HelperElfMissy 42 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Enclosed spaces are not great for sharing with a smoker. Unless everyone in that space is happy to be smoking or secondhand smoking. Cars. Buses. Trains. Airplanes. The Space Shuttle. (Ok so I am trying to lighten the mood). I have been on an Airplane which allowed smoking - it was a scary flight and even the non smokers were bumming smokes - it was HORRENDOUS! And I was a smoker at the time (who did not smoke on the flight). At the next level you have workplaces, bars and restaurants etc. These are tougher - there were/are some workplaces with a large smoking culture. People often enjoy having a smoke with their beer in the bar. But the OH&S laws (Aus) were mainly responsible for these changes. Even if a bar staffer was happy to accept the risks and work in that environment at 20, if they got cancer at 50 they may change their mind and get all litigious...people had to watch their backs. However I really don't see a problem with provision of a vented room or outside space which is clearly marked SMOKING AREA, where table service is not provided (keep the staff safe) that smokers can be without persecution. If a non smoker wants to join them - so be it. I don't particularly like finding myself on a chairlift behind someone who is taking the opportunity to have a quick smoke - there is no escape when the wind is bringing it straight back into your face. I would rather be on the ground next to them - because I can CHOOSE to move. If everyone shows a bit of consideration and understanding there is room enough in the world for everyone and their preferences. If we were all the same and hygienically homogenized then it would be a very boring place indeed. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 MB not much point in trying to find a middle road when you're dealing with zealots. Believe me they won't listen to reason and won't stop their crusade until all smokers are hanging from a cross! What I find amusing is how often the most zealous of them are the reformed smokers. It's a bit like born again Christians they are often the most extreme in their righteousness. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Originally Posted By: Mamabear However I really don't see a problem with provision of a vented room or outside space which is clearly marked SMOKING AREA, where table service is not provided (keep the staff safe) that smokers can be without persecution. If a non smoker wants to join them - so be it. From what I understand, in Ontario at least, it is now illegal to smoke even in outdoor bar patios (clearly marker or not). And for the record, I would consider someone smoking on the lift in front me me an inconsiderate git because I don't want to smell that when I'm on the mountain and he/she is breaking the rules. I feel the exact same way when I get into a gondola that someone has been smoking in. Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 'Zealots'?! Funny shit. I always have a good chuckle at that little box-like "Smoking Room" at Narita when I go there. It just seems so almost comically pathetic, I suppose they don't realise. But it's a good idea caging them off in their own cloud of smoke. Just wondering, does that thick cloud of smoke make the experience better somehow? Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 As long as whatever they do, doesn't hurt me directly/indirectly then let them do what they want. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Same in Perth now too BM. But I think that is an over reaction. People in an outdoor beer garden out the back of a pub are not permitted to smoke, but they ARE allowed to congregate in the front doorway of the establishment where everyone entering or leaving has to pass through the curtain of smoke. People at Aussie Airports must move outside the building - and there the smokers congregate on the red marked area's in front of the doors that says NO SMOKING - and smoke. It would be MUCH better if the bars and airports and other public spaces provided well thought out area's for smokers. There would be less imposition on nonsmokers that way. So while I scoff at the glass walled and vented smoking cubicles at Haneda and Narita they really are much more progressive and useful than the 'push them as far away as possible but provide no alternatives' path we have taken here. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 So no one thinks we should also ban BBQ's because they also produce carcinogens? Link to post Share on other sites
grungy-gonads 54 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 No, not at all. Don't have one in my garden without my permission though. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Originally Posted By: Go Native So no one thinks we should also ban BBQ's because they also produce carcinogens? surely if you are going to be factually correct, shouldn't we ban burnt food? Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 It's how you cook it. What kind of oil to use and not to. Most people know to avoid burnt meat or bread because they are carcinogens. unless you like the taste of it ... By the way, people should be aware that the WHO was compromised by the tabbaco industry. WHO consultants on their pay role. More on Wiki ... Some consider second had smoke more carcinogenic. Why can't smokers put it in a little pipe so at least it will be third hand smoke? Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Surely 3rd hand is when the 2er smoker exhales out the 1er smoke onto someone else? Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Originally Posted By: Jynxx or bread because they are carcinogens. unless you like the taste of it ... You do realise then that toast is carciongenic. Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 My point exactly .. and we have a choice to eat it or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 What most people don't know is that the biggest study ever done on passive smoking which was conducted over a 40 year period with over 118,000 people in the study revealed only a marginally increased risk of coronary heart disease (and an even smaller effect on lung cancer). The increase in relative risk was slightly smaller than in numerous similar studies, but within the same range – the sort of increase that, given the margins of error of such studies, would generally be deemed too small to be considered of significance. Of course there were claims that the study was influenced by the tobacco industry but that occurs for any study that doesn't support the zealots's view. The findings of the study though were peer reviewed and published by the well respected British Medical Journal. But the zealots will never let science stop them from their crusade! Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 List your source and reference. You sound like one of the zealots on the other side of the camp. quote/ Of course there were claims that the study was influenced by the tobacco industry but that occurs for any study that doesn't support the zealots's view. /unquote Personal bias quote/ But the zealots will never let science stop them from their crusade! /unquote Personal bias, without proof and nothing to do with science. When studies show an absolute risk of 2% and an attributed risk of 20%, we are talking statistical analysis . The real life significance consideration, whether big or small, is a personal interpretation. What GN and gg is arguing is in this area. Just waving flags. Stick to facts and stop using science to back your own views. Link to post Share on other sites
pie-eater 207 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Here's my science, I just **** hate smoking and people smoking in my face. Don't give a shit if they decide to willingly pollute themselves. Just get out of my face and my space. That's it. Link to post Share on other sites
Jynxx 4 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Smokers and non-smokers don't mix. I think that's all there is to it on the emotional level and health issues. so, how do we segregate them? I find that as an acceptable solution, like the glass walls and cubicles. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 No point getting into a big debate of the science really. Both sides reckon they have science on their side, a bit like the global warming debate. Jynxx for once I agree with you. Segregation that actually works is the best solution. I fully agree that non smokers should have venues in which they are not subjected to smoke. I also believe though that there should be venues or areas within venues for those that do enjoy a smoke over dinner or drinks. At least up here in Niseko there is a good mix of smoking and non smoking establishments so everyone can be happy. The issue I have is with the zealots who don't believe smokers should have any space available at all anywhere to partake in what is still a very legal drug. Or they believe they have a right to enter any enclosed space anywhere and never have to put up with smokers. Many even would like to see smoking banned from open spaces even though the science is pretty unequivocal that there is no risk to non smokers in open spaces. It's this complete and utter intolerance that is annoying. Link to post Share on other sites
bobby12 0 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Mamabear: "With Private cover there is indeed a higher premium for a smoker, or even an ex-smoker." Actually not true in Japan, at least with the company I got a consultation with. The refused to adjust premium even though I do not smoke, drink or have dangerous job/commute. Jynxx: "so, how do we segregate them? I find that as an acceptable solution, like the glass walls and cubicles." Basically yes acceptable because it keeps their sxxt out of my face, however who pays for that? Smokers should have to pay to enter those booths. I dont want my airport tax going up to pay for those rooms when they could simply tell them not to smoke within 50M of the airport. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Honestly don't know how you rabid anti smokers manage to live in Japan! It must be very hard on you Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Court ruling today. Quote: State, Japan Tobacco ruled not liable for illnesses of smokers Wednesday 20th January, 03:58 PM JST YOKOHAMA — The Yokohama District Court on Wednesday dismissed a damages suit filed by three former smokers who argued they have developed health problems, including lung cancer, because Japan Tobacco Inc has sold cigarettes despite acknowledging their harmfulness and the state has not imposed significant regulations on distribution. ‘‘You cannot blame JT for causing members of the general public to develop diseases and die just because it continues producing and selling (cigarettes),’’ Presiding Judge Kunio Mizuno said. He also discharged the state from liability, rejecting the demand of Koreyoshi Takahashi, 67, from Yokohama, and two other plaintiffs that JT and the state pay 10 million yen in compensation to each of them. The three plaintiffs had smoked for 20 to 37 years. One has already died. On the production and sales of cigarettes, Mizuno said the Diet should decide if laws are necessary following national debate. During the court hearings, JT argued each person has the free will to decide whether to smoke and sought the rejection of the suit. In January 2006, the Supreme Court tossed out a similar damages suit as well. Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Originally Posted By: bobby12 Basically yes acceptable because it keeps their sxxt out of my face, however who pays for that? Smokers should have to pay to enter those booths. I dont want my airport tax going up to pay for those rooms when they could simply tell them not to smoke within 50M of the airport. Right. I don't use airplanes so I don't think my taxes should go towards buying airports. I don't drive so I don't think my taxes should go towards road work. I don't have a learning disability so I don't think my taxes should go towards special education. I don't use the city gym so I don't think my local taxes should go towards subsidizing them. I don't drink so I don't think my taxes should go towards treating alcoholism, liver disease or rehabilitation for those who injure themselves because of booze. I don't ski so I don't think my taxes should pay for sports related ski injuries. It's a rather stupid argument I think... Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 So... what do you do, Black Mountain? Link to post Share on other sites
Thundercat 60 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 LOL, I've never made any of the above arguments I mentioned, just repeating the nonsense that I've heard in the past. Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Reminded me of an Adam Ant song, can't think of the name... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts