Who's city has gone smokeless?

[Ennesssex]

The line is pretty clearly drawn between (a) your choice to do something that can harm YOU, and (b) your choice to do something that can harm OTHERS.

You can smoke in your own home every waking moment. And you can drink in your own home until you pass out, and do it every waking moment too, if you like. However, you can't get in your car when you are stinking drunk and drive down the streets where you will be a menace to others.

Are you suggesting that drunk driving should be legal?

Probably not. However, alcohol consumption in public areas can hurt you as well as others. As you mentioned it can often times lead to driving, poor judgment, etc. Applying the clear line you suggested, it would seem the government should step in and ban drinking in public places as well.

Interestingly, I find it amusing that the citizens of one of the largest greenhouse polluters GLOBALLY are arguing for the effects of smoking in public areas. Other countries have been pleading with the U.S. for years regarding reducing greenhouse emissions and I just find it completely ironic.

 

[steveny]

With all due respect, I have to disagree with your position on smoking ban(especially in bars). Why should the bar re-evaluate their value? Why shouldn't the individual contemplating on going to certain bar evaluate their value? If bar is smoking allowed, then the individual has to decide whether to go to that bar. He/She certainly has the choice.

Same as you, I am also a law abiding/tax-paying Candian citizen, and one that happens to light up a cigarette from time to time. You may not be aware, but price of the cigarette in Canada are approaching or exceeding $10. Greater than 50% of that is the tax imposed on my filthy habit, because the state deems it is the cost of the damage to the society incurred by smoking. I am definately fine with that. In purely economical stand point, if my habit caused society certain problems, I am willing to pay to fix it through tax on the cigarette.
I understand that most of you do not smoke, and has negative view of it and I agree. However, the choice should be in the hands of people who decides to smoke as long as they are responsible. As is common in any group of people(be it a group of NSXers or smokers), most of us are responsible in what we choose to do and only few of us are so-called "bad apples." Case in point, I smoke on my way to work in the morning. In my walk few blocks to the company building I try my best in staying out of people's way, respecting your right to not inhale the fume. I put it out and throw it in the garbage can near the building so it wouldn't look messy near the entrance. Should I NOT be allowed to smoke even if I do not cause any harm to the others?
If not, then why should some of you turn blind eye in people who decides to forego installing or by-passing catalyst in the exhaust? IT certainly has environmental effect as your exhaust is literally exuming toxic gas in to the air and further causes what some people would regard as noise polution(I am not picking on people who decides to let their NSX's beautiful exhaust roar and breath freely, this is just an example.)
What about the cost to the society due to obesity? It certainly costs Canadians billions of dollars every year(or so newspapers say) in health care, and obese people are NOT paying obesity TAX to cover the cost, are they? In that case, then, Chocolate should be banned, fast-foot should be banned and all the food that has more than 1% fat should be banned, shouldn't they? Further, let's imagine an extreme situation where yourself or your significant other is 8 month pregnant and need go somewhere on public transit, and all the 2 person benches are taken by obese people who takes both space so you/your SO can not find a seat. Then is this considered harmful or costly to the society? I would certainly consider it harmful to the health of my SO. So then obese people should be banned.(I'm not saying they should be. I respect their choice in lifestyle as long as they don't cause my family direct harm.)

So then, What the hell should we as a society do?
I think a little understand and respect for other people's choice would go a long way, in my humble opinion.

I think smoking should be outlawed for good. It is a horrible addiction. If you don't smoke you don't have a clue how addictive it is. If ciggs were unavailable it would make it easier for smokers to quit. Unlike Heroin addiction a smoker can try and quit until someone lights up beside him. Easy the first few times to not bum a smoke but after a while it wears on the ex smoker and before long the ex smoker is smoking again. At least other addictive behaviors like Heroin are kept under cover and easy to stay away from. Not so easy for the recovering Heroin addict to bum a boost from the guy next to him who is boosting himself in public. Quitting is the easy part, not starting up again is the hard part.

If cigarettes were made illegal I think I could finally quit smoking like I have wanted to do for quite sometime with out any success.

 

[mohaji]

I think smoking should be outlawed for good. It is a horrible addiction. If you don't smoke you don't have a clue how addictive it is. If ciggs were unavailable it would make it easier for smokers to quit. Unlike Heroin addiction a smoker can try and quit until someone lights up beside him. Easy the first few times to not bum a smoke but after a while it wears on the ex smoker and before long the ex smoker is smoking again. At least other addictive behaviors like Heroin are kept under cover and easy to stay away from. Not so easy for the recovering Heroin addict to bum a boost from the guy next to him who is boosting himself in public. Quitting is the easy part, not starting up again is the hard part.

If cigarettes were made illegal I think I could finally quit smoking like I have wanted to do for quite sometime with out any success.

For smokers wanting to quit, I think that would be great.

 

[Ennesssex]

Government's don't say you can't smoke. They are just creating a safe environment for non-smokers. Our legislators are here to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. Which means the majority! Yes, our legislators can come up with some pretty funky bills and amendments, but that's a different thread.

Many smokers continue to smoke in the presence of their own children, even though they know it could harm them. It is annoying to go to an amusement park and have a smoker with a lit cigarette in the face of a child. A child that may not even be their own. That child has rights too. Just because they can't vote doesn't mean they don't have rights. Disneyland has designated smoking areas. Do you think the smokers are only smoking in these area - hell No! Because the smoker feels it's their right to smoke and damn everyone who opposes them.

Smokers use the defense "my right to smoke is being infringed upon". No one is telling them they can't smoke. They just can't smoke where it will affect others. Can a smoker control the dispersment of emmissions that are emmitted by cigarettes, pipes and cigars - Uhhh NO! They think just because they exhale their smoke towards the sky everything is all well. Hardly, the fumes coming off the lit end still contains tar, nicotine and other caustic chemicals.

If second-hand smoke wasn't so dangerous it wouldn't be an issue. IMO- Smoking laws should be enacted in all 50 states. It's a fact that smoking causes heart disease, cancer, lung diseases, reduced immune functionality, and other medical problems. Smoking also indirectly causes increased medical costs for non-smokers from incidental respiratory illnesses. Now, smoking is affecting more than people's health, it is also affecting them financially. So, exactly where has it been proven that smoking is good for anyone?

Discalimer: This is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of the owner, management or volunteers at NSXPrime.

Applying your rationality, you shouldn't be driving a vehicle that produces emissions. Many drivers continue to drive vehicles that produce emissions when they know it can harm them. Its annoying to hear all these people argue about smoking and all the reasons why we shouldn't allow smoking in public places while they continue to drive in their oversized SUV's that contribute to global pollution. Just like that child has a right to clean air, so does the rest of the world.

Do I need to continue? Smoker's rights? Your rights to drive cars that produce emissions? Can smokers control their smoke and where it goes? Can you control the pollution that comes out of your vehicle and where it goes? ------Uhhh NO!

If smoking should be banned for its negative impact on people, vehicle emissions should definitely be taken much more seriously than it currently is. While smoking may impact a person, or even the people around that person, the car you drive contributes negatively to the enviornment around the entire world.

 

[mindretch]

We own NSXs

• We revere a car which is built to be operated outside reasonable traffic regulation.
• We track a car which exposes the driver/car beside us to substantial risk of injury.
• We are heavily taxed on our purchase, license, insurance, and maintenance.
• We condemn the actions of governments to ridgidly enforce traffic regulations.
• We plead with Honda to expand the capabilities of the next generation.
• We increase the performance of our (already) supercars.

90% of the population is offended, disgusted, hates these loud, excessively fast, (dirty,nasty,lazy,self-absorbed) gas guzzlers that have no positive effects on society.
THEY CANNOT STAND IT. They want bans enacted to protect the health of the commuting workers and non smoking (opps, meant; non-supercar driving) customers.
Why should they suffer because We are DRIVING something that is offensive and they are doing nothing to offend us?
As long as THEY are providing the hyways; put the hammer down on something so detrimental to everyone.
{Damn, how can I morph that really, really great "Flaming Dog Poop" line?}

Honda has discontinued the NSX for the next 4 years due to legal restrictions.

Are we certain we want to further encourage legislation that champions a tyranny of the masses?

 

[zahntech]

Do I need to continue? Smoker's rights? Your rights to drive cars that produce emissions? Can smokers control their smoke and where it goes? Can you control the pollution that comes out of your vehicle and where it goes? ------Uhhh NO!

If smoking should be banned for its negative impact on people, vehicle emissions should definitely be taken much more seriously than it currently is. While smoking may impact a person, or even the people around that person, the car you drive contributes negatively to the enviornment around the entire world.

People need cars to make life work..nobody needs to smoke cigarettes.

 

[mohaji]

People need cars to make life work..nobody needs to smoke cigarettes.

Nobody NEEDS to drive NSX or Ferrari or Hummer.
Nobody NEEDS to eat McDonalds or chocolate or candy bars or ice cream or cakes.
For that matter, Nobody NEEDs to shower everyday either.

Except, we think do and that's why we make choices for ourselves.

 

[zahntech]

90% of the population is offended, disgusted, hates these loud, excessively fast, (dirty,nasty,lazy,self-absorbed) gas guzzlers that have no positive effects on society.
THEY CANNOT STAND IT. ?

90%?? I don't know anybody that fits that description....you must live on the Berkley campus or Evergreen college maybe?..

 

[zahntech]

Nobody NEEDS to drive NSX or Ferrari or Hummer.
Nobody NEEDS to eat McDonalds or chocolate or candy bars or ice cream or cakes.
For that matter, Nobody NEEDs to shower everyday either.

.

My NSX does not do obvious and irreparable harm to the person sitting next to me in a bar..

 

[ss_md]

Applying your rationality, you shouldn't be driving a vehicle that produces emissions. Many drivers continue to drive vehicles that produce emissions when they know it can harm them. Its annoying to hear all these people argue about smoking and all the reasons why we shouldn't allow smoking in public places while they continue to drive in their oversized SUV's that contribute to global pollution. Just like that child has a right to clean air, so does the rest of the world.

Do I need to continue? Smoker's rights? Your rights to drive cars that produce emissions? Can smokers control their smoke and where it goes? Can you control the pollution that comes out of your vehicle and where it goes? ------Uhhh NO!

If smoking should be banned for its negative impact on people, vehicle emissions should definitely be taken much more seriously than it currently is. While smoking may impact a person, or even the people around that person, the car you drive contributes negatively to the enviornment around the entire world.

People aren't complaining about vehicles, they are complaining about smoking. We all know that vehicles pollute and we understand the risks of that are associated with their use. Besides the use of polluting vehicles are a necessity for everyday life. Will a cigarette get you commute from point A to point B - no. Will smoking help support your family - no. Will a cigarette carry your groceries home - no. Will daily life stop or slow down if vehicles are banned - yes, because vehicles are used for more than just physical pleasure. Is smoking cigars, cigarettes and pipes a necessity of life? (Well maybe a smoker may consider it a necessity!) Will daily life stop if smoking bans are implemented - no, smokers will continue smoking! Nobody is saying to stop tobacco production or ban smoking completely. All non-smokers are saying is respect the people that don't smoke by not smoking in public places, i.e.: restaurants, theme parks, stores , etc. And respect the laws created to protect the the majority and the innocent - mainly children!!!

My NSX does not do obvious and irreparable harm to the person sitting next to me in a bar..

Exactly!

 

[mohaji]

Vehicles are a necessary for everyday life. Is smoking cigars, cigarettes and pipes a necessity of life?

Ok, Transportation devices ARE a necessity, but it has been said numerous times on this board and most of you seemingly agree that driving is a "privilage" and not a right. In this line of thought, then, personal vehicles are certainly not a necessity and if enough number of people were willing to forego that "privilage" and if it were economically viable, wouldn't the state be willing to make provisions for extensive public transportation systems everywhere?

You can make cases for personal vehicles, and the same goes for pretty much everything. You do not want to give up that "privilage" and so does nobody else with their own list of "privilages."

Isn't that why we in civilized world learn to make compromises?

 

[zahntech]

You can make cases for personal vehicles, and the same goes for pretty much everything. You do not want to give up that "privilage" and so does nobody else with their own list of "privilages."

Isn't that why we in civilized world learn to make compromises?

You do not have the "Privilage" of killing me with your nasty deadly habit.

That is not a resonable compromise to expect anybody to make..

 

[mohaji]

My NSX does not do obvious and irreparable harm to the person sitting next to me in a bar..

Are you sure? I really do not mean disrespect, as I have huge amount of respect for anyone mechanically inclined and works on cars such as yourself(my father's a mechanic, too. )
But last time I checked, car's emission is fairly pollutant to the environment, and it does harm to anyone living on earth by increasing the size of hole in the ozone layer.

If I am totally off-base on this little fact, please accept my apologies.

 

[satan_srv]

Yeah mohaji..I've smoked..been there, realized it was stupid and stopped. Like zahntech says I don't think you have the right or privlege to kill me with deadly fumes in a public place which is by definition for all of the public. We have clubs you can smoke in Toronto, and they are private clubs i.e. not for everyone, then you can make a choice, as you have to be a member.

To the government and non-smokers, it's about public health. To smokers it's about rights. Can you honestly say the supposed 'right' outweighs the standard of public health? Please.

 

[ss_md]

You can make cases for personal vehicles, and the same goes for pretty much everything. You do not want to give up that "privilage" and so does nobody else with their own list of "privilages."

Driving is a privilege. Owning whatever type of vehicle you want is a freedom of choice. Smoking is also freedom of choice. However, so is not smoking. And where is it written that smokers freedoms override non-smokers freedoms? That's why they enact smoking laws > to protect the rights of non-smokers.

 

[satan_srv]

Are you sure? I really do not mean disrespect, as I have huge amount of respect for anyone mechanically inclined and works on cars such as yourself(my father's a mechanic, too. )
But last time I checked, car's emission is fairly pollutant to the environment, and it does harm to anyone living on earth by increasing the size of hole in the ozone layer.

If I am totally off-base on this little fact, please accept my apologies.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12481

Just something I dug up with a quick search. 10 times more polluting than Diesel, which is the most polluting fuel in mass-produced vehicles.

Also, that being said, the government sets emissions standards for vehicles, do you agree that is the government's responsibility? They do so in the named of public health and environmental concerns.

So you still beleive in the example of smoking which pollutes the air and degrades public health the gov't should not be involved?

 

[mohaji]

Driving is a privilege. Owning whatever type of vehicle you want is a freedom of choice. Smoking is also freedom of choice. However, so is not smoking. And where is it written that smokers freedoms override non-smokers freedoms? That's why they enact smoking laws > to protect the rights of non-smokers.

Excellent point, sir, as with satan_srv's. However, we are treading on slippery slope, aren't we?
Are we to TOTALLY ignore smoker's privilage because they are a minority group?
We in north america respects minority be it ethnic, disabled or one's income level, correct?

Then is it preposterous to assume that maybe I can take a walk in a secluded park and sit down to relax and light one up? I mean as long as I put it out so no wild fire break out.

As for "privilage" to kill, that should only be given to 007.
I have no retort to that argument, gentlemen.

 

[zahntech]

Are you sure? I really do not mean disrespect, as I have huge amount of respect for anyone mechanically inclined and works on cars such as yourself(my father's a mechanic, too. )
But last time I checked, car's emission is fairly pollutant to the environment, and it does harm to anyone living on earth by increasing the size of hole in the ozone layer.

If I am totally off-base on this little fact, please accept my apologies.

Automotive Emissions are blown way out of proportions as far as the effect on the avg person in our society...

In the last 15 years of working on cars the carb/brake cleaners I have inhaled as well as asbestos from brakes, have done far more damage than the Emissions from cars I have worked on..

There are laws and regulations in effect to protect auto workers from these things ..why not have laws to protect bar tenders???

I am doing a timing belt on a %#@!!*& mazda 929 right now....send your dad over to do it for me ..PLease!!!

 

[mohaji]

Automotive Emissions are blown way out of proportions as far as the effect on the avg person in our society...

In the last 15 years of working on cars the carb/brake cleaners I have inhaled as well as asbestos from brakes, have done far more damage than the Emissions from cars I have worked on..

There are laws and regulations in effect to protect auto workers from these things ..why not have laws to protect bar tenders???

I am doing a timing belt on a %#@!!*& mazda 929 right now....send your dad over to do it for me ..PLease!!!

My father hates doing timing belts.

Umm.. this may be incorrect and carry no weight, but I found an interesting excerp from Wikipedia regarding second hand smoke.

"Smoking has been linked to lung cancer by many medical research institutions throughout the world (through the use of observational studies). Recent findings by the World Health Organization suggest that U.S. white male smokers have an 8% chance of acquiring lung cancer at some point in their lives, as opposed to the 2% chance of acquiring lung cancer among U.S. white male non-smokers. However, moderate cigarette smoking (<2 cigarettes daily) as well as second-hand smoke inhalation show no increase in lung cancer rates among U.S. white males in all credited observational studies."
link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette

 

[ss_md]

Excellent point, sir, as with satan_srv's. However, we are treading on slippery slope, aren't we?

Not exactly. As stated many times; no one is taking the right to smoke away. The gov't is only controlling where smoking is prohibited.

Are we to TOTALLY ignore smoker's privilage because they are a minority group?
We in north america respects minority be it ethnic, disabled or one's income level, correct?

Smokers are a minority group. Yet they do not fall into the same minority classification as used in your reference. Governments protect ethinic groups, disabled and others that need protection from the unscrupulous. If you want to use your context, then legislators would need to enact laws to protect them from non-smokers. Most non-smokers aren't going to commit violence against a smoker or at least not to the point of needing mass protection.

 

[zahntech]

My father hates doing timing belts.

Umm.. this may be incorrect and carry no weight, but I found an interesting excerp from Wikipedia regarding second hand smoke.

"Smoking has been linked to lung cancer by many medical research institutions throughout the world (through the use of observational studies). Recent findings by the World Health Organization suggest that U.S. white male smokers have an 8% chance of acquiring lung cancer at some point in their lives, as opposed to the 2% chance of acquiring lung cancer among U.S. white male non-smokers. However, moderate cigarette smoking (<2 cigarettes daily) as well as second-hand smoke inhalation show no increase in lung cancer rates among U.S. white males in all credited observational studies."
link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette

There is another issue here besides the health risks....discomfort!..I am not alowed to walk around in public naked..because it makes people uncomfortible and there is some health concern too...so why should a smoker be alowed to make people uncomfortible????

This is my second timing belt today...I just don't like 929s:smile:

 

[mindretch]

Driving is a privilege. Owning whatever type of vehicle you want is a freedom of choice. Smoking is also freedom of choice. However, so is not smoking. And where is it written that smokers freedoms override non-smokers freedoms? That's why they enact smoking laws > to protect the rights of non-smokers.

OK...
San Jose, CA smoking is banned in public buildings, all places of employment, and outdoors. Is that stingency necessary to protect the rights of non smokers? Do non-smokers need the right to a smoke free environment in a cigar bar or a 10 acre park in order to prtect their health?

 

[Ennesssex]

People need cars to make life work..nobody needs to smoke cigarettes.

That sir is your opinion. In my opinion cigarettes have a purpose too. Although it may not be as clear as transportation, cigarettes help alleviate stress, anger, etc.

Arguably the necessity for cars may outweigh the necessity for cigarettes, however if you truly think about it you don't need either. There are plenty of people who have survived through history never owning a vehicle or smoking a cigarette.

 

[Ennesssex]

Driving is a privilege. Owning whatever type of vehicle you want is a freedom of choice. Smoking is also freedom of choice. However, so is not smoking. And where is it written that smokers freedoms override non-smokers freedoms? That's why they enact smoking laws > to protect the rights of non-smokers.

I agree, smoking or driving whatever vehicle you own is a freedom of choice. While I agree in the extreme situation where someone may be smoking in front of a child, rationality would prefer you to not smoke. However, smoking outside near a bar is surely not based on the same rationality.

On a side note, legislation is passed to address the smoking issue not because non-smokers have a right and smokers have a lesser right but rather that their constituents and lobbyists groups are pressing for the matter.

 

[Ennesssex]

Yeah mohaji..I've smoked..been there, realized it was stupid and stopped. Like zahntech says I don't think you have the right or privlege to kill me with deadly fumes in a public place which is by definition for all of the public. We have clubs you can smoke in Toronto, and they are private clubs i.e. not for everyone, then you can make a choice, as you have to be a member.

To the government and non-smokers, it's about public health. To smokers it's about rights. Can you honestly say the supposed 'right' outweighs the standard of public health? Please.

Satan, apply that same standard to your vehicle emissions. Do you have a right to pollute the air that not only you breathe? Do you have a right to destroy the enviornment with deadly fumes in public places, in a global arena? If it was truly about public health, there are far more devasting fumes coming from the back of your vehicle than the occasional smoker that passes by. Does your right to drive outweight the rest of the world's public health?