ClumsyMonkey.net

the majority of americans (and this, by the way, is something i'm repeating) are in favour of the passage of a constitutional ammendment that will effectively make it impossible for gay couples to <i>ever</i> get married in the united states.

the majority feels this way. are they right?

furthermore (and again, i'm repeating myself) it has not been shown conclusively in any study that secondhand smoke actually causes <i>dick</i>. lung cells can regenerate and it is believed that up to a certain threshold, they can naturally kill off the effects of secondhand smoke inhalation.

Rob, so let me get this straight. You're telling me that if you go to a busy bar where people smoke, that everyone that smokes should be forced to step outside, even though they are in the majority. Not everyone has to appease you Rob.

i'm not saying the majority is right about anything....what is RIGHT anyways? i dont particularly agree with an amendment of that nature...but again, if it is a proposition in a general election and it is passed, then there's not much you can do about it... that's the way it works....love it or hate, that's just how it is...complain all you want. dont like it? then leave...that's really all there is to it. the smoking ban has been proposed in numerous cities and has passed (thankfully in austin, as well) and now you all will have to live it...i, for one, will now be giving more of my business to bars, bowling alleys, etc. as i will actually be able to go out somewhere and not come home wreaking of smoke...its a win win situation

Ya know, odds are, if you really wanted to go to those places, you'd have gone. Cigarette smoke can't possibly be the only reason you didn't go to those bars and bowling alleys. It's not a big deal. There's no proof that second-hand smoke can kill you. Until the day comes where there's concrete proof that if someone smokes around you enough, you can die, then there should be no ban on smoking.

I don't like smoke, but it adds to the atmosphere. I go to concerts, and it's just not the same to be in a dark club seeing a band play without having the smoke there. Sure, I don't like it, but it's not my place to say everyone should stop smoking or to let the government make people stop smoking. It's their bodies. If they want to smoke, so be it.

If second-hand smoke can kill, so be it. I've lived a decent life, and I am not going to regret going to these shows and bars because of smoke. I want to live and have a good time while doing it. If dealing with smoke comes with it, oh well. I am not letting it keep me from going out.

Axtech wrote:For the last time, this is about second hand smoke harming non-smokers.

One hour doesn't necessarily cause cancer... But everywhere you go, you have to breathe in the smoke. That's the problem. And it's not just lung cancer, either. Breathing in smoke is never healthy.

Exaggeration. I can go to any barnes and noble and sit and drink coffee smoke free. Two of the three resturants I worked in were smoke free. There's a coffee shop, a pool hall, and a bowling alley on campus that are all smoke free. There are a TON of places to go that are smoke free.

You're exaggerating on the sound level causing harm, and you know it. There is no stable, healthy person who can't handle working in the noise of a bust restaurant. Raise your stress level? Sure. What job doesn't?

No, I'm not exaggerating.

Exposure to noise levels above 85 dB for 8 hours is the Federal threshold for hearing protection. Levels above 90 dB can cause permanent hearing loss with relatively short exposure.
source

--------

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, any sound above 85 decibels - the noise of a busy restaurant or heavy traffic, can potentially hurt our ears.
source

--------

103 db - 7.5 minutes

106 dB - 3.75 min (< 4min)

109 dB - 1.875 min (< 2min)

source

It seems that staff comforting distressed and screaming children are particularly at risk.

“Levels recorded in such events can reach in excess of 110 dB at the ears of the teacher who is comforting the child. One to two minutes of this noise is equivalent to the maximum a worker in industry is permitted to receive in an entire 8 hour day.”

source

--------

I'm not exaggerating at all.

Ban children in resturants. It's for the server's health.

But no one should be subjected to second hand smoke if they want to get their only source of income.

Where do you live that a person is forced to work in a smoking environment and is not allowed to quit? Last time I checked, neither the USA nor Canada has any such law on the books.

You've said that non-smokers should just go somewhere else. Why should we be forced to go somewhere else? You (meaning smokers) choose to smoke. And you can go for an hour without it. Step outside if you want to feed your addiction, keep the smoke away from the people who choose not to pollute their lungs.

If you want to not smoke, then buy your own building, put the time, money, and effort necessary into opening a bar/resturant/bowling alley/whatever and then you can decide. But until you do, it's their time, their money, their effort, and their call.

I hope this is goodbye wrote:Rob, so let me get this straight. You're telling me that if you go to a busy bar where people smoke, that everyone that smokes should be forced to step outside, even though they are in the majority. Not everyone has to appease you Rob.

This "majority" made the choice to smoke. Everyone else shouldn't be subjected to it. Being the majority doesn't always make it right.

Narbus: I know that you're trying to defend the owner of the building. My point is the smoking causes harm to non-smokers, and non-smokers were fed up with having smoke blown in their faces wherever they went. Like I've said before, you can't let someone do something on their own property if it causes harm to others. As for the screaming children, people that loud are more often than not kicked out of restaurants (as they should be). You're talking extreme cases of noise here.

you dont have to go everywhere and breathe in smoke. thats ridiculous. there are plenty of places that dont have a smoking section. you people need to quit your fucking whining about everything. you can't just ban things you don't like. the world doesnt work like that. and no, the smoke doesn't filter across the goddamn restaurant dude. if im sitting on the other side of a restaurant and smoking, the amount of smoke that is going to filter all the way over to you, is almost nothing. certainly not enough to harm you. christ, you drive a car everyday don't you? breathing in carbon monoxide is the same as breathing in cigarette smoke, in fact that IS what u breathe in from cig smoke. so are you gonna ban cars too cause they harm you the same way? jesus, get a job man

And my point is, as it always has been, that you have the choice to go into a smoking environment or not. You don't have some "right" to go to a bowling alley. You don't have any right to go onto private property, which is the grounds for those "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs. Play by their rules, or don't go.
I don't walk into your house and light up, do I? I don't come in and start painting because the color scheme you like clashes with the couch, do I? No. It's your property, it's your decision. Same thing with resturants.
You don't have the right to force these kinds of decisions onto a private property owner. If you don't like the smoke, GO ELSEWHERE. You have shown no reason why you cannot, or why you are somehow "entitled" to have every place you go cater to whatever needs you may have.

Those sound levels are NOT extreme. 85 dB is the level of noise in a moderatly busy resturant. I work in a very busy resturant, I'd imagine it's higher for me, and I'd imagine a bar (particularly a sports bar) is much louder still.
Management doesn't throw people out as often as you seem to think, particularly out of a resturant. I know. I work there.
The general noise level of a resturant does reach dangerous levels, especially for the staff who are there for much longer than an hour or so. A child's scream can reach 110 dB or more, and that's EXTREMELY dangerous. These are just facts, backed up with sources. You can't contest them. It's the way it is. If you insist on making decisions for other people based on the grounds of "well, it's helping the staff," then you cannot back off as soon as you are the one who's inconvienced. That's not the way it works.

BloodRayn wrote:the world doesnt work like that

actually, i'd like to point out that apparently, it does.

no apparently it doesn't

next time im at a bar and i see someone whos not smoking im gonna stand right next to them and blow smoke right in their fuckin face


as was pointed out above, lung cells DO regenerate. therefore, if ur at the bar on friday and dont go until next friday, more than likely your lung cells have already regenerated

if i were to quite smoking today, in 3 months i would have regenerated nearly 50% of the lung cells i may have lost from smoking for 3 years.

yeah, and all the chemicals you'd ingested would disappear from your body with narry a harmful trace. i sure hope you're not planning on being a doctor.

never said the chemicals would, but my lung tissue would regenerate

and alot of the chemicals are gotten rid of by your body.

and who made you the medical authority on smoking alex

She could ask the same of you.

im just relating information that blue eyed soul had mentioned above. also, my doctor told me the same thing

here's a question....

what makes this any different than dry counties? no one ever complains when dry county amendments are made or when town charters take it up as their own.

what does it matter in both cases? in one instance you have to cross the county/state/city line to get your booze, and the other case you'll have to go outside to smoke your cigarette. so it's an inconvience, if it makes most of the people happy, wouldn't you rather take your cigarette outside, then to hear the non-smoking crowd's comments?

Bandalero wrote:wouldn't you rather take your cigarette outside, then to hear the non-smoking crowd's comments?

And coughs.

i go to the bars/restaurants alot and i dont ever hear anyone complain about the smoke

and its a different story with dry counties/cities

for one thing, people move there/live there because they like that. you're trying to force people who do smoke into something. no one forced those people who live in dry counties/cities to do that, they did it of their own accord. its a completely different thing and cannot be compared.

Yet smokers are forcing non-smokers to breathe the smoke.

no we arent
we are smoking in a place where the owner of the bar said we can smoke. whether or not you go there is your decision, not mine.


the smoking ban thing is a very socialistic idea on america. think about it. you're trying to tell someone who owns a building what they can and cant do inside of it. if i wanted to open a bar and have porn on the tv's at all times, i can. people might complain about it, but i dont have to change my bar to suit YOUR personal needs.

Bandalero wrote:here's a question....

what makes this any different than dry counties? no one ever complains when dry county amendments are made or when town charters take it up as their own.

Yes they do. Bud, Coors, Jim Bean, they all complain quite a bit, as do many regular citizens. Where did you get this idea?

what does it matter in both cases? in one instance you have to cross the county/state/city line to get your booze, and the other case you'll have to go outside to smoke your cigarette. so it's an inconvience, if it makes most of the people happy, wouldn't you rather take your cigarette outside, then to hear the non-smoking crowd's comments?

Again, in a bar, most of the people are likely smokers. So you are the one who would have to quit complaining in order to make most of the people happy. So how bout' you do that.

PS: I like how no one's replied to the "Ban conversation and children" bit.