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/oddly...ughNews&rpc=69

/ ....x....>

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!!!!!!

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.

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.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

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.

We don't have to go that far. Just allow waterguns Then I wouldn't be able to squirt smokers!

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

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

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.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

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.

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!

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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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.

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.

You still can, it's just illicit. Which, come to think of it, probably makes it just that much more enjoyable.

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.

__________________
Life is like a box of chocolates. All of your choices are bad for you.

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.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

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.

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.

__________________
Jean
-----
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." - Albert Einstein

"The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge " - Bertrand Russell

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

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.

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.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

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.

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.

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

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

__________________
Jean
-----
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." - Albert Einstein

"The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge " - Bertrand Russell