|
On May 24 2011 22:18 odE wrote:
Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you.
Yeah they're going to implement a ban on displaying tobacco in stores here too, seems like a really weird one to me, what the hell is that going to do?
|
|
|
On May 24 2011 06:08 insaneMicro wrote:But why ban people from smoking in public? It's neither harming nor annoying anyone.
How is second hand smoke not harmful or annoying?
|
On May 24 2011 22:29 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 22:18 odE wrote:
Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you. Yeah they're going to implement a ban on displaying tobacco in stores here too, seems like a really weird one to me, what the hell is that going to do?
no more free advertisement for tobacco products.
|
I have no idea. People wont stop buying cigarettes becouse of that. Maybe some people wont start smoking if they dont see the packages anywhere.. Though most of the first timers dont just go to a store and buy a pack they get one from a friend or smoke when drunk or something else.
|
On May 24 2011 22:32 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 22:29 jello_biafra wrote:On May 24 2011 22:18 odE wrote:
Its the same here. Smoking isnt allowed inside or in restaurants/bars. Also starting next year stores cant keep out the smokepacks on shelves or anywhere you can see them. You get to pick what you want from a catalog and they will then give it to you. Yeah they're going to implement a ban on displaying tobacco in stores here too, seems like a really weird one to me, what the hell is that going to do? no more free advertisement for tobacco products.
True, I hardly think they need to advertise the stuff anyway though, people will still buy it regardless and actual adverts have been banned for years.
On May 24 2011 22:33 odE wrote:
I have no idea. People wont stop buying cigarettes becouse of that. Maybe some people wont start smoking if they dont see the packages anywhere.. Though most of the first timers dont just go to a store and buy a pack they get one from a friend or smoke when drunk or something else.
Yeah I know that's there intention but I agree with you, people don't start smoking just because they see a pack in the shop and decide "I wonder what this is like".
|
In Ontario, smoking has been banned indoors for a few years now and it's been nothing but great.
I don't really have anything against smoking if it's not done around me. It's stupid, don't get me wrong, but it's not like it affects me if it's not done around me. I do find that more low-class people tend to smoke than more decent people. This is really apparent when you go by the smoke pit of some place of employment or a high school. I would not want to hang around these people.
Having said that, I just got back from Las Vegas. You can smoke ANYWHERE there, and it is totally fine with me. The ventilation in most of these casinos is so good that you hardly notice it unless someone is right beside you. It was only ever unpleasant when one of my friends was smoking a cigar. I couldn't care less the whole time I was there.
|
We've had the no display law here for years now. All it means is there is less experimenting with other brands because you don't want to be the douche that holds up the line while the clerk takes them out one by one for you to check out.
|
On May 24 2011 22:32 T3tra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 06:08 insaneMicro wrote:But why ban people from smoking in public? It's neither harming nor annoying anyone. How is second hand smoke not harmful or annoying?
SHS effects outdoors are not proven to be a problem, as I and several others have pointed this out earlier in this thread.
+ Show Spoiler +
I have also shown over and over why it being annoying is a terrible argument several times like here.
On the other side you have Fush's post to support something otherwise than what I am saying. Then again both sides really comes down to opinion, on what you believe should warrant a ban. If ban's of certain things are good because 'just in case' or if you value others privileges above that. All a matter of opinion. See many people posting not reading the thread 
|
I personally belive it should be that any resturant club etc is forced to provide smoke free tables etc but should still be able to provide tables where smoking is allowed for the customers that prefer so. I really don't see why smokers and nonsmokers cant co-exist.
In a country with public healthcare I feel its a bit different and the state should be alowed to ban smoking in public places.
|
On May 24 2011 22:51 Robinsa wrote:
I personally belive it should be that any resturant club etc is forced to provide smoke free tables etc but should still be able to provide tables where smoking is allowed for the customers that prefer so. I really don't see why smokers and nonsmokers cant co-exist.
In a country with public healthcare I feel its a bit different and the state should be alowed to ban smoking in public places. The part about smoking tables is more because of the right of a person to work in a smoke free area. Which is normal for other businesses, and was extended to waiters and such. I agree though, we should be able to co-exist. Taking away outdoor public areas for smokers is not good, especially on such a weak premise.
Edit: Pleased to meet you too!! 
|
On May 24 2011 06:10 Blizzard_torments_me wrote:
Kinda ironic really. They let stuff like like gun rights for civilians run free but they ban smoking.
Er....I think you might want to look up the definition of the word irony.
|
Funny thing, I'm pretty sure I remember hearing they were planning on making cigarrettes 'under the counter' over here, as in not put them on display and have them in plain dull packets. Nominally, so kids won't be attracted by them.
I don't know about you guys, but I think this is totally necessary. After all, fag packets now...tacky and depressing gold and silver, pictures of horrific smoking related diseases and 'YOU WILL FUCKING DIE IF YOU SMOKE THESE' written all over them...they just scream child friendly.
|
Totally support this, hate it when people sit next to you and pull out a cigarette and bother you with it.
|
Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
|
On May 24 2011 16:45 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Totally agree with this legislation.
I have a "live and let live" outlook on life -> so long as I never smell cigarette smoke or have to look at cigarette butts littering roads/sidewalks, I'm happy. I completely agree smoking shouldn't be allowed in public, save for designated areas.
this is going too far. i agree that littering should be banned on places like beaches, where people like to lie down and rump in the sand.
but i never understood why its so dreadful to throw a butt or any other litter in a street that used to be a field or forest and has now already been tarmacked into a grey flat blob of industrial pollution with cars whizzing past, fumes spewing out of chimleys and all plant and animal life extinguished.
the only time i ever put litter in the bin in a place like this (city or town) is when i feel it could be a hazard or when i feel like some person might attack me for being so inconsiderate (and then drive away on their motorbike as the remaining birds fall out of the tree from the noise vibrations)
i think selling cigarettes should be banned and the business owners put in jail, but honestly i couldnt give a toss about inhailing 1 part per zillion of someones ciggy fumes, as six cars go past and i walk by the factory outlet that raped an environment and uses slave labour in other countries. litter seems trivial after this
as for banning smoking in public places (havent bothered to read the article), maybe it is a decent idea in nyc as some people have said its a constant barrage up their nostrils. if they banned it in public where i lived then it would simply not make sense
|
On May 24 2011 23:33 jaydubz wrote:
Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC.
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
|
On May 24 2011 22:47 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 22:32 T3tra wrote:On May 24 2011 06:08 insaneMicro wrote:But why ban people from smoking in public? It's neither harming nor annoying anyone. How is second hand smoke not harmful or annoying? SHS effects outdoors are not proven to be a problem, as I and several others have pointed this out earlier in this thread. + Show Spoiler +I have also shown over and over why it being annoying is a terrible argument several times like here. On the other side you have Fush's post to support something otherwise than what I am saying. Then again both sides really comes down to opinion, on what you believe should warrant a ban. If ban's of certain things are good because 'just in case' or if you value others privileges above that. All a matter of opinion. See many people posting not reading the thread
first paragraph
"When non-smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke it is called involuntary smoking or passive smoking. Non-smokers who breathe in secondhand smoke take in nicotine and other toxic chemicals just like smokers do. The more secondhand smoke you are exposed to, the higher the level of these harmful chemicals in your body."
You have to be quite ignorant to be believe that when you smoke outdoors its suddenly not harmful.
It might be less harmful than smoking indoors because the concentration of cancer-causing agents is lower, but its still harmful.
Its not a matter of opinion. Its all just one big probability calculation whether or not these agents damage your DNA and cause cancer.
Besides this, when you think about it there isnt even a good reason for smoking to exist in the first place. Its useless and doesnt have any benefits.
The only reason it still exists is because of the taxes.
|
On May 24 2011 23:37 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2011 23:33 jaydubz wrote:
Being from NYC I fully support this and am eager for them to do more. There's nothing more annoying then being stuck walking behind someone smoking a cigarette. There's no reason I should have to inhale second hand smoke.
From what I've heard in Japan there are actually designated smoking areas. Hopefully one day this will be implemented in NYC. Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
Why ban all cars? What about electric cars?
|
Are you also pro banning all cars in New York? They harm you a lot more than walking behind a person who smokes...
We have rules in place to prevent cars from driving on sidewalks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
