[aguahombre]

Oof Arted, on Jun 16 2009, 05:37 AM, said:

I think smokers should wear a bell so we can see and hear the lepers coming

From your username, I would guess you do not need a bell to announce your presence.

[Oof Arted]

aguahombre, on Jun 18 2009, 04:10 AM, said:

Oof Arted, on Jun 16 2009, 05:37 AM, said:

I think smokers should wear a bell so we can see and hear the lepers coming

From your username, I would guess you do not need a bell to announce your presence.

mmmm this is only one of my aliases

[Oof Arted]

Echognome, on Jun 18 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

I don't smoke myself, but it seems too easy to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon. I think if you give reasonable accommodation to the smokers, then it's a non-issue. I don't really understand such draconian measures against the smokers myself. I believe there should be some punishment, like fining some IMPs or something, but I think it's a bit harsh to punish people for their addiction. It's not like they are taking a banned substance!

I think those who wear silly Hats should be banned as well hehee

[NickRW]

matmat, on Jun 18 2009, 07:47 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 18 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

I don't smoke myself, but it seems too easy to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon.  I think if you give reasonable accommodation to the smokers, then it's a non-issue.  I don't really understand such draconian measures against the smokers myself.  I believe there should be some punishment, like fining some IMPs or something, but I think it's a bit harsh to punish people for their addiction.  It's not like they are taking a banned substance!

i somewhat disagree -- unless they shower and change their clothes after smoking, they are hurting me.

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long. If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

[Phil]

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long. If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

Yes, silly me for insisting on clean air to breathe.

[NickRW]

Phil, on Jun 18 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long.  If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

Yes, silly me for insisting on clean air to breathe.

You got clean air already - you're twisting the facts.

[matmat]

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 11:23 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 18 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long.  If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

Yes, silly me for insisting on clean air to breathe.

You got clean air already - you're twisting the facts.

I don't have it at the bridge table, which is where I wish to be. If you can't control the habit for half the day, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to participate in group activities.

[Echognome]

Seems there are different things people are debating.

I think no one is arguing that there should be smoking allowed in the playing area. So this second hand smoke issue is silly to debate. That is an argument against being around smokers in general, not anything to do with bridge.

It seems that some people are arguing against the smell of the smokers when they return from their smoking break. I personally think that's a little more complex. Smokers have little time in between rounds to get their smoke in, so perhaps having clearer "break times" might help. At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask smokers to brush their teeth or chew a breath mint or gum afterwards. It is just a matter of finding the right compromise. The difficulty, of course, is to find a policy that is enforceable. It's pretty tough as an individualo to complain about someone's smell. However, written as a policy, I don't think smokers would be offended to be asked to be aware of the odor and to do something about it, as long as they had the time to do it.

[TimG]

Echognome, on Jun 18 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask smokers to brush their teeth or chew a breath mint or gum afterwards. It is just a matter of finding the right compromise. The difficulty, of course, is to find a policy that is enforceable. It's pretty tough as an individualo to complain about someone's smell. However, written as a policy, I don't think smokers would be offended to be asked to be aware of the odor and to do something about it, as long as they had the time to do it.

They'd probably have to change their clothes, too.

And, once you get to the smell/hygiene issue, you'll also have to address such things as perfume and cologne.

Then, if scents are going to be regulated, how about sights? Dress codes? Daily shaving?

I doubt any regulations in this area would be simple, easy to enforce, or popular.

[jdonn]

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 11:23 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 18 2009, 03:49 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long.  If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

Yes, silly me for insisting on clean air to breathe.

You got clean air already - you're twisting the facts.

Why do you say it's clean, because you can't smell smoke all the time? That's a pretty pathetic standard.

[matmat]

TimG, on Jun 18 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

They'd probably have to change their clothes, too.

And, once you get to the smell/hygiene issue, you'll also have to address such things as perfume and cologne.

Then, if scents are going to be regulated, how about sights? Dress codes? Daily shaving?

I doubt any regulations in this area would be simple, easy to enforce, or popular.

seeing blubber sticking out from under someone's shirt might not be pleasant, but it is not a health issue (at least not for the person looking).

For those of us that suffer from allergies, hay fever, asthma, etc. someone walking in reeking of smoke or some obnoxious perfume can cause swelling and make breathing more difficult, which *is* a health problem.

same probably goes for other allergens, like peanuts, and so forth.

[hrothgar]

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long.  If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

Why should we bother? We have the votes.

We're going to do what we want and this means that we're going to enjoy public space that aren't littered by cigarette smokers.

If you want to smoke, you can do so in the comfort of your own house. (At least for a while... There are some interesting lawsuits coming down the pike involving apartment complexes and condo complexes that are banning smoking). There are entire cities like Las Vegas that are dedicated to folks with addictive personalities. There's also the third world, which has a lot of catching up to do.

However, if you want to live in the much of the developed world you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that smoking imposes significant external costs on people in the same surroundings. As such, society may very well chose to restrict your right to smoke in said locations.

(Please note: I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. I'm certainly not in favor of a complete ban on tobacco products. However, I think that its completely appropriate to ban smoking in public places including bars, hotel rooms, and restaurants.

[Echognome]

I'm certainly not claiming it's an easy problem to solve. But I think it's all too easy to just say "well don't let them smoke at all." I don't think that's a very fair approach personally. I think it's about setting some reasonable guidelines.

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 18 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

The anti smoking lobby has had its way too long.  If you don't like it go somewhere else entirely.

Why should we bother? We have the votes.

We're going to do what we want and this means that we're going to enjoy public space that aren't littered by cigarette smokers.

If you want to smoke, you can do so in the comfort of your own house. (At least for a while... There are some interesting lawsuits coming down the pike involving apartment complexes and condo complexes that are banning smoking). There are also entire cities like Las Vegas that are dedicated to folks with addictive personalities. There's also the third world, which has a lot of catching up to do.

However, if you want to live in the much of the developed world you're going to have to learn to live with the fact that smoking imposes significant external costs on people in the same surroundings. As such, society may very well chose to restrict your right to smoke in said locations.

(Please note: I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. I'm certainly not in favor of a complete ban on tobacco products. However, I think that its completely appropriate to ban smoking in public places including bars, hotel rooms, and restaurants.

I agree with a lot of this post, but I would disagree with respect to restaurants. If non-smokers (and I'm one of them) "have the votes," they also have the power to vote with their restaurant dollars. Let non-smoking restaurants open voluntarily, if there's such a demand for a smoke-free restaurant environment, and let each mixed group of diners decide whether the smokers want to refrain for an hour, or whether the non-smokers want to put up a restaurant that has a smoking section. A restaurant isn't a "public place" in the same sense that a beach or a sidewalk is. It's no skin off my nose to avoid smoky restaurants.

It's a bit similar to term limits (to which I'm opposed, in case that isn't clear). If there's such an overwhelming desire that people who have been in office for a long time not continue to hold office, there's a remedy for that, and a pretty effective one, and term limits aren't needed - vote 'em out. And let the people who think that experience shouldn't necessarily disqualify someone from a job have the same chance you do - to vote for the candidate of their choosing.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Jun 18 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

A restaurant isn't a "public place" in the same sense that a beach or a sidewalk is. It's no skin off my nose to avoid smoky restaurants.

Neither you nor I work as wait staff or cooks

If this issue only involved diners and restaurant owners, I wouldn't have an issue.

I would be open to some degree of compromise on this issue. It might be reasonable to pass regulations like the following:

90% of the restaurants / bars in a given municipality must be smoke free.
The remaining 10% can allow smoking

"Smoking permits" can be allocated via an auction mechanism, a lottery system, what have you.

[TimG]

matmat, on Jun 18 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

same probably goes for other allergens, like peanuts, and so forth.

Can't just about anything be an allergen?

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Jun 18 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 18 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

A restaurant isn't a "public place" in the same sense that a beach or a sidewalk is.  It's no skin off my nose to avoid smoky restaurants.

Neither you nor I work as wait staff or cooks

That's true; however, I did have the same position at the time the smoking ban was passed in California, and at the time, I was a bartender in a restaurant that allowed smoking in the bar. The ban benefitted me tremendously from the standpoint of a desirable and healthy workplace. I was still opposed to it. I chose to work there.

Interesting compromise idea. I wonder if a municipal tax break at a certain level would create a desirable mix of smoking and smoke-free restaurants. (I realize that current mix of 100% smoke-free is "desirable" to many; my definition is something more like both restaurants that permitted smoking and restaurants that prohibitted smoking exist in a reasonable proximity to residents).

[mike777]

If anything it seems the ban on smoking will expand rather than decrease. We now see more Bans on outside public smoking. Assuming second hand smoke is even more dangerous than smoking itself as some posters claim, expect to hear more about bans in private homes where minors live.

OTOH expect more public taxes to be spent to help farmers and those with the smoking addiction.

As some posters have pointed out expect these bans to expand the coming decade to foods.

[matmat]

TimG, on Jun 18 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 18 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

same probably goes for other allergens, like peanuts, and so forth.

Can't just about anything be an allergen?

yeah. probably. ask a biochemist but there are some common allergens that can evoke a very strong reaction, peanuts are one of them.

[awm]

Somewhat off topic, but I am currently trying to reserve a room for the Las Vegas regional. This is annoying because my girlfriend and I both have allergies and substantially prefer a non-smoking room (in fact she has asthma and is sometimes completely unable to breath in a smoking room). Most hotels in Vegas permit smoking in some rooms and not in others, but they do not allow you to reserve a non-smoking room in advance (except in a few cases where the non-smoking room costs two to three times more than a regular room).

We have essentially decided to just show up in Vegas and drive from hotel to hotel trying to book a room the day before the tournament. This is rather annoying, both because it means we don't know where we are staying in advance and because we can't take advantage of any of the amazing deals available online.

It seems amazing to me that a place with so much tourist activity as Vegas doesn't better cater to the non-smoking crowd.