smoking and littering problem

So you believe that businesses should be able to do whatever they want, with impunity? Should mining companies be able to dump raw, acidic leachate directly into rivers and streams? Should clothing manufacturers be able to pay children pennies an hour, sixteen hours a day, to sew garments while trapped in workhouses? Should grocery stores be permitted to sell rancid or rotting meat to its customers?

These are all rhetorical questions, and obviously the answer is 'NO'. The reason the answers are obvious is because balanced against corporate freedoms is the obligation to observe certain basic protections -- for consumers, for children, for the environment. We don't live in a laissez-faire capitalist society anymore, and thank God Almighty we don't.

I'd like to know that when water comes out of my kitchen tap, it's not going to be contaminated with lead or PCBs. I'd like to know that when the nuclear plant down the way changes its fuel rods every few years, it responsibly stores and manages that waste, not buries it or dumps it somewhere.

Our society is bound with a web of protections, the result of many decades of liberals, progressives, and conservatives (the old-fashioned kind, at any rate) fighting for the greater good.

So when the science comes out unequivocally that second hand smoke causes harm, illness and even death to consumers and employees, and governments follow through by removing or reducing the potential for that injury, corporations are obliged to obey those laws designed to protect us.

It's not a precedent -- or if it is, it was established 'round about 1900 or so, by (Republican) Teddy Roosevelt and other like-minded leaders.

Your thinking reminds me of the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm, who were taught to bleat, "Four legs bad! Two legs better!"

I never said that I think that people should be able to do whatever they want with impunity. With freedom comes responsibility. Folks need to be responsible for the decisions that they make. And that includes businesses and individuals. Everybody.

There is a significant difference between your water/nuclear plant examples and smoking in restaurants: control. I can't control the water supply that comes into my house, and I cannot control how utilities run their nuclear plants. I can control whether I go to or work in a restaurant that allows smoking.

I have not studied the various second hand smoking reports (though I have seen them all over the map). I have seen a lot of conclusory statements such as exposure to second hand smoke increases risk of heart disease. But by how much? And how much exposure are talking about?

But I don't think such studies are very important to the issue of smoking bans. From what I have seen, the majority of folks voting for smoking bans do so because of a hate of smoking (and often times of smokers). The health issue is just an excuse. Certainly there are exceptions but from everything I have seen, folks voting for bans based on true health concerns are just a very vocal minority.

Americans tend to pay lip service to health. We talked about how much it means to us a lot but in practice we do all kinds of things to the contrary. Obesity is a good example. Despite all of the risks associated with it (more and more links to various diseases are reported on a regular basis), as a country, we get more and more obese.

But if people are so concerned with the health risks associated with smoking, I do not understand why we just don't ban it outright. And should we charge parents who smoke around their kids with child endangerment? If there are signficant dangers with spending a couple of hours occasionally in the non-smoking section of a restaurant because of smoking, it seems to me that the dangers must be significally greater for kids living full time in houses with smokers and no non-smoking sections and spending hours every week in vehicles with parents who smoke. Should we regulate that too?

I do think its different from good ol' Teddy days because of the control/no-control issue. Though I think its fair to say that helmet/seatbelt laws are on the control side of that issue so to that extent, smoking bans are not really precedents (even though helmet/seatbelt laws were not passed because people hated anything/anyone). So because of those issues, I withdraw the precedent comment. I still think the smoking bans are bad and dangerous decisions.

And I agree that businesses are now obligated to follow Ohio's smoking ban. I have never said anything to the contrary.

And in my 4 decades plus of life, I have never seen anything approaching a laissez faire government. Over those years, there has been something of an ebb and flow between heavy government regulation and reduced regulation. But over that time, the trend has clearly been toward increased regulation. And that fact that someone isn't in favor of any given regulation does not mean that they are in favor of ending all government regulations.

And your thinking reminds me of a lot of things as well. Though I think such statements are just garbage rhetoric which does nothing to further a discussion of any given issue (though that presumes there is an interest to have an actually discussion on the topic in the first place rather than just to exchange garbage rhetoric).

I love when people who don't get their way become constitutional scholars. It's the whole, "I think, therefore I can" thing, which demonstrates all kinds of problems with the scholar part and the argument they're trying to make. :)

For the record, I think legislating the smoking ban in Ohio was stupid (but these are the same voters who wrote a casino monopoly in to the Constitution). I think it should absolutely be up the individual business owner to decide what's right for their own business in terms of smoking. And that said, if a business says no smoking, or do it in a designated area, comply or don't give them the business. It's not any more complicated than that.

Ive seen and smelled a few people at CP smoking marijuana. Needless to say after i called CP, they sent the CP police to them and had them in cuffs going to either the CP police office or to jail. I dont mind people smoking. But when its marijuana or other drugs and there are kids around in the park, you got issues when you dont care to smoke it out in the open when theres 1,000's of people around. Keep your marijuana and other drugs in your house. Cause you will get caught.

Really? Weed at an amusement park? That's just sad.

Jeff said:
I love when people who don't get their way become constitutional scholars. It's the whole, "I think, therefore I can" thing, which demonstrates all kinds of problems with the scholar part and the argument they're trying to make. :)

For the record, I think legislating the smoking ban in Ohio was stupid (but these are the same voters who wrote a casino monopoly in to the Constitution). I think it should absolutely be up the individual business owner to decide what's right for their own business in terms of smoking. And that said, if a business says no smoking, or do it in a designated area, comply or don't give them the business. It's not any more complicated than that.

You really said it best.

^^^

You do realize the cigarette (which is also a drug) is far more dangerous, right? Other drugs? Have you seen people doing lines of coke in line too?

I'd rather stand behind the guy smoking weed than the guy smoking a cigarette.

And for those who still think that smoking has no proven health issues, take a look at this.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ha3K5Fb7DoM/SiD4L4x88sI/AAAAAAAAAa0/yJemG5zVX-4/s320/smokers-lung.jpg

If you want to do that to yourself...fine. Just don't do it around me please. I am already pissed off about how much I pay for health insurance, and you smokers are part of that problem. Cedar point is supposed to be a "family" park, not a bar. Cedar point is the worst park when it comes to smokers(indiana beach is a close second). I know that most of you smokers on this board DO follow the rules and use a smoking area when needed, but there are those that don't give a crap and smoke anywhere they want regardless of the rules.

Smokers are always screaming" it's our right to smoke". Well, it's a non smokers right to not have to inhale cigerette smoke as well. So where do you meet?

I have no problem with a designated smoking areas in a park. But I do have a problem when people disregard the rules and smoke on the midway or in line and blow smoke everywhere. Granted, the park needs to make it more clear that the rule does exsist and they need to inforce it. I like what six flags is doing at some of there parks. The have a huge banner at the front gat that says "smoke free park" and violators will be ejected without a refund. They also make announcements on the pa system as well. Here is what I am talking about.

http://coasterbuzz.com/Forums/Thread/56373.aspx?id=786342

Cedar point needs to make it clear that smokers have to use designated areas if they choose to smoke. Maybe a banner and more sign in the park, or maybe even make an announcement once and a while on the public address system.

chris325 said:
Really? Weed at an amusement park? That's just sad.

You act surprised somehow. Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case, right on.

Also, helpful hint for anyone thinking about this: Brownies, man, brownies.

Actually, first you make the butter, then you make the brownies. :)

Crazy horse,

Note that the first lung is that of someone who has occassionally smelled second hand smoke. So see, you're fine.

Dude - its the 3rd-hand smoke that'll get ya!

And, interestingly enough, Apple is no longer honoring warranties* for smokers, because 3rd-hand smoke is deemed hazardous to human health. Real classy, Apple. I'm assuming they no longer have a PR department over there or something.

*Of course, once this issue gets enough press, Apple will probably do the "right thing".

The Geek Squad will need to update their uniforms to include hazmat suits.

djDaemon said:
And, interestingly enough, Apple is no longer honoring warranties* for smokers, because 3rd-hand smoke is deemed hazardous to human health. Real classy, Apple. I'm assuming they no longer have a PR department over there or something.

*Of course, once this issue gets enough press, Apple will probably do the "right thing".

So what is it that all of these companys, restaurants, and stores don't know that you do? There is a big reason more and more places are going smoke free.Like it or not, smoking is on the downslope. People are actualy thinking about there health a little more these days(imagine that).

Smoking leaves a film on everything in the house. My aunt was a 1/2 a pack a day smoker, and when she passed away from lung cancer we had to go clean out her house. Everything was coverd in a sticky yellow film. And she always smoked next to an open or cracked window. I have seen first hand the effects of smoking, so doin't even try to tell me that smoking has no effect on non smokers. It took my aunt from me.

There is a typical smokers mentaility.....They expect everyone else to bend over backwords for them. If apple has proof that smoke is doing harm to the computers, than so be it. If you owned a company and had this sort of proof, what would you do?

If companies, restaurants and stores were making the business decision to ban smoking, I would be all for it. But that isn't what is happening. Smoking bans have been mandated (at least in Ohio and other states with which I am familiar).

And I just saw an article over the weekend which indicated that within the next 10 years, something like 1/2 of all adults in Ohio are expected to be obese. We are thinking about our health a little more? Ok.

As for Apple, I would like to see the basis in their written warranties for stating that smoking voided the warranty. Would also like to see whatever instances they have voided warranties. And its an interesting move to take in terms of PR.

crazy horse said:

...so doin't even try to tell me that smoking has no effect on non smokers. It took my aunt from me.

Can you point out where I made such a claim?

They expect everyone else to bend over backwords for them.

The same could be said of smokers, who try to get legislation passed against smoking in private establishments, rather than simply choosing to patronize non-smoking establishments.

If apple has proof that smoke is doing harm to the computers, than so be it. If you owned a company and had this sort of proof, what would you do?

Their warranty makes no mention of 3rd hand smoke. Apple is denying the coverage because they claim the residue poses a health risk to their employees. And no, they have no proof of that.

Perfectly said, GoBucks.

djDaemon said:
Their warranty makes no mention of 3rd hand smoke. Apple is denying the coverage because they claim the residue poses a health risk to their employees. And no, they have no proof of that.

Which only means that Apple needs to follow OSHA guidlines for training and providing their employees with "biohazard" protection to work on said computers, not that they can deny the warranty claim. Or at least that's my take on it.

Icky and disgusting on its own does not violate OSHA requirements.

GoBucks89 said:
Smoking bans have been mandated (at least in Ohio and other states with which I am familiar).

I wasn't mandated in Ohio, it was voted on by the people. Although, you could say that it has been mandated by the people of Ohio.

In Ohio, the smoking bans are mandatory which is what I meant when I said mandated.