First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Smoking Ban - Unfair?
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13
I'm biased because I had asthma and bronchitis growing up, and my parents still smoked around me, outside of the house and restaurants, despite how terrible my coughing would get. I was also constantly yelled for covering my mouth and nose with my shirt when they did it around me. So, smoking bans, and stuff fills my heart with glee, and people who smoke really should switch to electronic cigarets, IMO.
1179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/11/13
May God bless and keep the smokers...
...far away from me.

On a more serious note, I'm more concerned about the privacy implications. I mean, if they can start measuring nicotine levels in your blood, what else can they test for in the meantime? Other drugs? Hormone levels? HIV?

I understand the sentiment that drives the policy, but the implementation itself feels really wrong.
Posted 9/11/13 , edited 9/11/13

muletile wrote:
this is not a moral issue like some people would have "us" believe.


The screening is on a day you know you're going to have tests done.. The argument that you'll inhale a lot of smoke and test positive or whatever seems invalid (i'm not good with science so I need to check up on how things go down in your system).
However, what I've read so far is that second hand smoke can maybe "leave traces of the chemical tetrahydracannabinol (THC) in the urine for a day" and even then it's not good enough to test positive. Correct me if wrong.

27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 9/11/13

-tion wrote:


muletile wrote:
this is not a moral issue like some people would have "us" believe.


The screening is on a day you know you're going to have tests done.. The argument that you'll inhale a lot of smoke and test positive or whatever seems invalid (i'm not good with science so I need to check up on how things go down in your system).
However, what I've read so far is that second hand smoke can maybe "leave traces of the chemical tetrahydracannabinol (THC) in the urine for a day" and even then it's not good enough to test positive. Correct me if wrong.



It may be announced but people are still being targeted for a 'search' without enough suspicion. It's the reason why policemen can't just go into your house because you're Muslim or stop you on the street to pat you down because you're black (although it happens, sadly). If your job performance is fine and dandy and you're not losing money for your employer, who really should care what you do in your own house?
Posted 9/11/13

Morbidhanson wrote:

It may be announced but people are still being targeted for a 'search' without enough suspicion. It's the reason why policemen can't just go into your house because you're Muslim or stop you on the street to pat you down because you're black (although it happens, sadly). If your job performance is fine and dandy and you're not losing money for your employer, who really should care what you do in your own house?


I really don't know where you are coming from. I only read the article you linked, on this matter. For public companies, it's probably not gonna happen but for private companies, they can do it all they want if they feel it necessary.
22189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The North Pole Duh!
Offline
Posted 9/23/13 , edited 9/23/13

MopZ wrote:

I'm biased because I had asthma and bronchitis growing up, and my parents still smoked around me, outside of the house and restaurants, despite how terrible my coughing would get. I was also constantly yelled for covering my mouth and nose with my shirt when they did it around me. So, smoking bans, and stuff fills my heart with glee, and people who smoke really should switch to electronic cigarets, IMO.

Except electronic cigarettes are as bad as normal cigarettes. That's at least what I've read.
1240 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Wales
Offline
Posted 10/4/13
As a non smoker who used to be in many bands, I'm against the smoking ban. Most of the pub's people would be outside smoking rather than inside listening to the bands etc, kind of ruined local band scenes.
14789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Winding Circle
Offline
Posted 10/4/13
Banning people from getting jobs just because they smoke is ridiculous. As long as they smoke away from other people and all htat I don't see why that's a problem...

Though, people getting banned from smoking indoors pleases me. In Minnesota, it was banned inside public places a few years ago. Which is a good thing. I don't have asthma. But I do have a problem with second hand smoke... I'll cough for an hour straight if I get enough of it. And then I'll get bronchitis, which sucks big time. I try to avoid smokers if possible because just the tiniest whiff will set me coughing for a bit if I'm not lucky. And avoiding smokers can be difficult since my mom is one. Oh, and another annoying thing with cigarette smoke? Last summer my aunts took me to a casino on a reservation. Since it's on an indian reservation, people smoked indoors... Instead of coughing, I ended up with a migraine. That was not fun.
Posted 10/4/13
People who say that they are for the ban don't even read what it's about. When the day comes that they make it outright illegal to smoke and eat cheesecake I'm going full out criminal-- and human trafficking is first on the list, because if you think you can take my civil rights then I'm gonna take yours.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/13 , edited 10/4/13

Shock_Yin wrote:


MopZ wrote:

I'm biased because I had asthma and bronchitis growing up, and my parents still smoked around me, outside of the house and restaurants, despite how terrible my coughing would get. I was also constantly yelled for covering my mouth and nose with my shirt when they did it around me. So, smoking bans, and stuff fills my heart with glee, and people who smoke really should switch to electronic cigarets, IMO.

Except electronic cigarettes are as bad as normal cigarettes. That's at least what I've read.


They are probably not. E-cigs deliver nicotine via a water-based vapor, not smoke. There's a huge difference there. Burning something to produce smoke produces all sorts of poisons, whereas vaporizing merely changes the state of the fluid. I know many people who have stopped using regular cigs after trying e-cigs. E-cigs deliver nicotine without all the nasty stuff you get from burning something to create smoke. You can also control the nicotine levels in e-cigs. You can even vape and use a fluid that contains NO NICOTINE. How that is just as bad as actual smoking is beyond me, since e-cigs produce water vapor that potentially contains no nicotine, whereas cigs produce smoke through burning.

I can also attest to the effects of e-cigs myself. Try smoking regular cigs for a week while going running every night. Then try a week with e-cigs and no normal cigs. The difference feels enormous. Your lungs feel like they've grown wings after you make the switch and you don't get tired nearly as fast. You can actually feel your lungs recovering, especially if you give them a few months. E-cigs have also been helping people stop smoking real cigs. They are less pricey in the long run, taste better, and apparently cause many people to lose their cravings for real cigs.

Even if this seems like insufficient proof (despite that many e-cig users who have made the switch say the same thing after noticing the changes), there's the solid fact that e-cigs haven't been around long enough for people to truly study their long-term effects. It's not to say that e-cigs are healthy, it is just that making them out to be as bad as regular cigs is pretty strange. It feels like the claim is being made by someone who doesn't smoke and who has a bias against smoking.
22189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / The North Pole Duh!
Offline
Posted 10/5/13 , edited 10/5/13

Morbidhanson wrote:


Shock_Yin wrote:


MopZ wrote:

I'm biased because I had asthma and bronchitis growing up, and my parents still smoked around me, outside of the house and restaurants, despite how terrible my coughing would get. I was also constantly yelled for covering my mouth and nose with my shirt when they did it around me. So, smoking bans, and stuff fills my heart with glee, and people who smoke really should switch to electronic cigarets, IMO.

Except electronic cigarettes are as bad as normal cigarettes. That's at least what I've read.


They are probably not. E-cigs deliver nicotine via a water-based vapor, not smoke. There's a huge difference there. Burning something to produce smoke produces all sorts of poisons, whereas vaporizing merely changes the state of the fluid. I know many people who have stopped using regular cigs after trying e-cigs. E-cigs deliver nicotine without all the nasty stuff you get from burning something to create smoke. You can also control the nicotine levels in e-cigs. You can even vape and use a fluid that contains NO NICOTINE. How that is just as bad as actual smoking is beyond me, since e-cigs produce water vapor that potentially contains no nicotine, whereas cigs produce smoke through burning.

I can also attest to the effects of e-cigs myself. Try smoking regular cigs for a week while going running every night. Then try a week with e-cigs and no normal cigs. The difference feels enormous. Your lungs feel like they've grown wings after you make the switch and you don't get tired nearly as fast. You can actually feel your lungs recovering, especially if you give them a few months. E-cigs have also been helping people stop smoking real cigs. They are less pricey in the long run, taste better, and apparently cause many people to lose their cravings for real cigs.

Even if this seems like insufficient proof (despite that many e-cig users who have made the switch say the same thing after noticing the changes), there's the solid fact that e-cigs haven't been around long enough for people to truly study their long-term effects. It's not to say that e-cigs are healthy, it is just that making them out to be as bad as regular cigs is pretty strange. It feels like the claim is being made by someone who doesn't smoke and who has a bias against smoking.


Well thank you for reminding me of this post,. I really should have read some more on it before posting.
Well whatever, the only thing I can do now, is to take this and learn from it.
I appreciate your reply, because I wouldn't have learned anything without it.

Also what's the point of e-cigs without nicotine? I mean I don't think they can help smokers, since smokers are addicted to nicotine. Probably for non-smokers for the most part. Well I guess for some smokers to have something that reminds them of a cigaret is enough.
I'm not entirely sure.
2064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F
Offline
Posted 10/5/13

maybe old habits, and vapor remedies?
25022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/6/13
Surely refusing to hire someone because they are a smoker is discrimination pure and simple?

I think there needs to be a distinction made here between smoking bans enacted in public places, such as we have here in Ireland (in fact the ban is for all workplaces - that includes taxis too) and the issue described here, which is trying to regulate behaviour taking place elsewhere.

The argument that smokers cost money, in terms of healthcare, is substantiated by the fact that smoking tobacco, especially when it's been processed into a cigarette, is proven to lead to serious long term medical issues. Smokers though should bear this cost, and be given the freedom to decide - smoke and face expenses, or don't smoke and don't have to pay.

One way of covering this is taxes on cigarettes - in Ireland for instance where we have public heath care (for hospital care), over 50% of the cost of a cigarette pack goes directly to the government.


27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/6/13

MopZ wrote:


maybe old habits, and vapor remedies?

I hear a lot of it is sometimes merely the action of smoking, not reliance on nicotine. Maybe going through the motions with a substitute that doesn't contain nicotine helps some people stop.
632 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 10/8/13
The smoking ban is fair because because with severe asthma (like me) are at a huge disadvantage and discomfort when someone is smoking around them. I would like to go somewhere that has fresh air and I don't have to struggle to breathe. Also, second-hand smoke might well be counted as a smoker. Inhaling the noxious/deadly fumes whether you are smoking or breathing it in, the damage is the same either way.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.