3.

I never understood why its pronounced "Meezer"

10/26/2007 3:30:51 PM

If society had decided that then cigarettes would be illegal. But they're not.

10/26/2007 3:31:28 PM

Quote :

"And naturally we'll get the argument (if we haven't already) that cars should be banned since they pump out noxious gases and environmental pollutants. Which is also a valid point. However, cars do provide a nice utility for society; they get us to places much quicker. They are not without their dangers, but they are very useful. Who does smoking benefit? What possible utility does that give to society?"

It might very well be a hypocritical stance, but society on a whole has decided that cars do provide utility. But all cars are also built with catalytic converters and have to get annual emissions inspections, and there is on-going research into alternatively-powered cars. So society is still working on it, but no matter how you look at it, cigarettes don't contribute anything positive to society.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 3:34 PM. Reason : blah]

10/26/2007 3:32:02 PM

Society did just that.

10/26/2007 3:32:58 PM

Cigarettes are illegal? Society decided cocaine and heroin were not acceptable. Those things are illegal. Cigarettes are legal.

10/26/2007 3:34:00 PM

Not in Chapel Hill, not in public places, and not within 100ft of buildings on campus.

10/26/2007 3:35:01 PM

So society = Chapel Hill...gotcha

10/26/2007 3:35:39 PM

Well, that's one way to give up your argument.

10/26/2007 3:37:12 PM

Nobody's going to disagree with you that there are stupid and/or hypocritical laws on the books, but bringing them up isn't going to make you correct. I have stated my reasons why this ban isn't a bad idea, and I provided justification at your request. If you can prove that banning cigarettes is somehow illogical or causes more harm to society than good, then bring forth the evidence. Otherwise shut the hell up and stop whining about your precious cigarettes.

10/26/2007 3:38:20 PM

Quote :

"So society = Chapel Hill...gotcha"

yes. the UNC community is a society.

and that society banned cigarettes from their environment. not any other environments. just the one they have jurisdiction over: their own.

if you want to smoke in their community, in their society, go walk 100 feet and stand by the dumpster. That way you dont blow your pollutants all over normal people minding their own business.







[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 3:41 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 3:38:21 PM

I think it is fucking retarted how some cities banned cigs from the damn BAR. If you are going to the BAR part of the atmosphere besides sluts in revealing attire, drunken assholes, and people throwing up in the stalls is people smoking. Let the free market decide. If a bunch of young people want a bar where they will not be annoyed with cigarette smoke than a bar will open to accommodate their needs. The bar that does allow smoking will have to decide whether or not it will be more profitable then to ban smoking also in an attempt to get backs some of its customers or if the smoking populace is big enough to continue on with current policy.

10/26/2007 3:42:32 PM

Quote :

"sluts in revealing attire, drunken assholes, and people throwing up in the stalls "

that's only maybe 1% of the "bars" in society.

sorry to inform you that most of the world doesnt behave as if they live in a shitty frat house.

10/26/2007 3:46:06 PM

never gone down to glenwood?

10/26/2007 3:49:35 PM

I hope you realize the restaurant industry lobbied heavily for a statewide smoking ban. It is good for business, just not if any one place is an island. More people go out when they don't have to suck in cigarette smoke the whole time. I thought Lawrence, KS had a nice balance, where smoking was banned indoors for restaurants/bars but not on outdoor patios. A number of the bar owners complained when the ordinance passed, but they ended up building extensive patios (a couple places added a 2-level deck) and ended up with more customers.

I also agree with a decent radius around doors and windows of buildings, because smokers tend to swarm around doorways like bugs to a light. It can become a hassle not just from the "wall of smoke", but also physically blocking doorways, and the fact that smoke gets sucked right into the building.

10/26/2007 3:51:33 PM

Why did the individual restaurants just not use their own store policies to ban smoking?????????????????????????

10/26/2007 3:52:35 PM

Quote :

"the restaurant industry lobbied heavily for a statewide smoking ban"

because they didnt have the gumption to initiate a ban in their own restaurant

Quote :

"smokers tend to swarm around doorways like bugs to a light"

when i smoke i tend to avoid doorways because of non smokers...

10/26/2007 3:53:36 PM

^ and ^^

Quote :

"It is good for business, just not if any one place is an island."

already addressed.



I'll also note that when I eat out at a restaurant, I sometimes enjoy a beer with dinner. Of course, when I have a beer I don't insist that every other person in the restaurant, including pregnant women and small children, have a beer or part of one whether they want to or not.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 4:11:32 PM

generally if something is good for business, businesses will implement it on their own and not wait for a government mandate...some places did ban smoking...some worked out, some didn't...other places tried test bans where they would ban smoking on maybe a Sunday for a few weeks to see the reaction...why do we need to let the government decide?

10/26/2007 4:13:15 PM

Yes, generally.

This is not one of those cases, for the reasons stated above.

10/26/2007 4:14:09 PM

If I was a restaurant owner and I thought by banning smoking I could get more customers = make more money = good for business, I'd implement a ban...its as simple as that...the reason many restaurant owners have not done this is they think it might decrease their business...obviously a statewide ban would level the playing field to an extent, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for business

10/26/2007 4:18:50 PM

I don't understand what about this you aren't getting.

Any one business doing it by themselves will decrease business at that location.

10/26/2007 4:20:42 PM

Quote :

"obviously a statewide ban would level the playing field to an extent, but it wouldn't necessarily be good for business"

Just like it wouldn't necessarily be bad for business either.

Look, the revolution is already underway in various metropolitan areas in the country. So this debate is pretty pointless. After years and years of non smokers getting the short end of the convenience stick, now its your turn.

10/26/2007 4:20:57 PM

^^Not necesarily...why wouldnt they get more business assuming "More people go out when they don't have to suck in cigarette smoke the whole time" ?

10/26/2007 4:22:13 PM

You're mis-assigning the cause for why they'd do more business. If the smokers had another option, they'd all go there instead (decreasing overall business). However, assuming smoking is banned, smokers have no smoking option when going out. Thus, whether they can smoke there or not is not a deciding factor (because no matter where they choose, they can't), so they choose based on other factors (likely the same ones they would choose if there was no smoking ban).

This, however, also opens up the market that doesn't want to go out because of smokers.

10/26/2007 4:28:01 PM

Quote :

"If the smokers had another option, they'd all go there instead (decreasing overall business). "

And the non smokers would all go to this place (increasing overall business)

Plus couldnt a statewide ban cause less smokers to go out (decreasing overall business)?

10/26/2007 4:30:04 PM

It's been shown they still go out, they just find other ways to get their fix, ie, by going outside.

10/26/2007 4:31:11 PM

Quote :

"And the non smokers would all go to this place (increasing overall business)"

It probably won't outweigh the smokers. At least that's what the data suggests.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 4:33:10 PM

Designated smoking lounges or areas seem like a fair way to solve the problems related to second-hand smoke.

(But smoking lounges and areas wouldn't further a de facto ban on cigarettes...so I guess all you people who are just so concerned with second-hand smoke wouldn't go for that. )

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 4:40 PM. Reason : sss]

10/26/2007 4:37:15 PM

Actually smoking areas are a good idea.

10/26/2007 4:40:52 PM

10/26/2007 4:44:39 PM

I wholly support your right to smoke and I think smoking areas are fine as long as I don't have to breath the smoke. If people want to smoke then let them, but it's not fair to put smoke in anyones face that doesn't want it there, especially those of us with asthma/allergies :l

10/26/2007 4:45:09 PM

I have no idea why people view us as crazy-ass anti-smoking people. This isn't a slippery-slope.

10/26/2007 4:54:57 PM

^I don't know who you mean by us.

But it's evident to me that the people involved with passing the smoking ban at UNC-CH are anti-smoking people.

10/26/2007 5:30:03 PM

People who support not having to be subject to needless toxic matter during daily activities (that would be "us").

I think having designated smoking areas is a great idea, keeps smokers and non-smokers happy alike, and is fairest of all.

10/26/2007 5:34:11 PM

Quote :

"^i agree with that in theory and i dont have a problem with bans inside buildings...i'll say again i do think private bar or club owners should be able to dictate their own policies...in which case if a bar owner allows smoking, you know that there will be smoking there and you can choose to go there or not to go there when we talk about banning smoking outdoors within 100 feet of a building...thats a little different...you're not exactly being forced to be in an enclosed space thats full of smoke since you're outdoors"

that 100 feet is still owned by the state/university so if they think its necessary to ban smoking on their grounds...its their call. no one is losing here. All they're saying is they don't want you contributing to your own bad health and others around you on their property. (sarcasm)Maybe its a guilty conscience thing (/sarcasm)

Personally I would ban smoking from the work place because too many people take 'smoke breaks' and if you aren't a smoker you aren't entitled to 10 minute breaks every 30 minutes (not that I care because I don't work in that kind of an environment where you need permission to take a break)

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 6:10:29 PM

i never thought i'd agree with anything from Chapel Hill.... but dangit i do on this one.

10/26/2007 6:16:12 PM

Quote :

"This isn't a slippery-slope."

Sure it is. It used to be smoking was every where, then they banned it in some government buildings and things like planes. People complained, warned that this would lead to bans in places like bars, and parks. They were told it's not a slippery slope, don't be silly.

Then they started banning it in bars and eating establishments (and not by choice of establishment, but by law). And again, there was complaining and warning about the dangerous precidents, and again they were told to stop being silly, all smokers had to do was go outside.

Now we're seeing bans that effectively ban smoking outdoors, in public. And here we are again being told it's not a slippery slope. How much further does it have to go before we acknowledge it's a slippery slope we're on?

And for the record, I don't smoke, I never have, and I fully recognize that UNC has the right to regulate what occurs on it's campus. That still doesn't mean I agree with their decision or the precident it sets. I especially don't like it due to the quasi public/private property aspect of it.

10/26/2007 9:43:04 PM

If the smokers of Chapel Hill don't like it, can they not vote the people out of office?

10/26/2007 10:18:34 PM

say it's a slippery slope or whatever you want to call it, i dont care. but realize this:



our ultimate goal is to ban smoking in any and every public place.

then, once we accomplish that, we will work to criminalize smoking around children, whether its in a private home, vehicle or whatever.

but rest assured, we're not going to try to outlaw cigarettes, hell no. they're an awesome source of revenue. we will of course work to steadily increase the taxes on them and funnel the revenue into pet projects like childrens' health, sex education, and after school programs.

does that bother you or offend you? too fucking bad. your nasty disgusting polluting habit bothers ME. and I'm on the winning side of state legislatures, voter referendums and initiatives around the nation.

so you better believe it. many states are already lining up. your state might hold out a few more years, but we'll get to you too.






[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 10:42:51 PM

Quote :

"does that bother you or offend you? too fucking bad. your nasty disgusting polluting habit bothers ME. and I'm on the winning side of state legislatures, voter referendums and initiatives around the nation."

If only the founding fathers had tried to set up mechanisms to prevent tyranny of the majority...

10/27/2007 12:51:25 AM

Quote :

"neither is clean air"

right to life maybe?

10/27/2007 1:15:24 AM

Quote :

"If only the founding fathers had tried to set up mechanisms to prevent tyranny of the majority... "

"Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers."

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; the majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority"

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2007 4:55:06 PM

im sorry, but nowhere in any civil code or constitutional law throughout 6000 years of human history, has there ever been a case where the minority has the "right" to pollute the environment with poisons that are known to sicken people and contribute to early death.

you telling me that you have, as a protected "minority," the "right" to blow carcinogen-laden fumes all throughout my breathing space is ridiculous, and to claim some sort of philosophical heritage of the "Founding Fathers" is either completely ignorant, or a flat-out lie.

I mean, i might as well claim the "right" to piss and shit in the middle of the road, burn piles of old tires in my front lawn, drive my homemade automobile that runs on a coal-fired steam engine throughout town, and dump my warehouse full of lead paint into the storm sewers.

what? the majority of society doesnt want me to do that?? Hey, too bad. I'm a minority, you can't oppress me. Dont Tread On Me, motherfuckers. Foundin' Fathers n shit, ya know.



[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 6:22 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2007 6:20:54 PM

Quote :

"this isn't a personal freedom issue. smoking affects OTHER PEOPLE AROUND THEM. i'm all for a ban on public smoking. tired of walking along and suddenly smelling a big cloud of shit"

This is why I am an advocate of smokeless tobacco. Its popularity in Sweden has resulted in the lowest smoking rate in Europe, as well as bellow average tobacco related diseases. It may take longer for the nicotine to kick in, but it doesn't affect the health of those around you. It could really be a viable alternative to smoking if it could ever lose the redneck stigma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/business/03tobacco.html

10/27/2007 6:36:12 PM

^^haha FTW!

[Edited on October 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2007 6:36:36 PM

^^

Quote :

"bellow average tobacco related diseases"

What about cancers of the mouth? I thought chewing tobacco gave you all sorts of mouth-related cancers. Although I admittedly don't know much about it.

But yeah, that would be a very reasonable compromise. Those who still want to consume tobacco products could still do so, and there wouldn't be any secondhand smoke. The only thing I could see people complaining about is all the brown spit that would start appearing everywhere, but that wouldn't be any different than the complaint about cigarette butts being everywhere.

10/27/2007 7:12:25 PM

watching people spit disgusting brown shit from their mouth is just as bad.

10/27/2007 7:24:46 PM

have you ever stepped in a pile of chew-spit?

10/27/2007 7:46:08 PM

I have cleaned up after a party and picked up a bottle of beer to dump the remains in the sink...instead of beer it would be chew spit :gross:

10/27/2007 7:50:28 PM

Quote :

"hopefully they'll ban fat people next"

10/27/2007 8:03:56 PM