Iowa Bans Indoor Smoking

[Atonement]

In Iowa (yes, where I live) as of July 1st 2008, it will be illegal to smoke in any public building excluding casinos. Bars, restaurants, hospitals, and everywhere else public ewxcept casinos and a very few retirement homes around Marshaltown (no idea why)

What are your states smoking laws and bans?

What do you think about Iowa doing this too?

[theOperaGhost]

North Dakota stared an indoor smoking ban in August of 2006 I believe. You can't smoke indoors anywhere, except for bars, and some truck stops if they have a separate section, completely enclosed. This really hurt bingo halls. lol

[Mzor203]

Good. I don't know what exactly the laws are here, but I've not seen many people smoking in public buildings.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

aww poor you. In Ontario, we have no smoking anywhere public indoors. Not even casinos. Also, you cannot be under a canopy, or within 10 feet of a door or window.

This is fucking retarted. I get that not everyone wants cancer, but to say none anywhere is just discriminative. What was wrong with seperate smoking rooms with a seperate v3entilation system?

At Calgary airport, where I usually change planes, there is a small glass booth that people are allowed to smoke in. It is out of the way in a corner somewhere. There are huge notices saying people are complaining about the drafting smoke, and so you must be completely physically inside the box at all times when smoking. This is physically impossible when there are 30- 40 commuters sharing all but a 4 ft by 4 ft glass cube. Fucking retarted.....

[Whisper]

You can't smoke in any public buildings or within 15ft of any door or window in Alberta period

been that way for along time

I like it that way
when i go to a bar I don't have to deal with that god dam smoke

[Φρανκομβριτ]

You can't smoke in any public buildings or within 15ft of any door or window in Alberta period

been that way for along time

I like it that way
when i go to a bar I don't have to deal with that god dam smoke

I agree. You, as a non smoker, should not have to deal with smoke when you go into a bar.


I also agree that, as a smoker, paying money in a bar, we should have somewhere to go when it's -40, snowing, and need a smoke. Yes, we should not subject everyone to it, but there was nothing wrong with seperate smoking areas

[Mzor203]

I agree. You, as a non smoker, should not have to deal with smoke when you go into a bar.


I also agree that, as a smoker, paying money in a bar, we should have somewhere to go when it's -40, snowing, and need a smoke. Yes, we should not subject everyone to it, but there was nothing wrong with seperate smoking areas


Or you could just not smoke and save yourself a bunch of hassle.

[Φρανκομβριτ]

Or you could just not smoke and save yourself a bunch of hassle.

or you could just smoke and we wouldnt have this problem in the first place. That works both ways.

[Antares]

We did this last year. The county I live in has been doing this for 3 I believe.

It is about time. :P

EDIT: By reading his posts I will post my limited sympathy for smokers. I know that they are being shoved out faster than usual and I am sorry. I really think that it is going quite fast for you guys but eventually smoking will be socially unacceptable. It is just a fact. It's medically sickening to you and the people around you. People die from smoke inhalation from fires and it is basically almost the same thing. So yeah, sorry that your getting the boot so soon but it has to happen sooner or later. Although, I do agree that you should have separate areas far away from us :) lol

[Mzor203]

@John:

NO, it's not the same thing as fires. Last I checked fires didn't contain about 4,000 chemicals. Could be wrong though. ;)

[Φρανκομβριτ]

the government will limit it as much as possible, but they'll never stop it. They make way to much money off it.

[Antares]

the government will limit it as much as possible, but they'll never stop it. They make way to much money off it.

True. My class was talking about how good it would be to get people to stop by charging $10 for a pack. That way the taxes would get pumped into the healthcare system :P (It's one big cycle...ironic!)

[Φρανκομβριτ]

True. My class was talking about how good it would be to get people to stop by charging $10 for a pack. That way the taxes would get pumped into the healthcare system :P (It's one big cycle...ironic!)

that wont work. Ciggs are 10$ + in Canada. My pack is 9,75$ in ontario, 10,56$ in quebec, and 14,35$ in alberta

[Mzor203]

So simply put a 38,000% tax on them. :yes:

[Φρανκομβριτ]

So simply put a 38,000% tax on them. :yes:

if you dont think people should smoke at all, why would you encourage a tax to get more from them? Theyre addicted, so of course theyre still going to buy them. Thats the government taking advantage over a minority. ITs disgusting

[Mzor203]

Last I checked, smoking is absolutely disgusting and hurts those around the smokers. So my idea isn't the only thing that's disgusting.

I know a lot of people would work towards quitting if that tax came into effect.

[Whisper]

That dosn't work
Alberta taxes the fuck out of smokes already

I agree. You, as a non smoker, should not have to deal with smoke when you go into a bar.


I also agree that, as a smoker, paying money in a bar, we should have somewhere to go when it's -40, snowing, and need a smoke. Yes, we should not subject everyone to it, but there was nothing wrong with seperate smoking areas

That means every single bar has to under go major renovations
and some would be forced to hire more people to watch the separate areas
that is allot of money

and theres no way in hell I want to help them with that through my tax dollars
when I like the majority
don't smoke

for decades the majority in most areas was smokers
so smoking was allowed
and non-smokers had to deal with it the horrible health effects, the disgusting atmosphere the horrible smell in ur cloths

my cloths, least my hey baby lets have sex cloths..
ARE EXPENSIVE!

Now-a-days its the other way around non-smokers are the majority

which means
GTFO

[Zephyr]

Good riddance,
I applaud Iowa!

Even though I do think that it smells good,
I am a non-smoker and
I know that it's horrible for the health,
Therefore I do not wish to be subjected to it in a public building.

[theOperaGhost]

You think it smells good?

I can't stand second hand smoke. The real, first hand stuff isn't that bad, but second hand is fucking terrible. I'm not a smoker, I've just smoked before.

[Godskitchen Trance]

Good and bad. Mainly a good idea but there should be specific bars for smokers. Pehaps a select few bars could get 'smoking permits' that allow people to smoke inside, and warn non-smokers that people will be smoking.

I dont know, just an idea. And for the record, I dont smoke.

[Whisper]

that gives certain bars an unfair advantage

[Φρανκομβριτ]

that gives certain bars an unfair advantage

not nessicerily. All bars have the option to add this feature, some would chose to, and some not to.

And tax dollars have nothing to do with it. A bar pays for their expenses from their profit.

[Gavin]

Well, over here we've had a similiar ban put in place for quite sometime now, why should people have to inhail other people's smoke it's just no fair.

[Hyper]

ΦρανψοΒριτ I agree with this guy completly, and I don't smoke

[Antares]

Actually, like I said before, especially in the US where people are cheap, if a huge taz was imposed people would be quitting all over the place.

For instance, I was watching the news and they were saying how the demand for gas has went down however many percent in the past few years but our prices are going up. WTF!

So that would work the same for smoking. Sure people are addicted just like we are addicted to our gas but if you make it hard to get you are going to go great lengths to quit. Also, like I said in an earlier post of mine, all of that tax money would be pumped into healthcare (which includes 'quit smoking programs').

[0=]

Sure people are addicted just like we are addicted to our gas

Nicotine addiction is physical. Gasoline addiction is mental. You will have no withdrawal symptoms if you quit driving.

[Antares]

Nicotine addiction is physical. Gasoline addiction is mental. You will have no withdrawal symptoms if you quit driving.

Technically our gasoline addiction is physical and mental. No you won't have any medical issues with gasoline but we use gasoline so much to power our cars and generators and all of this other crap it is physical. If we don't have any gas our world stops. Quite literally. Also, in my opinion smoking is more mental than physical but then again they are going hand in hand.

[0=]

It's not more mental than physical. There is a chemical in tobacco that causes a physiological need. Gasoline is not physiologically addictive no matter how you spin it. Just admit that is was a bad analogy.

[Antares]

It's not more mental than physical. There is a chemical in tobacco that causes a physiological need. Gasoline is not physiologically addictive no matter how you spin it. Just admit that is was a bad analogy.
In order to do work (physical tasks) you need gasoline. It powers things. I am sorry if you have not noticed.

Is their a physical addition to tobacco? In my opinion no. I think it affects the BRAIN which last time I check is considered mental.

And no that was not a bad analogy.

[0=]

You can perform work without gasoline. That's such a fallacious statement. It happens to be one the primary sources of energy in the modern world, but it isn't required to perform work.

Your opinion doesn't mean shit. The body develops a need for nicotine when tobacco is consumed and you will experience physical withdrawal if you attempt to stop; it's a scientific fact.

Prove to me that it's a good analogy. So far you've spewed fallacious bullshit.

[Antares]

You can perform work without gasoline. That's such a fallacious statement. It happens to be one the primary sources of energy in the modern world, but it isn't required to perform work.

Your opinion doesn't mean shit. The body develops a need for nicotine when tobacco is consumed and you will experience physical withdrawal if you attempt to stop; it's a scientific fact.

Prove to me that it's a good analogy. So far you've spewed fallacious bullshit.

Last time I checked your brain controls your body. Inlcuding urges. So your body withdraws when you have your brain telling everything what to do. Do you not know that if you have no brain then you can't do a frickin thing. That is why I say that addiction is mental.

Also, then how else are we going power our cars? Basically all of it is some type of oil or evolution of it. So physically these chemical reactions would fall under the physical category.

Also, if you want to prove a point you don't have to critisize opinions with foul language.

[0=]

It doesn't matter if the brain controls your body. A mental addiction is through thought processes. A physical addiction is a chemical that the body is tricked into thinking it needs. Go by definition, not what you think it means.

First of all, on the point of petroleum, have you ever heard of hydrogen or electricity? Secondly, a physical addiction is a chemical acting on your body that tricks your body into thinking it needs it for survival. There is no way you can call gasoline a physical addiction without committing a logical fallacy.

I'll use whatever language I damn well please. I don't need to be lectured about properly proving a point by someone whose argument is based on fallacy.

[Antares]

It doesn't matter if the brain controls your body. A mental addiction is through thought processes. A physical addiction is a chemical that the body is tricked into thinking it needs. Go by definition, not what you think it means.

First of all, on the point of petroleum, have you ever heard of hydrogen or electricity? Secondly, a physical addiction is a chemical acting on your body that tricks your body into thinking it needs it for survival. There is no way you can call gasoline a physical addiction without committing a logical fallacy.

I'll use whatever language I damn well please. I don't need to be lectured about properly proving a point by someone whose argument is based on fallacy.

I think that we are having different beliefs about what takes presidence as far as mental or physical. In my opinion I feel that since your brain controls everything basically any addiction (even if it was to sex or some crazy schtuff like that) your brain controls it which means it is completely mental. When I think physically I think about how I physically need a car to drive somewhere.

Also, forget all of this fallacy crap. It is pointless to debate with someone who will not listen and so egotistical that he is going round and round not even thinking about what he is saying or the other person is saying. Like that profile picture you had a while ago, pull your head out of you ass.

Also, first of all hydrogen is SOO inefficent I wouldn't by that crap even if it does 'save the enviroment' in at least 20 years. We simply do not have the technology to better utilize the energy that is emitted.

Also, why don't you try getting millions of people to switch to electricity. Then having to plug it up for hours upon hours on end. THat is just stupid.

[0=]

I think that we are having different beliefs about what takes presidence as far as mental or physical. In my opinion I feel that since your brain controls everything basically any addiction (even if it was to sex or some crazy schtuff like that) your brain controls it which means it is completely mental. When I think physically I think about how I physically need a car to drive somewhere.

Also, forget all of this fallacy crap. It is pointless to debate with someone who will not listen and so egotistical that he is going round and round not even thinking about what he is saying or the other person is saying. Like that profile picture you had a while ago, pull your head out of you ass.

Also, tfirs of all hydrogen is SOO inefficent I wouldn't by that crap even if it does 'save the enviroment' in at least 20 years. We simply do not have the technology to better utilize the energy that is emitted.

Also, why don't you try getting millions of people to switch to electricity. Then having to plug it up for hours upon hours on end. THat is just stupid.

You're the one speaking out of your ass. You're stating personal opinion, whereas I'm stating what the medical terminology means.

It's not fallacy crap. If you're connecting two unrelated things in a false analogy you're committing a logical fallacy. It's simple logic.

Hydrogen is not inherently inefficient. It has a higher energy density than gasoline and burns hotter and cleaner. The issue with using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is it burns very quickly, so injecting the fuel is tricky. Hydrogen fuel cells' only waste is water as the hydrogen is recombined with oxygen. The technology in place now is fine for utilizing hydrogen. If you weren't speaking out of your ass you'd know that the issue is procuring hydrogen. It takes more energy to perform electrolysis than you get out of the hydrogen you produce. Current technology makes that rather inefficient, yes, but the actual utilization is not the problem. Once we have nuclear fusion power plants or super-efficient solar cells the energy won't be an issue, and scientists are also looking into organic methods of hydrogen production.

I would be quite simple for everyone to change to electric cars. New batteries don't take "hours upon hours on end" to charge. On the contrary, you could charge your vehicle during a coffee break every few hundred miles. Augment that with the charging technology used in hybrids which utilizes braking power and eventually cover cars with photovoltaic paint and electricity is less of a hassle than gasoline. Electric cars actually perform better in city driving because they can shut off when stopped and have better acceleration from a stop because the torque on an electric motor remains constant. Not to mention they're almost silent and don't contribute to pollution (assuming we move away from coal).

Also, please try to expand your vocabulary and writing abilties, as you used "also" to begin three consecutive paragraphs and it's rather obnoxious to read.

[Gumleaf]

in my state, new south wales, the smoking laws are strong, and i agree with them because i hate the smell and don't want to be breathing it in. anyways, some of the places you can't smoke now are at train stations, bars and casino's. basically, all enclosed public areas are smoke free areas.