Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... Last
[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 15:30:52 EDT from wizard of aahz @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Right. Grelf understands that while I don't love the fact that he pees on my car, I understand and accept it. He understands that I don't want smoking inthe house so he accepts that.

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 15:34:30 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I love CitaDrift.

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 16:05:34 EDT from girthta @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I think John Wayne said it best when he said, *COUGH HACK WHEEZE* "Gimme another cigarette lil'pilgrim."


[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 16:06:48 EDT from Peter Pulse @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Workplaces are not public.. at least by MY definition.. unless you work for the government or possibly for a tax exempt or government funded institution.

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 16:17:19 EDT from wizard of aahz @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

fleeb - it's when there isn't drift that you should be surprised.

this was the food room, right?

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 17:04:33 EDT from curly surmudgeon @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 16 2006 10:15pm from Grey Elf @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
As usual dicknose, you ignored the meat of the argument because it doesn't

follow your narrow world-view. Show me a credible study, that a) isn't
so
slanted as to be worthless, or b) pre-supposed all it's conclusions with

so little data, that it's vacated by a court, that shows second-hand smoke


Yet another Rovian attack. Brave motherfuckers hiding behind a modem...

Now, eat your words: http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html

"Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke. It is harmful even when you cannot see or smell it. Second-hand smoke releases the same 4,000 chemicals as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity. Approximately 50 of these chemicals (carcinogens) cause cancer."

This is the problem with BELIEVERS, they filter the evidence to substantiate opinions. Lack of objectivity and closed minds cannot accept evidence to the contrary, even decades of evidence.

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 17:07:32 EDT from curly surmudgeon @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 16 2006 10:15pm from Grey Elf @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
As usual dicknose, you ignored the meat of the argument because it doesn't

follow your narrow world-view. Show me a credible study, that a) isn't
so
slanted as to be worthless, or b) pre-supposed all it's conclusions with

so little data, that it's vacated by a court, that shows second-hand smoke

is as dangerous as all the scare-mongers say it is.

You can't. Don't like smoke, then don't go where there is smoke, don't

legislate your preference for the rest of us. Speak about arrogance. If

I wish to go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking, then I don't smoke.
But
that simple personal responsiblity was too much for you fucking idiots.


"I don't like this, so you can't do it." If that isn't the most arrogant

fucking view on the planet, I don't know what is.

Smoking
is bad for you. Any schmuck that ever picked up a cigarette and
thought otherwise, deserves brain-cancer of the ass.
Second-hand smoke
isn't good for you either, but not even close to what the PR firms and

the anti-smoking goons say it is. Again, you support people legislating

taste, which makes you a hypocrite.

It's ok to outlaw smoking. (Opinon)
It's ok to legislate religious views. (Opinon)

You agree with one, and disagree with the other, when they're both the

same thing at it's heart. Ergo, you are the hypocrite we all know you

to be.

(And yes, it is a raw nerve with me. Even when I didn't smoke I thought

it was complete bullshit what they do to smokers. We pay more taxes then

anyone else per dollar spent for an item. I disagree with heavy drinking,

does that mean prohibition should return? No, it's just
my opinon, thats
the difference between me, and the mongers who think it's their right

to legislate taste. Just like you Curly.)


Geez, you and Ragnar are two peas in a pod. Hone your reading skills and re-read my positings before you plop another hizzy on us. Pay particular attention wher eI mention now much I detest these kinds of laws.

It's the arrogance of smokers who have caused this bullshit. At least you had the honesty to state that your rant is opinion when misrepresnting my position.

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 16:42:21 EDT from Grey Elf @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Problem with that Pete is the service industry. Casino's still let you smoke.

But of course, the restaurants in the casino's don't.
^^^^^^^
^^^^^
^^^
^
Food related, so there. :>

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 17:12:45 EDT from curly surmudgeon @ Dog Pound BBS II

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 17 2006 10:02am from Peter Pulse @uncnsrd (Uncensored)
Businesses should be free to decide what they allow, and they can post

it on the door.. eg Smoking, No Smoking, Smoking Section or whatever...

If you don't want to hang out with smokers, don't go into a business
that allows smoking.



No question. I think hte conflict arises with smokers in common areas where little option exists for those unwilling to suffer. For instance going to City Hall where one must run a gauntlet of smokers fanning out of every portal.

[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 19:30:12 EDT from wabewalker @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The claim on cancer.ca that second-hand smoke is "more dangerous" isn't terribly objective either, Curly.  More dangerous to whom?  What is the extent of exposure?  What volume of sidestream smoke does one have to inhale, and for how long?  There's a big difference between passing through a cloud on your way into a building, and sharing an office with a chain smoker.  The legislation that has been passed is focused on workplace safety: breathing in any kind of smoke for 8 hours a day, 5 days week is not healthy, including but not exclusive to the second-hand smoke from hundreds of cigarettes over the course of a week.  I wouldn't even try to argue with that assertion, even without "sufficient evidence". 

But that's not the same thing as dealing with an unpleasant moment.  No studies can even suggest that passing through a gauntlet of outdoor smokers will lead to your untimely demise.  The couple at the other end of a dining room lighting up for a 10-minute smoke after a meal may annoy you, but they're not killing you.  If you're sensitive to any allergen, it's going to limit what you can do.  Nobody's trying to put Skippy out of business for making peanut butter, but there are plenty of folks whose airways close up if they even touch a peanut.  For the loudest and latest complainers, it's just an annoyance that they feel entitled to live without.  I feel that way about the guy who had burritos for lunch and farted in the elevator.  Demonizing smokers does nothing but justify some peoples' intolerance for frustration.  That's not a basis for legislation, it's just an excuse to tell others how to live their lives.

Tue 17 Oct 2006 05:04:33 PM EDT from curly surmudgeon@dogpound2 (Dog Pound BBS II)

Now, eat your words: http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html

"Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke. It is harmful even when you cannot see or smell it. Second-hand smoke releases the same 4,000 chemicals as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity. Approximately 50 of these chemicals (carcinogens) cause cancer."

This is the problem with BELIEVERS, they filter the evidence to substantiate opinions. Lack of objectivity and closed minds cannot accept evidence to the contrary, even decades of evidence.



[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 21:22:01 EDT from Groo the Wanderer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The problem with the "you have the right not to go to a place where there is smoking" is that when people were allowed to smoke all the time everywhere, there was no place a non-smoker could go at all that didn't have people smoking, besides the privacy of their own home.  That was basically it.

Not to mention that when you are a non-smoker an ash tray on the table at a restaurant is the equivalent of taking a dump on the table, and when it was allowed everywhere you could not get away from it. So you were actualy limited to eating at home only.  And GOD FORBID you asked a smoker to stop smoking when you were eating, OH MY GOD, it was like you were cutting off a limb.  If people were just more considerate there would never have been the ban in the first place.  If people were a bit nicer and more polite about smoking there would still be smoking in restaurants.  But as usual a few bad apples ruins the bunch. 

I live in an appartment, I can't stop my neibours from smoking, and it comes up through the floor and from the hallway even though it says no smoking out in the hall.  So the idea of walk away didn't really work. 

 

There was this one place I worked at , where in the office people were alowed to leave for a smoke break.  When I asked to take a 5 min break, I wasn't allowed to.  I could only take the normal breaks.  My manager said that I wasn't a smoker so I don't understand.

It was basically a smokers only break.  Me and a bunch of the non-smokers fought long and hard with the vice president over this, sent him letters and e-mails, and he left it up to the manager who was pissed off that we said anything about it.  He said either everyone gets a break or no one does.

So everyone did.  But man it pissed off Sara!  I'm sorry but most of the time I had to pick up the slack of the smoker because he or she was off for the 5th smoking break of the day.  Thats about 25 mins extra break in a day, about 20 people smoked probably more, assuming that that is all they take.  Honestly that wasn't fair.

 



[#] Tue Oct 17 2006 22:59:57 EDT from Curly Surmudgeon @ Haven BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


wabewalker: Some of your quesitons are obvious such as "to whom?" As to the objectivity, yes, everyone has a bias the idea is not to let it get in the way too much and consider the alternatives.

As I've said three times upstream, these laws are the result of smokers arrogance intruding upon others. When rights clash someone is going to be miffed. It's truly regrettable that smokers pushed the envelope to create the situation, I don't blame those who want clean air for objection even if some are shrill.


Let me give a personal example. I lost my lungs in Vietnam due to a fungus and cannot tolerate tobacco smoke and many other heavy smells that deplete the oxygen content of the air. For 20 years I avoided bars, resturaunts and other smoking establishments but was forced to endure for most of the reasons fleeb and others have elucidated here.

Even so I detest the laws for they _do_ violate consensual behavior. Yes, they are heavy-handed but were the only vehicle possible to stop the encroachment of the arrogant smokers who refused social conventions. As in so many cases the abusive few have created a situation which exceeds their number.

Instead of ranting and raving against those who want clean air, police those who violate social conventions mandating over reaction.


Now I revel in attending concerts, festivals, eateries, and bars that were once off-limits. Equating a voluntary act, smoking, with a uncontrollable act, farting, doesn't demonstrate an objective viewpoint either.

[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 01:06:43 EDT from nadia @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Imagine that it were socially acceptable for some people to go around

a bar twisting the nipples of everybody within 10 feet--hard enough to

cause temporary pain but not hard enough to cause lasting damage. How

is that different than your smoking in such a place, other than the
social expectation? It's causing pain and annoyance, and probably
isn't causing any meaningful long-term damage.

(this part's still my favorite of the thread. i'd rather get my nipples twisted than breathe cigarette smoke, so i don't think it's even a fair comparison.)

[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 05:53:11 EDT from girthta @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

well, farting isn't necessarily a voluntary act.

when visiting grelf, his dog let out the most obnoxious farts which cleared the whole house. We didn't call a cop, we just left. (I'm not making any point here, I just like reliving Dippy's hideous fart moment)

Groo- I agree with you that "Back In The Day" it was very unpleasant for a non-smoker to go most anywhere. But the times have changed. I'm not saying we should lift all the bans on smoking completely, only that in cases like restaurants and bars and places like that it shouldn't be made illegal. The shopkeeper should be able to make that decision. You shouldn't be able to smoke at concerts, though (at least here) a lot of people smoke SOMETHING at concerts, or sporting events, or anywhere there's a large gathering of people in a "public" space.

I feel you on the smoking at work taking a break thing. I'm sorry you had such a bad time of it with your dickhead manager. I allow my employees two 15 minute breaks in addition to their lunch time. If they want to take 3 five minute breaks to go smoke in the morning and another 3 in the afternoon, that's fine, but everyone gets the same amount of time. If they take more time they're docked. I find that the non-smokers tend to forget to take their breaks, but they are there for them to use nontheless. (Managers and Supervisors can do as they please as long as their work gets done)

And I've fired at least one person for abusing it. (she was a smoker) I didn't fire her for smoking, I fired her for taking too many breaks and coming in late all the time. 



[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 09:20:47 EDT from Groo the Wanderer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Unfortunatly, and fortunatly I left that job like weeks later.  Temp agent being what it was. 8) 

Now adays I have gotten use to the smoking my boss does.  It was kind of something I had to get use to.  I'm in a truck for hours at a time with him, so I can't really get away from it.

Most of my friends smoke anyhow so over time you adapt to these things.  *sigh*

 

Also, restaurants and dinners, I understand a ban on smoking, but clubs and bars I really don't.  I mean sure it'sa health hazzard to the non-smoking workers, but these are places

in which people go to to relax and have fun, to socialise and such, like a pay-to-party place.  It is kind of what the place is made for.  Nothing about a bar is good for you.  

It makes little sence. 



[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 09:43:42 EDT from Grey Elf @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 17 2006 5:04pm from curly surmudgeon @dogpound2 (Dog Pound BBS II)
Yet another Rovian attack. Brave motherfuckers hiding behind a
modem...

Anytime you feel you want to show how cowardly we are, come on up to NY.
I'm sure you'd be suprised.


Now, eat your words:
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en
,00.h tml

Sure, just show me where they got their data from, or are you seriously
suggesting just because it's on the web it must be true? The data looks
like the same crap from the 92 EPA report that was vacated.

This is the problem with BELIEVERS, they filter the evidence to
substantiate opinions. Lack of objectivity and closed minds cannot
accept evidence to the contrary, even decades of evidence.

You shouldn't be that hard on yourself Curly, I mean eventually you too
can learn to be a bit less annoying.


As for opinons, here's one from the UK.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/passmok2.htm

Oh my, passive smokers inhale SIX cigarette's a year. So, anger-boy?
Your move.

[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 09:45:45 EDT from Grey Elf @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 17 2006 5:12pm from curly surmudgeon @dogpound2 (Dog Pound BBS II)

No question. I think hte conflict arises with smokers in common areas
where little option exists for those unwilling to suffer. For instance
going to City Hall where one must run a gauntlet of smokers fanning out
of every portal.

Which would be easily fixed by a smoking area away from said portals,
instead of the draconian, "NO SMOKING" and then left to fend for ourselves.
The Kraft building, where I worked for IBM, had a smoking area, so we stayed
away from the front of the place.

[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 09:49:13 EDT from Grey Elf @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Girty: Dippy really does apologize. :>

And some smokers are complete asshole, just as some non-smokers are complete
assholes. I mean c'mon people, if I've tried to teach you anything these
past 18 years is, there are assholes EVERYWHERE.

[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 10:50:25 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


"You may pretend you ain't got one on the bottom of you, but don't fool yourself, boy, it's winkin' at you."

[#] Wed Oct 18 2006 11:04:35 EDT from girthta @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I rather like Dippy's sense of humor. Tell her no apology needed.

(I live with Dr Dan the gas monster!) 



Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... Last