[LDB]

It would really be nice if people were considerate enough to not need to be legally required to do what they should. Unfortunately the majority aren't and never will be so it's time to ban all smoking within 50 feet of any building used by the public. At least then you could wait for a shower or watch a movie or whatever without coming out stinking so bad you can't stand to be around yourself.

Leo Bricker, owner trucks 3034, 4958
OOIDA 677319
73's K5LDB
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

[redytrk]

I am for that 50 ft rule. Too many times I/we nearly gag when entering a building. Employees and others think they have to be as close to the door for their smoke breaks.

(there goes another five bucks)

[Tennesseahawk]

I guess it was only a matter of time before this topic came up.

Leo... first off, smoking is not illegal. Neither is deisel, which I think smells worse. Second, how would you suggest this ban happens? To be nationwide, it would have to be federal. That would mean that little thing called the Bill of Rights would get torn up yet again.

Think of what you're saying. YOU don't like the smell of cig smoke, so YOU think THEY should ban it in public. That's just the opposite of what you usually preach in here. So you have to make a choice. Do you want more government interference or less? Do you want the Constitution or not? It's not a public opinion document. You can't pick and choose what's on it. What's next? Fast food? Already started that. Let's just ban everything that everyone is opposed to. Get it over with.

Since things have become PC, those have become law. For instance, Ethnic Intimidation, the all-so-popular "You got off on murder, but you denied his CIVIL RIGHTS", hiring someone you have a bad feeling about because you may get viewed as a racist,sexist, etc. In Canada and Europe you get tossed in jail for having an OPINION on the holocaust! It's going to happen here!

Now, I take it you don't smoke. I'll let you in on a little secret. If you ban smoking, why not just make it illegal? Because it's about the money! They trump up a reason to tax us, instead of "protecting" us.

I'm sorry, Leo. I thought you were more open-minded than that.

[greg334]

>It would really be nice if people were considerate enough to
>not need to be legally required to do what they should.
>Unfortunately the majority aren't and never will be so it's
>time to ban all smoking within 50 feet of any building used
>by the public. At least then you could wait for a shower or
>watch a movie or whatever without coming out stinking so bad
>you can't stand to be around yourself.

It amazes me that places like hospitals ban anything within 250 feet of the building and a few places ban it on their grounds (for their employees) but never enforce the rules.

When I brought my wife up to the hospital for her monthly medial center visit (medical center is within the center of the hospital) we had to go through a crowd of people to get into the entrance. We tolerate it but the problem is there is this BIG honking sign right were everyone is that say clearly no smoking within 250 feet of the building per local ordinance.

So after the third visit I called head of security about this problem and was told he was on his break, guess where? In front of the entrance with the others in the crowd! I was told that he will not enforce the rule because it would be an unconvinced to others so I called the fire department and filed a complaint against the hospital on the grounds that they are violating the local ordinances and wrote a nasty letter to the board that over sees the hospital. It was quickly enforced and the head of security was replaced.

I guess it is like my pet peeve of employees (especially flyingJ employees) who take up most of the parking spots right at the entrance. This happens a lot at the chicken flyingJ outside of Atlanta.

[cheri1122]

I'm a smoker, & I can see Leo & Greg's point - it's not just a matter of the smell, it's a health hazard that nonsmokers shouln't have to accept. However, the decision makers who ban smoking rarely provide a place for smokers to use instead, so they go to the nearest place where it is permitted. (When you have only a ten minute break, you can't go too far)
Maybe, if we all remember that the opposite view has merit too, & start demanding that smokers be protected from the weather, just as nonsmokers are protected from seconhand smoke, we could all feel better.

[greg334]

>I guess it was only a matter of time before this topic came
>up.
>
>Leo... first off, smoking is not illegal. Neither is deisel,
>which I think smells worse. Second, how would you suggest
>this ban happens? To be nationwide, it would have to be
>federal. That would mean that little thing called the Bill
>of Rights would get torn up yet again.
>
>Think of what you're saying. YOU don't like the smell of cig
>smoke, so YOU think THEY should ban it in public. That's
>just the opposite of what you usually preach in here. So you
>have to make a choice. Do you want more government
>interference or less? Do you want the Constitution or not?
>It's not a public opinion document. You can't pick and
>choose what's on it. What's next? Fast food? Already started
>that. Let's just ban everything that everyone is opposed to.
>Get it over with.
>
>Since things have become PC, those have become law. For
>instance, Ethnic Intimidation, the all-so-popular "You got
>off on murder, but you denied his CIVIL RIGHTS", hiring
>someone you have a bad feeling about because you may get
>viewed as a racist,sexist, etc. In Canada and Europe you get
>tossed in jail for having an OPINION on the holocaust! It's
>going to happen here!
>
>Now, I take it you don't smoke. I'll let you in on a little
>secret. If you ban smoking, why not just make it illegal?
>Because it's about the money! They trump up a reason to tax
>us, instead of "protecting" us.
>
>I'm sorry, Leo. I thought you were more open-minded than
>that.


T-Hawk
You posted before me and I wished I saw your post first. To me it does not matter what people do, it matters (in my story) that there is a sign and people have to ignore it and the ordinance that was passed. I try to follow the laws as much as possible but when I see a Do Not Enter sign I don't enter.

[LDB]

Thawk, this isn't a Constitutional issue. Nowhere in there does it guarantee the right to smoke so it wouldn't require amending like it would if the ban were on speech or self incrimination.

A ban on smoking would save hundreds of billions of dollars annually in lost time costs, medical costs etc. and would far outweigh the lost revenue from the sale of the products. Multiply an hour a day times how many smokers are up and down the elevators to go out and smoke times their pay and the number is astronomical.

I am not for a total ban on smoking, primarily because it would work no better than prohibition did with alcohol. I am for a $5 per pack additional tax with half going to cancer and pulmonary research and the other half toward treatment so insurance rates for non-smokers don't have to escalate as much to subsidize the smokers care.

Personally, I'd like to see an effective birth control added to tobacco products so no innocent children will be poisoned by the parent's poor choices but I know that will never happen and perhaps never be possible anyway.

I'm really pretty open minded. I think anyone wanting to smoke in the presence of others, like in the truck stop, restaurants etc. should be able to once they get their pass. The daily pass would be available once they spend an hour in one end of a tub of water. The other end would be the receptor from the urinals. I'm sure they'd be ok with that since a no smoking area in a room is the same as a no tinkling area in a tub of water.

Leo Bricker, owner trucks 3034, 4958
OOIDA 677319
73's K5LDB
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

[rode2rouen]

>
>I'm really pretty open minded.....................

>
>Leo Bricker, owner trucks 3034, 4958
>OOIDA 677319
>73's K5LDB
>Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
>EO Forum Moderator
>----------
>Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you
>like.


Dat's a good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!


Rex

[greg334]

Well seeing I am bored out of my mind and tired of editing websites today, I am going to add something.

I am not putting anyone down, your habits are yours –I do agree with Cheri in some respects but I do expect something called civility to take place and usually happens.

I grew up with Cigar, Cigarette and Pipe smokers, of all of these I feel I had to be around anyone with a tobacco habit let it be a pipe smoker, cigars being a second – except those d**n little Italian black cigars – God they stunk worst than well.... a skunk. I didn’t include chewers because I worked with a few and they were disgusting individuals to begin with and made that habit even more disgusting to the point of vomiting.

But I digress; the problem is that my preferred groups to be around are looked upon as the ‘stinky’ groups by the other group and the public.

With the public acting all up in arms about the hazards of the habit, they seem to blame and point fingers at the companies who produced the products in the first place, which is wrong. My Ma died of lung cancer and smoked from 1952 to 1997, she could not blame a company that produced the product – as she said it was her own choice. At the same time we had a family friend die of the same type of cancer at the same time and never really were exposed as my Ma was but still had the same thing. Go figure?

But public health has more to worry about than second hand smoke, going a little off topic here. Leo mentioned kids, well if you want to protect your kids, live in the country, make them do physical activities everyday and feed them food with no additive or preservatives – that is protecting them. I have a lot of reasons to be critical with this subject, watching parents b**ch about one thing and stuffing their kids mouth with a bottle of soda. Well I was privy to a private study done on the effects of food intake, ADD, Asthma and other problems kids have and it is amazing that things like a well planned and balanced diet with exercise and no or very limited use of chemicals in the diet keep kids rather healthy and smart. To back this up, got a friend whose daughter has a serious asthma problem, almost died several times, can’t do any activities in school and had to be limited to the places she went. She was prone to the serious attacks once a month sometimes as many as three a month, it seemed like anything triggered her attacks. I suggested to the mother that she change her daughter’s diet to a low carb, primarily vegetable (salads) diet with absolutely no soda, chips (junk food) and no candy and not to buy the food at Kroger, Piggly Wiggly or teeters – go to an organic place. The kid was willing to try anything, so off the whole foods they went. After two months on the diet she stopped having the attacks and started to exercise. Today at 16 she has had one attack in four years; she is a cheerleader, track ‘star’ and wants to learn how to fly. Oh all the doctors told her when she was 11 (this is when she started her diet) that the possibilities of her leading a normal life were slim at best and she needs to get used to it.

Any way food for thought (pun intended) – I could explain about why the insurance companies use this reasoning to raise rates but I think I said enough, got to make a salad.

[Tennesseahawk]

Leo, I hate to say it, but you're sounding like a bleeding heart lib on this matter.

And yes, the Constitution has every bit to do with the subject, lest you forget the 10th Bill of Rights. I don't see the issue of smoking come up in the other 9, so that means it's UP TO THE STATES.

Greg hit the nail on the head. Being a non-smoker, and a hater of smoke in general, he's proven why it shouldn't be a ban. It has nothing to do with "health" and everything to do with inconvenience. Leo, you said it yourself it was about ppl doing what they should. And that's not to stink you up. So, don't go on about health, as this is a personal issue.

Instead of using fast food in my first post, I was going to put that XBoxes and the like should be banned next. It's turning out a nation of idiots! Then again, we'd have to ban public schools. What I'm trying to say is, everyone is pizzed off about one thing or another. There are many health issues that are more detriment than cig smoke, yet none will bring the money to the lawyers' pockets. I'll bet not too many know that planes dump fuel before they land. The roofs around my area have the tell-tale black streaking, and I believe that's a health hazard. Hear anything about it? No... cause if you can't smell, see, or taste it, it's not a threat. Do yourself a favor. Don't linger in smoking areas. I'll do my best not to linger in non-smoking areas. I smell like cigs, even when I don't smoke. I wouldn't want to OFFEND anyone (cept my wife). :7

[Tennesseahawk]

One other thing... why is this in the newbie forum?

[davekc]

Leo wrote
A ban on smoking would save hundreds of billions of dollars annually in lost time costs, medical costs etc. and would far outweigh the lost revenue from the sale of the products. Multiply an hour a day times how many smokers are up and down the elevators to go out and smoke times their pay and the number is astronomical.
================================================== =======
When just looking at this item, I would say it is a weak argument. Just playing devils advocate.
Why? Because people are going to die anyway at some point. If a smoker died at 70 and a non smoker died at 90, the health costs are really no different. The government already sees this and that is why they are still for sale and taxed. When that time comes, only the time is different, but not the costs.
The other issue is regulation. Where does one draw the line. I would argue that poor diet and excessive weight fall into the same catagory. Do we regulate foods that have any unfit contents? Or eliminate transportation and industry because they throw toxins in the air.
If you start to ban things, then you have to wonder what would be next, and who decides?








Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator

[LDB]

Regarding the savings, I referred to lost time from work for the primary portion of the savings. I agree everyone will die eventually and costs during the latter few years of life will potentially be greater than all prior years combined.

I am not suggesting a ban on smoking. That is unworkable. I am only suggesting since many (the majority?) smokers think their habit ends at their mouth there needs to be a mechanism in place to provide as clear an atmosphere as possible to the public wherever they may be. Why should the movie area in the truck stop be any different than the mega cineplex?

I also agree with the thesis that diets etc. are significantly important and should be watched. I don't think it should be regulated in the same way because other than perhaps an extremely few people whose eating habits impact those around them it isn't the same thing.

Oh, and it's in newbies because I didn't realize I wasn't in general until it was posted and for some reason move isn't in my admin functions so I can't move it elsewhere.

Leo Bricker, owner trucks 3034, 4958
OOIDA 677319
73's K5LDB
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

[davekc]

Regarding the savings, I referred to lost time from work for the primary portion of the savings. I agree everyone will die eventually and costs during the latter few years of life will potentially be greater than all prior years combined.
================================================== =========

Since health care is a higher cost than average wages, I guess it is a break even thought. That was my general observation.

Tell the smokers to stay out of the doorways ect, and give them somewhere to smoke, and I quess everyone will be happy.






Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator

[outwardbound 2]

OK i'm tired of the whole issue, Yes i am a smoker and every time i hear about another state bill being passed on smoking bans in public or raising the SIN tax on tabaco, i just fell like a little more freedom has been lost.
Taxes on tabaco is already higher then any other product, and a smokers insurance rate is almost doubled that of a non smoker.
As for time and money waisted by smokers taking a break we get the same break time as the rest of the workers in america 10 to 15 minutes every 2 hours and either a half hour to hour lunch the other time we are not aloud to smoke. So to save money i guess we need to change the labor laws so the company's don't have to pay for waisted time in giving employees breaks.
just my two cent worth
Smoking is a privalge i pay for.