Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hanuman

Electronic Cigarettes - No Joke!

Recommended Posts

Allrighty then - I'm thrown out of a very high end local Houston restaurant for smoking an electronic cigarette! I thought it added flavor to the evening, however there was a rather large man who apparently had a different opinion. I may open my own electronic cigarette wine bar in midtown. Customer survey : .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It still produces "smoke." From what I've seen.

...and if you're going through all that trouble to get nicotine, without the real thing... why not just take a nicotine pill?

EDIT: Nice ad, on HAIF, for electronic cigarettes.

Edited by BryanS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoke being the particulate given off by the burning of combustible substances, the atomized vapor of an electronic cigarette is no more smoke than your breath on a cold day.

Further, the City of Houston defines 'smoking' thusly:

"Smoking means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any

lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted tobacco product in any

manner or in any form."

So, no, he wasn't 'smoking' in either the scientific or legal sense.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The self-righteous anti-smoking crusaders will appear in 5... 4...

(Why won't anybody think about the children?!)

3...

2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no, he wasn't 'smoking' in either the scientific or legal sense.

All the same, surely you can understand why the owner of a club would frown on it. If even one uptight, ignorant, anti-smoking asshole in the whole crowded venue mistakenly reported it to the City as a violation of the smoking ban, the owner would probably get hassled for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smoke being the particulate given off by the burning of combustible substances, the atomized vapor of an electronic cigarette is no more smoke than your breath on a cold day.

Further, the City of Houston defines 'smoking' thusly:

"Smoking means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any

lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted tobacco product in any

manner or in any form."

So, no, he wasn't 'smoking' in either the scientific or legal sense.

Does it have nicotine in it? Maybe I don't want your nicotine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what you want. It is not smoke, and is therefore legal to use indoors.

To Niche, I absolutely understand the concern, even if the manager is ultimately mistaken.

BTW, Hanuman, where can I find those in Houston? I'd like to try one.

Edited by RedScare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Red's comment - there is no combustion and hence, no smoke. The output is essentially water vapor with nicotine, and only at the time of inhalation. However, I can understand if someone might mistake one for a real cigarette - most e-cigarettes are designed to look authentic, and even the tips glow like real ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The self-righteous anti-smoking crusaders will appear in 5... 4...

(Why won't anybody think about the children?!)

3...

2...

You rang?

Seriously, though -- do the e-cigarettes produce smoke, or is it water vapor? Does it has a smell?

If it's just water vapor, that doesn't bother me at all.

But I can understand the restaurant not wanting to set a precedent. Most restaurants are already stretched thin, and the last thing they want is the additional burden of being the cigarette police and having to check each patron's cigarette to see if it's electronic or on fire. I guess maybe the waiter/waitress could do this in the course of their duties, but it's just one more headache for the restaurants.

Still, I just spent $25 on a humidifier. Maybe I should have just taken up e-smoking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're supposed to even be able to use them on planes...good luck with that!

Seriously, I thought about buying one last year when I went out more and was smoking here and there. I never bought one as I can't imagine using it in public, and something about smoking it at home just says "I've lost to nicotine." Well, that and trying to find a reputable-looking seller online proved to be a challenge

At least it's healthier...maybe.

FDA Problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried em and they're terrible. The way it works is with a liquid capsule that inserts where the filter is supposed to be. The problem is that if you tilt the cigarette to far up (about 30 degrees) the liquid comes through the filter area and into your mouth. The taste was also horrible, at least in comparison to my Marlboro Lights. Of course it's all subjective I guess.

Also, remember that if you go for the free trial that you have to ship back the electronic cigarette within 30 days or they will charge you $99.02 plus send you a refill pack that's about $50.00. I went through hell trying to get my money back.

Sorry Wayne.

Edit: I'm still not seeing what I'm writing past the first line.

Edited by Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what you want. It is not smoke, and is therefore legal to use indoors.

This really is the larger issue. Rather than putting a smoking ban in place, the city government should have allowed the proprietors of the various eateries and drinkeries decide for themselves what they would and would not allow in their place of business. If the owner didn't want Hanuman smoking (or vaporizing or whatever) in his restaurant, then that should be that. On the other hand, if a business owner does want a smoker safe-haven, then he should be allowed that too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is the larger issue. Rather than putting a smoking ban in place, the city government should have allowed the proprietors of the various eateries and drinkeries decide for themselves what they would and would not allow in their place of business.

I totally agree. And if the City was so convinced that smoking were a public nuisance, then make those places buy an on-premise smoking license. Generate some revenue off it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should've never looked at this thread. I've got a massive cigarette craving now. Will they ever go away? :( The weight gain

is more than enough torture for quitting.

on the bright side, only 6 smokes in over a year. success!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. And if the City was so convinced that smoking were a public nuisance, then make those places buy an on-premise smoking license. Generate some revenue off it.

Don't really see a way they WOULD make a profit of it. Having been to a bar in Webster, where they are allowed to smoke, didn't seem more crowded than any other bar.

I did cough more, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. And if the City was so convinced that smoking were a public nuisance, then make those places buy an on-premise smoking license. Generate some revenue off it.

If you've ever been to Japan you know it has one of the highest smoking rates in the world (and also one of the longest lifespans... hmmm....).

Those people are fiends for smoking, I think in part because Japan Tobacco is owned by the government, so there isn't a lot of pressure from politicians to ban tobacco.

Anyway, I noticed that in some of the skyscrapers they have entire floors that are set aside for smoking. And I don't mean they're office floors where people smoke. I mean nothing else happens on those floors but smoking. Even Tokyo's city hall has one of these. It's all kitted out with high-speed fans and air filters and negative pressure rooms, but the floors still smell awful when you have to walk down the hallways between the smoking chambers and the windows through which you can watch the smokers like monkeys in a zoo are all yellowed. From a Western perspective, it's pretty gross.

I've seen smoking chambers in many Asian airports, right on the concourses. Glass boxes where eight or ten people can gather and puff their lungs out without bothering anyone else around.

I don't understand why Asian smokers don't smell awful, though. American smokers, especially men over 30, smell like nastyness to me after they've been smoking. Like mucus and burning tires. Ugh. And they smell like it all day walking down the streets and through offices and don't even realize they reek.

But there's something about those Asian smoking chambers that let people smoke, but they don't stink up the plane when they get on. I'm not sure what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think there is something in the physiology of people living there that would do that?

One can distinctly tell from one country to the next by the way they (naturally) smell due to their diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what you want. It is not smoke, and is therefore legal to use indoors.

To Niche, I absolutely understand the concern, even if the manager is ultimately mistaken.

BTW, Hanuman, where can I find those in Houston? I'd like to try one.

I'm not sure where you could get one locally, but you might try a kiosk at the malls. I got mine that way in Vegas on Freemont Street. It was just a fun idea, and I'm not a smoker [ Health Nut ], but I enjoy looking suave, and the girls thought it was funny. I was even joking with the waiter, and bar tender, and they wanted one too. Then Big Bubba ( Customer, red face, UGLY! ) arrived, and demanded, " #@*(&^%%% !!!! " that we leave. As the manager of the restaurant disappeared, we politely left. I do not break the law, and try to be respectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Hanuman, where can I find those in Houston? I'd like to try one.

Can't remember the cigar shop's name in the Village (think it's on Sunset), but they carry them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You thinking of Briar Shoppe on Times? I like that place, though it can be pricey....

Yep , that's the place, and you bet it's pricey. Buying a Romeo and Julieta is almost twice the price as many other tobacco shops, but they do have a very fresh selection and the staff knows their stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep , that's the place, and you bet it's pricey. Buying a Romeo and Julieta is almost twice the price as many other tobacco shops, but they do have a very fresh selection and the staff knows their stuff.

When I do buy cigarettes, I buy Pall Malls. Nothing but the good stuff for Mister and Missus Flinch's baby boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter what you want. It is not smoke, and is therefore legal to use indoors.

To Niche, I absolutely understand the concern, even if the manager is ultimately mistaken.

BTW, Hanuman, where can I find those in Houston? I'd like to try one.

There was a kiosk at the Galleria selling them, at least on my spring 2009 trip. It was near the "bridge" that separates Galleria II from Galleria IV, second floor, on the Galleria IV side.

Please don't ask me how I remembered this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't ask me how I remembered this.

You probably thought to yourself, "Gee, Self... an electronic cigarette is about the most retarded thing I've ever heard of, but it's so gimmicky, it'll probably be successful. I should probably remember where I am right now because this'll be a story I tell till I die."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This really is the larger issue. Rather than putting a smoking ban in place, the city government should have allowed the proprietors of the various eateries and drinkeries decide for themselves what they would and would not allow in their place of business. If the owner didn't want Hanuman smoking (or vaporizing or whatever) in his restaurant, then that should be that. On the other hand, if a business owner does want a smoker safe-haven, then he should be allowed that too.

Which basically would have meant maintaining the status quo: smoking everywhere. That'll work.

It's a public health issue.

While we're at it... we should just eateries and drinkeries voluntarily comply with city health code ordnances in the preparation and care for food, optional permit compliance, etc. Patrons will vote with their feet if there are reported cases of excessive food posionings, deaths, slime in the ice machine, etc. Who needs rules that are to the benefit of public health anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can distinctly tell from one country to the next by the way they (naturally) smell due to their diet.

I'd suspected that for a long time, but wasn't entirely sure until I went to Korea. Now I know for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I do buy cigarettes, I buy Pall Malls. Nothing but the good stuff for Mister and Missus Flinch's baby boy.

Funny. My grandmother smoked Pall Malls and Kools. My dad was an unfiltered Lucky Strike guy. My mother is a Parliament 100's person. These days I understand that Kools and Parliaments are preferred in the black community. Does anyone still smoke Luckies?

When I was five years old my parents would give me money to go down to the bar a couple of blocks away to buy them cigarettes. If parents did that today, they'd be put in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. My grandmother smoked Pall Malls and Kools. My dad was an unfiltered Lucky Strike guy. My mother is a Parliament 100's person. These days I understand that Kools and Parliaments are preferred in the black community. Does anyone still smoke Luckies?

When I was five years old my parents would give me money to go down to the bar a couple of blocks away to buy them cigarettes. If parents did that today, they'd be put in jail.

I rolled my own, and smoked Bull Durham. Got so good at it, I could roll 'em with one hand. Later in the military, smoked @ 3 packs of Camels a day ( Non filter ), and chewed Days Work plug tobacco. That's the way I grew up in those days. I got no use for tobacco now days, and quit back in 1975.

Electronic cigarettes... now I've heard it all. They shouldn't be picking on folks if they're smoking one indoors, as Red pointed out, it's not illegal, and it does no harm, just water vapor. I would respect the rights of the owner, and stop if asked, however to be bullied into it... well, the red faced bully with the foul mouth might have tripped over five, or six pieces of solid wood furniture on his way out. Can't abide a bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're at it... we should just eateries and drinkeries voluntarily comply with city health code ordnances in the preparation and care for food, optional permit compliance, etc. Patrons will vote with their feet if there are reported cases of excessive food posionings, deaths, slime in the ice machine, etc. Who needs rules that are to the benefit of public health anyway?

The difference is that patrons can clearly see where an establishment allows or disallows smoking, whereas the patrons cannot clearly see where the establishment takes appropriate health measures such as you described in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a public health issue.

Oh, here we go...

So, are we then to disallow any and all activities that stand a chance of doing us mental or physical harm?

I use this as an example only (and in no way do I think this should be done), but considering gay male sex has a higher rate of transmitting STDs than straight sex or lesbian sex, should we therefore outlaw homosexuality? It's a public health issue and all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, are we then to disallow any and all activities that stand a chance of doing us mental or physical harm?

I think that's accurate. I've seen people thrown out of bars/"clubs" for talking trash, being loud, screaming, being "too drunk" etc. Having said that it usually takes quite a bit to get kicked out of a place.

Edited by N Judah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's accurate. I've seen people thrown out of bars/"clubs" for talking trash, being loud, screaming, being "too drunk" etc. Having said that it usually takes quite a bit to get kicked out of a place.

But, that's left to the bar management's discretion.

That was my point. behavior is one of those things the government shouldn't try to regulate. I'm against the drug war for the exact some reasons. People will do what people will do, and it's up to us to take responsibility for our own health. Mine is not the suggestion that smoker's rights are more important than those of non-smokers, but rather the decision to regulate the goings-on in a bar should be determined by the bar owner, and not the city government.

Edit: Odd, I've tried to capitalize the first letter of the second sentence in the second paragraph several times with the edit feature, and it never took.

Edited by AtticaFlinch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, here we go...

So, are we then to disallow any and all activities that stand a chance of doing us mental or physical harm?

I use this as an example only (and in no way do I think this should be done), but considering gay male sex has a higher rate of transmitting STDs than straight sex or lesbian sex, should we therefore outlaw homosexuality? It's a public health issue and all...

What a load of horse crap.

People can do/engage in any activities they want. As harmful as they may be.

But when you harm others... that's the problem.

Smoke all you want. Engage in all the risky intercourse you want.

But you shouldn't put others at risk, due to your decisions.

Second-hand smoke is known to be harmful. There's no practical way to avoid second-hand smoke in public places, unless smoking is done out doors or in aquariums/quarantine areas like in the ATL airport. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work.

And along the lines of sexual activity... I kinda agree with you, but I wouldn't outlaw a practice or target a specific group of people. Two people who have no STDs cannot transmit STDs, regardless of what they do. Instead, I would implement a registry and require all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status, to take a battery of STD tests, every six months, and have those results posted/searchable on the Internet. Just like HCAD - but for STDs. As a matter of protecting public health. Knowledge is power. People may claim they have a right to medical privacy... Screw that. Post the information.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody chooses what "public places" they go to. If you don't like the health effects of a certain policy at a private business, don't go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody chooses what "public places" they go to. If you don't like the health effects of a certain policy at a private business, don't go there.

Yes, I think we all agree on this. In my case, the management failed to act. The person that demanded we leave, was a customer - and I do have an objection to that. He should have complained to the management, and let them ask me nicely to not use the electronic cigarette in their business. I would have complied, and all would have continued an evening of fun. I'm assuming he has had a bad experience with real smoking that causes anxiety responses in the form of an outburst. We would have rather dealt with the manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second-hand smoke is known to be harmful. There's no practical way to avoid second-hand smoke in public places, unless smoking is done out doors or in aquariums/quarantine areas like in the ATL airport. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work.

The key issue is how we should define a public place. I think that we'd all agree that an airport or a government building is a public place and that a ban on smoking in those sorts of places is reasonable enough. But is a privately-owned bar a public place? The Houston ordinance says 'yes'. I happen to disagree. I say that if you don't like that smoking is permitted in a particular bar, go to one where smoking isn't permitted or where there are overpowered ventilation systems so that it doesn't matter.

And along the lines of sexual activity... I kinda agree with you, but I wouldn't outlaw a practice or target a specific group of people. Two people who have no STDs cannot transmit STDs, regardless of what they do. Instead, I would implement a registry and require all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status, to take a battery of STD tests, every six months, and have those results posted/searchable on the Internet. Just like HCAD - but for STDs. As a matter of protecting public health. Knowledge is power. People may claim they have a right to medical privacy... Screw that. Post the information.

The success of your proposal would be contingent on whether the number of transmitted diseases prevented by people using this database exceeded the number of new cases brought about by people who ended up having unprotected intercourse with a false negative on the list. Such rigorous measures might also foster a more lax social attitude towards risky intercourse in general.

Egregious violations of the fourth amendment aside, however, I think that there probably is something to the idea of government-mandated medical checkups. If we require it for our cars, why not for our bodies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And along the lines of sexual activity... I kinda agree with you, but I wouldn't outlaw a practice or target a specific group of people. Two people who have no STDs cannot transmit STDs, regardless of what they do. Instead, I would implement a registry and require all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or martial status, to take a battery of STD tests, every six months, and have those results posted/searchable on the Internet. Just like HCAD - but for STDs. As a matter of protecting public health. Knowledge is power. People may claim they have a right to medical privacy... Screw that. Post the information.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of horse crap.

People can do/engage in any activities they want. As harmful as they may be.

But when you harm others... that's the problem.

Smoke all you want. Engage in all the risky intercourse you want.

But you shouldn't put others at risk, due to your decisions.

Second-hand smoke is known to be harmful. There's no practical way to avoid second-hand smoke in public places, unless smoking is done out doors or in aquariums/quarantine areas like in the ATL airport. Smoking and non-smoking sections don't work.

I had to delete that last part. I just had to. I'm not even going to bother to respond to it, as I seriously doubt you even meant it. The part I will respond to is about the supposed deleterious effects of second hand smoke. I say the effects are overblown, and second hand smoke, in small doses, in no more devastating to the human body than is Aspartame - and we aren't exactly banning diet sodas. And now, especially considering the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling strengthening the concept of a corporation as an entity as viable as a living breathing person, any choice made in a boardroom that can potentially harm mine or anyone else's health should be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny you've applied to tobacco use. That's a snake eating it's own tail though. That process will eventually lead to every possible thing on Earth getting banned. I contend the health issue is a canard. I think many people are just annoyed by it so they've contrived (or at least amplified) the danger. In other words, the boy's cried wolf to his own selfish ends - he gets more enjoyment in a smokeless bar so he ruins the experience for everyone. And that, Bryan, is why I have no problem with bar owners (or restauranteurs) deciding for themselves what's appropriate for their establishments. They shouldn't be required to accommodate smokers any more than they should non-smokers. After all, I'd hate for smokers' rights to smoke to impede non-smokers' rights to be free of smoke. If a non-smoker doesn't want to be around smoke, he or she can go to a bar where smoking is disallowed. It's almost too simple. What I'd like to know is why that can't work, not what C Everett Koop told you through the television when you were in middle school.

Egregious violations of the fourth amendment aside, however, I think that there probably is something to the idea of government-mandated medical checkups. If we require it for our cars, why not for our bodies?

Then we get into the argument of who should pay for it all, and that is a subject for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key issue is how we should define a public place. I think that we'd all agree that an airport or a government building is a public place and that a ban on smoking in those sorts of places is reasonable enough. But is a privately-owned bar a public place? The Houston ordinance says 'yes'. I happen to disagree. I say that if you don't like that smoking is permitted in a particular bar, go to one where smoking isn't permitted or where there are overpowered ventilation systems so that it doesn't matter.

The success of your proposal would be contingent on whether the number of transmitted diseases prevented by people using this database exceeded the number of new cases brought about by people who ended up having unprotected intercourse with a false negative on the list. Such rigorous measures might also foster a more lax social attitude towards risky intercourse in general.

Egregious violations of the fourth amendment aside, however, I think that there probably is something to the idea of government-mandated medical checkups. If we require it for our cars, why not for our bodies?

All that I am going for is consistency in our reasoning of protecting public health in a public place (which include private business providing public service). If you are a privately-owned bar/restaurant, who does not desire to serve the general public, you should not be required to protect customers from ANY hazards in your establishment. Smoking is OK, and you can prepare and sell food according to any standard you want. Just like having a dinner party at your house. I don't see how one can advocate not controlling one hazard (second-hand smoke) while equally advocating maintaining controls on other hazards, food preparation/sanitation - in public spaces, as we understand them.

And many of the bars I have been to... can easily provide service to all members of the public, smoking and non-smoking, and control second hand smoke. They have patio areas. It seems to be working just fine. Don't have a patio area? Fine. Take your establishment "private" and do whatever you want (however that would work. "Membership" fees? Who knows.)

On the other matter... the STD registry. Thinking about it some more... I would make it completely voluntary. With a catch. If you do agree to test and publicly disclose results, under your own free will... the government will give you a $500 STD testing tax credit for each time you test. Don't like the tax credit idea? Make it a cash, direct deposit into your bank account. You get more results with honey than vinegar. Every six months. Considering that it can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $18,000 a year for HIV medications... per person... surely some formula/incentive can be worked out to get more people to test, to alter their behavior, to reduce disease/cost of care, to save lives. Knowledge is power. Anyway... that's a another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to delete that last part. I just had to. I'm not even going to bother to respond to it, as I seriously doubt you even meant it. The part I will respond to is about the supposed deleterious effects of second hand smoke. I say the effects are overblown, and second hand smoke, in small doses, in no more devastating to the human body than is Aspartame - and we aren't exactly banning diet sodas.

Please provide a link to a credible scientific that supports this position. It's about exposure. If I am a non-smoker, working in a smoking-permitted establishment, I am being exposed to a continuous hazard, against my will. In small doses... which add up. Like real data/research that points to a global warming hazard.... there is a significant amount of real data/research that points to second-hand smoke being a hazard. Are you going to deny the existence of that data/research? You may say the effects are overblown, but what about the experts? If you deny their research, on this topic, then surely the experts must be wrong who claim global warming is a problem. Are you prepared to abandon your global warming position, in the name of smoker's rights? You'd have to, in order to be consistent.

And now, especially considering the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling strengthening the concept of a corporation as an entity as viable as a living breathing person, any choice made in a boardroom that can potentially harm mine or anyone else's health should be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny you've applied to tobacco use. That's a snake eating it's own tail though.

Corporations are responsible for their products, including liability. So if they make an unsafe/hazardous product - they can rightfully be sued. Ever hear of tobacco lawsuits? Lead paint in Chinese toys? It's the American way of life to sue anybody for anything.

That process will eventually lead to every possible thing on Earth getting banned.

That's quite a stretch. I don't think so.

I contend the health issue is a canard. I think many people are just annoyed by it so they've contrived (or at least amplified) the danger. In other words, the boy's cried wolf to his own selfish ends - he gets more enjoyment in a smokeless bar so he ruins the experience for everyone.

Except that bars don't have to be smokeless. That's what patios are for. If establishments are required to adhere to standards to protect public health, they must adhere to all those standards, not a selective few. You can adequately control the hazard of second hand smoke; require people who do smoke, do so out doors - at a public place. 8.5 x 11 "Smoking Section" signs... don't control the hazard.

And that, Bryan, is why I have no problem with bar owners (or restaurants) deciding for themselves what's appropriate for their establishments. They shouldn't be required to accommodate smokers any more than they should non-smokers. After all, I'd hate for smokers' rights to smoke to impede non-smokers' rights to be free of smoke. If a non-smoker doesn't want to be around smoke, he or she can go to a bar where smoking is disallowed. It's almost too simple. What I'd like to know is why that can't work, not what C Everett Koop told you through the television when you were in middle school.

Those bar owners have decided what is appropriate for their establishments. They've established policies that say it is OK to smoke outside. They can accommodate everyone. What is wrong with accommodating every member of the public, regardless of their smoking status? And throwing all that out... why would it be OK to smoke in a bar or restuarnt... and not on an airplane? By your logic, harms of second hand smoke are overblown... therefore, smoking should be allowed everywhere... Is that what you are advocating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really glad I do not live in a world designed and regulated by Bryan. The amount of government oppression he espouses is overwhelming.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really glad I do not live in a world designed and regulated by Bryan. The amount of government oppression he espouses is overwhelming.

No kidding. I started to formulate counterpoints...but damn, the way he explains it, there's no need. The counterpoints are just there, already embedded.

I mean, seriously...is there anything more conflictd than a gay, moralistic control-freak?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am morally opposed to city-wide smoking bans, I've got to say that it sure is nice to come home from the bar not smelling like smoke.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please provide a link to a credible scientific that supports this position. It's about exposure. If I am a non-smoker, working in a smoking-permitted establishment, I am being exposed to a continuous hazard, against my will. In small doses... which add up. Like real data/research that points to a global warming hazard.... there is a significant amount of real data/research that points to second-hand smoke being a hazard. Are you going to deny the existence of that data/research? You may say the effects are overblown, but what about the experts? If you deny their research, on this topic, then surely the experts must be wrong who claim global warming is a problem. Are you prepared to abandon your global warming position, in the name of smoker's rights? You'd have to, in order to be consistent.

Seriously, because I think the effects of second-hand smoke have been overblown, you think I have to give up my thoughts on climate change? One's a scientific fact being debated politically. The other is a political truth being debated scientifically. See if you can figure out the difference. I don't doubt an excess of smoke can cause problems any more than I doubt an excess of anything can lead to health problems. On a long enough timeline, anything can kill you. Again, once you set the precendent of disallowing one thing just because it's bad for you, you open the floodgates to begin banning everything. Do you not see that same danger in your stance on the Supreme Court's pro-corporate ruling? Are you prepared to give that stance up because you also support the cigarette ban?

Good god, to think the chemical reaction residue left from the burning of a plant would cause so much consternation. Are we to outlaw camp fires and fireplaces too? How about overcooked food? Wherever there's smoke, there's another life lost to cancer! Gimme a break.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your logic, harms of second hand smoke are overblown... therefore, smoking should be allowed everywhere... Is that what you are advocating?

I very clearly did not advocate that. How did you get that from what I wrote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing is that ordinances like these go city-by-city. So if you don't like the way things are done in Houston you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing is that ordinances like these go city-by-city. So if you don't like the way things are done in Houston you are, as always, free to go live somewhere else.

Ah, the 'Love It or Leave It' stand. Always good to see this in the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...