Tobacco smoke:

Well, its okay at the public golf course that is losing money, but not at any other parks.

My guess is that this ordinance is trendy, but 90% unenforceable. If that is the case, why bother?

Well, Norman has that "Parking Enforcement" person (and car) that gives people parking tickets. Now, they need a car that says "Smoking Enforcement".....and someone to give smoking tickets.

as a non-smoker, I'd support it!

just stop smoking and you wont have to worry about it.

Save your money, your lungs and the people around you from having to take their clothes to the dry cleaners every time they go out.

Bleh its outside. Do what you want, just dont blow it in my face.

I think it is just another useless law that will tie up police when ever they could be patrolling the area busting real criminals.

It takes approximately 2-3 minutes to smoke a cigarette. Norman PD will get called out to the park every time a Deanna Doright soccer mom sees someone smoking. By the time they arrrive the smoker will have put the cigarette out and deny it. Not to mention how many people are going to show up in court as witness on a smoking complaint? 0.


Seriously, I think people need to stop whining about the small stuff. At some point we need to police ourselves and let law enforcement focus on the real crimes.

If people just applied a little common courtesy and commons sense to their lives the world would be a better place.

Useless law.

Waste of time.

Waste of money.

I think the intent is to avoid having smokers close by people who might be playing sport, jogging or riding bikes. In that respect, it is not a waste of time nor money.

I'm guessing it will become self-regulating or be afraid of those soccer moms.

Yet another example of what happens when the folks who ran the av lab in junior high grow up and get into office

QUOTE=kevinpate;237146]Yet another example of what happens when the folks who ran the av lab in junior high grow up and get into office[/QUOTE]
:Smiley112 :tiphat:[

I'm glad Norman put this law into effect, at least when I go ride my bike or take a walk at the park I won't be subjected to the stench of cigarette smoke coming from someone sitting 200 yards away on a windy day. Definitely not a waste of time or money, if people want to kill their lungs that's fine, don't subject non-smokers to the same. It's a proven fact that second-hand smoke can be just as deadly if not even more than smoking a cigarette. Does it seem I'm extremely intolerant of cigarette smoke? You bet I am.

I'm glad Norman put this law into effect, at least when I go ride my bike or take a walk at the park I won't be subjected to the stench of cigarette smoke coming from someone sitting 200 yards away on a windy day. Definitely not a waste of time or money, if people want to kill their lungs that's fine, don't subject non-smokers to the same. It's a proven fact that second-hand smoke can be just as deadly if not even more than smoking a cigarette. Does it seem I'm extremely intolerant of cigarette smoke? You bet I am.I am an ex-smoker and "should" be a smoke nazi like yourself but I know your info on secondhand smoke is udder horse hockey. You sound like a giant, intolerant wuss to me. Just wondering if you support those who want to ban perfume use in public or the use of peanuts in ANY foods.

I am an ex-smoker and "should" be a smoke nazi like yourself but I know your info on secondhand smoke is udder horse hockey. You sound like a giant, intolerant wuss to me. Just wondering if you support those who want to ban perfume use in public or the use of peanuts in ANY foods.

Ahh so resorting to personal attacks is the in-thing these days, but then again discussion forums are not immune either, so I digress.

Read the medical journals, the experts' opinions, heck even heart doctors have said that second-hand smoke is bad. Unless of course you think what they have to say is actually utter horse-hockey as well.

I eat everything, but then again someone eating peanuts isn't going to affect someone allergic to them unless the allergic person eats those peanuts as well. And perfume isn't known to affect people either, but cigarette smoke has. If you're an ex-smoker, good for you. Too bad you took my rant personally, it's not that I hate cigarette smokers or anything, I hate cigarette smoke.

Almost all public places in California -- including beaches and parks -- have banned smoking. Been that way for quite some time.

It's not so much about police running around enforcing the law; it's more about changing the behavior of people. If they know they aren't supposed to do it, most won't.

Works very well here and you rarely see anyone trying to enforce the laws.

Is drinking in the parks, like beer, banned in Norman?

Is drinking in the parks, like beer, banned in Norman?

not that i've ever known

As a rule, it seems to me that okc goes out of its way to make the parks people-unfriendly. i was once given a ticket for practiing bb at night which were my off hours; i've been hassled by police for chatting with friends because the police had convinced themselves it was a gay hookup, the parks are closed and gated because of the hour, roads are permanently blocked, entrances and exits the same. so what is the point of having parks if we can't get together there and enjoy the open space? and now, they don't want me to smoke there; let's just sell them to developers and drop the issues.

Almost all public places in California -- including beaches and parks -- have banned smoking. Been that way for quite some time.

It's not so much about police running around enforcing the law; it's more about changing the behavior of people. If they know they aren't supposed to do it, most won't.

Works very well here and you rarely see anyone trying to enforce the laws.

There you go. It is self enforcing everywhere it is implemented that I have seen as well. No police required, just societial pressure, and even most smokers are nice folks who obey the rules.

You guys "whining" about the law are just as whiney as the ones you are saying are whining about the smokers. :LolLolLol

TYou guys "whining" about the law are just as whiney as the ones you are saying are whining about the smokers. :LolLolLol

So, what about you guys whining about those whining about the laws?:LolLolLol

So, what about you guys whining about those whining about the laws?:LolLolLol

Case in point: Pretty silly when you get right down to it, huh?

Case in point: Pretty silly when you get right down to it, huh?

Indeed.

Okay. If a jogger 200 yards away from a smoker can detect cigarette smoke, which is by then what, around 2 parts per kajillion, then I want you to be on the next K9 training facility because your sense of smell is impressive.

Let's be honest, just how life threatening is it to be 200 yards away from a smoker versus, say...breathing carbon monoxide on a daily basis in traffic?

I would hate to think how you would be affected by a fellow jogger/biker in front of you letting one rip.

Ruh oh. Don't want to give him any ideas on another law.

This law is proof we have way too many people that were raised spoiled and still live a spolied brat life. They think everyone has to obey their every wish and command.

At some point you have to learn to adapt to the world. You have to understand that you control what bothers you. It is not the government's and society's reponsiblity to see to it you have a stress free life.

You can always choose to ignore something or better yet move to another area. Common courtesy is a two way street. Sometimes it's better for you to take action and leave the offending person alone.

They think everyone has to obey their every wish and command.

Which is one more reason to run for office...

I am an ex-smoker and "should" be a smoke nazi like yourself but I know your info on secondhand smoke is udder horse hockey. You sound like a giant, intolerant wuss to me. Just wondering if you support those who want to ban perfume use in public or the use of peanuts in ANY foods. Well it sounds like that you are intolerant of this poster voicing his/her opinion:^( I do however, give you kudos for being an ex-smoker :^)

Well it sounds like that you are intolerant of this poster voicing his/her opinion:^( I do however, give you kudos for being an ex-smoker :^)Aaah ...I was in a bad mood and wanting a cigarette when I wrote that. But I truly don't believe a word about second hand smoke being dangerous except in extreme cases, like maybe a non smoker who spends a career working in a very smokey bar. But even then I think a person would have to have a genetic propensity for whatever malady got them. Even very few smokers (percentagewise) die from smoking related diseases. And I truly believe that Oneforone is correct about us all being spoiled. We don't want any kind of discomfort or inconvenience. They are considered affronts to us spoiled Americans. Most of our friends and relatives still smoke and we let them smoke in our home just like before. We had said before we quit that we were not going to be typical ex-smokers and become nazis about it. Thank goodness it has not be hard to do.

This law is proof we have way too many people that were raised spoiled and still live a spolied brat life. They think everyone has to obey their every wish and command.

At some point you have to learn to adapt to the world. You have to understand that you control what bothers you. It is not the government's and society's reponsiblity to see to it you have a stress free life.

You can always choose to ignore something or better yet move to another area. Common courtesy is a two way street. Sometimes it's better for you to take action and leave the offending person alone.

I must be misunderstanding exactly what you are talking anout here OFO.

Spoiled brats? Who? Where?

Adapt to the world? What, accept inhaling second hand smoke?

Choose to ignore second hand smoke?

If I misread, I apologize...but are you saying non smokers should STFU and live with the infringement of second hand smoke?

I must be misunderstanding exactly what you are talking anout here OFO.

Spoiled brats? Who? Where?

Adapt to the world? What, accept inhaling second hand smoke?

Choose to ignore second hand smoke?

If I misread, I apologize...but are you saying non smokers should STFU and live with the infringement of second hand smoke?Well, at least outdoors, for heaven's sake.

Smoking bans in restaraunts and any other indoor public place? No problem. Smoking bans on sidewalks in crowded areas like downtown or public facilities (Bricktown Ballpark)? OK, I am fine with that. Smoking bans on a wide open golf course where the wind generally blows 20+ MPH - thats getting to be a bit over-the-top. Ban smoking in the pro shop but once you are out in the open elements, there is very little harm from 2nd hand smoke anyone is going to suffer.

I'm glad Norman put this law into effect, at least when I go ride my bike or take a walk at the park I won't be subjected to the stench of cigarette smoke coming from someone sitting 200 yards away on a windy day. Definitely not a waste of time or money, if people want to kill their lungs that's fine, don't subject non-smokers to the same. It's a proven fact that second-hand smoke can be just as deadly if not even more than smoking a cigarette. Does it seem I'm extremely intolerant of cigarette smoke? You bet I am.

LOLOLOLOL
Lrn2Substances

You aren't getting addicted to the secondhand smoke, are you?
Know what that means?
That means that your brain isn't receiving as much nicotine as the smoker(IE: Less smoke inhalation). You aren't feeling a nicotine rush when you ride by a smoker for a split-second, are you? Didn't think so. Smokers last for 50+ years, sucking down a pack or more a day. Do you REALLY think that second-hand smoke is more harmful?

If so, you're a tool and more disillusioned and narcissistic than I thought.

Also: I'm sure that if you're near a smoker in an environment where you're actually being subjected to smoke inhalation and you ask(NICELY) for them to put it out(THAT MEANS USE PLEASE AND THANK YOU), they will. And, if they give you some smartass remark, then they're a hateful prick and probably deserve cancer. :3

I'll also take this opportunity to call you a yuppie.
Yuppie. <3

Boo hoo to all the non smokers whining about people smoking OUTSIDE. Because why? They don't want to see smokers lighting up in public? Whatever. Why don't we pass laws outlawing fast food. I mean, I have to LOOK at the resulting fat people, and I think that's just so rude and inconsiderate of them.

Oh yeah, smoke a cigarette - it'll curb your appetite.

Hey...I have a simple solution for smokers: Smoke at home! The smoke is nasty and nobody but smokers like it, yet smokers feel they have some sort of "right" to impose their nasty habit upon others in public places. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for smokers.

In the workplace, smokers waste productive time walking outside to the "smoking area" to take those extra smoking breaks. Smokers tend to catch more colds and miss work more often than non-smokers. Employers have the right to drug test potential employees, and not hire dopers. Maybe they should have the right to test for and refuse to hire smokers.

Insurance companies have the right to perform blood tests before they sell you a life insurance or health insurance policy and to charge you more for your insurance because smokers are higher risk, get sick more often, get cancer more often and die sooner than non smokers. So, hey, all you Libertarian and conservative types who believe society has no obligation to ensure every American has access to health insurance, this is right in line with your philosophies and ideologies! Lets stop paying for healthcare for smokerrs! We'll save billions!!

So, puff away...inside your own home, away from the public, and hopefully you will give your children the common courtesy of not forcing them to breathe your second hand smoke, which, when you get right down to it, is child abuse.

OK smokers, attack away. Go ahead and justify your habit of igniting dead pant matter and inhaling the smoke, and why you think you have some "right" to annoy others, and expose them to health risks with your nasty habit.

Hey...I have a simple solution for smokers: Smoke at home! The smoke is nasty and nobody but smokers like it, yet smokers feel they have some sort of "right" to impose their nasty habit upon others in public places. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for smokers.

In the workplace, smokers waste productive time walking outside to the "smoking area" to take those extra smoking breaks. Smokers tend to catch more colds and miss work more often than non-smokers. Employers have the right to drug test potential employees, and not hire dopers. Maybe they should have the right to test for and refuse to hire smokers.

Insurance companies have the right to perform blood tests before they sell you a life insurance or health insurance policy and to charge you more for your insurance because smokers are higher risk, get sick more often, get cancer more often and die sooner than non smokers. So, hey, all you Libertarian and conservative types who believe society has no obligation to ensure every American has access to health insurance, this is right in line with your philosophies and ideologies! Lets stop paying for healthcare for smokerrs! We'll save billions!!

So, puff away...inside your own home, away from the public, and hopefully you will give your children the common courtesy of not forcing them to breathe your second hand smoke, which, when you get right down to it, is child abuse.

OK smokers, attack away. Go ahead and justify your habit of igniting dead pant matter and inhaling the smoke, and why you think you have some "right" to annoy others, and expose them to health risks with your nasty habit. Thanks for reminding me, we DO pay higher rates on our insurance because we were smokers when we bought the policies; I need to call an tell them we're nearly 6 months clean and ask when we get that discount. Most of what you said was mostly untrue or rude, however. Child abuse ...jeeez ....riiiight.

Most of what you said was mostly untrue or rude, however. Child abuse ...jeeez ....riiiight.

Ok, fair dinkum. Make your case point by point. No intent to be rude, just calling it as I see it. Oh, and I'm an ex smoker, 20 years quit, and I hereby tender my apologies to all the people I annoyed with my own nasty habit.

Hey...I have a simple solution for smokers: Smoke at home! The smoke is nasty and nobody but smokers like it, yet smokers feel they have some sort of "right" to impose their nasty habit upon others in public places. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for smokers.

In the workplace, smokers waste productive time walking outside to the "smoking area" to take those extra smoking breaks. Smokers tend to catch more colds and miss work more often than non-smokers. Employers have the right to drug test potential employees, and not hire dopers. Maybe they should have the right to test for and refuse to hire smokers.

Insurance companies have the right to perform blood tests before they sell you a life insurance or health insurance policy and to charge you more for your insurance because smokers are higher risk, get sick more often, get cancer more often and die sooner than non smokers. So, hey, all you Libertarian and conservative types who believe society has no obligation to ensure every American has access to health insurance, this is right in line with your philosophies and ideologies! Lets stop paying for healthcare for smokerrs! We'll save billions!!

So, puff away...inside your own home, away from the public, and hopefully you will give your children the common courtesy of not forcing them to breathe your second hand smoke, which, when you get right down to it, is child abuse.

OK smokers, attack away. Go ahead and justify your habit of igniting dead pant matter and inhaling the smoke, and why you think you have some "right" to annoy others, and expose them to health risks with your nasty habit.

I guess it is all a matter of perspective so let me give some context to mine. The world man has made for himself in nature has always stunk to high heaven. Decaying and rotting leftovers, our and our animals "waste, our own body odors (utterly unbearable without constant attention). Practically everything man did caused a stink so he was forced to invent perfumes and use incenses to cover it all up as much as possible. But in short, especially if you lived in a city, life stunk BIGTIME.

Thankfully through the use of scientific knowledge, byandlarge, our world smells MUCH better now, but I remember when as a child there were times when the smell of cigarette smoke was a very welcomed coverup for a fouler odor. Growing up in the 40's and 50's when nearly all men and more and more women were smoking, I recall none of my friends EVER complaining about having to smell smoke (maybe cigar and SOME pipe tobaccos) in their homes or out in the world around them (where doctors would smoke while doing an examination). I would imagine that the lack of complaint was due partly to the fact that we all still knew that live stunk. We knew that there was nothing in the Bible, the Constitution or Shakespeare that said life should be without foul odors. We avoided them how and when we could but we never considered that we had a RIGHT to be free of them.

And we knew that the world didn't just stink, it was unhealthy with opportunistic bugs everywhere. Getting sick for a few days at a time with one thing or another was part of life. It is a good thing that we have reduced the amount of time that kids spend sick in bed, but now we are doing our children a disservice by not allowing them to built immunities to these 'bugs." When life is TOO sanitary we grow up susceptible to even worse things and some in the medical community are warning us against this over sanitation business.

We HAVE spoiled outselves. We think we should NEVER have to "suffer" ANYthing. No pain, no discomfort, no inconvenience, no impositions, no embarrassments, no paying of pipers, and no odors that are not pleasant. I am not proud of where we have come to.

All this has led to our outlawing things that some people have adverse effects to and I find that to be as sad as our dumbing down our education so everyone looks like a winner on paper.

We all need to realize that life is not a bed of roses and is sometimes a cow pie. And we need to remember that if everything is easy we can never appreciate it like we should. Sometimes life stinks and sometimes you cross paths with someone who smokes. I won't tell you to "get used to it," but I will say I think it would be nice if every now and then you were a bit more tolerant in the light of history. That's all.

I must be misunderstanding exactly what you are talking anout here OFO.

Spoiled brats? Who? Where?

Adapt to the world? What, accept inhaling second hand smoke?

Choose to ignore second hand smoke?

If I misread, I apologize...but are you saying non smokers should STFU and live with the infringement of second hand smoke?

I am not saying that, I am saying eventually each induvidual has to make the decision to pick their battles. Sometimes people are going to do things to irritate you. You have several options. Move to another place, ignore it, or ask the person nicely to move down wind from you. Today the option seems to be throw a screaming fit or complain to your best buddy from high school who now holds a seat in government.

Today it's no smoking. What is next? No grilling in the park. No eating anything other than fruits and vegetables in the park. No sitting in the park. It seems to me the 98 pound fitness freaks (those lovely people who spend every minute of their free time excercising out of fear they might gain an ounce of fat on their body.) have taken over the world. They think every think designed to their needs.

I am not saying that, I am saying eventually each induvidual has to make the decision to pick their battles. Sometimes people are going to do things to irritate you. You have several options. Move to another place, ignore it, or ask the person nicely to move down wind from you. Today the option seems to be throw a screaming fit or complain to your best buddy from high school who now holds a seat in government.

Today it's no smoking. What is next? No grilling in the park. No eating anything other than fruits and vegetables in the park. No sitting in the park. It seems to me the 98 pound fitness freaks (those lovely people who spend every minute of their free time excercising out of fear they might gain an ounce of fat on their body.) have taken over the world. They think every think designed to their needs.

I think we evolve as we learn. WE used to think smoking was harmless; then we learned it caused lung cancer and pancreatic cancer (of which my own father, a Lucky Strike smoker, died of), as well as emphasema and other lung diseases.

We used to think second hand smoke was harmless until controlled studies revealed the harm caused to children of smokers, like bronchitus and asthma.

And now we have learned that service workers in smoking establishments have been harmed and are being harmed by second hand smoke. There is no longer even a debate on the issue - we know it is harmful to health.

It is simply part of our human societial and social evolution, and it has been clashing with old social customs, and it is dying a hard, slow death, as it should. Just like we have learned that drinking from lead containers causes reproduction problems and birth defects and that mercury causes nurological problems. We got over the loss of lead paint and have learned to find other industrial processes that do not utilize mercury. Tobacco must take the same course.

[QUOTE=HVAC Instructor;247208]Hey...I have a simple solution for smokers: Smoke at home! QUOTE]

Coming soon to a country near you! Federal ban on smoking in homes that are physically attached to others - just in case the smoke finds a way thru the walls to the adjoining units. Ban smoking, outlaw driving after ANY alcahol - legalize pot!

[QUOTE=HVAC Instructor;247208]Hey...I have a simple solution for smokers: Smoke at home! QUOTE]

Coming soon to a country near you! Federal ban on smoking in homes that are physically attached to others - just in case the smoke finds a way thru the walls to the adjoining units. Ban smoking, outlaw driving after ANY alcahol - legalize pot!

Nice hyperbole Mugsy! :LolLolLol But...since you brought it up:

If you live in an apartment and your clothes stink because your neigbor in the adjoining apartment smokes like a freight train, then there are two choices - either force the landlord to install effective vapor barriers or stop smoking.

Don't drink and drive...What a concept! I do not drive after drinking even one beer; what's the problem? When the family goes out, the rule is the driver does not drink - period! Simple enough.

Legalize pot? Hell yes! I'm all for that with the common sense being that even though legal like alcohol, you do not have the right to annoy others with the smoke, and you don't smoke weed and drive. Again, a simple common sense concept.

Next!

I think we evolve as we learn. WE used to think smoking was harmless; then we learned it caused lung cancer and pancreatic cancer (of which my own father, a Lucky Strike smoker, died of), as well as emphasema and other lung diseases.

We used to think second hand smoke was harmless until controlled studies revealed the harm caused to children of smokers, like bronchitus and asthma.

And now we have learned that service workers in smoking establishments have been harmed and are being harmed by second hand smoke. There is no longer even a debate on the issue - we know it is harmful to health.

It is simply part of our human societial and social evolution, and it has been clashing with old social customs, and it is dying a hard, slow death, as it should. Just like we have learned that drinking from lead containers causes reproduction problems and birth defects and that mercury causes nurological problems. We got over the loss of lead paint and have learned to find other industrial processes that do not utilize mercury. Tobacco must take the same course.Please direct me to the best study on 2nd hand smoke. I want to see their methodology, etc. I have never seen anything that looked like more than tool to beat over the heads of the heads of the tobacco companies for lying about it being addictive. It all looks like a snit to me. I can be convinced I'm wrong. It happens a lot, but I am not about to accept any lobby groups statement.

Also, I wish you had addressed my post point by point but I'll live.

Please direct me to the best study on 2nd hand smoke. I want to see their methodology, etc. I have never seen anything that looked like more than tool to beat over the heads of the heads of the tobacco companies for lying about it being addictive. It all looks like a snit to me. I can be convinced I'm wrong. It happens a lot, but I am not about to accept any lobby groups statement.

Also, I wish you had addressed my post point by point but I'll live.

No worries mate!

Here's one:

U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html)

And here is the EPA web page on the subject:

"Setting the Record Straight... " | Smoke-free Homes Program | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html#introduction)

I think you concede that smoking is bad for you, right? If it is unhealthy for you to inhale smoke through a filtered cigarette, how could it not be unhealthy for others to breathe the unfiltered smoke from the end of your cigarette along with the exhaled smoke, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that you exhaled?

Do you really need a study to convince you?

No worries mate!

Here's one:

U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html)

And here is the EPA web page on the subject:

"Setting the Record Straight... " | Smoke-free Homes Program | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html#introduction)

I think you concede that smoking is bad for you, right? If it is unhealthy for you to inhale smoke through a filtered cigarette, how could it not be unhealthy for others to breathe the unfiltered smoke from the end of your cigarette along with the exhaled smoke, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that you exhaled?

Do you really need a study to convince you?

I dont think anyone denies that 2nd hand smoke is a danger indoors, but we are talking about OUTDOORS in an open space.

I dont think anyone denies that 2nd hand smoke is a danger indoors, but we are talking about OUTDOORS in an open space.

Why should non smokers have to inhale second hand smoke outdoors?

Why can't we enjoy our parks without smokers forcing their smoke on us in the bleachers at our kids ballgames, or while walking the track at the local park, or enjoying any outdoor public event?

What gives smokers the right to impose their smoke on non smokers anywhere?

As a kid I was regularly locked in a car with no air conditioning and the windows shut with sadistic adults smoking like backed up chimneys. I tried to hold my breath for miles. Other than the flashbacks and horrible nightmares, didn't hurt ME none!

Why should non smokers have to inhale second hand smoke outdoors?

Why can't we enjoy our parks without smokers forcing their smoke on us in the bleachers at our kids ballgames, or while walking the track at the local park, or enjoying any outdoor public event?

What gives smokers the right to impose their smoke on non smokers anywhere?

First, smoking is already banned at most organized sporting events, indoor or outdoor. More later on that.

The same reason we have to smell corn nut breath on some people, the same reason we have to smell the charcoal cooking on our neighbors grills every summer weekend, the same reason we have to smell truck exhaust on the highway, the same reason we have to smell someone's B O at the ballgame....its a fact of life. I don't like cigarette smoke more than anyone else but banning in a no-crowd open-air outdoor environment is going a bit too far and smacks of a socialistic we-know-whats-better-for-you-than-you-do attitude which you are starting to hear more and more of with what we eat and how we live our lives.

Banning smoking at outdoor sporting events is a totally different issue. At those, you have thousands of people packed closely together. At the golf course on the 13th fairway, you aren't in a crowd.

maybe we should start a list of undesirables in public that aren't banned currently. It seems to be where this is going...

A few off the top of my head would be:

1) boom cars that rattle my house
2) city owned lawn mowers cutting grass in city parks while emitting noxious pollutants
3) people with B.O. at the library
4) fat people at the park that set a bad example for my kids
5) those noisy leaf-blowers, bah!
6) helicopters, those things are noisey!

please add to the list!

:bedtime:

I'd like to add:
7) No whiners allowed in public.

I'd like to add:
7) No whiners allowed in public.

I don't want them in my house, either!

I don't want them in my house, either!


Here's my gauge: Set your alarm for about 2am. Go outside and look up at the sky. If you can't see millions of stars, then you're living in filth and have much bigger problems than some person smoking a cig across the park from you.

Totally out of control. It's a legal product, sold and bought legally. Using it in confined indoor spaces is one thing, but to restrict my useage of it outside is quite another.

I only smoke cigars. I quit smoking cigarettes. If I'm outside smoking and you come up and complain to me about my smoke (in Oklahoma's wind), I'm gonna ridicule you and make you feel like the pansy that you are.... We all have rights, and you have the right to hold your damn breath. Inside is one thing, outside is totally another.

No worries mate!

Here's one:

U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html)

And here is the EPA web page on the subject:

"Setting the Record Straight... " | Smoke-free Homes Program | Indoor Air Quality | Air | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html#introduction)

I think you concede that smoking is bad for you, right? If it is unhealthy for you to inhale smoke through a filtered cigarette, how could it not be unhealthy for others to breathe the unfiltered smoke from the end of your cigarette along with the exhaled smoke, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that you exhaled?

Do you really need a study to convince you?Thanks for the links. The 2nd did actually address my concerns to a large degree. It still left me with questions and it was honest enough to admit that the evidence was not absolute.

Here is the deal, about 5 years ago I had a full battery of tests for lung function after 35 years of heavy smoking. The doc was stunned and said I had the lungs of a 24 year old who had lived in a world without cigarettes or smog. I quit strictly for economic and social reasons. I truly believe that our health is determined to a huge degree by our genetics and we can never predict what is going to "get us." We are all different and laws should should not be made based on SOME peoples suseptibility. I still believe that any place of business should be free to determine if smoking (or even coffee) is allowed or not within it's own confines. A sign saying "Smoking allowed" on the front door should be sufficient to warn those who can't or won't abide the presence of smoke. No one is forced to work where there is smoke. If a person doesn't like smoke they are a tad silly to even apply for a job where it is allowed, wouldn't one think.

To answer your first question, I will concede that smoking is not GOOD for anyone, but it is not bad for everyone.

The biggest aggravation for me to work with smokers was that meetings could begin, continue for two hours, then stop. But no. We'd have to take a smoke break every 30 - 45 minutes and it would take 10 - 15 minutes each time for the smokers to get back. This went on for years and I can't express how aggravating that was. Plenty of times I'd have to work late at no pay because I'd wasted a good part of the day waiting on smokers to drag their addicted butts back to meetings.

I will be honest - some smokers although certainly not all, are just self absorbed. From tossing butts out the car window to making co-workers have to stay over to accommodate their habits. Just rude.

The biggest aggravation for me to work with smokers was that meetings could begin, continue for two hours, then stop. But no. We'd have to take a smoke break every 30 - 45 minutes and it would take 10 - 15 minutes each time for the smokers to get back. This went on for years and I can't express how aggravating that was. Plenty of times I'd have to work late at no pay because I'd wasted a good part of the day waiting on smokers to drag their addicted butts back to meetings.

I will be honest - some smokers although certainly not all, are just self absorbed. From tossing butts out the car window to making co-workers have to stay over to accommodate their habits. Just rude.You just need faster smokers to work with. I always took only 3 to 5 minutes to smoke one. :Smiley247

If I'm outside smoking and you come up and complain to me about my smoke (in Oklahoma's wind), I'm gonna ridicule you and make you feel like the pansy that you are.... We all have rights, and you have the right to hold your damn breath. Inside is one thing, outside is totally another.

Yet another internet badass. :rolleyes:

Enjoy this appropriate article:Smoking lowers IQ, thinking ability. 25/10/2005. ABC News Online (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489695.htm)

Smoking lowers IQ, thinking ability

The poorer mental function seen among alcoholics, many of whom also regularly smoke cigarettes, may be partially due to the long-term effects of nicotine, new research suggests.

"People who are also smokers are at a much higher risk," Dr Jennifer M Glass, of the University of Michigan's Addiction Research Centre, told Reuters Health.

In her study, "cigarette smoking was negatively related to IQ and thinking," she said.

This finding may seem counter-intuitive, since many smokers attest to feeling more alert and focused after smoking.

Indeed, research shows that improved mental functioning is one of the immediate effects of nicotine exposure.

Chronic smoking, however, is known to have the opposite effect.

Studies show that up to 87 per cent of alcoholics smoke cigarettes, compared to less than 30 per cent of the general United States population.

Yet, few studies have looked into cigarette smoking as a factor that might explain the cognitive deficits reported among alcoholics.

To investigate that association, Dr Glass and her colleagues examined brain function among 172 men from the same community, including 103 men who abused alcohol.

The team found that men with higher scores on the lifetime alcohol problems scale (LAPS) and those who reported a higher number of pack-years of smoking (that is, packs of cigarettes smoked per day times number of years) both had lower IQ scores and lower scores on a test of global proficiency.

The proficiency test took into account the speed and accuracy with which the men were able to perform a battery of tests including those that measured short-term memory, verbal reasoning and mathematical reasoning.

Upon further investigation, the researchers found that smoking predicted poorer global proficiency even more strongly than alcoholism did. Their findings were published online before publication in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

Smoking also appeared to be independently associated with weaker verbal and visual-spatial reasoning, the study indicates.

Thus, though smoking did not account for all of the decreased neurocognitive functioning observed among the alcohol abusers, it did seem to account for some of the effects, the report indicates.

The reason for the observed associations is unknown, and the researchers did not investigate the "cause and effect story," Dr Glass said, but she speculated that the diminished cognitive ability among smokers may be partly due to some mechanism involving a restricted flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

Based on the current report, Dr Glass said, "if you need another reason to quit smoking, it's a good potential one to add to the list." -Reuters

Yet another internet badass. :rolleyes:

Enjoy this appropriate article:Smoking lowers IQ, thinking ability. 25/10/2005. ABC News Online (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489695.htm)

Smoking lowers IQ, thinking ability

The poorer mental function seen among alcoholics, many of whom also regularly smoke cigarettes, may be partially due to the long-term effects of nicotine, new research suggests.

"People who are also smokers are at a much higher risk," Dr Jennifer M Glass, of the University of Michigan's Addiction Research Centre, told Reuters Health.

In her study, "cigarette smoking was negatively related to IQ and thinking," she said.

This finding may seem counter-intuitive, since many smokers attest to feeling more alert and focused after smoking.

Indeed, research shows that improved mental functioning is one of the immediate effects of nicotine exposure.

Chronic smoking, however, is known to have the opposite effect.

Studies show that up to 87 per cent of alcoholics smoke cigarettes, compared to less than 30 per cent of the general United States population.

Yet, few studies have looked into cigarette smoking as a factor that might explain the cognitive deficits reported among alcoholics.

To investigate that association, Dr Glass and her colleagues examined brain function among 172 men from the same community, including 103 men who abused alcohol.

The team found that men with higher scores on the lifetime alcohol problems scale (LAPS) and those who reported a higher number of pack-years of smoking (that is, packs of cigarettes smoked per day times number of years) both had lower IQ scores and lower scores on a test of global proficiency.

The proficiency test took into account the speed and accuracy with which the men were able to perform a battery of tests including those that measured short-term memory, verbal reasoning and mathematical reasoning.

Upon further investigation, the researchers found that smoking predicted poorer global proficiency even more strongly than alcoholism did. Their findings were published online before publication in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

Smoking also appeared to be independently associated with weaker verbal and visual-spatial reasoning, the study indicates.

Thus, though smoking did not account for all of the decreased neurocognitive functioning observed among the alcohol abusers, it did seem to account for some of the effects, the report indicates.

The reason for the observed associations is unknown, and the researchers did not investigate the "cause and effect story," Dr Glass said, but she speculated that the diminished cognitive ability among smokers may be partly due to some mechanism involving a restricted flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

Based on the current report, Dr Glass said, "if you need another reason to quit smoking, it's a good potential one to add to the list." -Reuters

Weeell darnit ....this was 4 years ago and they made no hard claims and they implied there were to be more results in soon and that they would show a causal connection, and further implied that it would THEN go through publication and peer review. I can't jump on this band wagon yet.

To be honest, I would imagine that the other research showed that their hypothosis was all wrong. I'm willing to put fifty cents on it.

Ahem.

Smoking interferes with male, er, verility. True story. Oh, it might not mess things up, completely, but she'll notice the difference when you quit. And that is all I have to say on the subject.

:ohno:

Ahem.

Smoking interferes with male, er, verility. True story. Oh, it might not mess things up, completely, but she'll notice the difference when you quit. And that is all I have to say on the subject.

:ohno: Hey, that works both ways. :wink: :Smiley036:tiphat: We hadn't attributed it to that, but hey.......

Hey, that works both ways. :wink: :Smiley036:tiphat: We hadn't attributed it to that, but hey.......

Well, there you go!

Yet another internet badass. :rolleyes:

Enjoy this appropriate article:Smoking lowers IQ, thinking ability. 25/10/2005. ABC News Online (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489695.htm)

Smoking lowers IQ, thinking ability

The poorer mental function seen among alcoholics, many of whom also regularly smoke cigarettes, may be partially due to the long-term effects of nicotine, new research suggests.

"People who are also smokers are at a much higher risk," Dr Jennifer M Glass, of the University of Michigan's Addiction Research Centre, told Reuters Health.

In her study, "cigarette smoking was negatively related to IQ and thinking," she said.

This finding may seem counter-intuitive, since many smokers attest to feeling more alert and focused after smoking.

Indeed, research shows that improved mental functioning is one of the immediate effects of nicotine exposure.

Chronic smoking, however, is known to have the opposite effect.

Studies show that up to 87 per cent of alcoholics smoke cigarettes, compared to less than 30 per cent of the general United States population.

Yet, few studies have looked into cigarette smoking as a factor that might explain the cognitive deficits reported among alcoholics.

To investigate that association, Dr Glass and her colleagues examined brain function among 172 men from the same community, including 103 men who abused alcohol.

The team found that men with higher scores on the lifetime alcohol problems scale (LAPS) and those who reported a higher number of pack-years of smoking (that is, packs of cigarettes smoked per day times number of years) both had lower IQ scores and lower scores on a test of global proficiency.

The proficiency test took into account the speed and accuracy with which the men were able to perform a battery of tests including those that measured short-term memory, verbal reasoning and mathematical reasoning.

Upon further investigation, the researchers found that smoking predicted poorer global proficiency even more strongly than alcoholism did. Their findings were published online before publication in Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

Smoking also appeared to be independently associated with weaker verbal and visual-spatial reasoning, the study indicates.

Thus, though smoking did not account for all of the decreased neurocognitive functioning observed among the alcohol abusers, it did seem to account for some of the effects, the report indicates.

The reason for the observed associations is unknown, and the researchers did not investigate the "cause and effect story," Dr Glass said, but she speculated that the diminished cognitive ability among smokers may be partly due to some mechanism involving a restricted flow of blood and oxygen to the brain.

Based on the current report, Dr Glass said, "if you need another reason to quit smoking, it's a good potential one to add to the list." -Reuters

LOL. I'm not an internet baddass. I just play one on TV.
I also don't smoke cigarettes, and I can personally attest to their vile, unhealthy attributes and drain on society. They're bad for your lungs, heart, wedding tackle, etc.... (I smoked for many years, and this february will mark my 2 year cig free date)

I do enjoy a daily cigar however. Lower nicotine, and no inhale. Some of the brightest minds of our time enjoyed cigars. Sigmund Freud, Winston Churchill, Mark Twain, Orson Wells, Thomas Edison, President Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Rudolf Guliani, Tip O'neil, Alfred Hitchcock, John Grisham are but a quick few examples.......


And seriously, if I were at the park, or the lake, or the golf course and someone came up to me and said my smoke was offending them, I would laughing suggest they go somewhere else with their beef. And good luck taking it away from me. I'm no baddass, but at 6'2 and 250lbs, you'd have a hell of a time accomplishing it.....

You do bring up an interesting point tho. I do believe our current president smokes cigarettes....

Just saying...