Even Cuba!

In front of todays Chicago Sun Times they had two older women puffing on a couple stogeys. It just didn't look right.

This news was very hard to believe, but it would had happened eventually.

Next step: lift the ban on Cuban cigars in the U.S.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Next step: lift the ban on Cuban cigars in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that Cuban cigars are that great anymore. I think the Dominican ones are better now a days. But a good Cohiba never hurt nobody. Thats what I used to puff on.

do smoking bans do anything? what do smoking bans accomplish?

[QUOTE=snuffy]do smoking bans do anything? what do smoking bans accomplish?[/QUOTE]
A sense of power in said government.

[QUOTE=Smartazboy]A sense of power in said government.[/QUOTE]

ha ha, but seriously, is there any point to them at all?

[QUOTE=snuffy]ha ha, but seriously, is there any point to them at all?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Do any bans accomplish anything? I am sure some do.
In my opinion putting a ban on something is like telling a person they can no longer do what they want. The more you try to dissuade someone from doing something the more they are going to want to do it. Especially if they have been doing it for a long time.
A ban is just like a makeshift law that was added for the overall sake of the public. In this case its the healthy thing to do.

[QUOTE=Smartazboy]I don't know. Do any bans accomplish anything? I am sure some do.
In my opinion putting a ban on something is like telling a person they can no longer do what they want. The more you try to dissuade someone from doing something the more they are going to want to do it. Especially if they have been doing it for a long time.
A ban is just like a makeshift law that was added for the overall sake of the public. In this case its the healthy thing to do.[/QUOTE]

promoting [I]health[/I] in clubs and bars and restaurants. thanks, federal government!

[QUOTE=snuffy]do smoking bans do anything? what do smoking bans accomplish?[/QUOTE]
Give an excuse to got outside and see the smog...

Last week an Amercian company (sorry I don't recall which one, somewhere up North I believe) fired its employees who smoke AT HOME. Can you understand that one?

Talk about Nazi America! I don't get that one at all...

MsRobin

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]Last week an Amercian company (sorry I don't recall which one, somewhere up North I believe) fired its employees who smoke AT HOME. Can you understand that one?

Talk about Nazi America! I don't get that one at all...

MsRobin[/QUOTE]

aren't most adult american smokers these days educated about what smoking will do to them, and simply choose to anyway?

As Bill Hicks says, just pick the pack that suits you best:

"May cause lung cancer" - no thanks.
"Caution - may cause birth defects" - GREAT! I've found my brand!

i'm arguing old ass points here, but i guess Cuba was the tipping point for me. I mean sure, half of adult cubans smoke, and that's terrible. but why interrupt the social order of things?

[QUOTE=snuffy]aren't most adult american smokers these days educated about what smoking will do to them, and simply choose to anyway?[/QUOTE]

"Americans are EDUCATED" WOW you expect quite a lot from a culture that screams to made into cannon fodder, don't you?

But yes, I know the risks and I still smoke, as does my boss, his wife, and his daughter.

But having the company or person I work for dictate what I do AFTER the working day is over?! THAT is appalling! I do not believe that the person who signs my checks should have a say over whether I smoke, even if they do pay for my health insurance. Esp seeing as most (if not all) companies are going to fire you before you are eligble for retirement benefits anyway.

[QUOTE=snuffy]i'm arguing old ass points here, but i guess Cuba was the tipping point for me. I mean sure, half of adult cubans smoke, and that's terrible. but why interrupt the social order of things?[/QUOTE]
Its like I said before. Its about looking out for the greater good, even if it is not the most popular or even sensical of reasons.

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]

But having the company or person I work for dictate what I do AFTER the working day is over?! THAT is appalling! I do not believe that the person who signs my checks should have a say over whether I smoke, even if they do pay for my health insurance. Esp seeing as most (if not all) companies are going to fire you before you are eligble for retirement benefits anyway.[/QUOTE]

that's most likely illegal. i'm serious.

[QUOTE=Smartazboy]Its like I said before. Its about looking out for the greater good, even if it is not the most popular or even sensical of reasons.[/QUOTE]

right, i see what you are saying, and frankly i agree with the spirit of going for the larger social good, and i know that is what the law is trying to do.

but what i'm trying to get at is that it doesn't work. it doesn't stop smokers form smoking, and it just makes non smokers and smokers have to have an artificial social barrier to cross.

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]

But yes, I know the risks and I still smoke, as does my boss, his wife, and his daughter.
[/QUOTE]

right, so are you just being punished as a smoker by the ban? or do you think it is fair?

[QUOTE=snuffy]right, i see what you are saying, and frankly i agree with the spirit of going for the larger social good, and i know that is what the law is trying to do.

but what i'm trying to get at is that it doesn't work. it doesn't stop smokers form smoking, and it just makes non smokers and smokers have to have an artificial social barrier to cross.[/QUOTE]

If we accept that smoke causes health problems, then second hand smoke obviously does the same. Freedom of choice for people to smoke should not include freedom to cause health problems for those that choose not to smoke.

That's the rhetoric they are using here in the UK (which is slowly going down the same road as the US).

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]If we accept that smoke causes health problems, then second hand smoke obviously does the same. Freedom of choice for people to smoke should not include freedom to cause health problems for those that choose not to smoke. [/QUOTE]

i guess i can't disagree on the secondhand smoke issue. but i have a hard time buying that people get cancer from going to bars where there is secondhand smoke.

i believe it is the intention of the smoking ban to make smoking into a moral or social ill. which is absurd, considering all the drinking that is going on.

[QUOTE=snuffy]i guess i can't disagree on the secondhand smoke issue. but i have a hard time buying that people get cancer from going to bars where there is secondhand smoke.

i believe it is the intention of the smoking ban to make smoking into a moral or social ill. which is absurd, considering all the drinking that is going on.[/QUOTE]
Well if you think about it, the prohibition was passed for similar reasons. But that was an all out ban. It still didn't work outlawing booze.
Maybe they think this way they can chip away at its social ill as you say. Slowly and surely, but it could be the case and the best way to go about it.

Snuffy - as far as being illegal - do you mean companies firing people right before they are eligible for retirement? b/c unfortunately THAT is not illegal. I am a paralegal who works in the labor and employment field and I see cases every week where this happens and companies can fire people for any reason they want and employees have no "legal" recourse to sue. That is the harsh truth. If there were a legal precedent to sue for things being "unfair" we would have lawsuits out the yin-yang, but unfortunately that is not the way the U.S. legal system works.

Also, yes I feel personally punished be the smoking bans. I think they are ridiculous.

And as far as the UK/US argument that smokers should not harm people by 2nd hand smoke - bollocks! What about factories polluting the air and water for all of us? Do any of us have a say in any bans against what goes on with them? No, we do not! The risks that I face every day driving my car and inhaling the noxious fumes of the car in front of me b/c the government has stopped doing emmisions testings are probably more harmful than someone breathing in my smoke from the cigarettes that I smoke in my home 3 or 4 times a day. I cannot bring back emmisions testing but non-smokers can continue to hassle me about smoking can't they? They have the monopoly on victimization esp the ones who used to smoke, they are by far the worst. I make it a point not to smoke near people who are not also in a smoking area but if you are outside, you are outside for pete's sake -

[QUOTE=snuffy]i guess i can't disagree on the secondhand smoke issue. but i have a hard time buying that people get cancer from going to bars where there is secondhand smoke.

i believe it is the intention of the smoking ban to make smoking into a moral or social ill. which is absurd, considering all the drinking that is going on.[/QUOTE]

There's a famous (deceased) figurehead here in the UK for anti-passive smoking campaigns.

Roy Castle - a jazz trumpet player - played in clubs his whole life and never smoked. Eventually he died of lung cancer, which was attributed to second hand smoke. I have to say that, although it's less concentrated, I don't see what the difference is between having a cigarette and breathing the fumes from other cigarettes over the course of an evening.

I do think you are right about the "social ill" thing though. Britain has a huge problem with binge drinking, and the Government have started going after that. France too has just slapped enormous taxes on it's "alchopops" because so many young people are drinking them.

It's a balance I guess, because we want our freedom of choice, but we want the Gov to pretect us at some level from ruthless exploitation from big business (like that often happens with Bush and blair!). Drinks companies agressively market their drinks, put on ridiculous promotions to drink as much as poss etc. There's even a beer coming out here that has caffeine in it, so that you can stay up later drinking.

Do we have a problem with drinking in Britain? We sure as hell do. Perhaps it is the gov's responsibility to do something about it after all...

I think bans are to make smoking more and more inconvenient so people smoke less and are less likely to devolop smoking related diseases. Because that eventually affects health care budgets. So it really makes sense for a country that provides national healthcare to ban smoking.

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]

And as far as the UK/US argument that smokers should not harm people by 2nd hand smoke - bollocks! What about factories polluting the air and water for all of us? Do any of us have a say in any bans against what goes on with them? No, we do not! The risks that I face every day driving my car and inhaling the noxious fumes of the car in front of me b/c the government has stopped doing emmisions testings are probably more harmful than someone breathing in my smoke from the cigarettes that I smoke in my home 3 or 4 times a day. I cannot bring back emmisions testing but non-smokers can continue to hassle me about smoking can't they? They have the monopoly on victimization esp the ones who used to smoke, they are by far the worst. I make it a point not to smoke near people who are not also in a smoking area but if you are outside, you are outside for pete's sake -[/QUOTE]

I think you should absolutely be allowed to smoke outside.

But I think the comparison between smoking and car/factories etc is a little stretched. Does the fact that factories pump shit into our lakes and rivers mean that you wouldn't mind if I walked up to your drink and pissed a little in it?

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]Snuffy - as far as being illegal - do you mean companies firing people right before they are eligible for retirement? b/c unfortunately THAT is not illegal. I am a paralegal who works in the larbor and employment field and I see cases every week where this happens and companies can fire people for any reason they want and employees have no "legal" recourse to sue. That is the harsh truth. If there were a legal precedent to sue for things being "unfair" we would have lawsuits out the yin-yang, but unfortunately that is not the way the U.S. legal system works. [/QUOTE]

i suppose this belongs in another forum, but real quick:

i mean companies firing people for the legal activities they do outside of work. While a company can fire somebody for any reason they want, isn;t there some protection about this?

[QUOTE=mirkah]I think bans are to make smoking more and more inconvenient so people smoke less and are less likely to devolop smoking related diseases. Because that eventually affects health care budgets. So it really makes sense for a country that provides national healthcare to ban smoking.[/QUOTE]

i agree with you here, but for the sake of argument, why not ban drinking? and eating cheese?

You can't die from second-hand cheese (unless it's been out in the sun for ages)

[QUOTE=snuffy]i agree with you here, but for the sake of argument, why not ban drinking? and eating cheese?[/QUOTE]

Both of those are good for you in moderation.

[QUOTE=Riddlegimp]You can't die from second-hand cheese (unless it's been out in the sun for ages)[/QUOTE]

oh yeah. good point. durrrrrr.

i just hate the whole social agenda side of this thing.

[QUOTE=mirkah]Both of those are good for you in moderation.[/QUOTE]

another good point.

[QUOTE=mirkah]I think bans are to make smoking more and more inconvenient so people smoke less and are less likely to devolop smoking related diseases. Because that eventually affects health care budgets. So it really makes sense for a country that provides national healthcare to ban smoking.[/QUOTE]

Since when is America "a country that provides national healthcare" ?

[QUOTE=snuffy]i suppose this belongs in another forum, but real quick:

i mean companies firing people for the legal activities they do outside of work. While a company can fire somebody for any reason they want, isn;t there some protection about this?[/QUOTE]

It's called working in a "right to work state" also known as "the right to work when you can find work"

There is protection if there is a legal precedent to "legally protect" you from what the company is doing. And they must state that as their reason for firing you in order for you to be able to use that reason in your lawsuit against them. Now do you see why it is almost impossible to establish a "legal" case against a company who does this? They can "say" they fired you for whatever reason they want, when the actual reason is really something else. It is up to you to establish and prove that what they stated as the reason for firing you was not the actual reason and you must have documented proof and valid witnesses who do not fear losing their jobs in supporting your claim. God Bless America, Snuffy!

A good comparison someone made for me recently was when Britain went apeshit over the enforcement of seatbelt laws. People were saying it was an infringement on civil liberties and another attack from the lefty, nanny-state idiots who want to control out lives to the utmost degree.

However - it quickly became apparent that it was a law that served the greater good. Not only did it prevent more people dying from not wearing seatbelts themselves, it reduced the number of people who died in accidents because another driver, or backseat passenger, wasn't wearing a belt.

I guess it's just down to whether you see an agenda here or not. I'm inclined to agree with you that there seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

[QUOTE=Jill's Bleeding Ulcer]Since when is America "a country that provides national healthcare" ?[/QUOTE]
It's not. But Cuba and the UK both do.

I

[QUOTE=mirkah]It's not. But Cuba and the UK both do.

I[/QUOTE]

Bloody good point Mirkah (UK-wise) - I forgot about that issue here.

Funny thing is though, it's possible to suggest that a pro-smoking society actually generates more money for the Gov in taxes than a non-smoking populus does in saved medical bills!

when I was in NY last year having a smoking ban made me want to smoke more not less, I wound up smoking almost twice as much as I did here.