Read the information in the link "on smoking"

[suntrack2]

smoking sometime people do at the public places must be ban strictly, because it may creat nuisance to the other public who are non smokers, even it is harmful for childrens also. One has to take care about other's health issues. But do we care !!

See the link where a man tried to smoke during the journey of a fast train, was it essential to him !

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE4BO0X420081225?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=69

/ :( ....x....> :)

[Neverfly]

While we're at it, we must also ban backyard barbqueing as it blows smoke and meat smells into neighbors yards. They might be gegans and be offended.

We must ban the passing of gasses in public as well.

ALL Internal Combustion engines should be locked up and banned forever.

It's all so bad for our children!!!!!!

[Neverfly]

Incidentally... Whatever you drink, whatever drugs, prescription or otherwise, you use, etc, ends up in trace amounts in city supply water.

Expelling of wastes should be banned.

[HenrikOlsen]

Your right to smoke stops where you make me inhale the smoke.
Just like your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

So I think the laws against punching people in the face should be suspended for smokers who smoke in non-smoking areas, that way it's an even playing ground.

[Neverfly]

Your right to smoke stops where you make me inhale the smoke.
Just like your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

So I think the laws against punching people in the face should be suspended for smokers who smoke in non-smoking areas, that way it's an even playing ground.

Nonsense.

The atmosphere is a dynamic system.

If you want to live in a bubble, build a bubble around yourself. Don't ban the world.

[hhEb09'1]

So I think the laws against punching people in the face should be suspended for smokers who smoke in non-smoking areas, that way it's an even playing ground.We don't have to go that far. Just allow waterguns :)Nonsense.

The atmosphere is a dynamic system.

If you want to live in a bubble, build a bubble around yourself. Don't ban the world.Then I wouldn't be able to squirt smokers! :)

[Neverfly]

Your right to drink stops where you make me ingest trace amounts from the water supply..

[hhEb09'1]

OK, no face shots. If you lick yourself, that's your problem.

[Ara Pacis]

Your right to smoke stops where you make me inhale the smoke.
Just like your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

So I think the laws against punching people in the face should be suspended for smokers who smoke in non-smoking areas, that way it's an even playing ground.

Good point, but the right to swing a fist actually stops well before your nose. A nose strike is battery but a pre-nose swing can be construed as assault and is also prohibited by law.

As for this specific incident, detention may seem excessive and maybe we liberal westerners might suggest a mere hefty fine. However, if smoking is deemed a fire hazard on a high speed train or merely deterimental to pulmonary health in an enclosed environment, as it is for domestic US flights, a blanket prohibition may make sense. It sounds like the alarm forced an automatic emergency stop of the train, thereby delaying the train traffic, thus the ramifications of the accused's actions are more severe than merely being caught by an attendant.

[nauthiz]

Your right to smoke stops where you make me inhale the smoke.
Just like your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

I'm not really a fan of that saying. The more one probes at it, the more its specious nature becomes apparent:

It works great for the obvious cases, such as swinging your fist.

When the same reasoning is applied to smoking cigarettes in public, controversy starts to creep in.

It still applies to things like driving cars and using electricity. They do harm people, the high asthma rates in Los Angeles have been fairly convincingly linked to pollution from automobiles, and acid rain damages other people's property. So that's a case where my interest in moving quickly comes into conflict with someone else's right to remain healthy or not have other people break their stuff. And rights trump interests - that's the whole point of what a right is. Yet nobody seems to agree with the clear implication of that same line of fist-nose reasoning - namely, that driving cars is wrong.

[closetgeek]

The point Neverfly is making, I really think is being missed. There are plenty of things that people do that cause health concerns and general discomfort to others who may not engage in the same practice. Burning a fire in a fireplace spits smoke out the chimney and adds to pollution, as well as driving a car, running electricity in your home, and exhaling. Cigarette smoke does not smell good, even to most smokers, but banning it for it nuissance is unfair since there is no control on how much perfume or cologne a person can wear. Admit it, though, everyone has been near someone, at least once, who wears so much it causes physical pain. The most common excuse is that people smoke, get cancer, and then the govt has to pay for health care for the smoker who could have prevented it by not smoking. By that definition, all unhealthy foods should be immediately banned as well since heart disease kills more people in the US, then Cancer.
I am fine with not smoking in indoor public places and I am even tolerant that now, if I go to the mall and want to have a smoke, I can't be within 150 feet of the structure. I am getting annoyed that there is talk of making smoking illegal in any public place, indoors or out. Enough is enough, with all the many ways each individual adds to pollution, it's pure hypocricy!

[hhEb09'1]

Cigarette smoke does not smell good, even to most smokers, but banning it for it nuissance is unfair since there is no control on how much perfume or cologne a person can wear. Admit it, though, everyone has been near someone, at least once, who wears so much it causes physical pain.I admit it. :)

But at least once for perfume contrasts with thousands of times for smoking. Not that I really objected in either case, personally. For some reason, cirgarette smoke doesn't smell that bad to me. The most common excuse is that people smoke, get cancer, and then the govt has to pay for health care for the smoker who could have prevented it by not smoking. By that definition, all unhealthy foods should be immediately banned as well since heart disease kills more people in the US, then Cancer. But by your own words, "cigarette smoke does not smell good." Why would you not expect legal arguments to be arrayed to get rid of boorish or annoying behavior? Most people don't seem offended by someone else's ham sandwich. If there was an associated health risk, even plaid or paisley might be restricted.

[closetgeek]

I admit it.

But at least once for perfume contrasts with thousands of times for smoking. Not that I really objected in either case, personally. For some reason, cirgarette smoke doesn't smell that bad to me.

I do not like the smell of body sprays. I have really bad allergies and it stings my nose and makes my sinuses throb. However, I am in public and have to accept that at times, I have no control of my surroundings. I can either deal the discomfort or avoid the situation or deal with it, but I do not have the right to make someone else not use it, because I don't like it.

But by your own words, "cigarette smoke does not smell good." Why would you not expect legal arguments to be arrayed to get rid of boorish or annoying behavior?

Because boorish and annoying are terms relative to the individual. I am afraid to get too political on this but it is dangerous to a public, to allow leaders to make laws based on taste and preference.

If there was an associated health risk, even plaid or paisley might be restricted.

I agree that smoking indoors exposes everyone in that room to the same health risk, which is why I have no problem with smoking outdoors. But to ban it outdoors because it's concidered pollution, again, is pure hypocricy.

[hhEb09'1]

Because boorish and annoying are terms relative to the individual. I am afraid to get too political on this but it is dangerous to a public, to allow leaders to make laws based on taste and preference. No, that's not my point. Laws are usually not just made on taste and preference. It's only when health or cost or danger issues arise--and maybe not even then. Combine the two, though, and I don't see why anybody is surprised.

When I was a kid, I learned that it was illegal in some cities to spit on the sidewalk. I thought that was ridiculously funny--and so did the reporter, it was a segment on strange laws. Looking deeper into it, though, I found that the laws were created (and never obsoleted) when spitting was much more common, and the results more pronounced. Had no one ever spit tobacco juice on the sidewalks, the laws against spitting on sidewalks would never have been made.

I can remember walking down the aisle of a grocery store 35 years ago, noticing a smoker leaning over the fresh poultry, disregarding the Please No Smoking signs. Nobody arrested him, fined him, kicked him out, or even talked to him. And I didn't really mind smoking myself, but I can remember thinking, wow there's some chickens about to come back to roost.

[closetgeek]

hhEb09'1, I don't think we disagree, much, then. The only problem I have is when it starts to be considered unhealthy and a pollution, outside when it's toxins, compared to the many others adding to the problem, is minimal. I don't mind stepping outside, I don't even smoke in my own house, and I don't mind even stepping away from the crowd. Any more restrictions, though, and I feel it is more a matter of control.

[PetersCreek]

Wellllllllll, as the avatar indicates, I'm a cigar smoker. I didn't mind when they made restaurants smoke free around here. I don't like smoke with my food, either. I didn't mind so much when they banned smoking within x feet of doorways to public buildings. I think it's just plain rude to put my smoke in people's way like that. But now, the assembly has outlawed smoking in every single business open to the public...including places like cigar shops, and any other business founded for the purpose of smoking. The assembly passed it off as being for the good of the employees which sounds all well and good except for those who would seek employment in a place they could smoke. There goes my dream of opening a cigar bar in this town. Too far, I tell ya...too far.

[hhEb09'1]

Any more restrictions, though, and I feel it is more a matter of control.It's a backlash, it'll be over soon. :)

These things take time. I can remember disco...

No, seriously, twenty, thirty years ago, you or your ilk had plenty of opportunity to "police your own" but of course that didn't happen. (Was it a fear of controlling, or of being controlled, I dunno.) I don't agree with the laws, but yeah it's completely understandable how this situation arose.

[nauthiz]

But now, the assembly has outlawed smoking in every single business open to the public...including places like cigar shops, and any other business founded for the purpose of smoking. The assembly passed it off as being for the good of the employees which sounds all well and good except for those who would seek employment in a place they could smoke. There goes my dream of opening a cigar bar in this town. Too far, I tell ya...too far.

More or less the same thing happened here. Cigar bars are technically allowed, but the restrictions on them are odious - no serving food or drink. Something's missing if I can't have a nice glass of single malt with my cigar.

I find the bar thing a bit annoying, too. It's true that I do enjoy being able to go to a bar without coming out reeking of smoke, but at the same time I really can't begrudge people wanting to have a cigarette with their drink. It's too bad they couldn't have at least come up with a system wherein drinking establishments had to apply for an additional license to allow indoor smoking or something. Presumably that would achieve the goal of making many or most bars smoke-free while still allowing a few that cater to smoking clientele.

[hhEb09'1]

More or less the same thing happened here. Cigar bars are technically allowed, but the restrictions on them are odious - no serving food or drink. Something's missing if I can't have a nice glass of single malt with my cigar.You still can, it's just illicit. Which, come to think of it, probably makes it just that much more enjoyable.

[Chuck]

Wellllllllll, as the avatar indicates, I'm a cigar smoker. I didn't mind when they made restaurants smoke free around here. I don't like smoke with my food, either. I didn't mind so much when they banned smoking within x feet of doorways to public buildings. I think it's just plain rude to put my smoke in people's way like that. But now, the assembly has outlawed smoking in every single business open to the public...including places like cigar shops, and any other business founded for the purpose of smoking. The assembly passed it off as being for the good of the employees which sounds all well and good except for those who would seek employment in a place they could smoke. There goes my dream of opening a cigar bar in this town. Too far, I tell ya...too far.

Don't open it to the public. Start a private club that's open to members only. It's up to you how to decide who to accept as members, perhaps anyone who agrees not to complain about the smoke. Since it's not open to the public you can smoke and serve liquor and food all you like. I'm so clever.

[Van Rijn]

Burning a fire in a fireplace spits smoke out the chimney and adds to pollution, as well as driving a car, running electricity in your home, and exhaling.


And the regulations on home wood burning are increasing because of the health and air pollution issues. Ditto with regulations on automobile and power plant pollution. Your exhalation isn't a big deal unless you first inhale pollutants like those in cigarette smoke, and there are regulations to cover that.

[bunker9603]

There is a large hospital in my town that has banned smoking on their property, including not allowing someone to smoke in their car even with the windows rolled up. There are parking spaces that are at least 500 feet or more away from the building. IMO this is going to far.

They have a security guard that rides around in a golf cart to enforce this rule.

[Whirlpool]

We cannot control our surroundings and people around us . If you are a smoker , smoke properly and responsibly. Be aware of people who will be allergic or affected with your smoking.

If you are a non-smoker, understand that there are people who need to smoke after they eat , or who need to cool down after a heated argument with a colleague. It's their choice, just distance yourself from them if you can't stand the smell of the cigarette or cover your nose.

[matthewota]

Smoking is bad for your health. And smoking marijuana is just as damaging to your lungs, It is not even filtered, either.

[hhEb09'1]

If you are a non-smoker, understand that there are people who need to smoke after they eat , or who need to cool down after a heated argument with a colleague. It's their choice, just distance yourself from them if you can't stand the smell of the cigarette or cover your nose.I would encourage the nonsmoker to squirt them with waterguns. Sure, the water is uncomfortable for a little while, but it's less noxious than cigarette smoke. Plus, it puts out the smoke. :)

[PetersCreek]

Don't open it to the public. Start a private club that's open to members only. It's up to you how to decide who to accept as members, perhaps anyone who agrees not to complain about the smoke. Since it's not open to the public you can smoke and serve liquor and food all you like. I'm so clever.

Perhaps that would be a solution where you live but it wouldn't work here. To comply with the ordinance, private clubs must be non-profit entities...not a very good business plan for a cigar bar. Serving alcohol witout license would create serious problems over and above the smoking issue. A license would not be granted to a smoking business. Even if the venture was a qualifying non-profit, the presence of employees would disqualify it from exemption.

In response to the smoking ban, my local cigar shop set up a non-prof private club with an adjoining smoking room. I sit on the incorporation board as secretary. Still, the municipality cited the shop owner and is challenging our status in court. They claim that the owner is herself an employee and that we're not exclusive enough in our membership and therefore are not a private club.

[Ara Pacis]

I thought a private club would work too, based on what I've heard. But I think members have to bring their own booze, or maybe they can purchase it communally. Maybe you need to have membership cards and a sign out front saying private club.

[nauthiz]

I would encourage the nonsmoker to squirt them with waterguns. Sure, the water is uncomfortable for a little while, but it's less noxious than cigarette smoke. Plus, it puts out the smoke. :)

And it's darn funny. I think $0.50 worth of cigarette is a decent trade for a chuckle like that. Especially if a Super Soaker is involved.

And yet strangely, I don't find Three Stooges films to be particularly amusing.

[PetersCreek]

I thought a private club would work too, based on what I've heard. But I think members have to bring their own booze, or maybe they can purchase it communally. Maybe you need to have membership cards and a sign out front saying private club.

Oh, we have membership cards and we pay dues. The city lawyers argue that if anyone can join, it's not a private (enough) club. I suggested to our lawyer that he should explain that we don't allow non-smokers...or city attorneys.

As for the alcohol, I'm not sure how the law sees bottles brought in by members for personal use, but I'm pretty sure that a stock purchased communally by the membership would be viewed as operating a bar without a license.

[Whirlpool]

I would encourage the nonsmoker to squirt them with waterguns. Sure, the water is uncomfortable for a little while, but it's less noxious than cigarette smoke. Plus, it puts out the smoke. :)

You might want to gauge first the smoker for his mood before you squirt him with watergun.

:think:

[nauthiz]

The city lawyers argue that if anyone can join, it's not a private (enough) club.

WTH? Did they cite any precedent on that?

[Ara Pacis]

Oh, we have membership cards and we pay dues. The city lawyers argue that if anyone can join, it's not a private (enough) club. I suggested to our lawyer that he should explain that we don't allow non-smokers...or city attorneys.

As for the alcohol, I'm not sure how the law sees bottles brought in by members for personal use, but I'm pretty sure that a stock purchased communally by the membership would be viewed as operating a bar without a license.

Hmm, that probably would represent a business interest. Maybe I was thinking of people purchasing it among themselves and then merely storing and consuming it on site. I recall a gentleman's club not far from here in a jurisdiction that doesn't allow alcohol to be sold at a place where ladies dance. Thus, the gentleman's club has a strict, BYOB policy. I've never been there but that's how I'm told it operates.

Maybe you need to get some dancers in your club... and a few pictures of the city attorney with them. ;-)

[Chuck]

I suppose the club's building could be located between a liquor store and a restaurant that serves carry out food. Members would then buy their drinks and food in the neighboring establishments and consume them while smoking at the club. Or just order the food from a restaurant that delivers. There would be no waiters or bartenders to serve you but your food would at least be delivered to the door. Perhaps the delivery people would be willing to bring the food to your table for a suitable tip. Then they wouldn't really be your employees. They'd officially work for the restaurant.

[closetgeek]

We have a stupid law in Fl. You can still smoke in bars as long as they make less then 25% of their profit on food. So if you just serve drinks, you are not worth protection from carcins but if you serve food and drinks, well then...the red carpet is over here.

[suntrack2]

Youth here did a disco on a happy new year's first night along with a very little smoke, but smoke was there, may be it was of a cigar/cigaret/pipe,
no no it was a smoke of essence sticks, made of tobacco.

:) seegaretisinjuriousforhealth.

[PetersCreek]

Maybe you need to get some dancers in your club... and a few pictures of the city attorney with them. ;-)

Funny you should say that. The cigar shop occupies the original home of the locally notorious Alaska Bush Company. The poles are long gone but the creeky old wood floors, panelling, and slatted ceiling are still there.

[hhEb09'1]

And it's darn funny. I think $0.50 worth of cigarette is a decent trade for a chuckle like that. Especially if a Super Soaker is involved.
Especially if the smoker is in a bad mood to begin with. :)You might want to gauge first the smoker for his mood before you squirt him with watergun.
I would even wet smokers who were in good moods. When PetersCreek ventures out of the smoking room in the mod lounge, he risks looking like PetersLake, but he never stops grinning.

[Whirlpool]

I would even wet smokers who were in good moods. When PetersCreek ventures out of the smoking room in the mod lounge, he risks looking like PetersLake, but he never stops grinning.

Heh..Not if you wet too all the Cigars in his Cigars Box.

;)

[PetersCreek]

When PetersCreek ventures out of the smoking room in the mod lounge, he risks looking like PetersLake, but he never stops grinning.

Just as long as you remember that our tobacco taxes up here total 120%. With Opus X and Diamond Crown going for $30 a stick, your tab is growing fast. Oh...and if you soak any of the collectibles, you're toast.

[hhEb09'1]

It's just water, it'll dry out :)

[davidlpf]

The problem with smoking in a mall is there is a limited air supply, large but limited untill some the smoke is discharge by the air circulation gear or it leaves out the door. Granted the air on the planet is limited but there is more of it. In shops here they are now requiring stores to cover the smokes on the shelves.

I agree with Peter a sore that sells cigars should allow its patrons to smoke once and a while but may a sign in the door to warn people with possible allergies such as asthmatics.

[Van Rijn]

I just saw this:

Smoking Ban leads to major drop in heart attacks (http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?tag=3.5721%3Ficx_id=D95DRFF01)

Quoting:

A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations, according to a new study that is considered the best and longest-term research to show such a link.

The rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it's a clear sign the ban was responsible.

Here's a CDC page on it:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm

I don't think that restrictions on smoking are going to be reduced any time soon. Now, if the smoke could be controlled better, it might be a different story.

[Van Rijn]

You might want to gauge first the smoker for his mood before you squirt him with watergun.

:think:

One of the advantages of the smoking laws is that these days, here, there's rarely a temptation to use a water gun or other measures. It used to be very different when it was virtually impossible to avoid smoke.

[Frog march]

I was reading about these last year

The electric cigarette that gives you a nicotine hit and gets round the smoking ban


Inventors have created an electric cigarette which gives a nicotine hit while still managing to avoid the smoking ban.
The small white stick, which looks just like a proper cigarette, contains a chamber that vapourises pure liquid nicotine into a puff of steam.
Smokers can inhale the vapours as they would a cigarette smoke and still get the buzz - without taking in any harmful substances.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-566351/The-electric-cigarette-gives-nicotine-hit-gets-round-smoking-ban.html

[sabianq]

hi all
happy 2009!

my $.02 for what it is worth.

it has been almost 11 months since i smoked.
i cut back from almost 2 packs a day for 8 years (1992-2000) to one or two smokes a year.

this happened in 2000 when i just decided to put off smoking.

in essence i quit in 2000, but i can never say that i am a non-smoker. i just decided to "put off" smoking until later.

now that i am a non-non-smoker, i can sure tell when someone has smoked.
the smell that comes from the cigarette is most vile. i am convinced that there are chemicals in it that are not found in pure tobacco.

i mean the tobacco that one can get at a pipe shop is so different.

the chemicals in normal cigarettes when burned have to be down right poisonous. and i have no doubt that cigarette smoke second hand or first hand is simply dangerous for everybody.

cheers!

[Larry Jacks]

To comply with the ordinance, private clubs must be non-profit entities...not a very good business plan for a cigar bar.

You could do what many other non-profit organizations do - incorporate and pay out what would normally be considered profits as salary. Many non-profits pay very well. I've read that the head of the American Red Cross makes over $700,000 a year. There are some university presidents who make over a million dollars a year.

Just to be clear, I don't smoke and don't like being around cigarette smoke. If someone comes to my home and tries to light up, they'll be shown the door. My home, my rules. If I go to a smoker's home and he lights up, I'm free to leave if I don't like it. His home, his rules. I believe property rights should also extend to business owners. If a business wants to allow smoking, they should be free to do so (perhaps putting up a sign so I'll know to avoid the place). Government offices are a different matter because citizens rarely have a choice about going there or not. For the record, I used to work in poorly ventilated, windowless communications centers with smokers. This was in 1978-80 before smoking in the workplace was banned. It was unpleasant but somehow I survived. Today, I don't like being anywhere near a smoker. I can be 100 feet downwind of a smoker and notice the smoke. I doubt the smoke has changed much. Perhaps years of reduced exposure has made me less tolerant of cigarette smoke. However, there's no right to not be offended.

[Neverfly]

41% drop in Heart Attacks?


That's just way too big to be believable...
That study sounds majorly flawed.
Biased perhaps?

[Larry Jacks]

I live about 50 miles north of Pueblo. It's a nice community of approximately 100,000 people. In a community of 100,000 people, you might have a few hundred of them have a heart attack in any given year. Such a small sample size can easily be skewed from one year to the next for a variety of reasons. It sounds to me as if someone with an agenda wants to attribute all of the reduction (which may only be temporary) to the smoking ban. Unless smoking rates dropped with the ban, it hardly seems likely the ban could've caused all of the reduction. After all, there is also widespread community health efforts to reduce heart attack risk factors.

Personally, I'd much rather see actual numbers than percentages. If the number of heart attacks in a year dropped from 100 to 59 (a 41% reduction), that isn't nearly as meaningful as if the rate dropped from 10,000 to 5,900. Small samples and small numbers can easily skew percentage rates.

There's also the old statistical saying, "Correlation does not imply causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)."

[Whirlpool]

and 41% is a big impact in health improvement.

There are other causes of lowering down heart attacks, not only from stopping to smoke.

[megrfl]

I don't think that restrictions on smoking are going to be reduced any time soon. Now, if the smoke could be controlled better, it might be a different story.

Smoking bans will probably never be lifted. Not with statistics like the ones quoted below.

From your link:

Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths and about 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers each year, according to statistics cited by the CDC.

That's unbelievable.

Our local mall has banned smoking from within 150 ft of the building. I thought that was a bit harsh, but their explanation is that in addition to non-smoking customers that should not have to walk through the smoke they didn't want smokers congregating and leaving butts at the entrances of the building.

I think a lot of it has to do with the mess associated with smoking too.

[PetersCreek]

It's just water, it'll dry out :)

...says one who obviously doesn't understand the care of fine cigars. Assuming it didn't split from the swelling, dry is a bad thing, too. I store mine at 65% RH. Just resign yourself to the fact that after you've had your fun, you'll owe me some serious cash. :whistle:

[PetersCreek]

You could do what many other non-profit organizations do - incorporate and pay out what would normally be considered profits as salary.

That would still run afoul of the ordinance.

The smoking restrictions here weren't implemented all at once. They were incremental. First came the ban in restaurants, unless they could provide a completely segregated smoking area. Then came an all out ban in restaurants and bars. Next was the latest ban in businesses open to the public, with employees. So, anyone receiving a salary from a non-prof would be viewed by the Muni as an employee. With employees in the picture, non-profit private clubs lose their exemption.

Besides, with the current climate, I seriously doubt the Muni would grant a liquor license to a business that planned smoking under any circumstances.

[Van Rijn]

. Unless smoking rates dropped with the ban, it hardly seems likely the ban could've caused all of the reduction. After all, there is also widespread community health efforts to reduce heart attack risk factors.


This study was for three years (that's part of what they argue is significant - there have been other one year studies), and they compared heart attack rates with those of other nearby areas without smoking bans.

[hhEb09'1]

...says one who obviously doesn't understand the care of fine cigars. Assuming it didn't split from the swelling, dry is a bad thing, too. I store mine at 65% RH. Just resign yourself to the fact that after you've had your fun, you'll owe me some serious cash. So, if I unleash a nontoxic chemical into the atmosphere in your general direction, while you're releasing toxic chemicals in mine, I'd owe you money? How far do you think a smoker would get in today's courts with that? :)

Besides, what do you do when it rains?

[PetersCreek]

That's the thing. I'm not releasing toxic chemicals in your direction unless you happen to be in my private club, on my deck, or another area designated for smoking, like a fellow cigar smoker's place. If you're there, you have no one but yourself to blame for what you breathe in. So yes, if I'm engaging in a legal activity in a place where I'm legally entitled to do so and you destroy my property, you're darn right I expect you to make good on the damage.

When it rains, I smoke at the club or if it's not too cold, I smoke at the open garage door with a fan behind me. I don't otherwise smoke in the house, so if those options aren't available, I just don't smoke. I normally have 1-2 cigars a week but since I'm no longer addicted to nicotine, skipping a week or two or three isn't a problem.

[hhEb09'1]

Now you're just being reasonable.

Wait! who was that the other day that came out of the BAUT smoking lounge in a cloud of smoke and was washed away? That wasn't you?

[tommac]

the laws against smoking are GREAT. there has been a signifigant drop in heart problems since the bans here have gone into effect.

Outside is fine for smokers.

[Neverfly]

the laws against smoking are GREAT. there has been a signifigant drop in heart problems since the bans here have gone into effect.

Outside is fine for smokers.

Someone needs to back all these "heart problems" claims up with some hard evidence.

For one thing- Why isn't it that SMOKERS are constantly falling over dead from heart attacks?
The smoking bans, supposedly, are reducing heart problems in NON smokers.
Why are smokers less effected than non smokers?

The claims make no sense whatsoever.
41%?!
Come on!!
At that kind of right, eliminating all cigs, pipes, cigars should cause the world mortality rate to plummet!!

[HenrikOlsen]

For one thing- Why isn't it that SMOKERS are constantly falling over dead from heart attacks?
The smoking bans, supposedly, are reducing heart problems in NON smokers.
Why are smokers less effected than non smokers?
The study didn't distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers, at least not in the reported numbers, it only showed an overall beneficial effect, which can easily be caused by fewer smoker falling over dead because they are prevented from smoking as much during work hours.

That the rest of the article was about secondhand smoking wasn't helpful and wasn't really warranted by the numbers as reported.


Smokers are more affected, but that's by their own choice so they are quite welcome to die if they want that doesn't bother me much.
What bothers me is when they remove my choice in the matter and that's the power the legislation is taking away from them.