Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver, on this we agree.

Though I'll still say, editing films or whatever to get rid of smoking but leaving all the murdering in is hilarious.

I'm not a fan of smoking tobacco. However vaporizing other plants I've got no beef with

There is a vocal group of anti-smokers out there; for some people its even an automatic turn-off which is understandable but hypocritical if those same people are't healthy themselves (particularly in the fast/junk food and lack of exercise departments since those are personal choices as well).

When it comes to smoking in private establishments though that should be up to the owner imo. Hookah cafes must not be doing well in areas with more stringently enforced smoking bans :(

Censoring smoking does seem stupid and unnecessary especially since most of the classics featured such. But hey to each their own

True. I'm against Censorship of any kind but a pg-13 or R rating for movies depicting smoking. Laaaaaaaaaame.

It is funny that slapping someone won't bump a movie from G to PG but smoking will make a movie go from G or pg to pg-13 (assuming the movies original audience was kids and then someone added a smoking scene).

I remember a few kids cartoons growing up that depicted certain characters smoking. The cartoons were still "G" rated; ie...approved for ALL audiences.

Funny how times change.

Problem with letting an owner decide smoking or not is that if the vast majority of customers are smokers who do you think the owner will side with? No matter how many smokers bitch about it they won't stop eating there. They will either suck it up and go without a cigarette for 30-40 minutes (impossible for most smokers it seems) or let their food get cold going out to smoke every 10-15 minutes. I think before the smoking ban in Mn the only establishments smoke free were most, if not all, Federal building and possibly shopping centers and schools and fitness centers ( the boiler room was quite popular with teachers to go sneak a smoke). NONE of the restaurants in my town were smoke free, neither were any of the bars. Now that has changed and I am a happy person. Also, the smokers will say it infringes on their rights. I'm sorry but allowing some gakhole(s) to sit near me and breath their toxic fumes into my area deprives me of my right to a clean and healthy eating experience.

It's like smoking in a movie theatre. Smoke outside before the movie. If you can't go 90-140 minutes without a cigarette don't blame the theatre and non-smokers for your obviously out of control addiction.

Fateweaver wrote:Problem with letting an owner decide smoking or not is that if the vast majority of customers are smokers who do you think the owner will side with? No matter how many smokers bitch about it they won't stop eating there. They will either suck it up and go without a cigarette for 30-40 minutes (impossible for most smokers it seems) or let their food get cold going out to smoke every 10-15 minutes. I think before the smoking ban in Mn the only establishments smoke free were most, if not all, Federal building and possibly shopping centers and schools and fitness centers ( the boiler room was quite popular with teachers to go sneak a smoke). NONE of the restaurants in my town were smoke free, neither were any of the bars. Now that has changed and I am a happy person. Also, the smokers will say it infringes on their rights. I'm sorry but allowing some gakhole(s) to sit near me and breath their toxic fumes into my area deprives me of my right to a clean and healthy eating experience.

See I guess state culture was different for me, as where I grew up, smoking indoors was something that determined where you wanted to eat, and most places were non-smoking/partially smoke free for some time before legislation was passed. Same thing with the firearm-in-bar ban here in AZ, after the ban was repealed, I can't find a place where there isn't a giant sign saying "NO FIREARMS". If a place wants to cater to carrying barflies, then let them. Same goes for smoking to me. If I were to open a restaurant, regardless of law, I would make it smoke-free. Smokers can choose not to smoke, non-smokers don't have that choice.

@Fateweaver - I can see your point vis a vis smoking in restaurants. It's not something I particularly like whilst I'm eating, even though I occasionally smoke. But by the same token, I'm sure you would feel strongly about someone taking away your right to carry a gun outside of the home. Shared environment is shared environment.

Not trying to flame anyone here, just putting it out there.

True although Altered is right in saying that smokers choose to do something. Non-smokers don't have that choice unless they want to avoid a particular restaurant and that is not exactly the ideal solution.

Fateweaver wrote:Smokers might think they have more rights than non-smokers but they can stuff it.

I feel that some non-smokers give smokers a bad rap, and that sometimes, it is the non-smokers who think they have more rights than smokers.
The laws in place here in California are not as bad as some of my smoking buddies in other states make them out to be.

I do not like being included in your blanket statement. I have children, so I don't smoke inside my home. I go to the patio.
I do the same thing at a bar, and at work, and at on public transit or at airports that don't have a smoking room.

Not all smokers are the same... So, kind sir, can you please stuff it? See what I did there? I followed Rule Number 1. I was polite

JK, Fate. But seriously, I neither fall under, nor appreciate, your blanket statement about smokers.

His point about the smoker having the choice, not the non smoker, was valid.

If you want to smoke, that's fine, but you really shouldn't expect anyone to put up with your second hand smoke. In bars and restaurants, it was decided that the staff should be able to work in a smoke free environment regardless of what the owner wanted. I know we have different attitudes to that sort of thing to some other places, but I think that's a really cool law.

It is true though that people have taken up smoking here since the ban, because the smoking areas in pubs tend to be quiet enough to have an actual conversation whereas inside tends to be blaring with deafeningly loud music. The socialising all happens outside these days. Unfortunate for those, like me, who hate smoking. Would make more sense if the bar managers would just turn down the noise, but most of 'em (and most of their customers) ain't too bright.

Da Boss wrote:His point about the smoker having the choice, not the non smoker, was valid.

If you want to smoke, that's fine, but you really shouldn't expect anyone to put up with your second hand smoke. In bars and restaurants, it was decided that the staff should be able to work in a smoke free environment regardless of what the owner wanted. I know we have different attitudes to that sort of thing to some other places, but I think that's a really cool law.

It is true though that people have taken up smoking here since the ban, because the smoking areas in pubs tend to be quiet enough to have an actual conversation whereas inside tends to be blaring with deafeningly loud music. The socialising all happens outside these days. Unfortunate for those, like me, who hate smoking. Would make more sense if the bar managers would just turn down the noise, but most of 'em (and most of their customers) ain't too bright.

I never said it wasn't valid... I actually agree that smoking is a choice, and my own personal choice is to do it outside, away from non-smokers.

I said I disliked the fact that he used a ignorant blanket statement to tell me to stuff it because I am a smoker.

I don't know about you, but I found that very rude, and that is a violation of Dakka's Rule #1...

Da Boss wrote:If you want to smoke, that's fine, but you really shouldn't expect anyone to put up with your second hand smoke. In bars and restaurants, it was decided that the staff should be able to work in a smoke free environment regardless of what the owner wanted. I know we have different attitudes to that sort of thing to some other places, but I think that's a really cool law.

I don't think its a cool law. Not because I smoke, but because as a rational person I wouldn't choose to go to a restaurant if it had smokers in it (well, to a limit, a good burger is a good burger). Its my choice to be a patron, and its an owners right to choose what to or not allow in his bar that effects the enjoyment of others around him. Like my AZ bar gun-ban removal example provides, I feel better in a bar that displays the no-firearm sign now. Do I think its wrong to carry a gun? Into a bar, yes, but that's me. I'll just (mostly) avoid the bars that do allow carriers in. Same idea with smoking to me.

This hits limits, especially when you get down to plain ignorant stuff like limiting by skin color, etc etc.

Going beyond this is ridiculous to me, such as the digital removal of cigarettes, especially by law. If its meant to help images fit in with current cultural conceptions to make an extra profit, then go for it, but if someone is holding a legal gun to their head to remove it, then that's beyond the scope of what I believe in. If you don't want your kids seeing smokers and getting the wrong (from your perspective) ideas, then do one of two things: bar them from watching it, or teach them the consequences of the actions of smoking. I prefer the latter, as did my parents.

Like I said earlier, banning stuff only makes it more vehemently chic to do, and creates an impassable barrier. Educating action and consequences does infinitely more than censorship, banning, and such Big Brother actions.

Of course, this is all in private property... where shall we go in the public domain .

Fateweaver wrote:I remember the outrage when the smoking ban effected the area I currently live in (my county). Bar owners and restaurant owners were outraged by it saying they'd lose business.

I noticed the exact opposite. The bars are still as busy as they've always been but now they are busier with like minded individuals such as myself who choose not to smoke. The ones that do smoke go outside the bars and light up and then come back in. In the summer months most of them don't mind stepping outside as most bars let you take your drink with you (mostly for safety sake); the winter months is a whole different story but hey, if standing in -40F temps for 5 minutes to take 7 minutes off your life isn't your idea of fun than stop smoking.

Smokers might think they have more rights than non-smokers but they can stuff it. For the past 3 years I can go into any bar in my county (actually now most of the state) and enjoy clean (well smoke free air at least) air and not have sore lungs and watery eyes by the time I leave.

Also, big tobacco lawsuits are bs. If I was a judge I'd throw the case out without so mach as opening the file. Nobody forced anyone to start smoking, the dangers were well known going back as far as the 60's and people wanting to quit actually can; to say they can't is a copout of the most asinine of proportions. Nobody who chooses to do something of their own free will, either knowing the dangers or having found out the dangers afterwards, should be awarded millions of dollars for grief and strife and whatnot. You chose to do something that would kill you? Tough gak.

I agree with Fateweaver.

The end is Nigh!

utan wrote:

FITZZ wrote:I smoke 20 packs a day and I'm not stoping ...ever.

Oh you WILL stop one day. You all will stop everything one day...

*Nurgle grins*
>

Well,that's true...I will stop everything one day,but...so will you,and since I smoke I get to avoid those adult diaper/organic dementia years.

I don't smoke, but I actively support it.

Why? I don't care if it causes lung cancer, like everything else in life it's a person's choice, and just because the majority of people don't agree with that choice doesn't mean that your choice is wrong.

I may not agree, but I righteously defend your right to do so.

Gwar! wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

Also, big tobacco lawsuits are bs. If I was a judge I'd throw the case out without so mach as opening the file. Nobody forced anyone to start smoking, the dangers were well known going back as far as the 60's and people wanting to quit actually can; to say they can't is a copout of the most asinine of proportions. Nobody who chooses to do something of their own free will, either knowing the dangers or having found out the dangers afterwards, should be awarded millions of dollars for grief and strife and whatnot. You chose to do something that would kill you? Tough gak.

I agree with Fateweaver.

The end is Nigh!

I Agree with Fateweaver concerning this point, I smoke and have smoked for a long time,I'm aware of the health risk and no one forces me to smoke,I as a smoker would not have the stones to stand in front of a judge and demand some sort of financial compinsasion from tabacco companies if I ever become ill due to smoking.
It was my choice to start smoking,it's my choice to continue smoking and nobody owes me sqaut.

Personally, I wouldn't feel safe being in public surrounded by people carrying guns - even though it is the right (in the US) of gun-owners to feel safe by doing so. There has to be some negotiation regarding shared spaces - yes, smoking is unpleasant to many people. It's also a perfectly legal pastime. I believe in a general ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, however there should be the provision for an 'opt-in' scheme of some sort, which would allow people to run 'smoking clubs' or smoke-friendly bars. It could work in a similar way to how they distribute gaming licenses to casinos here in the UK - only a certain number would be available to each county council, based on population numbers. Alternatively, it could work like alchohol licenses, whereby you have to attend a training course and apply for it.
Regarding firearms (slightly OT, but bear with me...) I can pretty much get behind the concept of owning one in order to potentially defend one's home and family, should the need arise...sort of. But I see no reason why private citizens would need to walk around in public places with loaded firearms. If you MUST have one, keep it (somewhere safe) in the home , I say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s - I can't quit smoking NOW, it's only just starting to get interesting...

FITZZ wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

Also, big tobacco lawsuits are bs. If I was a judge I'd throw the case out without so mach as opening the file. Nobody forced anyone to start smoking, the dangers were well known going back as far as the 60's and people wanting to quit actually can; to say they can't is a copout of the most asinine of proportions. Nobody who chooses to do something of their own free will, either knowing the dangers or having found out the dangers afterwards, should be awarded millions of dollars for grief and strife and whatnot. You chose to do something that would kill you? Tough gak.

I agree with Fateweaver.

The end is Nigh!

I Agree with Fateweaver concerning this point, I smoke and have smoked for a long time,I'm aware of the health risk and no one forces me to smoke,I as a smoker would not have the stones to stand in front of a judge and demand some sort of financial compinsasion from tabacco companies if I ever become ill due to smoking.
It was my choice to start smoking,it's my choice to continue smoking and nobody owes me sqaut.

I agree with Fate on this, too. Just not the line above it about smokers stuffing it.

Also, WELCOME BACK GWAR!!! I misseded youz!!!

Albatross wrote:Personally, I wouldn't feel safe being in public surrounded by people carrying guns - even though it is the right (in the US) of gun-owners to feel safe by doing so. There has to be some negotiation regarding shared spaces - yes, smoking is unpleasant to many people. It's also a perfectly legal pastime. I believe in a general ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, however there should be the provision for an 'opt-in' scheme of some sort, which would allow people to run 'smoking clubs' or smoke-friendly bars. It could work in a similar way to how they distribute gaming licenses to casinos here in the UK - only a certain number would be available to each county council, based on population numbers. Alternatively, it could work like alchohol licenses, whereby you have to attend a training course and apply for it.
Regarding firearms (slightly OT, but bear with me...) I can pretty much get behind the concept of owning one in order to potentially defend one's home and family, should the need arise...sort of. But I see no reason why private citizens would need to walk around in public places with loaded firearms. If you MUST have one, keep it (somewhere safe) in the home , I say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
p.s - I can't quit smoking NOW, it's only just starting to get interesting...

See,I agree with you,some sort of compromise concerning clubs/bars would be nice,the problem is America has, in many places, adopted a zero tolerance posistion and for the most part "oops we were wrong." isn't in our "law makers vocabulary.
Their are still some clubs/bars where smoking is still permited (and boy do I love those spots),these mostly consist of jazz and rock&roll clubs and biker spots as well as the occasional neighborhood bar (pubs for you fellas on the other side of the pond),where I live at least,the smoking ban seems to be limited to places that "the beautiful people" gather.

As a TF2 player whose main class is the ever-flamed W+m1 pyro; I much prefer the smoke after this rather than tobacco:

well...if people want to smoke, let 'em smoke..it's not as if the movies say "So, kids..now that you've watched this movie, and y'all thought it was great, go out and start smoking, otherwise you're not cool/a good citizen/Santa hates you/you'll go to hell/Gwar! will forget the rules..

r3n3g8b0y wrote:well...if people want to smoke, let 'em smoke..it's not as if the movies say "So, kids..now that you've watched this movie, and y'all thought it was great, go out and start smoking, otherwise you're not cool/a good citizen/Santa hates you/you'll go to hell/Gwar! will forget the rules..

Exactly, there is no way that any rational person would become

to that kind of cultural stimulation. Its just nonsense that is harmless from a

audiences perspective. I personally believe that

although second hand smoke COULD cause health problems, its additionally

just irritating to be around, as my asthmatic fiance can attest to. But we don't bitch about how there should be

a smoking ban, but we are patrons to places where smoking is not allowed (though we dont have that choice, since its banned)

Can I put in a random interlude that I find it insane that people are allowed to walk around carrying handguns and that they actually find this safe? Different cultures, apparently, but the idea of a lot of people having readily accessible deadly weapons on their person and then consuming alcohol, combined with human nature being what it is, is just asking for fatalities.

Back on topic: I will not eat in a smoking establishment if I can avoid it, because I find the smell repulsive and it ruins the taste of food. If a bar wants to be a smoking bar then fine, I just won't go in there. I'd prefer some sign that it was a smoking bar, but it tends to be pretty obvious by scent once you walk in. There are other places which I strongly agree must be smoke free: hopsitals (obvious reasons, yet some people protest), schools and other places children are (you can choose to smoke if you want when you're of age, kids generally aren't allowed to leave their school/playground/daycare just because someone lights up, and it does have a greater effect on children than adults), or anywhere that an ignition source is a hazard. Seriously, I've seen people stamping cigarettes out on ground that has petrol split on it and near a pressurised tank of flammables.

Morgrim wrote:Can I put in a random interlude that I find it insane that people are allowed to walk around carrying handguns and that they actually find this safe? Different cultures, apparently, but the idea of a lot of people having readily accessible deadly weapons on their person and then consuming alcohol, combined with human nature being what it is, is just asking for fatalities.
.

Contrary to popular belife America is not "Dodge city" and most citizens arn't walking around with "shootin' irons" straped to their hip ( unless your down in Frazzs' neck of the woods),sure we have alot of citizens who own firearms,I myself own several,and each has their own reasons for doing so.
As for concealed carry permits,theses vary from state to state,and most states have provisions prohibiting carring firearms into any business where alcohol is served.

I guess my ultimate issue is not in the banning of cigarettes where individuals have no choice of attending (hospitals, schools, gov't buildings, etc), or for hazardous reasons (flammable, etc), because second-hand smoke does provide a health risk for those not making a choice of any kind. The issue for me is in the big brother banning of smoking in private areas, like bars, homes, etc etc etc. An owner should have the choice to allow it or not, just as a patron has the choice to go to a place or not.

Morgrim wrote:Can I put in a random interlude that I find it insane that people are allowed to walk around carrying handguns and that they actually find this safe? Different cultures, apparently, but the idea of a lot of people having readily accessible deadly weapons on their person and then consuming alcohol, combined with human nature being what it is, is just asking for fatalities.

A 100lb woman is much safer carrying Springfield XDM than not. Just saying.

And a woman carrying what appears to be a desert eagle (?) is much hotter than one that is not. Just saying.

Wrexasaur wrote:And a woman carrying what appears to be a desert eagle (?) is much hotter than one that is not. Just saying.

Sexy lady...sexy gun...god BLESS America!!

Frazzled wrote:

Morgrim wrote:Can I put in a random interlude that I find it insane that people are allowed to walk around carrying handguns and that they actually find this safe? Different cultures, apparently, but the idea of a lot of people having readily accessible deadly weapons on their person and then consuming alcohol, combined with human nature being what it is, is just asking for fatalities.

A 100lb woman is much safer carrying Springfield XDM than not. Just saying.

Frankly I find a world where a girl can't pack a Tommy Gun OFFENSIVE!

Frazzled wrote:
A 100lb woman is much safer carrying Springfield XDM than not. Just saying.

Only because the majority of people do not carry.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
A 100lb woman is much safer carrying Springfield XDM than not. Just saying.

Only because the majority of people do not carry.

Incorrect. At any point she can defend herself against either an unarmed or armed intruder if she herself is carrying and trained.

"A Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall." Daniel Boone.