bear the burden for your suicidal habit?

Oh and one last thing... For those smokers out there who think well... "I've got years to go before it might start to affect me." Keep telling yourself that. The older sister of a friend died at the age of 24 from lung cancer. She had been smoking for 10 years. She dropped dead 3 months after her initial diagnosis.

I imagine I've pissed off alot of smokers here. I don't care. Just like you don't care when I'm forced to inhale your filth. :banging::banging:

(end long winded rant)

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 12:33 PM
So is drinking. Don't hear about the government trying to ban that, do you? It didn't work too well the first time they tried.

Depends upon how much and how often...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol.html

I've never once heard a doctor say "Smoking is good for you as long as you don't smoke too much."


EDIT:: Found this article interesting too on the health care front. http://www.newstarget.com/z005340.html

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 12:39 PM
Obesity is a gigantic drain on health care as well - do we ban Mickey D's too?

rbryan
06-26-2007, 12:44 PM
Nobody ever got cancer from the smell of second hand french fries

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 12:45 PM
Nobody ever got cancer from the smell of second hand french fries

I never thought those existed.

rbryan
06-26-2007, 12:47 PM
(insert long winded rant here)

As the child of a family of smokers.... Mom, Dad(now dead some 13 years. Yeah he died of lung cancer), brother, aunts, uncles, etc... you get the point...

As the child of a family of smokers, one of my earliest memories of my Dad was of me getting down off his lap when he would light up. As a toddler I knew I hated it. I still do.

I'm sick of seeing people toss their butts out the windows of cars. I'm sick of driving through that last huge exhale they blow out the window which then wafts into mine. I'm sick of the stench. That's right. STENCH. It smells like to death to me. I'm sick of having to walk through a ****ing cloud of smoke to get into the door at work, or the door at the grocery store coz all the smokers are outside on the benches.

Don't give me this smokers' rights shit either. 50% of all people who smoke will die from their addiction. 50%!

If ya ask me a smoker should be made to earn their right to smoke. Here's how ya do it. Since half of them will die from it any way. Each smoker one by one is handed a revolver. Half of the chambers have bullets in them and half do not. Spin the cylinder, gun to head and pull the trigger. It's the same damn thing as lighting up day after day. It just doesn't take as long to achieve the same end result.

This is a product that eventually kills half the people that use it. This product is also so addictive that well over 90% of the people who try to quit this product can't. Why isn't this product outlawed? Because the government can make a shitload of money off of these dumbass drug add-icts. (for some reason the word "addi cts" gets censored but shitload doesn't) Also because what will those poor tobacco farmers do otherwise? Oh please...

For you smokers out there who think you're not an addict.... Try quitting. Just wait until you get the shakes, chills, agitated headaches, insomnia etc...

Smokers are a huge DRAIN ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. I believe smokers should have no rights at all to government funded health care. Why should taxpayers bear the burden for your suicidal habit?

Oh and one last thing... For those smokers out there who think well... "I've got years to go before it might start to affect me." Keep telling yourself that. The older sister of a friend died at the age of 24 from lung cancer. She had been smoking for 10 years. She dropped dead 3 months after her initial diagnosis.

I imagine I've pissed off alot of smokers here. I don't care. Just like you don't care when I'm forced to inhale your filth. :banging::banging:

(end long winded rant)

That pretty much sums up my main objection to smokers in general

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 12:49 PM
Nobody ever got cancer from the smell of second hand french fries

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html

In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and, astoundingly, some show a reduction of risk.

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 12:49 PM
Obesity is a gigantic drain on health care as well - do we ban Mickey D's too?

Works for me.... If it means that my insurance costs will drop then sure. How about we ban cars as well because after all people die using them. Lets ban water too. Every year about 3,200 people drown.

Smoking has not one good redeeming value. What benefit comes from smoking? Your nicotine buzz?

Cape Cod Steel Head
06-26-2007, 12:52 PM
Well, Denver has already adopted these smoking bans in bars and restaurants here - as a smoker, I've adjusted.MA. did this years ago. It's amazing how much less you smoke when it's 10 degrees outside.

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 12:56 PM
I can't wait for football season to start... I'm done here. I'll never change a smokers mind and they will still piss me off when I'm stuck near them.

Yes its an obsessive topic for me. You've no idea. Well... perhaps if you watched your father rot from the inside out and wiped away the blood he coughed up. Then you might be able to relate.

Being unable to breathe because your lungs don't work is an evil way to die.

EDIT:: Do some light reading.
http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/tobaccostatistics/a/cancerstats.htm
http://www.lungcancer.org/patients/fs_pc_lc_101.htm

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 12:56 PM
Works for me.... If it means that my insurance costs will drop then sure. How about we ban cars as well because after all people die using them. Lets ban water too. Every year about 3,200 people drown.

Smoking has not one good redeeming value. What benefit comes from smoking? Your nicotine buzz?

I don't see any redeeming quality from drinking either, especially when half of traffic fatalities every year are alcohol-related.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 12:58 PM
I don't see any redeeming quality from drinking either, especially when half of traffic fatalities every year are alcohol-related.

Is that the truth. Some of those alcohol related crashes are TEENS drinking.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 01:00 PM
Is that the truth. Some of those alcohol related crashes are TEENS drinking.

In the U.S., alcohol is implicated in about half of fatal traffic accidents.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol.html

rbryan
06-26-2007, 01:04 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html

I haven't made it a habit to breath in nerve gas for a prolonged period of time in a controlled environment either. Tobacco companies have been skirting the truth about smoking for years.

If you want to believe that breathing in 2nd hand smoke is OK thats your choice to do so. But don't expect others to accept it as fact because you have a newspaper article.

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 01:04 PM
I don't see any redeeming quality from drinking either, especially when half of traffic fatalities every year are alcohol-related.

You didn't bother to read the link I posted did you? :dang:

More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol.html

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 01:07 PM
I haven't made it a habit to breath in nerve gas for a prolonged period of time in a controlled environment either. Tobacco companies have been skirting the truth about smoking for years.

If you want to believe that breathing in 2nd hand smoke is OK thats your choice to do so. But don't expect others to accept it as fact because you have a newspaper article.

I'm not saying it's fact, but I don't drink the ALA's kool-aid on it either, because they're just as biased the other way. I grew up around smokers myself, and I never got asthma, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis as some "studies" I've read about what folks who are exposed to secondhand smoke are supposedly "doomed" to.

Preacher
06-26-2007, 01:07 PM
I have no problem with smoking being banned in PUBLIC places... Non-smoking sections of restaurants are a joke. Just go into Denny's and sit in the non-smoking section... then walk out and smell your clothes. I also have no problem with making the smoking area 40 feet away from doors... Why move smokers outside, just to make people walk through the smoke.

However, here is what I DO have a problem with. in CA, they are now trying to ban smoking in OPEN AIR PARKS... yep, thats right... Also in APARTMENT BUILDINGS...

Pretty soon, they will ban it EVERYWHERE by law, yet, not have a law making the product itself illegal. How stupid. This ENTIRE smoking thing is one more politically driven schizophrenic group of ideas.

However, HTG... I gotta disagree with you. Taxing smoking, like alcohol, is a good thing. It is what I call a choice tax. Both products are not in ANY way shape or form necessary for life, thus, it makes sense to tax those products rather then products which all or most people must use as a part of life, such as milk, meat (please, no one put in a vegeterian rant here... people... if you have to take supplements when you don't eat meat, THEN THE BODY WASN'T MADE TO NOT EAT MEAT), gas tax, Hwy tolls etc.

However, what I DON"T like is the idea of social engineering through the tax code, and unfortunetly, that is exactly what many in our government try to do... including banning certain products by taxation.

I guess, what we really need, is politicians that care more about their communities, then one that care about being re-elected. That way, if cigarettes are bad, they will be banned... instead of taxed and legislated out of existence.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 01:09 PM
You didn't bother to read the link I posted did you? :dang:



http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol.html

Who commissioned the studies? Anheuser-Busch? Wait a year or so, and the results of yet another study will be released pretty much contradicting it all anyway.

rbryan
06-26-2007, 01:11 PM
The alcohol argument makes me laugh. Smokers who can't puff away at the bar want to outlaw liquor too??? Yeah right. lol

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 01:14 PM
The alcohol argument makes me laugh. Smokers who can't puff away at the bar want to outlaw liquor too??? Yeah right. lol

That doesn't make much sense at all. More than 90% of all alcoholics also smoke.

* More than 90 per cent of alcoholics smoke, compared to fewer than a third of non-alcoholics.
* Alcoholics smoke more cigarettes per day than do nonalcoholic smokers.
* Alcoholics are more likely to smoke mentholated cigarettes.
* The number of cigarettes a person consumes rises in tandem with the number of drinks consumed.
* Almost every smoker who smokes more than two packs a day is also an alcoholic.

Source: T. Bien and R. Barge, Smoking and Drinking, a Review of the Literature (1990), International Journal of the Addictions 25(12).
http://www.unhooked.com/nosmoke/index.html

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 01:17 PM
Heres a news flash, smoking is really bad for you.

I don't smoke. I don't want to breath anyones second hand smoke. If you want to kill yourself thats your perogative, but don't go sign up for medicare and expect me to pay for your oxygen tank and all the medical bills that go along with your future health problems.

Banning smoking in public places isn't taking away anyones rights, it enforces everyones right to breath clean air.

Here's a news flash for you if you indulge in alcohol - not only isn't alcohol good for you, it isn't good for the thousands of poor, defenseless victims of drunk drivers every year. Non-smokers have the option of getting away from the boogie man - a drunk driving victim doesn't have that option.

Here's another news flash - most of us over 40 smokers kicked into Medicare long before you were even a twinkle in your Daddy's eye and still kick into it, so that point is moot.

I think they should ban perfume and cologne in public places, too. I'd rather breathe in my smoke and that of others than some of that rank sh it they bottle and sell that people bathe in. :cheers:

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 01:18 PM
The alcohol argument makes me laugh. Smokers who can't puff away at the bar want to outlaw liquor too??? Yeah right. lol

DAMNED STRAIGHT. God help the first drunk I see staggering out of a restaurant or bar - I'll be on the phone to the po-po faster than they can belch.

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 01:21 PM
The alcohol argument makes me laugh. Smokers who can't puff away at the bar want to outlaw liquor too??? Yeah right. lol

Um, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that if the government wants to ban one, then they should ban the other, because both can cause serious health problems, not to mention that many innocent people are killed every year by drunken idiots who decide to get behind the wheel of a car. On top of that, when you go to a sporting event, you have to deal with drunks shouting obscenities, starting fights, and generally being obnoxious a$$holes...but evidently that's OK. Plus, it's extremely hypocritical for the government to tax a product that they find so horrible that they want to ban it everywhere, including outdoor parks and apartment buildings (to quote Preacher, if he doesn't mind), rather than just forgetting about the money they make off of smokers and banning the product altogether. The latter just proves that they really don't give a shit about the public health - they just want the $$$ and more control over your life.

PisnNapalm
06-26-2007, 01:24 PM
Toodles... I'm done in here.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 01:24 PM
Um, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that if the government wants to ban one, then they should ban the other, because both can cause serious health problems, not to mention that many innocent people are killed every year by drunken idiots who decide to get behind the wheel of a car. On top of that, when you go to a sporting event, you have to deal with drunks shouting obscenities, starting fights, and generally being obnoxious a$$holes...but evidently that's OK. Plus, it's extremely hypocritical for the government to tax a product that they find so horrible that they want to ban it everywhere, including outdoor parks and apartment buildings (to quote Preacher, if he doesn't mind), rather than just forgetting about the money they make off of smokers and banning the product altogether. The latter just proves that they really don't give a shit about the public health - they just want the $$$ and more control over your life.

Right on, X-T - my smoking habit is a nasty one I'm gonna have to break, bottom line, but my biggest problem with this sort of government intervention is the hypocrisy of it all.

rbryan
06-26-2007, 01:24 PM
I give up. Smoke em if you got em. Its your funeral.

In all honesty, I'm not that worried about 2nd hand smoke. I just get up and walk away. But you won't make that many friends with your fellow smokers when you cut off thier liquor. Lets face it if thier were more people in the bar not smoking it would have been banned a long time ago.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 01:27 PM
However, HTG... I gotta disagree with you. Taxing smoking, like alcohol, is a good thing. It is what I call a choice tax. Both products are not in ANY way shape or form necessary for life, thus, it makes sense to tax those products rather then products which all or most people must use as a part of life, such as milk, meat (please, no one put in a vegeterian rant here... people... if you have to take supplements when you don't eat meat, THEN THE BODY WASN'T MADE TO NOT EAT MEAT), gas tax, Hwy tolls etc.



The HUGE difference in what you state above, Father, is that the state slaps an enormous tax on cigarettes but is trying to ban smoking. I haven't seen or read anywhere that the state is trying to ban alcohol. If you're going to ban one unnecessary evil, then ban the other. Be consistent. Oh wait - we're talking about government, huh? :sofunny:

Preacher
06-26-2007, 01:28 PM
DAMNED STRAIGHT. God help the first drunk I see staggering out of a restaurant or bar - I'll be on the phone to the po-po faster than they can belch.

INteresting. I was working at a gas station trying to pay for seminary. Those times I had to work the register and close, it was amazing how many times I had to call the police on Drunk drivers. They would wander and stagger into the place, pay for gas and a bag of chips, then stagger back... barely get in the car, and drive off. Every dang time, I would get thier plates... dial 911... and send the cops after them.

Sorry if that offends anyone... but really, I don't care. If someone is stupid enough to put someone else's life at risk for thier own enjoyment/comfort, then they deserve what is coming to them.

Preacher
06-26-2007, 01:29 PM
The HUGE difference in what you state above, Father, is that the state slaps an enormous tax on cigarettes but is trying to ban smoking. I haven't seen or read anywhere that the state is trying to ban alcohol. If you're going to ban one unnecessary evil, then ban the other. Be consistent. Oh wait - we're talking about government, huh? :sofunny:

Sister...

There are some miracles that I, in my moments of doubt, don't even think God could pull off!!!

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 01:30 PM
I give up. Smoke em if you got em. Its your funeral.

In all honesty, I'm not that worried about 2nd hand smoke. I just get up and walk away. But you won't make that many friends with your fellow smokers when you cut off thier liquor. Lets face it if thier were more people in the bar not smoking it would have been banned a long time ago.

Well then...

A: What exactly are you arguing about?

B: Why did you make this comment:

Nobody ever got cancer from second hand french fries

...if you're not all that worried about 2nd hand smoke and you just get up and walk away?

And again, I'm not a smoker, just sick and tired of the sheep allowing the government (at all levels) to take more and more control over people's lives.

verks36
06-26-2007, 01:33 PM
So is drinking. Don't hear about the government trying to ban that, do you? It didn't work too well the first time they tried.

Ok yes drinking is bad for you but there is a huge difference between drinking and smoking

When you are in a restraunt and bar when the person next to you is smoking they are not only harming them selves but they are harming you with second hand smoke.

When you are drinking all you are doing is harming yourself and no one else.

That is the main difference

rbryan
06-26-2007, 01:35 PM
Just because I'm not worried about it is not a reason to downplay someone elses right to not have to breath it.

Thats really what my issue is here. People who smoke, in general, are inconsiderate of other peoples choices. Now maybe you are a considerate person and would never light up next to someone in the middle of thier dinner, but from my experience you would be in the minority of smokers.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 01:35 PM
I give up. Smoke em if you got em. Its your funeral.

In all honesty, I'm not that worried about 2nd hand smoke. I just get up and walk away. But you won't make that many friends with your fellow smokers when you cut off thier liquor. Lets face it if thier were more people in the bar not smoking it would have been banned a long time ago.

Hey rbryan - the way I look at it is smoking is my one and only vice. Alcohol, gambling or another "evil" may be yours. I can read the side of a pack of cigarettes and listen to all of the whining and bemoaning of the non-smoking clan, but I am a die-hard believer that cancer and heart disease are more predisposed illnesses than acquired because of overindulgence of tobacco or alcohol. Just my opinion.

P.S. Excellent post XT! :cheers: Can't remember the last time reading about a bunch of smokers at sporting events starting a fight or killing someone on the road because they had to many ciggys. LMAO!!! :toofunny:

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 01:40 PM
Just because I'm not worried about it is not a reason to downplay someone elses right to not have to breath it.

Thats really what my issue is here. People who smoke, in general, are inconsiderate of other peeoples choices. Now maybe you are a considerate person and would never light up next to someone in the middle of thier dinner, but from my experience you would be in the minority of smokers.

I am an extremely considerate smoker, unless you are in MY car. I warn everyone who rides with me that I'm going to smoke and they have the option of not getting into my car. XT knows. I don't smoke in my house anymore - I smoke outside, but that was MY choice, not the choice of a government who tells me I can't smoke but charges me out the wazoo when I purchase cigs.

Again - I must challenge your theory that people who smoke (in general) are "inconsiderate of other people's choices". Couldn't that same principle be applied to drunks who just gotta have that last call and get into that car knowing full well that they are intoxicated and could very well kill some unsuspecting and innocent person?

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 01:43 PM
When you are drinking all you are doing is harming yourself and no one else.

That is the main difference

:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:

I'm sure that statement would go over really well with the hundreds of thousands of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, husbands, etc. whose loved one(s) were killed by drunk drivers over the years. MADD would skin you alive for making a comment like that.

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 01:48 PM
Ok yes drinking is bad for you but there is a huge difference between drinking and smoking

When you are in a restraunt and bar when the person next to you is smoking they are not only harming them selves but they are harming you with second hand smoke.

When you are drinking all you are doing is harming yourself and no one else.

That is the main difference

:bs:

Tell that to the thousands of people who are killed by drunk drivers every year, as well as all of the people who are killed and injured in bar/club/restaurant/ fights that are alcohol-induced.

Just because I'm not worried about it is not a reason to downplay someone elses right to not have to breath it.

Thats really what my issue is here. People who smoke, in general, are inconsiderate of other peoples choices. Now maybe you are a considerate person and would never light up next to someone in the middle of thier dinner, but from my experience you would be in the minority of smokers.

For the 3rd time, I'm not a smoker. I have never been a smoker and I encourage everyone who smokes to quit. But it is not my place nor is it the government's place to tell people where they can and can't smoke. Plus, not every smoker is some inconsiderate a$$hole hell-bent on killing everyone around them. The majority are very considerate and every smoker I have been around have been respectful of my choice. But once I enter into their domain, I don't have a right to tell them to put their cigarette out.

Buzz05
06-26-2007, 01:54 PM
For the 3rd time, I'm not a smoker. I have never been a smoker and I encourage everyone who smokes to quit. But it is not my place nor is it the government's place to tell people where they can and can't smoke.

I am a smoker, I quite for about 9 months and started back again. And ya know what i agree with you 100%. Whos business is it of anyone's to tell someone they can and can not smoke.

Their is a huge backlash from that smoking ban law that is just passed. In order for specialty bars to have the ban lifted they have to prove they are a specialty bar (ie cigar bar) or other bars can permit smoking if they can prove it will hurt business. Well he is my arguement, all bars located around these specialty bars will have their business hurt because everyone will go the specialty bar to smoke and drink and not the other places. Therefore the other bars will try to get the ban raised and so forth, its a never ending circle. My arguement is, if you dont like the bar atmosphere then dont go to the bar!

As far as restaurants and places of that nature go for family entertainment, I feel that should be done on case by case basis at request of the restaurant. But not all bars should be banned from smoking. Its hypocarcy.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Smoking has not one good redeeming value. What benefit comes from smoking? Your nicotine buzz?

Name me one good benefit that comes from alcohol......or obesity??? The same hypocrites in restaurants who are complaining about a little smoke wafting in their direction are sititng there shoveling down a double cheeseburger, greasy fries, cole slaw loaded with mayo and a soda loaded with sugar. Riiiiiighto.

MACH1
06-26-2007, 02:13 PM
One reason the government wont outlaw tabaco is because of all the farmers it will put out of business and of course all that political money they will lose.

verks36
06-26-2007, 03:10 PM
One reason the government wont outlaw tabaco is because of all the farmers it will put out of business and of course all that political money they will lose.

I Agree

CAN SOME ONE pref ably a smoker TEll me what is so good about SMOKING


There is nothing good about smoking it all negitive

- money
-health
-cancer
-lungs

Buzz05
06-26-2007, 03:19 PM
CAN SOME ONE pref ably a smoker TEll me what is so good about SMOKING


The same thing that is so good about drinking a beer. Its ralexing. Not to all people but to the smokers yes, its very relaxing.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 03:22 PM
I Agree

CAN SOME ONE pref ably a smoker TEll me what is so good about SMOKING


There is nothing good about smoking it all negitive

- money
-health
-cancer
-lungs

I don't think a one of us smokers has said that smoking is good for us or for anyone else. We are simply stating our opinions.

There is also nothing good about alcohol....

- money
- Liver disease, including cancer
- Cardiomyopathy
- Gout
- Heartburn
- Hepatoma
- Hypertension
- Pancreatic cancer
- Pancreatitis
- Peptic Ulcer
- Pneumonia
- Scurvy
- Stomach cancer
- Subdural hematoma
- Transient Ischemic Attack (mini-stroke for those who aren't familiar with that medical term)
- Tuberculosis

---- Innocent deaths of thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting, innocent victims of drunk driviers every single year.

ChronoCross
06-26-2007, 03:38 PM
I could care less were someone smokes as long as it is not in my face are by me while I am eating. No one smokes in my home are my vehicles.

When going to a bar are a dance club its normal for all that crap to be there and I accept that. I did kinda love it in germany when the military bases and clubs went smoke free, was able to dance and have a good time without someone blowing crap around me.

Indiana is going smoke free and a lot of people are upset saying its going to hurt business. It will not hurt any business, people will still go out and eat, still go to clubs. There are smoking areas, so enjoy your box. People think because they protest the bill and not go here and there to eat its going to make a difference, wrong.. You think if you protest for some odd reason and light up anyways and go to jail is going to help the protest, wrong its only going to hurt your wallet and the time you spend at jail, but hey your kool for lighting up and helping the state get more money.

rbryan
06-26-2007, 04:02 PM
Georgia has been smoke free for a while now, doesn't seem to have slowed down the restaurant business here. Its just a matter of time before its that way everywhere. The smokers can cry all they want, it's inevitable.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 04:22 PM
Indiana is going smoke free and a lot of people are upset saying its going to hurt business. It will not hurt any business, people will still go out and eat, still go to clubs. There are smoking areas, so enjoy your box. People think because they protest the bill and not go here and there to eat its going to make a difference, wrong.. You think if you protest for some odd reason and light up anyways and go to jail is going to help the protest, wrong its only going to hurt your wallet and the time you spend at jail, but hey your kool for lighting up and helping the state get more money.

A restaurant that I patronized quite regularly before they went smoke free has lost a TON of business since they decided to stay smoke free after the ban in the Burgh got beat down by the courts. On a Saturday night when I used to have to wait in line for at least 30 minutes to get a seat - now I can walk right in and sit wherever I like. Just did it this past Saturday night. For those who know the area, I am referring to the Old Town Buffet in Southland. Pittsburgh is a blue-collar once very prominent mill town and a lot of the retired steelworkers smoke. The best way for us smokers to protest this ban is not by pulling silly stunts (I was joking by the way - jail and I would not mix well) but by voicing our disapproval at the voting booths when these hypocrites are up for re-election.

Quit being so damned judgmental Chrono. Everyone has vices - smoking is mine and all PA non-smokers benefit from the money I give the state.

For those youngsters who just say no to smoking - I commend you. It was pretty easy when I was your age to buy a pack of smokes - no one checked ID or really cared. I wish I had never started, but the fact remains I did and I can admit that I am addicted to the nicotine. Stay strong and keep on saying NO!

rbryan
06-26-2007, 04:36 PM
Your cigarette tax dollars paid are a drop in the ocean compared to the health care expense levied on taxpayers for the millions of smokers on medicare.

If you can still make an argument for smoking there is no reasoning with you.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 04:42 PM
If you can still make an argument for smoking there is no reasoning with you.

For those youngsters who just say no to smoking - I commend you. It was pretty easy when I was your age to buy a pack of smokes - no one checked ID or really cared. I wish I had never started, but the fact remains I did and I can admit that I am addicted to the nicotine. Stay strong and keep on saying NO!

How was this an argument for smoking?

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 04:46 PM
Your cigarette tax dollars paid are a drop in the ocean compared to the health care expense levied on taxpayers for the millions of smokers on medicare.

If you can still make an argument for smoking there is no reasoning with you.

Ummm - I am one of those taxpayers. :tap:

I notice that you appear to have no problem with the number of alcohol-related deaths that over-imbibing has caused, but are going to continue to rag on smoking. Obviously, there is no reasoning with YOU, rbryan. Nowhere have I ever stated that smoking is a good thing, but it is MY habit, MY vice and MY cross to bear if it adversely affects my health down the road. Again - YOU as a nonsmoker have the opportunity to get out of the smoker's path, where a drunk doesn't afford his/her victim's that opportunity.

If I'm going to be taxed out the hiney for purchasing cigarettes, then the tax on alcohol needs to take a hike upward as well. Consistency.

btw - PA smokers - I just heard on KDKA that the proposed ban isn't likely to be approved before the Senate adjourns for the summer. :banana: Several former supporters of the bill have now, in true political style, flip-flopped to the other side. :thumbsup:

MACH1
06-26-2007, 04:48 PM
Your cigarette tax dollars paid are a drop in the ocean compared to the health care expense levied on taxpayers for the millions of smokers on medicare.

If you can still make an argument for smoking there is no reasoning with you.


I'd worry about getting all the illegal aliens out the medical system before medicare. Medicare's cost is just a drop compared to how much illegals are sucking out the american tax payers.

Plus medicare doesn't pay for everything.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 04:49 PM
Ummm - I am one of those taxpayers. :tap:

I notice that you appear to have no problem with the number of alcohol-related deaths that over-imbibing has caused, but are going to continue to rag on smoking. Obviously, there is no reasoning with YOU, rbryan. Nowhere have I ever stated that smoking is a good thing, but it is MY habit, MY vice and MY cross to bear if it adversely affects my health down the road. Again - YOU as a nonsmoker have the opportunity to get out of the smoker's path, where a drunk doesn't afford his/her victim's that opportunity.

If I'm going to be taxed out the hiney for purchasing cigarettes, then the tax on alcohol needs to take a hike upward as well. Consistency.

btw - PA smokers - I just heard on KDKA that the proposed ban isn't likely to be approved before the Senate adjourns for the summer. :banana: Several former supporters of the bill have now, in true political style, flip-flopped to the other side. :thumbsup:

They can't adjourn until the state budget gets passed though. That's the problem.

fansince'76
06-26-2007, 04:53 PM
btw - PA smokers - I just heard on KDKA that the proposed ban isn't likely to be approved before the Senate adjourns for the summer. :banana: Several former supporters of the bill have now, in true political style, flip-flopped to the other side. :thumbsup:

Trust me, HTG, if it's gotten that far, it's going to eventually pass in PA as well - there were lots of folks here who fought the smoking ban in restaurants and bars with the same arguments as business owners in the 'Burgh and were successful for a time, but the bill eventually became law. If it's in the state legislature, and it is anti-smoking, it is only a matter of time before it gets pushed through.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 04:57 PM
Trust me, HTG, if it's gotten that far, it's going to eventually pass in PA as well - there were lots of folks here who fought the smoking ban in restaurants and bars with the same arguments as business owners in the 'Burgh and were successful for a time, but the bill eventually became law. If it's in the state legislature, and it is anti-smoking, it is only a matter of time before it gets pushed through.

If it does, it does Gary, and I'll have to accept it. My whole point is that if the State is going to ban one evil, why not ban another? Watch the non-smoking hypocrites come out of the woodwork gnashing their teeth and protesting if the State would ever consider a ban on alcohol other than a person's own residence.

rbryan
06-26-2007, 05:01 PM
Ummm - I am one of those taxpayers. :tap:

I notice that you appear to have no problem with the number of alcohol-related deaths that over-imbibing has caused, but are going to continue to rag on smoking. Obviously, there is no reasoning with YOU, rbryan. Nowhere have I ever stated that smoking is a good thing, but it is MY habit, MY vice and MY cross to bear if it adversely affects my health down the road. Again - YOU as a nonsmoker have the opportunity to get out of the smoker's path, where a drunk doesn't afford his/her victim's that opportunity.

If I'm going to be taxed out the hiney for purchasing cigarettes, then the tax on alcohol needs to take a hike upward as well. Consistency.

btw - PA smokers - I just heard on KDKA that the proposed ban isn't likely to be approved before the Senate adjourns for the summer. :banana: Several former supporters of the bill have now, in true political style, flip-flopped to the other side. :thumbsup:

??? Are you just making things up now. Where do you read me saying drunk driving is ok???
I can see this whole no smoking thing has really struck a nerve with you. Sorry I said anything. Have a nice day.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 05:01 PM
If it does, it does Gary, and I'll have to accept it. My whole point is that if the State is going to ban one evil, why not ban another? Watch the non-smoking hypocrites come out of the woodwork gnashing their teeth and protesting if the State would ever consider a ban on alcohol other than a person's own residence.

I wouldn't be shocked if such event happens. Sports teams will have to look for another form of money maker.

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 05:01 PM
Your cigarette tax dollars paid are a drop in the ocean compared to the health care expense levied on taxpayers for the millions of smokers on medicare.

If you can still make an argument for smoking there is no reasoning with you.

It's funny that you and others make this argument about health care expenses being levied on smokers through Medicare, yet SMOKERS PAY BILLIONS INTO THE SYSTEM THEMSELVES. Good luck trying to convince them that they don't deserve any benefits just because they smoke. Or better yet, since you feel so strongly about it, why not gather a bunch of your anti-smoking friends and petition Congress and the state government to refund all of the tax money the smokers paid into Medicare, Medicaid and other government-sponsored health plans, and then they can go and buy a health care plan that is way better than anything the government could ever provide. That way, you and the rest of society can feel better knowing that you aren't footing the bill for smokers anymore. Deal?

rbryan
06-26-2007, 05:15 PM
Another Freedom Fighter?? Hey, seriously, forget everything I said. You guys have shown me the light. I'm thinking about running down to the corner store to pick up a carton of Lucky Strikes just so I can do my fair share.

MACH1
06-26-2007, 05:17 PM
Another Freedom Fighter?? Hey, seriously, forget everything I said. You guys have shown me the light. I'm thinking about running down to the corner store to pick up a carton of Lucky Strikes just so I can do my fair share.

Make sure you chug a six pack before you leave. :wink02:

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 05:22 PM
??? Are you just making things up now. Where do you read me saying drunk driving is ok???
I can see this whole no smoking thing has really struck a nerve with you. Sorry I said anything. Have a nice day.

I didn't make the statements below........YOU did.

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=260192&postcount=31

I haven't seen one post by you in this thread that would lead me to believe that you are opposed to drunk driving and all of the lives it claims every year. Only statements putting down smoking and those of us who choose to smoke.

P.S. Lucky Strikes are nasty. Get Marlboro Lights. :wink02::thumbsup:

rbryan
06-26-2007, 05:27 PM
No, Jack Daniels. I want to make sure I get really hammered. Apparently, not liking cigarette smoke blown in your face is akin to DUI and burning the flag.

I'm gonna have to just give the Lucky Strikes out to the kids in the neighborhood, damn things make me puke just to smell em.

rbryan
06-26-2007, 05:39 PM
Are you for real?? I didn't know I had to proclaim my position on drinking and driving. This post is about smoking.

For the record, I certainly don't advocate it or do it.

There are also about a million other topics that haven't come up yet that I have opinions on. I'll spare you the details.

HometownGal
06-26-2007, 05:53 PM
Are you for real?? I didn't know I had to proclaim my position on drinking and driving. This post is about smoking.

For the record, I certainly don't advocate it or do it.

There are also about a million other topics that haven't come up yet that I have opinions on. I'll spare you the details.

Yes I am for real. I have come right out and admitted that I am addicted to nicotine, I have commended those youngins' who have posted in this thread who say NO to smoking and yes - I AM comparing the dangers of smoking with the dangers of drunk driving - they are both evil.

I have no problem at all with you expressing your opinion rbryan and even though we are worlds apart on agreeing, I do respect your views.

Thank you for taking a position on drunk driving.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 06:09 PM
Yes I am for real. I have come right out and admitted that I am addicted to nicotine, I have commended those youngins' who have posted in this thread who say NO to smoking and yes - I AM comparing the dangers of smoking with the dangers of drunk driving - they are both evil.

I have no problem at all with you expressing your opinion rbryan and even though we are worlds apart on agreeing, I do respect your views.

Thank you for taking a position on drunk driving.

I proudly can say I'm one of those who say no to smoking. ESPECIALLY since they can get me kicked of my sports teams. One use, I'm gone.

revefsreleets
06-26-2007, 06:14 PM
OK, This is obviously a heated discussion, but why not examine from the point of a state that has tried this already and is failing?

Ohio let the voters vote, which was at least fair, but the different groups couldn't figure out the right language so there were actually two separate initiatives on the ballot. One was reasonable, and banned smoking on family restaurants, public buildings, bars that did more business in food than spirits, etc, etc, and another draconian ban that basically did away with smoking altogether anywhere besides your own home. The second ban won, and, to answer what someone earlier wrote, yes it is hurting business at bars and bowling alleys and bingo parlors. The choice of the owner is to ignore the ban and keep his clients (actually, the people ignoring the ban are doing GREAT business because there are so few public places to smoke now), or to honor the ban and make the place smoke free.

Here are the problems so far. First off, there are like thousands of complaints a day about people smoking. Who is going to enforce the law? How? Someone has to pay for this, and there is no money. Secondly, the bill went way too far. People can't smoke at private clubs. There was a Moose Lodge or something that voted like 125-2 to let the members smoke inside, but they were still technically breaking the law. What's more, one of the two dissenters reported the Moose Lodge. Now what? If the law is enforced, the lodge will have to pay huge fines, if they ever figure out a way to enforce the law, and if they don't, the guy complaining can sue. It's all just a big mess.

I used to smoke, but don't now. I think it's unfair to tax smokers for public projects than not let them smoke or penalize them for smoking. I also don't think it's the governments business one way or the other. If you own a business, it's your choice. Post a huge sign out front saying whether you are allow smoking or not and let capitalism decide.

tony hipchest
06-26-2007, 06:34 PM
i only have 2 things to say (right now anyways):

"legalize it" and tom brady smokes pole.

lol actually our state just banned smoking in all the bars restraunts and outside of public facilities. so last week i attended the rosary for a state police officer at the local colleges theater hall. there were about 50 state police in attendance, so standing outside where no smoking signs were, yet plenty of butt urns, i decided to fire one up within 20 feet of the entrance in the middle of about 50 state cops. nobody said anything but maybe they just didnt wanna write a ticket or be a dick at a funeral. :hunch:

oh wait.... maybe i was the one being a dick. :dang: im sure if i was, i woulda been approached though. regardless, after 45 minutes of "hail marys" i was about ready to take a needle of "hey ron".

:chuckle:

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 06:36 PM
i only have 2 things to say (right now anyways):

"legalize it" and tom brady smokes pole.

lol actually our state just banned smoking in all the bars restraunts and outside of public facilities. so last week i attended the rosary for a state police officer at the local colleges theater hall. there were about 50 state police in attendance, so standing outside where no smoking signs were, yet plenty of butt urns, i decided to fire one up within 20 feet of the entrance in the middle of about 50 state cops. nobody said anything but maybe they just didnt wanna write a ticket or be a dick at a funeral. :hunch:

That's a shocker.

MasterOfPuppets
06-26-2007, 07:35 PM
Your cigarette tax dollars paid are a drop in the ocean compared to the health care expense levied on taxpayers for the millions of smokers on medicare.

If you can still make an argument for smoking there is no reasoning with you.lol...please show us some numbers to support this claim! do you realize what would happen to this countries economy if every smoker stopped purchasing ciggerretts today? can you say .....GREAT DEPRESSION !!! did you ever stop to think why tobacco has never been outlawed?i think its safe to say more people have died from tobacco than lead paint and asbestos combined...but yet those products have been eradicated, but tobacco endores....hmmmmm....i wonder why...could it be the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are created because of tobbaco? you got the tobacco farmers,everyone thats involved in the factorys that turn the tobacco into ciggs and cigars,chewing tobacco,including the paper companys that supply the rolling material, then you have the truck drivers that deliver the product,then the people who work in tobacco shops,and the venders...i'm sure i'm missing a few thats involved in the proccess but you get the idea. my point is its not just billions in tax dollars,but many people will be displaced from jobs.uncle sam knows all this and apparently decided the bad out ways the good.

Buzz05
06-26-2007, 07:42 PM
P.S. Lucky Strikes are nasty. Get Marlboro Lights. :wink02::thumbsup:

Im a fan of Parlament Lights..P-Funks! Buy one-get one free! Haha

we might all just agree to disagree...nothing that anyone says will change anyone's mind here. Lets face it..we're Steelers fans...WE ARE ALL STUBBORN!

SteelCzar76
06-26-2007, 07:45 PM
I don't think a one of us smokers has said that smoking is good for us or for anyone else. We are simply stating our opinions.

There is also nothing good about alcohol....

- money
- Liver disease, including cancer
- Cardiomyopathy
- Gout
- Heartburn
- Hepatoma
- Hypertension
- Pancreatic cancer
- Pancreatitis
- Peptic Ulcer
- Pneumonia
- Scurvy
- Stomach cancer
- Subdural hematoma
- Transient Ischemic Attack (mini-stroke for those who aren't familiar with that medical term)
- Tuberculosis

---- Innocent deaths of thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting, innocent victims of drunk driviers every single year.


Beat me to the punch Hometown,...well said. But you may have forgotten a few things ? Such as how many lives alcoholism destroys in a sense of ruining 'family units'. Which in turn contributes to the breakdown of societal structure in regards to lack of guidance for a number of our nations youth.

As well as,..not only how many lose their physical lives as a result of some of your aforementioned health complications,.......but also to the loss of 'inhibition' and or impairment of ones judgement. (Ie: Physical altercations, suicides, murder and 'accidents',...not only by automobile but in many various other forms)

Neither smoking or the consumption of alcohol are anything condusive to one's health and or wellbeing. And they are both prospective deadly vices,...no matter as to what the degree or nature of that is in respects to one another.

And with that said,.....i see the "drinker/alcoholics that are Anti smokers" argumement (if you will),....for what it's worth. And that's simply nothing more than a matter of peronally motivated preference that's just self righteous enough to fire 'shots' at others from a glass Castle.

X-Terminator
06-26-2007, 09:27 PM
Are you for real?? I didn't know I had to proclaim my position on drinking and driving. This post is about smoking.

For the record, I certainly don't advocate it or do it.

There are also about a million other topics that haven't come up yet that I have opinions on. I'll spare you the details.

Proclaiming your position on drinking and driving, which you have now done, gives you more credibility, that's all. Most smokers know that it's bad for them and try to discourage others from smoking, or are considerate when they are around non-smokers. However, when they try to debate the issue with some non-smokers, it's like pulling teeth to try to get them to see the other side, and after a while, it gets frustrating.

The bottom line is that we're just trying to broaden your mind, man, even if we disagree. That, after all, is the point of a discussion.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 09:41 PM
Proclaiming your position on drinking and driving, which you have now done, gives you more credibility, that's all. Most smokers know that it's bad for them and try to discourage others from smoking, or are considerate when they are around non-smokers. However, when they try to debate the issue with some non-smokers, it's like pulling teeth to try to get them to see the other side, and after a while, it gets frustrating.

The bottom line is that we're just trying to broaden your mind, man, even if we disagree. That, after all, is the point of a discussion.

Something that a few of our down users do.

SteelCityMan786
06-26-2007, 10:27 PM
http://centredaily.com/news/local/story/135503.html

Pa. Senate votes for smoking ban, without health groups' support

rbryan
06-26-2007, 11:01 PM
lol...please show us some numbers to support this claim! do you realize what would happen to this countries economy if every smoker stopped purchasing ciggerretts today? can you say .....GREAT DEPRESSION !!! did you ever stop to think why tobacco has never been outlawed?i think its safe to say more people have died from tobacco than lead paint and asbestos combined...but yet those products have been eradicated, but tobacco endores....hmmmmm....i wonder why...could it be the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are created because of tobbaco? you got the tobacco farmers,everyone thats involved in the factorys that turn the tobacco into ciggs and cigars,chewing tobacco,including the paper companys that supply the rolling material, then you have the truck drivers that deliver the product,then the people who work in tobacco shops,and the venders...i'm sure i'm missing a few thats involved in the proccess but you get the idea. my point is its not just billions in tax dollars,but many people will be displaced from jobs.uncle sam knows all this and apparently decided the bad out ways the good.

Sounds like you could use a little help getting some numbers together yourself. I'll take my chance with the "Great Depression" as you call it. However I doubt most of you could stop smoking for an hour let alone all quit at once.

Another compelling argument to keep on smoking. lol wouldn't want to put all the truck drivers out of work. Especially the ones left who can still pass a drug test.

verks36
06-26-2007, 11:17 PM
Sounds like you could use a little help getting some numbers together yourself. I'll take my chance with the "Great Depression" as you call it. However I doubt most of you could stop smoking for an hour let alone all quit at once.

Another compelling argument to keep on smoking. lol wouldn't want to put all the truck drivers out of work. Especially the ones left who can still pass a drug test.

LOL

NO NO NOT THE TRUCK DRIVERS

sersouly though smoking out of public places is a trend that is happening and i dont see it quiteing any time soon

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 07:23 AM
LOL

NO NO NOT THE TRUCK DRIVERS

sersouly though smoking out of public places is a trend that is happening and i dont see it quiteing any time soon

The only place I know that's smoke free in my area is our Hoss's location.

Buzz05
06-27-2007, 07:25 AM
I dont know if anyone has heard of the restaurant, it may be a southern thing. I never heard of it till I moved to Baltimore. But all Red Robin places are smoke free as well.

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 07:25 AM
I dont know if anyone has heard of the restaurant, it may be a southern thing. I never heard of it till I moved to Baltimore. But all Red Robin places are smoke free as well.

Never heard of it. Unless there is a location at the Inner Harbor Mall.

Buzz05
06-27-2007, 07:28 AM
Never heard of it. Unless there is a location at the Inner Harbor Mall.

I do believe there is one around Pittsburgh, my friend from Cranberry loves the place and talks about it all the time. But who knows. Im not a fan of their food, its like a gourmet burger place.

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 07:41 AM
I do believe there is one around Pittsburgh, my friend from Cranberry loves the place and talks about it all the time. But who knows. Im not a fan of their food, its like a gourmet burger place.

I have no clue. I have not eaten at any Pittsburgh restarant except for the one place across PNC Park. I just hope I can get to Jerome's soon.

HometownGal
06-27-2007, 07:54 AM
I do believe there is one around Pittsburgh, my friend from Cranberry loves the place and talks about it all the time. But who knows. Im not a fan of their food, its like a gourmet burger place.

There is a Red Robin in Washington County right before the I-70 interchange.

fansince'76
06-27-2007, 08:58 AM
There is a Red Robin in Washington County right before the I-70 interchange.

I think Red Robin is more of a West/Pacific Northwest kinda thing - we have a slew of them out here.

SteelCityMan786
06-27-2007, 09:37 AM
I think Red Robin is more of a West/Pacific Northwest kinda thing - we have a slew of them out here.

I never saw any of those in Denver or Colorado Springs when I was out there 2 summers ago.

verks36
06-27-2007, 10:49 AM
A restaurant that I patronized quite regularly before they went smoke free has lost a TON of business since they decided to stay smoke free after the ban in the Burgh got beat down by the courts. On a Saturday night when I used to have to wait in line for at least 30 minutes to get a seat - now I can walk right in and sit wherever I like. Just did it this past Saturday night. For those who know the area, I am referring to the Old Town Buffet in Southland. Pittsburgh is a blue-collar once very prominent mill town and a lot of the retired steelworkers smoke. The best way for us smokers to protest this ban is not by pulling silly stunts (I was joking by the way - jail and I would not mix well) but by voicing our disapproval at the voting booths when these hypocrites are up for re-election.

Quit being so damned judgmental Chrono. Everyone has vices - smoking is mine and all PA non-smokers benefit from the money I give the state.

For those youngsters who just say no to smoking - I commend you. It was pretty easy when I was your age to buy a pack of smokes - no one checked ID or really cared. I wish I had never started, but the fact remains I did and I can admit that I am addicted to the nicotine. Stay strong and keep on saying NO!

That is good for you that you can even admit to yourself that you are addicted to ciggerettes. Like it muist be hard to admit that to yourself.
Have you ever tried quitting ?
What does it feel like to be addicted to cigarettes?
what happenes if you dont have one for a while?
When did you start smoking?

HometownGal
06-27-2007, 12:22 PM
That is good for you that you can even admit to yourself that you are addicted to ciggerettes. Like it muist be hard to admit that to yourself.
Have you ever tried quitting ?
What does it feel like to be addicted to cigarettes?
what happenes if you dont have one for a while?
When did you start smoking?

No - it isn't hard for me to admit it to myself, verks - it's just a fact and I'm not embarrassed about it at all. I wish I had never started, but I did. Everyone has bad habits - smoking happens to be mine.

I've actually quit at least 6 times that I can remember. I'm pretty much a stress smoker. When I've had stressful times in my life, I reach for the cigs. Nicotine stimulates adrenalin and as we all know, a rush of adrenalin makes us feel good. Not a "high" like alcohol or pot, but more of a "peaceful" feeling. Nicotine is also very addictive, as I found out in my late teens when I became a pretty regular smoker while attending college. Nicotine withdrawal produces a myriad of symptoms - everyone's symptoms are different, but when I've quit before, I went through the shakes, terrible headaches and irritability.

I had my first ciggy when I was 13 - I did it because it was the "in" thing to do back in the 70's and all of my friends smoked because we all felt it was "cool". If I had known then what I know now, I never would have smoked the first one. I'm hooked on them and I'll probably quit a few more times and start up again until one day, I use every ounce of willpower inside of me to kick the habit/addiction for good. At this point in my life, I'm just not ready.

Keep saying NO, verks - I'm really happy that you and the other youngsters here have much greater resolve and willpower than I had at your age. :thumbsup::cheers:

Preacher
06-28-2007, 01:59 PM
I don't think a one of us smokers has said that smoking is good for us or for anyone else. We are simply stating our opinions.

There is also nothing good about alcohol....

- money
- Liver disease, including cancer
- Cardiomyopathy
- Gout
- Heartburn
- Hepatoma
- Hypertension
- Pancreatic cancer
- Pancreatitis
- Peptic Ulcer
- Pneumonia
- Scurvy
- Stomach cancer
- Subdural hematoma
- Transient Ischemic Attack (mini-stroke for those who aren't familiar with that medical term)
- Tuberculosis

---- Innocent deaths of thousands upon thousands of unsuspecting, innocent victims of drunk driviers every single year.

Ahhh...but in MODERATION... alcohol raises the HDL levels and helps stop clots in the arteries.

(Funny me saying this, I am a tee-totaler... but enjoy a good pipe or cigar, though I have not smoked one in quite sometime as I am in California and would be branded as an evil pastor for having one).

PisnNapalm
07-02-2007, 02:22 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSBKK25206020070702?rpc=92

SteelCityMan786
07-02-2007, 02:36 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSBKK25206020070702?rpc=92

That is pretty startling.

Preacher
07-10-2007, 01:39 AM
In response to the article. Wow....

This is going to sound harsh... and I apologize up front.
__________________________________________________ ______

Why in the WORLD is the WHO funding and running an anti-smoking campaign? It is the dumbest thing I have heard... I have the same thoughts about that as I do about AIDS...

Diseases and deaths which come PRIMARILY because of personal decisions.....

SHould be put LAST on any funding by any government for research or prevention.

Caveat.... Money SHOULD be spent for education, but once the education is done, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person to make the choice.


How many more people die from breast cancer, heart attacks (even "healthy People"), Cancers which are NOT linked to personal choice, and diseases like typhoid and others that are stoppable... because money is being funneled away for stupid anti smoking campaigns... or to find cures for politically correct diseases.

If I had two people laying at my feet dying... and only one of them could be saved, I would take care of the one that ended up there through no decision making process of thier own.

Sure, it is very sad about the other... but it is MORE sad about those who are dying from CURABLE diseases because too much money is being spent on cures for diseases and things like cigarettes because it is the politically correct thing to do, even though they are PRIMARILY choice based diseases.

And no, they don't CHOOSE to get a disease... but they DO CHOOSE to expose themselves to diseases by their actions.

I would rather take care of the ones that get diseases NOT through a personal decision first...

xXTheSteelKingsXx
07-10-2007, 10:06 AM
We already have this passed in Ohio.

HometownGal
07-10-2007, 02:23 PM
In response to the article. Wow....

This is going to sound harsh... and I apologize up front.
__________________________________________________ ______

Why in the WORLD is the WHO funding and running an anti-smoking campaign? It is the dumbest thing I have heard... I have the same thoughts about that as I do about AIDS...

Diseases and deaths which come PRIMARILY because of personal decisions.....

SHould be put LAST on any funding by any government for research or prevention.

Caveat.... Money SHOULD be spent for education, but once the education is done, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person to make the choice.


How many more people die from breast cancer, heart attacks (even "healthy People"), Cancers which are NOT linked to personal choice, and diseases like typhoid and others that are stoppable... because money is being funneled away for stupid anti smoking campaigns... or to find cures for politically correct diseases.

If I had two people laying at my feet dying... and only one of them could be saved, I would take care of the one that ended up there through no decision making process of thier own.

Sure, it is very sad about the other... but it is MORE sad about those who are dying from CURABLE diseases because too much money is being spent on cures for diseases and things like cigarettes because it is the politically correct thing to do, even though they are PRIMARILY choice based diseases.

And no, they don't CHOOSE to get a disease... but they DO CHOOSE to expose themselves to diseases by their actions.

I would rather take care of the ones that get diseases NOT through a personal decision first...

Father - no disrespect intended here, but let me ask you something. Do you eat red meat? Red meat has been scientifically linked to high cholesterol levels and heart disease. So - using your theory - if there are two people laying at my feet dying and one is a vegetarian and one is a consumer of red meat - I should choose to help the vegeterian because the red meat eater made that "personal decision" to "expose themselves to diseases by their actions"?

Also - you may want to check with the state you live in to see if they charge consumers a cigarette tax and what they use that tax for. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you, as a non-smoker, benefit from the tax put on cigarettes in some way, shape or form.

Preacher
07-10-2007, 04:14 PM
Father - no disrespect intended here, but let me ask you something. Do you eat red meat? Red meat has been scientifically linked to high cholesterol levels and heart disease. So - using your theory - if there are two people laying at my feet dying and one is a vegetarian and one is a consumer of red meat - I should choose to help the vegeterian because the red meat eater made that "personal decision" to "expose themselves to diseases by their actions"?

Also - you may want to check with the state you live in to see if they charge consumers a cigarette tax and what they use that tax for. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you, as a non-smoker, benefit from the tax put on cigarettes in some way, shape or form.

HTG...

Your always respectful... so don't worry about typing "no disrespect intended"... though I appreciate the thoughts.

On the post itself... My point was the fact that the WHO is spending BILLIONS of dollars to stop a legal product from being sold... in the same way that our government is spending billions of dollars to cure AIDS... when there are many more diseases that hit many more people who are much more innocent in their decision making.

There is always a spectrum which any argument can be taken to far. In my scenario of two people at my feet... I was envisioning one with a STD or cancer from smoking, and one with SARS or Breast cancer. There is a different level of decision making between the two. In one, the person usually knows all the risks before the decision is made (I am talking about decisions made today... not years ago when people were lied to about tobacco), yet they still choose to risk their life. Because it is a decision based result, I do not believe that those diseases should have the federal and international focus as diseases that are NOT decision based for the most part... such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, Leukemia, or other types of diseases and illnesses.

The issue of red meat is a bit of a misnomer. Red meat in moderation is fine. Heck, my mothers doctor told my mother she MUST eat more red meat because her iron levels are deficient. Furthermore, red meat is usually only one of MANY causes that together cause the heart attack. Many times, genetics, stress, other undiagnosed problems, etc. cause the heart attack.

The one-to-one relationship of smoking to lung cancer is much greater then red meat to heart attacks.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a hospital should not see a person if they have lung cancer. I am not saying that smokers are reprobate. I am simply saying that the resources at our disposal should be directed at those diseases which we get REGARDLESS of our decision making... and affect the most people. Those diseases we get which NO personal responsibility is involved first... then those diseases which a little personal responsibility is involved... then, last, those diseases which much personal responsibility is involved. AIDS, Syphilis, Emphysema, etc. can be almost eradicated in one generation with good decision making. Breast cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. will not be.

That is all I am saying...

But like you said earlier... Good luck trying to get the govt. to do something logical!

BTW... Both of my grandfathers died in thier early 50's of heart attacks... and yes, I am somewhat overweight and love junk food and red meat. Until I moved out here, I would smoke a pipe or cigar about once every two weeks... and LOVED it. So I include myself in that list of people that should be focused on secondly... because of my decisions.

revefsreleets
07-10-2007, 04:26 PM
This is going to have all sorts of possible double meanings but that is not my intent. Cleveland was in the running to host the Special Olympics and they lost the event and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because the Special Olympics is a Global affair, and the fact is that a bunch of countries have heavy populations of smokers. They picked a city in a state that allowed smoking. Ohio is experiencing all kinds of economic fallout from their stupid anti-smoking law, and I expect, if not a repeal, then a moderate alternative bill passed soon.

Regardless of your position on smoking, it's wrong for the government to dictate this kind of sweeping moratorium.

And, by the way, there will never be a direct one-to-one correlation from smoking to lung cancer, because that would mean that EVERY smoker who dies dies from lung cancer. Smoking contributes to cancer and heart disease and all that other stuff, but it can never be a 100% direct cause. I'm not defending it, because I quit myself, but I'm just trying to keep it factual and real.

HometownGal
07-10-2007, 04:50 PM
HTG...

Your always respectful... so don't worry about typing "no disrespect intended"... though I appreciate the thoughts.

On the post itself... My point was the fact that the WHO is spending BILLIONS of dollars to stop a legal product from being sold... in the same way that our government is spending billions of dollars to cure AIDS... when there are many more diseases that hit many more people who are much more innocent in their decision making.

There is always a spectrum which any argument can be taken to far. In my scenario of two people at my feet... I was envisioning one with a STD or cancer from smoking, and one with SARS or Breast cancer. There is a different level of decision making between the two. In one, the person usually knows all the risks before the decision is made (I am talking about decisions made today... not years ago when people were lied to about tobacco), yet they still choose to risk their life. Because it is a decision based result, I do not believe that those diseases should have the federal and international focus as diseases that are NOT decision based for the most part... such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, Leukemia, or other types of diseases and illnesses.

The issue of red meat is a bit of a misnomer. Red meat in moderation is fine. Heck, my mothers doctor told my mother she MUST eat more red meat because her iron levels are deficient. Furthermore, red meat is usually only one of MANY causes that together cause the heart attack. Many times, genetics, stress, other undiagnosed problems, etc. cause the heart attack.

The one-to-one relationship of smoking to lung cancer is much greater then red meat to heart attacks.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a hospital should not see a person if they have lung cancer. I am not saying that smokers are reprobate. I am simply saying that the resources at our disposal should be directed at those diseases which we get REGARDLESS of our decision making... and affect the most people. Those diseases we get which NO personal responsibility is involved first... then those diseases which a little personal responsibility is involved... then, last, those diseases which much personal responsibility is involved. AIDS, Syphilis, Emphysema, etc. can be almost eradicated in one generation with good decision making. Breast cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. will not be.

That is all I am saying...

But like you said earlier... Good luck trying to get the govt. to do something logical!

BTW... Both of my grandfathers died in thier early 50's of heart attacks... and yes, I am somewhat overweight and love junk food and red meat. Until I moved out here, I would smoke a pipe or cigar about once every two weeks... and LOVED it. So I include myself in that list of people that should be focused on secondly... because of my decisions.

I understand where you are trying to go with this, Father, but I'm not buying it. Who are we to play God and pick and choose who should or should not benefit from medical research and treatment? There are millions of people who have died from COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc. who have never smoked in their lives nor been around a smoker. Having just gone through my ex's medical crises and hearing from various medical experts that his heart problems are most likely genetically predisposed just lends credence to my belief that most diseases, including heart disease and cancer, are often more determined by a person's genetic makeup. His father died at the early age of 39 from CAD (coronary artery disease) and every one of his uncles on his father's side has had bypass surgery.

I've had adenocarcinoma of the sinuses twice since 1996 and from what I was told by doctors who are experts in the head and neck cancer area, my cancers were more than likely NOT caused by smoking. Since I am adopted, I have no idea what diseases I could be at risk for, but I can safely assume via conversations with my doctors that my cancer was predisposed by genetic markers.

I don't agree at all with medical profiling and segregating people because of their choices in life. God created all of us with fault and I don't believe there is a one of us who can say we don't or haven't engaged in something that isn't good for our health and/or welfare at some point in our lives.

Preacher
07-10-2007, 05:11 PM
I understand where you are trying to go with this, Father, but I'm not buying it. Who are we to play God and pick and choose who should or should not benefit from medical research and treatment?

We pick and choose already. AIDS gets so much more money because it is a politically correct disease. It is in vogue to have concerts and raise all types of money for it... but it affects less people then many other diseases. No one is genetically predisposed to AIDS, it is simply a disease that comes primarily from choice, as some other do as well.

It is just my opinion that it is a fairer way of decided what gets researched if those who give out the money take into account actual people being killed by the disease, rather than political nonsense.


There are millions of people who have died from COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc. who have never smoked in their lives nor been around a smoker. Having just gone through my ex's medical crises and hearing from various medical experts that his heart problems are most likely genetically predisposed just lends credence to my belief that most diseases, including heart disease and cancer, are often more determined by a person's genetic makeup. His father died at the early age of 39 from CAD (coronary artery disease) and every one of his uncles on his father's side has had bypass surgery.

I've had adenocarcinoma of the sinuses twice since 1996 and from what I was told by doctors who are experts in the head and neck cancer area, my cancers were more than likely NOT caused by smoking. Since I am adopted, I have no idea what diseases I could be at risk for, but I can safely assume via conversations with my doctors that my cancer was predisposed by genetic markers.

No argument. I too am adopted and have no idea about my medical history, except that both my grandfathers died of heart attacks. I have had some funky things happen to me that is ONLY attributable to genetics.

WHat I am asking for... is for the hysteria in political community to stop, and for an actualy assessment of which diseases are REALLY able to be stopped by choice... and then hold off on those and focus on those that are killing more people and are not choice based. That is all.

I don't agree at all with medical profiling and segregating people because of their choices in life. God created all of us with fault and I don't believe there is a one of us who can say we don't or haven't engaged in something that isn't good for our health and/or welfare at some point in our lives.


I don't believe I am segregating people, as much as I am discussing the best way to help the most people who are least able to help themselves. In the end, there is always a methodology for giving research grants and funding WHO drives. I am just wanting to be more scientific and lest politically driven/haphazard.

Heck... SARS has affected how many people in the world? Yet how much more money has been put on it as compared to chicken pox.. which is making a comeback amongst those who have already had it.. and is very destructive? But one is more "sexy" then the other, and gets all the attention.

tony hipchest
07-10-2007, 06:25 PM
since our state has pushed through with this anti smoking ban, i decided to quit smoking cold turkey last weekend. now i only smoke boiled ham.

seriously, i tried to quit smoking cigs once. while i did cut down, my crack habit went through the roof.

:chuckle:

HometownGal
07-10-2007, 07:57 PM
since our state has pushed through with this anti smoking ban, i decided to quit smoking cold turkey last weekend. now i only smoke boiled ham.

seriously, i tried to quit smoking cigs once. while i did cut down, my crack habit went through the roof.

:chuckle:

Oh Tony - you are sooooo funny! :toofunny::toofunny: YAY! (lol)....:smile:

:toofunny::cheer::toofunny::chicken::toofunny:


Father - we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Thank you for the respectful (and very well thought out) debate. :cheers:

SteelCityMan786
07-10-2007, 08:31 PM
since our state has pushed through with this anti smoking ban, i decided to quit smoking cold turkey last weekend. now i only smoke boiled ham.

seriously, i tried to quit smoking cigs once. while i did cut down, my crack habit went through the roof.

:chuckle:

Surprised you haven't been jailed yet. :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

tony hipchest
07-10-2007, 08:37 PM
Surprised you haven't been jailed yet. :sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:what? you dont think im actually posting from home or work do you?

:toofunny:

prison is great! :cheers: (while cigs and crack is readily available, the boiled ham is hard to come by)

HometownGal
07-10-2007, 08:46 PM
prison is great! :cheers: (while cigs and crack is readily available, the boiled ham is hard to come by)

I'm sure crack is readily available. :wink02::flap::toofunny:

Preacher
07-10-2007, 11:30 PM
Father - we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Thank you for the respectful (and very well thought out) debate. :cheers:

Thanks for the compliment...

But I was actually enjoying the debate with you!! Thanks for staying positive in it!

At least one thing we are agreed on...

Govt. can NEVER be logical