Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Sunday July 13, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2008, 02:12 PM   #51
Nico Flax
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 109531
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2008 CBR1000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix96 View Post


It's smoke. The same stuff that kills people in fires, plus extra chemicals from the cigarette. Is there really any question about it being bad?

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html

Yay, heart disease risk +25% to 30%, lung cancer +20% to 30%, nothing negative there at all.
But that's from the surgeon general, and we know he's been out to get those poor cigarettes for decades. Just another untrustworthy source along with the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Heart Association, the EPA, etc.
Your a pretty smart guy and I respect your opinions but please don't believe everything you read. As I said before most of those organizations are all using falsified EPA data. Also more recently, the studies are being funded by people who are for not smoking, so of course it's going to reach those conclusions. Also the fact that they have lied on their headlines before, and when you review the actual data their is nothing to say that 2nd hand smoke is bad. I have not read the report Capt. put up but when I do I'll reply to that. It's a sticky situation at best.

The thing is, I don't smoke, and if I had kids I wouldn't let them be around 2nd smoke. Do I actually believe it is bad for you? I don't know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But since so far all scientific data I have seen as pointed towards no, then I'm going to go against these bullcrap laws that are being pushed by peoples political agendas.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Nico Flax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 02:17 PM   #52
Nico Flax
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 109531
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2008 CBR1000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Almost a Ghost View Post
Dude. I can't believe how freaking ignorant you are. I mean it's freaking mind blowing how freaking ignorant you are.

Read up on smoke inhalation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_inhalation

Then again, what do I know about smoke inhalation. My lungs only got damaged in a house fire.
In that very article, the first thing listed is impaired or reduced levels of oxygen at the tissue level. The second thing is the heat of the smoke. Plus it's wikipedia, but I do not doubt it's validity.

I'm just not sure how he is ignorant...
Nico Flax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 02:53 PM   #53
Almost a Ghost
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 56155
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Vehicle:
2008 VW R32
Deep Blue

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
In that very article, the first thing listed is impaired or reduced levels of oxygen at the tissue level. The second thing is the heat of the smoke. Plus it's wikipedia, but I do not doubt it's validity.

I'm just not sure how he is ignorant...
In an earlier post he asks for proof that second hand smoke is bad, like he needs proof that inhaling smoke is bad for you.

In the post I was responding to he says that people get get oxygen because of the high levels of smoke as if the only reason people can't breath in a fire is become the oxygen is being displaced. That may not have been his intention but I'm having a hard time figuring out what avenue he's trying to take with the statement of high levels of smoke and people not getting oxygen without using the fact that the chemicals in the smoke are bad for you.

As for the what you pointed in the wikipedia entry, yes it does say "lack of oxygen" but it says due to carbon monoxide and/or cyanide that is inhaled.

Inhaling chemicals = bad. Yes, somebody is disagreeing with that.
Almost a Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 07:13 PM   #54
benj182
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 134944
Join Date: Dec 2006
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Vehicle:
2014 Ford Fiesta ST
Tuxedo Black

Default

i dont like cigarettes at all, but my dad smokes, and having worked in the music industry, im around it a lot when i go out a lot to watch shows. however, i think this move in restricting people smoking in their own cars is a bit much. i also heard that some legislators are pushing a ban in people smoking in their own apartments as well. it pretty much is infringing on their freedoms, no matter how bad smoking is for you.

high fructose corn syrup? that stuff is probably one of the worst things you can put in your body, but no ones ever gonna ban soda or 70% of the goods that are out in the market containing this stuff.

and its hard to believe people actually challenging the fact that smoking is bad for you. i didnt know "lack of oxygen" leads to the build up of tar in your lungs, or maybe thats another one of those facts that you shouldnt believe?
benj182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 08:56 PM   #55
06wrxlbart
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 154013
Join Date: Jul 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New York, Ozone Park
Vehicle:
2012 S4
Monsoon Grey

Default

Why dont the just install computer CHIPS into us and from there just control us???????????????????????????

speed cameras , red light cameras , governor..

I just cant stand the bull**** they think of now. They are trying to control our lives which will probably happen because they already basically are.
06wrxlbart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 09:07 PM   #56
EnterTheDragon
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6511
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: West of the Atlantic
Default

move to oregon, bye!
EnterTheDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2008, 09:41 PM   #57
06wrxlbart
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 154013
Join Date: Jul 2007
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New York, Ozone Park
Vehicle:
2012 S4
Monsoon Grey

Default

Sure let me pack my bags. You like having your life controlled??
06wrxlbart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 12:44 AM   #58
phoenix96
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 14148
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Vehicle:
2006 Legacy GT Ltd
2011 Outback 3.6R Ltd

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samagon View Post
Right, and do you see the concentration of smoke during a fire? Are similar levels present around smokers?

High concentrations of smoke from fires kill people due to lack of oxygen.

By your standards we should probably ban the use of fireplaces in the home, and campfires on camping trips if there are kids around.

My concern isn't smoking, I have two views of it, on the one hand, smokers do it to themselves, on the other hand, I think the government should come in on the _side of smokers_, my rationale for this is that smokers have to pay a tax to the govt for each cigarette they smoke, thus they pay more tax to the govt than you, however they are given less rights.

Our country was FOUNDED on taxation without representation, you tell me if that isn't happening to smokers? I see them being taxed more, but represented less.

Now, the only reason I care one iota about this topic is because what comes after the govt has killed smoking?

Fast cars?
Greasy food?

What is going to be next that is deemed to be the 'killer of everyone' that they have to regulate because of the premise that we are too stupid to take care of ourselves?

Could it be something you enjoy doing?

Do yourself a favor and join the fight now before they come after something you do enjoy, knowing that my freedom is intact (and will stay intact) is worth having to smell a cigarette in a restaurant while I'm eating.

The smell of people smoking = the smell of freedom!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt Crunch
The law isn't banning smoking, its banning smoking with children in the car. Why not have toxic chemicals spewed on the floor of your house if you kids are home? It's your house, you should be able to do as you please.

Banning smoking in bars is stupid because all the patrons and employees are making a choice to be at the bar. Children do not have the luxury of choosing which house they live in or the car that they ride in.
And that is exactly the point. If you want to smoke, fine, even though it's probably going to end up costing ME, I'll respect your right to do it as long as it's not infringing on my ability to breath properly. But when ignorant parents force their kids to live in a world filled with smoke, I've got a problem.

I've got three young cousins (one of whom is no longer alive) who have all had health problems that can be directly attributed to cigarette smoke. Their father, my uncle, is now dead because of smoking. They live in a country where the majority of the population still smokes, but it's still unacceptable to me.
phoenix96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 11:15 AM   #59
daveyboy
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 35419
Join Date: Apr 2003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlideWRX View Post
That's how seatbelt laws started. Biggest line of bull**** ever.

Tom
+1
That's how it always starts. Then they tug at the heart strings of the emotional types that are more than willing to give up freedoms to make themselves feel good and show that they care.

I DESPISE smoking after suffering my parents smoking around me continually growing up--that is why I don't smoke. But the government is the last place that needs to tell me how to raise my kids--let alone the myriad other things that are none of its business.

Like many others have said, there have been studies that show that ETS has no significant impact on health.
daveyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 01:24 PM   #60
Nico Flax
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 109531
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2008 CBR1000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by benj182 View Post
and its hard to believe people actually challenging the fact that smoking is bad for you. i didnt know "lack of oxygen" leads to the build up of tar in your lungs, or maybe thats another one of those facts that you shouldnt believe?
No you should believe that, smoking is bad for you. What we are debating is 2nd hand smoke, and that is what this whole topic has really been about.
Nico Flax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 03:35 PM   #61
BlueF
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 45324
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: California
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluflyer06 View Post
slightly OT, BUT.

One of my BIGGEST peeves is how smokers are 'allowed' to litter. Why in gods name do we we allow people to throw cigarette butts on the ground, road, sidewalk, etc. Its a completely unacceptable behavior.

I'm all for entirely banning the sale, use, possession of tobacco products. It is for the benefit of even smokers themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrx_evo_jetta View Post
I ... TOTALLY agree!!!!
Couldn't agree more. My wife's place of work recently banned smoking campus wide (hospital). It amazes me to see smokers lined up at the property line, regardless of foot traffic. As if that wasn't bizarre enough, the huge PILE of butts along the curb is absolutely baffling!

I will never support laws which infringe on personal liberties, EXCEPT when laws are needed to serer as a reminder for those who: (1) don't care if anyone else around is bothered by smoke, (2) discard cigarette butts on the ground/from a moving car (3) or are absolute morons who smoke with kids in the car... they are not the only one's on the planet.

Personally, I find smoking disgusting. Smoke makes me nauseous. But I would never tell someone they can't smoke in their own home/car. I have friends who won't ever smoke in public (outside) or bars (inside) if there are non-smokers around... who carefully dispose of their butts, even if they have to put them in a paper napkin in their pocket until a *gasp* trash can is available! Kudos to those who enjoy their smoking but don't disregard everyone else around them.

Sucks that law makers have to waste time telling people how to be people...
BlueF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 04:23 PM   #62
silverlegacy
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 90877
Join Date: Jul 2005
Default

Who is anyone to raise another's kids. This should be a parents choice! I am not a smoker and would never put my child through that, but where does this control stop? If people hate smoking that much make it illegal! Less harmful drugs are illegal, why not tobacco? I am not of the opinion that it should be but I believe that most illegal drugs should be legalized and taxed like mad.

This is a total waste of time by lawmakers and it's doing nothing but trying to tell people how to live their lives.

BTW Second-hand smoke has never been proven to kill anybody, though, I do believe it to be slightly harmful. If there is a lot of smoke you can get a slight contact high, and that is my basis for it being slightly harmful. The build-ups of tar and such are definitely not in second hand smoke.
silverlegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 09:51 PM   #63
phoenix96
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 14148
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Vehicle:
2006 Legacy GT Ltd
2011 Outback 3.6R Ltd

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlideWRX
That's how seatbelt laws started. Biggest line of bull**** ever.
Seriously. And it's not like seatbelts have saved any lives or anything.
phoenix96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2008, 11:33 PM   #64
retroXvertigo
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 118922
Join Date: Jun 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Baltimore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snitt View Post
I'm all for this. Either that, or ban smokers from having any type of health insurance that's shared with non-smokers. Daddy's tired of paying $260/month in heath insurance premiums.

Me too. They should be more concerned with everyone being fat as hell. Now everyone has heart disease and teh dia-beetis.

retroXvertigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 12:18 AM   #65
Digitalfiend
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 54823
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Vehicle:
2008 STI
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwanbo View Post
I grew up with my dad who smoked 5 packs of cigs a day (and he still does) for 18 years of my life. I have zero health problems, so I don't see how someone in a car with a person who smokes one or two cigs is going to instantly give them cancer and boil their insides out of their eye sockets.
Smokers seem to have this "f-everyone else" attitude that really pisses me off. I don't give a crap if someone wants to smoke but I shouldn't have to walk through it or be subjected to it to get into a building. If smoking is so harmless, then perhaps I should be allowed to take a piss outside a building as people are walking by; hell, if I get a little on you as you pass by, you aren't going to be hurt by it, so no big deal, right?

By the way, you're only 24. When you're 50 or 60 and still have no smoking related health problems, then you can brag about it. Terminal or more serious smoking related health problems take time to develop. If you don't believe 2nd hand smoke is bad for you, then you might as well cook with lead pots.
Digitalfiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 12:26 AM   #66
Digitalfiend
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 54823
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Vehicle:
2008 STI
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverlegacy View Post
Who is anyone to raise another's kids. This should be a parents choice! I am not a smoker and would never put my child through that, but where does this control stop? If people hate smoking that much make it illegal!
So parents should be allowed to beat (not spank, but BEAT) their children, for whatever reasons, because it should be their choice? Perhaps mentally abusing or neglecting them shouldn't be a problem either. While you wouldn't put your child through that, others would. Why should a child not have a choice? Does a drug addict make a good parent when there is potential for that child to become addicted too? That's why we have laws to protect children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverlegacy View Post
Less harmful drugs are illegal, why not tobacco?
As long as the drug only affects the user and doesn't impact non-willing particpants, then I don't give a crap. Unfortunately, smoking affects those around you, whether by making your clothes smell like a bathroom stall or affecting your lungs.

Last edited by Digitalfiend; 02-03-2008 at 07:38 PM.
Digitalfiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 05:09 PM   #67
depACE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 117307
Join Date: Jun 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Enfield, CT
Vehicle:
2001 Forester, SRP
2007 WRX TR, UGM

Default

The sad fact of the matter is many smokers toss butts out the window of their car on the highway with disregard to the environment and other motorists.

Forest fires have been started because someone was driving along in their car and decided to throw a cigarette out of the window because they either don't like the smell of smoldering ash in their car or are too lazy to clean out their ash tray.

From a more personal perspective: Why should the vehicle I payed for be hit with a lit cigarette thrown from a car driven by someone with a sloped forehead? I can't even estimate the number of times I've been driving along and have seen a smoker toss one out of their window.

It isn't so much a case of safety while driving, except in cases where it can be proven that smoking sufficiently distracted the driver causing the accident. In this case you would be fined and found at fault for causing the accident, EVEN IF it wasn't illegal to smoke and drive at the same time. It's the case of people being disrespectful to the environment and other motorists, and also protecting the children of said smokers from second hand smoke.

You shouldn't be driving and doing anything to take your attention away from the road. Is your car a bar/cafeteria/bathroom/phone booth/random other place that it isn't? If you answered no to any of these, then the activities you do in your car that you would do in these places needs to stop.
depACE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2008, 08:51 PM   #68
Nico Flax
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 109531
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2008 CBR1000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
Smokers seem to have this "f-everyone else" attitude that really pisses me off. I don't give a crap if someone wants to smoke but I shouldn't have to walk through it or be subjected to it to get into a building. If smoking is so harmless, then perhaps I should be allowed to take a piss outside a building as people are walking by; hell, if I get a little on you as you pass by, you aren't going to be hurt by it, so no big deal, right?
How do you not have the 'f-everyone else' attitude? You want smokers to stop smoking so YOU don't have to smell. Well hey guess what, I don't want to smell your crap when your in a public restroom, but I have to. I don't want to hear some lady jabber into her phone when I ride the metro, but I have to. I don't want to smell some guys cologne when we pass by, but I have to. I don't want to hear some baby crying when I ride in an airplane, but I have to. Do you notice something here, its 'I'. Have we become such sissies that we must legislate everyones actions? What ever happened to being inconvenienced for others sake? When is it going to end, when we all act in a certain code so no one is bothered or upset. If that is the end then you can count me out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
By the way, you're only 24. When you're 50 or 60 and still have no smoking related health problems, then you can brag about it. Terminal or more serious smoking related health problems take time to develop. If you don't believe 2nd hand smoke is bad for you, then you might as well cook with lead pots.
Please if your going to just make those assumptions then I might as well say the guy who worked 60 years in a bar around second hand smoke is fine, so everyone else is going to be.
Nico Flax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 11:19 AM   #69
Digitalfiend
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 54823
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Vehicle:
2008 STI
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
How do you not have the 'f-everyone else' attitude? You want smokers to stop smoking so YOU don't have to smell. Well hey guess what, I don't want to smell your crap when your in a public restroom, but I have to.

I don't want to hear some lady jabber into her phone when I ride the metro, but I have to. I don't want to smell some guys cologne when we pass by, but I have to. I don't want to hear some baby crying when I ride in an airplane, but I have to.
Man, that is some weirdass logic you've got there.

Let's break it down:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
You want smokers to stop smoking so YOU don't have to smell. Well hey guess what, I don't want to smell your crap when your in a public restroom, but I have to.
Don't use a public restroom then. I don't like the smell either and I won't use one until Jabba is done laying waste to the toilet. So, ask yourself this, do you smell like crap after leaving a public restroom? No, you don't. Does the smell of crap hurt you or irritate your eyes if you wear contacts? No, it doesn't.

Furthermore, bodily functions are not optional, smoking is. Regardless of whether you are addicted or not, that's a (stupid) choice you made - crapping is not optional; EVERYONE has to crap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
I don't want to hear some lady jabber into her phone when I ride the metro, but I have to.
It doesn't hurt you though and her talking also doesn't follow you around for the rest of the day (unless you're married to her.) Sure, it might inconvenience you, but it doesn't have a lasting effect.

Sit in a room with smokers for 5 minutes, then leave, and you'll smell worse than a homeless person for the rest of the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
I don't want to hear some baby crying when I ride in an airplane, but I have to.
Once again, a baby crying does not HURT you. I've never been on a plane where a baby crying causes my contacts to get all itchy, my clothes to smell, or any other harm. Do I like it when someone brings a baby into a movie theatre to watch the 11pm showing of BloodBath 12? Hell no, but it is only an inconvenience, and is not harmful in anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
I don't want to smell some guys cologne when we pass by, but I have to.
This is the only one I agree with. We have people in the office that are actually allergic to colognes and perfumes. Some older women splash on perfume like they're trying to cover up a rotting toe or something. It's disgusting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
Do you notice something here, its 'I'. Have we become such sissies that we must legislate everyones actions? What ever happened to being inconvenienced for others sake? When is it going to end, when we all act in a certain code so no one is bothered or upset. If that is the end then you can count me out.
A baby crying on a plane is annoying but usually unavoidable and is understandable. A good person will realise that and won't mind being "inconvenienced". Using a public restroom is your choice and you know that going into that area will likely subject you to the smell of whatever Bubba ate the night before. Disgusting, sure, but not harmful and everyone has to crap or piss at one point. We all share that as a species. The lady talking on her cellphone might be annoying but you can more easily ignore that than someone smoking next to you.

In all your examples, the "inconvenience" ends when I leave the area. I honestly don't car

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
Please if your going to just make those assumptions then I might as well say the guy who worked 60 years in a bar around second hand smoke is fine, so everyone else is going to be.
We know, based on scientific evidence, that second hand smoke is harmful. We also know that walking or riding beside traffic in the downtown core is bad for you too. People react differently to toxins. It is proven, by case studies, that people, who haven't smoked a day in their lives, have sucuumbed to smoking-related illnesses from living with a smoker. I'm sure there are people that don't develop cancer or other issues, but that should be MY choice not a smoker's.

The same argument could be made against streetracing. Sure, most of the time streetracing doesn't result in death and destruction but we have laws against it because there is a reasonable potential for an accident. If you kill yourself while streetracing on a public road, that's fine, but the problem is you'll likely take an unwilling participant with you. The person you kill streetracing likely didn't have a choice in the matter. Give me the choice to avoid a smoker and I will, but when it is forced on me that is wrong. Breathing and going to work is not optional, smoking is.

If they had designated smoking areas or bars in Ontario, I would avoid them. When you have a pack of 15 smokers huddled infront of the entrance to a building, that is wrong. If I'm supposed to put up with that inconvenience, maybe I should just relieve myself on those smokers before going into the building. If I'm supposed to put up with them inconveniencing me (illegally mind you), they shouldn't have a problem with smelling like urine all day because I couldn't hold it, right?

I will not be inconvenienced and potentially harmed just to appease a person's disgusting addiction.

By the way this comment is just shocking:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
What ever happened to being inconvenienced for others sake?
Whatever happened to being considerate and NOT inconveniencing others?
Digitalfiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:05 PM   #70
manticus
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 162857
Join Date: Oct 2007
Chapter/Region: W. Canada
Location: Calgary, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
Let's break it down:

Whatever happened to being considerate and NOT inconveniencing others?
^- That whole post was well-stated.

Funny thing, I live in a city where smoking is illegal in any public building (malls, bars, and restaurants, for example). It's fricking awesome! They have those little room in airports for smokers, where they can all go - and even some of the smokers can't bear to walk into those places, haha.

Ian
manticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:23 PM   #71
Nico Flax
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 109531
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Ashburn Virginia
Vehicle:
2006 STI
2008 CBR1000

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
Don't use a public restroom then. I don't like the smell either and I won't use one until Jabba is done laying waste to the toilet. So, ask yourself this, do you smell like crap after leaving a public restroom? No, you don't. Does the smell of crap hurt you or irritate your eyes if you wear contacts? No, it doesn't. Furthermore, bodily functions are not optional, smoking is. Regardless of whether you are addicted or not, that's a (stupid) choice you made - crapping is not optional; EVERYONE has to crap.
Bodily functions are some what optional, people don't pee while they are riding the bus, they hold it. Now I'm not saying that people should hold until they get home, but for example sake. I will give you the smell aspect but hurt your eyes? Smokers are already smoking outside, what are they blowing it in your face? A lot of these non-smoking lobbyist act like they are walking through fields of smoke. What is it like 1 or 2 seconds that you walk through, not even a smoke layer, but air that smells like smoke. Your already separated in restaurants, most of the time though it's a completely non smoking restaurants these days though. Now they can't even do it outside. Why are we trying to legislate how people act?

I will say this though, people's farts can make me through up, I have a weak stomach. But I don't expect them to be hassled or have to pass gas outside. Once again just because 'I' have a problem, or can't hold my stomach, doesn't mean farts should be outlawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
It doesn't hurt you though and her talking also doesn't follow you around for the rest of the day (unless you're married to her.) Sure, it might inconvenience you, but it doesn't have a lasting effect. Sit in a room with smokers for 5 minutes, then leave, and you'll smell worse than a homeless person for the rest of the day.
Alright it may not follow me around for the rest of the day. But I tell you what does hurt me, the cell phone's radiation. I mean I can come up with so many boggie men for anything, just so that I don't have to deal with it, and that is what non-smokers are trying to do. Now I don't believe the studies linking cell phones to lower sperm count, or to brain tumors, etc. But I could... and then I could say how harmful it is to have one next to me. You see how this works, and how some people try to push others to be like them. Once again though nobody is telling you to sit inside a smoking room, nobody is forcing you to, you would be doing it on your own will. Plus from my understanding most places are non-smoking now. At least around where I live, so I don't know what more you could ask for. I don't go into a restaurant and complain when I smell like food. It's there, I know it's there, I go there by choice, and choose that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
Once again, a baby crying does not HURT you. I've never been on a plane where a baby crying causes my contacts to get all itchy, my clothes to smell, or any other harm. Do I like it when someone brings a baby into a movie theatre to watch the 11pm showing of BloodBath 12? Hell no, but it is only an inconvenience, and is not harmful in anyway.
Maybe it hurts my ears, maybe it gives me stress, and stress can have negative effects on your body. I'm just trying to show you how pretty much anything can be perceived to have a negative affect on a person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
This is the only one I agree with. We have people in the office that are actually allergic to colognes and perfumes. Some older women splash on perfume like they're trying to cover up a rotting toe or something. It's disgusting.
Now I can't believe you agree to this. Because I would never try and stop someone from wearing a fragrance. I don't even know how someone can be allergic to it that badly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
A baby crying on a plane is annoying but usually unavoidable and is understandable. A good person will realise that and won't mind being "inconvenienced". Using a public restroom is your choice and you know that going into that area will likely subject you to the smell of whatever Bubba ate the night before. Disgusting, sure, but not harmful and everyone has to crap or piss at one point. We all share that as a species. The lady talking on her cellphone might be annoying but you can more easily ignore that than someone smoking next to you.
Well I think this is where the argument is stemming from, because around here almost everything is non-smoking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
We know, based on scientific evidence, that second hand smoke is harmful. We also know that walking or riding beside traffic in the downtown core is bad for you too. People react differently to toxins. It is proven, by case studies, that people, who haven't smoked a day in their lives, have sucuumbed to smoking-related illnesses from living with a smoker. I'm sure there are people that don't develop cancer or other issues, but that should be MY choice not a smoker's.
But you see that is the problem, we don't know. And now all the science has be screwed with and screwed by politicos and people with agendas that getting a clear answer is close to impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
Give me the choice to avoid a smoker and I will, but when it is forced on me that is wrong. Breathing and going to work is not optional, smoking is.
Alright I can agree with you there, that you should and have all the legal right to avoid smoke. I think the mix up is in other areas, as I'm thinking about smoking when you go out to eat or to a bar, and not on the ride to work. As I said before, everything is non-smoking here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
If they had designated smoking areas or bars in Ontario, I would avoid them. When you have a pack of 15 smokers huddled infront of the entrance to a building, that is wrong. If I'm supposed to put up with that inconvenience, maybe I should just relieve myself on those smokers before going into the building. If I'm supposed to put up with them inconveniencing me (illegally mind you), they shouldn't have a problem with smelling like urine all day because I couldn't hold it, right? I will not be inconvenienced and potentially harmed just to appease a person's disgusting addiction.
I don't see how that is wrong, they want to smoke, and you don't have to go to that bar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalfiend View Post
By the way this comment is just shocking:
Whatever happened to being considerate and NOT inconveniencing others?
It's called thinking of the group, but I will agree both smokers and non-smokers are only thinking of themselves.When you go to a bar or restaurant and it smells of smoke, then don't go in, and if enough people do what you did, it will either go out of business or it will become a non-smoking place. And if there are people smoking outside then still avoid it, until they tell their customers they don't want them smoking outside. That is how it is suppose to work. If it's public transportation, or some public service then I will agree it should be non-smoking.
Nico Flax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 12:40 PM   #72
Digitalfiend
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 54823
Join Date: Feb 2004
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Vehicle:
2008 STI
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico Flax View Post
Bodily functions are some what optional, people don't pee while they are riding the bus, they hold it. Now I'm not saying that people should hold until they get home, but for example sake. I will give you the smell aspect but hurt your eyes? ...
I think for the most part we agree. I don't have a problem with designated smoking areas as long as I don't have to smell it. As for the perfume thing, I know of two people that have visible allergic reactions to the perfume some of the women wear in the office. I'm talking eyes watering and going red, runny nose, everything. It doesn't bother me other than being way too overpowering and disgusting but I can tolerate it.

The reason I responded to your post was that I thought you were advocating allowing smokers to smoke whereever they want, when they want, without regard for other people. If they want to kill themselves in a room with eachother, that's fine by me.

Since we've gotten slightly off-topic though, let's bring the focus back to the article. I'm somewhat on the fence about the law. I see the one side where it is your property and you are in your own personal space, so why should anyone have the right to stop you? Then again, if it is being passed to protect children, I can understand that as well. Many parents honestly don't give a **** - "they're my kids they'll live by my rules" and others are just ignorant - "but I didn't think my kids would play with my loaded gun". I feel a child should have a choice. We routinely protect our children from dangerous activities like sticking forks into electrical outlets, ovens, sharp corners, stairs, mould, etc, yet when it comes to smoking in a closed environment, "nah, it won't affect them." I feel people say that because they can't cope with their addiction so they make themselves feel better by saying they aren't hurting anyone.

If I was a smoker, I would hope that I cared enough about my children not to smoke in their presence. Unfortunately, I don't think people with an addiction can always control themselves. That's why things that are addictive and can lead to poor judgement are usually regulated.
Digitalfiend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 03:43 PM   #73
case1r
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 103035
Join Date: Dec 2005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by depACE View Post

You shouldn't be driving and doing anything to take your attention away from the road. Is your car a bar/cafeteria/bathroom/phone booth/random other place that it isn't? If you answered no to any of these, then the activities you do in your car that you would do in these places needs to stop.
maybe we shouldn't have radios either then, or window controls, or rear view mirrors (I see people adjusting theirs while driving), or moon roofs

maybe they should make it illegal to pick your nose while driving, that's definitely distracting, not only to the picker but to everyone who is laughing at you

apparently no one agrees with you either, because if you look at trends these days, there's more and more gadgetry making its way into new cars.
case1r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 03:52 PM   #74
2.5RSMatt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30497
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: San Diego, CA
Vehicle:
00 RSTi
FUK HDR

Default

We should ban radios because what if our children hear naughty things coming from the radio or any sort of music?!?!?
2.5RSMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2008, 04:22 PM   #75
depACE
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 117307
Join Date: Jun 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Enfield, CT
Vehicle:
2001 Forester, SRP
2007 WRX TR, UGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by case1r View Post
maybe we shouldn't have radios either then, or window controls, or rear view mirrors (I see people adjusting theirs while driving), or moon roofs

maybe they should make it illegal to pick your nose while driving, that's definitely distracting, not only to the picker but to everyone who is laughing at you

apparently no one agrees with you either, because if you look at trends these days, there's more and more gadgetry making its way into new cars.
Everything you mentioned you can do without becoming unaware of your surroundings. As for "more gadgetry", most of the technology being added to cars is making it easier for people to keep their mind on what's at hand. An auto dimming rear-view mirror, as one example, makes it so you won't be blinded by lights from the rear... you don't even have to hit a manual switch to dim it.

Let's just say if you were in an accident because someone was doing something in their car they weren't supposed to be, you would be singing a different tone.
depACE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
moving to boston from washington state dirtydevils_89014 New England Impreza Club Forum -- NESIC 20 09-09-2008 11:29 PM
Moveing out of state so i have to sell my cars. madmax03 Private Vehicle 'For Sale' Classifieds 0 06-07-2008 02:37 PM
News: Australia mulls car smoking ban Gil Off-Topic 108 02-28-2006 05:54 PM
Smoking Ban States?+ Hawkeye Off-Topic 105 01-19-2006 12:51 AM
OT: Washington state may become TWO states! RightyTighty North West Impreza Club Forum -- NWIC 32 02-27-2005 05:26 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.