And I rarely went to bars. Since ND went all non-smoking, my bar attendance has gone up considerably. I am probably one of the few guys whose health* is negatively affected by the smoking ban
.* by way of my own voluntary behaviour
No more smoking at RJ Reynolds...
- Thread starter SkyHog
- Start date
And I rarely went to bars. Since ND went all non-smoking, my bar attendance has gone up considerably. I am probably one of the few guys whose health* is negatively affected by the smoking ban
.* by way of my own voluntary behaviour
Maxmosbey
Final Approach
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,247
- Location
- San Juan, PR/Ames, IA
- Display Name
Display name:
I need to get serious.
Where I worked, before I quit working, we had three or four smokers. I don't really care if people smoke or not, but the smokers would take turns going outside and smoking every hour. So they were gone ten minutes each. Over an eight hour day, they take six ten minute smoke breaks. That is an hour a day, to smoke. Now, the non-smokers were in the work space all day, but the smokers get paid the same. Something wrong with that. If someone wants to smoke, fine, but I don't think it is right that the non-smokers had to cover for them while they were out sucking a butt. But I didn't want to cause the smokers any discomfort, so I told the non-smokers that they could go ahead and take ten minutes every hour and go outside, and that the smokers would cover. Boy, that got axed pretty quickly.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I would support the use of e-cigs if it meant fewer people smoked tobacco. I can't tell you how sick I am of picking up cigarette butts in our parking lots, and seeing them virtually everywhere -- including our beautiful beaches.
The fact that government is now gearing up to ban e-cigs is due to one reason, and one reason only: Tax money. They ain't getting it from e-cigs.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me try again:
It is stupid and hypocritical to be anti-tobacco, yet pro-SMOKING of marijuana. I've smoked both (and even inhaled!) in the past, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that pot is a hundred times harder on your lungs than tobacco, makes your clothes stink just as bad, and certainly isn't good for you.
Here's the funny part: I know several people who smoke pot daily, but who regularly campaign to ban tobacco in island businesses. (It is currently still legal to smoke in bars here, at the owner's discretion.) To me, that's about as hypocritical as it gets.
BTW: I personally support legalizing pot, and keeping cigarettes legal. I don't smoke either of them, and haven't since the 1970s -- but I believe in freedom and liberty for all.
Interestingly, there is much less long-term effect on the lungs from pot than tobacco smoke. It does some damage, but not quite as much.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've heard this for years, but it certainly doesn't match my experience.
Now, with commercially grown pot, and a decent filter, I'm sure they could make a doobie as mild as a Marlboro, and perhaps that's the direction they are heading.
Speaking of vaping, here is California's usual hypocricy, in all of its glory...
Los Angeles Times: California announces campaign to combat use of e-cigarettes. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwhoPtsCA
wanttaja
En-Route
We recently got a caution at work not to use company computers to recharge e-cigs. There's viruses in them there USB interfaces...
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/21/e-cigarettes-malware-computers
Ron Wanttaja
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/21/e-cigarettes-malware-computers
Ron Wanttaja
JHW
En-Route
I've never smoked either one but i grew up on a tobacco farm. After handling tobacco your hands are covered in a sticky tar that you can't get off. We also had lots of ditch hemp growing as a noxious week, and after pulling/cutting and handling that you didn't have anything stuck on you. So it would be reasonable to think that burning that tobacco tar produces more bad stuff in your lungs than burning hemp.
LoneAspen
Line Up and Wait
I thought I was the only person who used the term "low-rent". Usually in the context of idiots on the highway who cut in and out of traffic and almost hit me in their busted-ass beaters.
If the story is plausible the answer is simple. Bugger the USB software to protect against things being plugged into them. It's no different than a memory key or a cell phone with untoward software on it. The thing can't just drill into the host on it's own. USB is NOT symmetrical. It has to masquerade as some source (typically a disk drive) that the host WANTS to access. Anybody fool enough to have software that will unsolicited autorun a new removable file system deserves what htey get.
There are differences in the stuff contained in the smoke, it is simply not quite as evil to the lung tissue as cigarette tobacco.
Also, there are few pot smokers who light one joint with the stub of the last one. A cigarette smoker who smokes one or two cigarettes per day and then skips a couple of days (a pattern common in cannabis smokers) has a only mildly elevated risk of lung disease. It takes the near constant introduction of particulate matter and tar to cause long-term damage. One of the reasons (in addition to the different way of smoking) we dont see much lung disease in pipe and cigar smokers. In addition to the carcinogens contained in cigarette smoke, it is the continuing inflammation that causes both the transformation of cells into cancer cells and the destruction of the underlying lung tissue (emphysema).
What often confuses the analysis is the fact that:
- some forms of pot are smoked together with tobacco (e.g. 'blunts') or the tar-type cannabis resin sold in some markets
- there are few pure cannabis smokers, many are or have been tobacco smokers as well.
- with cannabis being illegal, survey data in lung disease patients is contaminated by a desire to hide illegal activity.
As cannabis is getting legalized and tobacco smoking is being outlawed, we will start to see lung disease and lung cancer patients who have smoked nothing but cannabis. Just a question of time. We were told for the longest time that 'you can't overdose on cannabis' until the first psychotic 'edibles' consumers started to hit the ERs in colorado. But it's all good, can't do any harm...because we said so.
Last edited:
Even simpler, plug the e-cig into one of the many little USB charger cubes that come with every cellphone or headset.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Ummm...so you have no issue with a significant portion of the teenage population being addicted to nicotine and don't think there should be any effort made to curb the trend?
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,431
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Is that the new form if "Why do you hate America?"
This is why I'm a bit dubious of the 'second hand smoke' argument against smoking in bars. I don't dispute that second hand smoke is a risk factor, but I have to think the impact is mostly amongst the family or children of people who smoke at home - not people who spend a couple of hours in a bar every few weeks. We accept lots of other activities that impose a marginal risk on 'bystanders'.
It's ironic that we don't prohibit parents smoking at home around small children where the exposure is greatest and the victims have no choice, but we prohibit it in an environment where everyone is - by law - a grown adult and perfectly free not to visit.
Employees, I'm not sure what I think about.
Last edited:
Rigged4Flight
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,105
- Display Name
Display name:
Rigged4Flight
Exactly. Since very few business owners wanted to give an advantage to their competition, very few banned smoking and non-smokers had very few options for restaurants, bars, etc. You either stayed at home or you endured the stench.
All of those places have people that work there all day long. One of the first nation-wide pushes to ban smoking in a workplace was on behalf of the airline workers and passengers - especially the flight attendants. Being stuck in a capsule for hours at a time with no way to breathe air that wasn't laden with cigarette smoke.
Yes, as I said, I'm conflicted over the employee issue. However, at minimum, I don't see why an owner-operated bar shouldn't be able to permit smoking as the owner wishes.
Going non-smoking should not have been a competitive disadvantage (until demand for 100% non-smoking venues was met). Evidently the vast majority of bar patrons just didn't care, positively liked smoking, or found a mixed smoking / non-smoking environment an acceptable compromise.
Correct. The argument here is not that it is an undue risk to the other bar patrons (who are there by their own free will and only a few hours at a time) but that it is harmful to the employees who have less of a choice and are exposed 8-10hrs/day.
The counter-argument is that employees have a choice of places to work and that the exposure to smoke is just one of the risks that comes with working in a 21+ bar. That and of course the fact that many people in the business smoke themselves.
Well, in some of the hardcore nanny-states, they outlawed smoking in a car with kids already. Your home is next, enforced through the unaccountable buerocracy of 'childrens services'. Your kids come to school smelling like smoke, they get interrogated by a team of 'specialists in obtaining desired answers' and your house will be raided by SWAT with a no-knock warrant to make sure you dont flush the cigs down the toilet. They already do that with card-games:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lls-poker-game-seizes-cash-terrifies-players/
(the same county police killed an optometrist over a football bet a couple of years back)
Bill Watson
En-Route
I too have smoked some of both and came to exactly the opposite conclusion, but doubt both of our reactions.
It's pretty clear that smoking tobacco is toxic and highly addictive for the smoker. It causes health problems over the long term that we all pay for.
Pot smoking, who the hell knows? That's the problem with it's illegality, there's little impetus or ability to do the work to get the facts. That goes for both any negative or positive effects. It's general illegality overshadows everything else.
In my thinking, they are both drugs. The effects of nicotine seem somewhat compatible with a productive society while at the same time, smoking tobacco clearly has negative side effects with high dollar costs. But nicotine itself seems to be a calming stimulant that combines well with caffeine. Using it, workers work, writers write, students study, thinkers think, pilots fly, etc
The effects of THC are not so compatible with a productive society. Being high and spacey just doesn't get the work done or bills paid. But it can be fun and relaxing just like alcohol. It's best kept away from most workplaces. Should we be stoning with the same intensity we drink? You know, bongs and beer funnels, brownies and Long Island ice teas. Our culture suggests that it's should be your prerogative but is that where we want out society going?
We can just be libertarian or reactionary about the whole thing and let the chips fly as they will. I'd prefer we be a bit more thoughtful and fact based going forward but that's not our way.
Light 'em if you got 'em
Last edited:
Agreed, but what one does on one's own time shouldn't be a factor. Would you feel the same if they didn't hire pilots just because they don't like them?
ChrisK
En-Route
Actually, that is also legal. I think that I should feel free to hire whomever I like for whatever reason as long as I am not infringing on the rights of a protected class.
As a pilot I can find another job
Rigged4Flight
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,105
- Display Name
Display name:
Rigged4Flight
Remember where we came from. At one time, smoking was touted as being good and healthy for you, and a majority of adults smoked. So we started off with all restaurants and bars allowing smoking in all areas. Imagine yourself as a bar owner with 3 other competing bars in your town, and most of the drinkers smoked. Even as smoking became less universal and more of a health issue, it was still part of the ocean we all swam in. Those smokers that decided they needed to quit for their own health and the health of their families found that they had to fight an addiction while eating/drinking/working alongside a world that smoked.
As for the business owners, without laws to limit public places you could smoke in, very few could afford to put their business at risk by banning smoking unless all of their competitors agreed to do the same thing. Because let's face it: smokers spend money, and businesses are in the business of making money.
So without help from the government, most bars and restaurants would still be smoker-friendly, which makes them unfriendly to non-smokers. Because you can't separate the air that non-smokers breath from the air that smokers blow - at least not without usually encountering some not-insignificant expenses.
WoooPigSooie
Pre-Flight
Thanks for making the distinction re: SMOKING. I think we're in agreement on the point that inhaling smoke of any kind is bad for your lungs. I just want to make sure we don't lump "pro pot" in with "pro smoke." The lost benefits of the hemp plant for society are tragic, in large part because of this kind of misinformation.
What is 'legal to smoke in bars'? Tobacco? Marijuana? Both?
The only reason that would be hypocritical on the part of the pot smokers is if they are currently allowed to smoke in those bars...whilst protesting the cigarette smokers freedom to do the same.
Thanks for the considered response.
This is all true. Despite what they may tell pollsters, the people who didn't like smoking in bars didn't feel strongly enough about the issue, or in sufficient numbers, to support a single 100% smoke-free bar in most places.
But put another way what you're saying is that business owners couldn't disregard market forces without government "help". I'm pretty (actually, very...) liberal, but I'm still not comfortable with regulation on this. Is overruling a market-expressed societal preference really "help", if there's no obvious market failure?
I strongly prefer to eat at 100% vegetarian restaurants. In the town where I live, there are evidently not enough people who feel the same way to support a single one. I think it would be "helpful" for the city to pass a law prohibiting the sale of meat. It might even be good for public health. It's just not generally considered an acceptable way to balance competing preferences in a small-l liberal democracy.
Last edited:
Actually, that is also legal. I think that I should feel free to hire whomever I like for whatever reason as long as I am not infringing on the rights of a protected class.
As a pilot I can find another job
If you don't encounter an Archie Bunker type who doesn't like pilots.
Florida Cracker
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,360
- Display Name
Display name:
Florida Cracker
I don't know if you meant that as joke, or not, but assuming you meant it as a question, the new thing is the third party administrator, hires paramedics, nurses, or something to visit you and do a mouth swab that supposedly tells if you smoked within the last six months.
ChrisK
En-Route
I do not understand the relevance of your quote. Peope do not have the right not to be discriminated against. That is kind of the point of an interview process.
Tell that to some ethnic groups. You might not like their reaction.
ChrisK
En-Route
This is a confusing thread.
UngaWunga
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,968
- Display Name
Display name:
UngaWunga
There are sure some old people on this forum...
I'm old enough to remember when smokers could smoke on the back of passenger planes and in designated places in offices. Thought it was disgusting and stupid then, still do. Cigars and vapor things included. Never seen the point. I've never had a cigar that I would consider that tastes good. Yes, I've supposedly had some very good one. Never seen the point. All I can taste afterwards is the damn cigar, nothing else.
After college, I stopped going to restaurants and bars with friends because I couldn't stand the smoke. I'm a distance runner, and I'd spend more time outside getting fresh air than inside. So I just stopped going. I'd stink for days like smoke afterwards.
When they passed a indoor smoking ban here, all the restaurants were worried that it would hurt sales. Instead it was the opposite. All the people like me that were sick of the smoke started going out. And now the smokers are standing outside in the rain. Fine with me.
A couple of buddies and I entered races down at VIR a few years back. After a day of races, we went out to a local restaurant. Everyone around us, after finishing their meal, light up a cigarette. It was nasty, couldn't finish my dinner. Got up and left after paying.
As far as pot? You can eat it as well...
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
This brings up an interesting point that I have mentioned before, but bears repeating: The survey statistics on the number of tobacco smokers are WAY understated, not because tobacco is illegal, but because it is now socially dismissed by many as "low rent".
Therefore, when someone calls from Gallup, and asks "Do you smoke cigarettes?", many people feel compelled to say "No" for social reasons.
Being in the hotel business, I have a unique vantage point from which to view human behavior. Our facility is 100% non-smoking, (not by law, but by our choice) which forces the smokers out into the open (lest they be fined $200 for smoking in the rooms), where it's possible to observe their behavior.
It is my observation that the number of adult smokers is closer to 40%, rather than the 18% figure that is oft-reported.
IMHO, this figure is probably warped toward the high end by what I call "vacation smokers". These are the people who come to the island to completely blow off steam and let their hair down. After a day or two of partying on the beach, or in one of the many island bars, these folks "smoke socially", just for fun.
When they go back to their real lives, I suspect most of them stop smoking again.
Personally, I would join them in a heartbeat, except I know how hard it was to quit. I was terribly addicted, and fear that a "social smoke" would lead right back to addiction. It's why I haven't tried vaping, even though it looks pretty fun.
That's one thing everyone forgets: Smoking is fun. I LOVED smoking. If they made a cigarette that didn't kill me, I'd smoke again in a heartbeat.
Anyway, if you subtract the "vacation smokers" I think the actual adult smoking rate is still 25 - 30%.
I believe there are regional differences. I can't think of anyone in my social circle who smokes cigarettes.
A couple of cigarettes on a weekend wont kill you either.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
While I wouldn't gainsay your experience, I would cite sampling error. You're looking at one Island in Texas. I think the numbers might be different if you went to Martha's Vineyard, or Disneyworld.
I doubt it very strongly. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known. If they're smoking on holiday odds are they're smoking when they get home. The one good thing is perhaps they're more casual users and aren't smoking a pack a day.
Could you explain to me what it is about inhaling burning smoldering embers into your pulmonary system that's "fun"? I understand the enjoyment of the pharmacological effect of nicotine, but what is actually "fun" about the activity?
Are you saying you don't understand why people enjoy this particular nicotine delivery mechanism?
steingar
Taxi to Parking
You hit the nail on the head. What is "fun" about inhaling burning embers?
Lots of tobacco and marijuana users seem to like it. Is everything you like at the top of the popularity charts? Take GenAv flying, for example... :wink2:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,448
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
There also may be cultural differences. We often stay in a particular hotel and know the staff pretty well. I would say that a majority of them smoke. But I wouldn't say that of the people I know in general. Very few of them smoke.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I didn't say no one should like it, lots of reasons to do so. But Jay said it was "fun", and I want to know what's so fun about inhaling burning embers.
Jay Honeck
Touchdown! Greaser!
Most entry level workers in the hospitality industry smoke.
That said, I can't think of anyone in our social circle that still smokes. I can only think of one person in my extended family that smokes, either.