Smoking Ban at the Ralph?

[McClane]

Not really, I haven't "dared" anyone to do anything here.

Wow. And in response you put a picture of a child on the cover of an internet tough guy magazine?

 

Good one.

[agardin]

wow a lot of anti-smoking bills fans on here......

 

its weird cuz the bills were the reason i starting smoking cigarettes...

 

i had a cigarette after wide right and i was only 5 years old

 

homerun throw back....cigarette

 

rob johnson over doug flutie....cigarette

 

lindell misses a 23 yard field goal in week 17 against the steelers....cigarette

 

leodis fumbles.....cigarette

 

bills lose to the brown 6-3......2 cigarettes

 

bills go 6 rounds of the 2010 draft without addressing any real needs......3 cigarettes

 

see yall outside the stadium opening day! well thats if i survive that long......

 

I hear ya, my avatar was a photo taken after the 6-3 Browns game

[albany c2]

this season im planning playing drinking games while watching the bills...hopefully it will make it more interesting

 

 

3 n out= chug one beer

screen pass or check down= take one shot

trent/fitz/brohm gets sacked= one beer, one shot and one cigarette

 

who wants to get drunk?

[bbills17]

I wasn't aware that all smokers litter and that all non-smokers are a picture of health.

 

I propose a fat guy ban. They smell, walk too slow, and take up too much space. Someone should keep them from ordering all that fast food. McDonald's et al do terrible things for the environment, and all that packaging gets littered or at best winds up in landfills. And those poor factory-farmed animals

 

Tall people should be banned from the Ralph, too. I mean, god-forbid one of them sat in front of me and then I couldn't see our beloved Bills.

 

I completely understand not wanting to be around smoke or smokers, but most people can deal with it without crying.

 

Plus, I think an acceptable "compromise" has been met per the Ralph, so where is it that all these smokers are blowing filthy smoke into "your" air? I would suggest avoiding those places, since they are few and far between these days.

 

An overweight person is harming themselves, not me. A tall person doesn't do any harm to anyone. A smoker blowing smoke in my face is affecting my enjoyment of the game and making me inhale cancerous, disgusting-smelling smoke. If it affects my health, keep it away from me.

[albany c2]

An overweight person is harming themselves, not me. A tall person doesn't do any harm to anyone. A smoker blowing smoke in my face is affecting my enjoyment of the game and making me inhale cancerous, disgusting-smelling smoke. If it affects my health, keep it away from me.

 

why do all of you act as though smokers are deliberately coming right up to your face and blowing our smoke into your mouth.....

 

if we have a designated area OUTSIDE of the stadium....i honestly dont see what the problem is....can't handle the two seconds it takes to walk past us?

 

maybe you need to live a litttle......or better yet...get over yourself

 

or even better.....get laid

[Chalkie Gerzowski]

why do all of you act as though smokers are deliberately coming right up to your face and blowing our smoke into your mouth.....

 

if we have a designated area OUTSIDE of the stadium....i honestly dont see what the problem is....can't handle the two seconds it takes to walk past us?

 

maybe you need to live a litttle......or better yet...get over yourself

 

or even better.....get laid

 

 

no, he needs a bubble boy suit, like the one John Travolta had... cause if you are anywhere near this, you will barf your entire insides up, as opposed to barfing them up after 18 cans of natty light out in the parking lot... houses need to be duct taped again... we cannot allow this environmental catastrophe to continue one second longer.

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

The ban will not be enforced at the stadium during the playoffs...

[Cereal]

Sure you do...I absolutely believe all of that.

 

I don't want to argue, but if you actually are someone who litters, just take a minute to re-think the consequences and consider how easy it would be to just NOT LITTER. Not much more I can do than to address an offender and inform them.

 

My two biggest pet peeves are cigarettes and littering, so... yeah... take it or leave it. Go Bills.

[RealityCheck]

If your lungs are tough enough to handle a lifetime of smoke and ashes, then why is it that your brain can't handle not smoking for 3 hours IF there is in fact a ban. I understand that some people experience a form of psychosis without having a cigarette every 5 minutes but what's the big deal?

[eball]

Wow. Replace the word "Smokers" with "Jews" or "Blacks" and what does that make you, dude? Not saying you're a racist, just making a point.

 

But as a smoker I find your statement offensive. Pretty much everything you have said in this entire thread is offensive, including the "jackasses" moniker.

Smoking is a choice. Do you not see the difference? And what makes it ok for smokers to litter?

 

I'm entitled to my opinion -- smoking is a filthy habit that is offensive to others. I pity smokers, because I think most actually want to quit but are addicted. Those who don't want to quit think it's "cool" or that it adds to some sort of persona they're trying to emulate. There is no constitutional "right" to smoke, and I'm completely in favor of banning it everywhere but private homes and smoking clubs.

 

Another question -- if you light up and someone near you asks you to put it out, do you?

[eball]

What do you do with the drunk who grabs your wife's breasts or vomits on her (God forbid, seriously)?

 

Sorry, I am trying hard to be open minded but you are not making sense imo.

Bill, you are one stubborn dude. I'll try to break it down as simply as I can:

 

Drinkers -- their actions are punishable. There are specific policies in place in nearly all aspects of life to deal with people who can't control themselves after drinking. Some of the crimes committed by (usually) men under the influence of alcohol are unimaginable -- but that's not the point here. For those who drink socially and are responsible, their actions have NO IMPACT on anyone else.

 

Smokers -- aside from being relegated to "designated areas" in certain circumstances, there's very little restriction and every time they light up there are people who have NO CHOICE but to be exposed to second hand smoke (or leave). I know many smokers, and some of them are the most polite and responsible people around. They try very hard to blow smoke the other direction, or not light up when they're around non-smokers. It still doesn't help.

[iinii]

I'm pretty sure that dumping cigarette butts on the sidewalk is littering, and you can be fined.

 

But shrug, people smoking isn't really that big of a deal.

Yeah it's no big deal, my wife probably died from second hand smoke.

[Delete This Account]

Smoking is a choice. Do you not see the difference? And what makes it ok for smokers to litter?

 

I'm entitled to my opinion -- smoking is a filthy habit that is offensive to others. I pity smokers, because I think most actually want to quit but are addicted. Those who don't want to quit think it's "cool" or that it adds to some sort of persona they're trying to emulate. There is no constitutional "right" to smoke, and I'm completely in favor of banning it everywhere but private homes and smoking clubs.

 

Another question -- if you light up and someone near you asks you to put it out, do you?

as it's been pointed out here, wait 'til they take away something you like.

 

as to your other question, it's generally rendered moot given the few places people can now smoke. and given the few places people are now allowed to smoke, i generally don't honor such requests if i'm in a place i'm allowed to smoke. so if you want to stay away from smokers, stay away from smoking areas.

 

anticipating a response of something like: "Why must smokers congregate outside of doorways?"

well, the law's left us with no choice. and we're certainly eager to remind you that we're still here.

 

curiously, i've had a theory on how airlines can deboard and board planes faster. put the smoker's up front. no, it's not a matter of allowing smokers to smoke. the fact is, the smokers are the ones who want to get off the plane the fastest so they can get outside the airport and congregate in front of entrances to lawfully do what they do.

point is, there is no lollygagging for smokers when it comes to getting off planes. and by clearing out the first couple of rows quickly, the faster everyone gets off.

 

jw

[CodeMonkey]

this season im planning playing drinking games while watching the bills...hopefully it will make it more interesting

 

 

3 n out= chug one beer

screen pass or check down= take one shot

trent/fitz/brohm gets sacked= one beer, one shot and one cigarette

 

who wants to get drunk?

Yowza, give your keys to someone before each game man

[bills_fan]

An overweight person is harming themselves, not me. A tall person doesn't do any harm to anyone. A smoker blowing smoke in my face is affecting my enjoyment of the game and making me inhale cancerous, disgusting-smelling smoke. If it affects my health, keep it away from me.

 

 

Point is...it is away from you. Noone is smoking in the stands (at least they should not be) and people head outside the stadium to the gate in order to have a smoke. Coincidentally, this is usually the time when you would be in your seat, watching the game. The smoke is nowhere near you. Any issue with that?

 

Smoking is a choice. Do you not see the difference? And what makes it ok for smokers to litter?

 

I'm entitled to my opinion -- smoking is a filthy habit that is offensive to others. I pity smokers, because I think most actually want to quit but are addicted. Those who don't want to quit think it's "cool" or that it adds to some sort of persona they're trying to emulate. There is no constitutional "right" to smoke, and I'm completely in favor of banning it everywhere but private homes and smoking clubs.

 

Another question -- if you light up and someone near you asks you to put it out, do you?

 

Then you would have a private smoking club on every street corner, next to every office building etc. I can live with the "walking outdoors" to have a smoke even though my libertarian self is revolted by the idea that the government is prohibiting an otherwise lawful activity on private property. Think about that for a second....the government is prohibiting an otherwise lawful activity on private property. If something about that does not profoundly disturb you (no matter the subject area), then I really have no words....

[CodeMonkey]

even though my libertarian self is revolted by the idea that the government is prohibiting an otherwise lawful activity on private property. Think about that for a second....the government is prohibiting an otherwise lawful activity on private property. If something about that does not profoundly disturb you (no matter the subject area), then I really have no words....

As I said earlier in this thread ...Laws regulating personal conduct can be justified on three grounds, one of them being The Harm Principle. Which states that laws are justified if they prevent individuals from causing harm to others. In other words, the second hand smoke argument.

 

So for example if you were to inject the drug (nicotine) into your system or say wear one of the stop smoking patches, no problem since nicotine is currently legal. But since the act of smoking has been determined to be harmful to others around the smoker, particularly in a closed environment like in a building, it can be made illegal. In fact, I believe that in California it is illegal to smoke in your home or your car if there are children there. Good luck enforcing that, particularly the home part, but I believe they did make that law.

[eball]

Then you would have a private smoking club on every street corner, next to every office building etc. I can live with the "walking outdoors" to have a smoke even though my libertarian self is revolted by the idea that the government is prohibiting an otherwise lawful activity on private property. Think about that for a second....the government is prohibiting an otherwise lawful activity on private property. If something about that does not profoundly disturb you (no matter the subject area), then I really have no words....

I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that smoking shouldn't be lawful in the first place. Until that happens, I hope smokers continue to find fewer and fewer places to light up.

[eball]

as it's been pointed out here, wait 'til they take away something you like.

If the "something I like" has been scientifically proven to harm both myself and others, how can I argue?

 

as to your other question, it's generally rendered moot given the few places people can now smoke. and given the few places people are now allowed to smoke, i generally don't honor such requests if i'm in a place i'm allowed to smoke. so if you want to stay away from smokers, stay away from smoking areas.

Particularly at outdoor venues, that is sometimes impossible or impractical. And what if I and my family/friends were there first?

 

anticipating a response of something like: "Why must smokers congregate outside of doorways?"

well, the law's left us with no choice. and we're certainly eager to remind you that we're still here.

John, I respect your sportswriting, but that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Smokers want to "prove a point" to non-smokers by forcing us to inhale the stuff when we enter or exit a building?

 

curiously, i've had a theory on how airlines can deboard and board planes faster. put the smoker's up front. no, it's not a matter of allowing smokers to smoke. the fact is, the smokers are the ones who want to get off the plane the fastest so they can get outside the airport and congregate in front of entrances to lawfully do what they do.

point is, there is no lollygagging for smokers when it comes to getting off planes. and by clearing out the first couple of rows quickly, the faster everyone gets off.

 

jw

This was your best point of the post.

[CodeMonkey]

I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that smoking shouldn't be lawful in the first place. Until that happens, I hope smokers continue to find fewer and fewer places to light up.

That has been the debate for a while right. Alcohol is addictive and harmful and legal. Tobacco as well. But not pot, heroin, cocaine etc etc. Not logical to me.

[bills_fan]

I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that smoking shouldn't be lawful in the first place. Until that happens, I hope smokers continue to find fewer and fewer places to light up.

 

I could see that position justified more than the current mess. Of course, I would argue the reverse...legalize everything, give folks a place to partake safely and it only becomes a problem when you activities affect others. If I want to do bong hits, and the smoke is only experienced by those who chose, willingly, to enter the place, and I do not operate a motor vehicle while high or otherwise affect my life in anyway...whats the harm?

 

Laws regulating personal conduct can be justified on three grounds, one of them being The Harm Principle. Which states that laws are justified if they prevent individuals from causing harm to others. In other words, the second hand smoke argument.

 

Agreed. Which is why DWI laws are fine. However, a business ought to be able to post a big sign...Smoking Allowed or Smoking Not Allowed. Those who enter, enter at their own risk. Keeps all second-hand smoke away from those who do not want to breathe it and all without an intrusive government.