billsfreak Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I understand you're killing time, and that's fine, but it's still a false analogy with regards to banning smoking inside the stadium. And yes, if they ban farting, I'll be the first to revolt. We will have to agree to disagree, it is the same air in the stadium that it is in the parking lot, and people breath the same way. It has been a long time since it has been legal for someone to sit in the seat right next to you and light up (I know people have snuck a smoke in), which is way different than being stashed in a corner, outside of the tunnels and smoking a cigarette where the air has to travel 50 yards at least to even get to your over sensitive nose. How do some people drive to work, maybe they have a car like the Pope has, with its own air cleaner in it.
thebandit27 Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 This is a pretty weak argument. If you have designated smoking areas this really isn't a concern. If you're so sensitive that catching a distant whiff of smoke is going to ruin your experience, maybe you're the one who needs to change to accommodate others. This is just another example of a vocal minority of busy body activists ruining someone else's experience, and the apathetic majority says screw em, I don't smoke anyway so I'm happy to greatly inconvenience others as long as it doesn't inconvenience me. First off, it would be prudent of you to the time to read the thread and learn my position on the subject. As an ex-smoker, I have zero difficulty empathizing with current smokers, and totally understand both sides of the argument. Secondly, it's not a weak argument. My response to billsfreak was that the smoking ban differs from a ban on unhealthy foods because people have 100% control over what they choose to eat. They do not, however, have control over whether or not they breath. If you are concerned about obesity, you can live without eating for 4 hours; if you are a smoker and it's not legal at the venue you're visiting, you can live without smoking for 4 hours; you cannot live without breathing for 4 hours in the event that smoke bothers you. So you can take that to mean "screw 'em" if that's how you read it, but you'd be totally wrong. I'm far from the "busy body activist" that you'd like to paint me as, but I am a person that thinks that nobody needs to smoke (and as a former smoker, I think I've got a pretty fair take on the situation). If going 4 hours without a cig is too much for someone, they shouldn't attend a game. Just like they shouldn't attend a movie if going 2 hours is too long. Just like they shouldn't drive long distances if going 8 hours without a drink is too long. Simple stuff really.
UticaBill Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 It doesn't bother me I'll chew.... watch your step!
Kingfish Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 This is a pretty weak argument. If you have designated smoking areas this really isn't a concern. If you're so sensitive that catching a distant whiff of smoke is going to ruin your experience, maybe you're the one who needs to change to accommodate others. This is just another example of a vocal minority of busy body activists ruining someone else's experience, and the apathetic majority says screw em, I don't smoke anyway so I'm happy to greatly inconvenience others as long as it doesn't inconvenience me. Ruined? Because you had to go 3 hours without a cigarette?
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 Isn't engaging in an activity that is absolutely, positively, 100% proven to cause permanent, irreversible damage to one's vital organs the very definition of stupidity? At best, it's blind ignorance. Look, I do lots of stupid things myself -- I may even defend my stupid actions vigorously, but it doesn't make them any less stupid. So we're all stupid for drinking alcohol, eating fried food, not getting enough sleep, etc.? I know I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I'm saying just going through life in general on a daily basis is causing permanent, irreversable damage to our vital organs. If someone can scientifically prove that they got cancer or emphysema from second hand smoke for the seven to nine times we are all at the Ralph in a given year, I'll gladly give up my position. Until then, I'll continue to say it may be a nuisance to some, but I believe the outdoor smoking areas should remain in tact. Keep booting out those who light up in the stands, leave the people outside in the smoking areas alone.
Bill from NYC Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 So we're all stupid for drinking alcohol, eating fried food, not getting enough sleep, etc.? I know I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I'm saying just going through life in general on a daily basis is causing permanent, irreversable damage to our vital organs. If someone can scientifically prove that they got cancer or emphysema from second hand smoke for the seven to nine times we are all at the Ralph in a given year, I'll gladly give up my position. Until then, I'll continue to say it may be a nuisance to some, but I believe the outdoor smoking areas should remain in tact. Keep booting out those who light up in the stands, leave the people outside in the smoking areas alone.
buffalomike Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 I had to walk through a smoking area to meet a friend last year during a game and it was disgusting. My wife even had to go home and wash her hair right after the game because the cigarette smoke made it stink so bad. If you can't go 3.5 hours without a smoke you need to take this day to re-examine the priorities in your life.
Rob's House Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 First off, it would be prudent of you to the time to read the thread and learn my position on the subject. As an ex-smoker, I have zero difficulty empathizing with current smokers, and totally understand both sides of the argument. ...wah, wah, wah, wah... God, you bandits are really sensitive. You're a s/n on an anonymous message board, so I'm more concerned with the argument than the stance of someone from who I pulled a sentence. The argument that people can't choose to not breathe for four hours is retarded. Obviously retarded people don't understand that it's retarded because, well, they're retarded. Ruined? Because you had to go 3 hours without a cigarette? Some people really look forward to going to the game and drinking beer. And if you are a regular smoker, after a few beers you're going to really want a cigarette. But sorry, a bunch of whiney little bitches (like the guy whining about his wife's hair) decided they need the entire stadium for themselves. As a nonsmoker it doesn't really affect me. It's just my personal opinion that the kind of moralizers that would impose their will on others and decide they need every square inch of an open air stadium relegated as smoke free, because God forbid they may get a wild hair up their ass to do a lap around the perimeter and catch a vague whiff of smoke or their wife's nappy weave might need a wash, are the kind of moralizers who cause most of the problems in this world, and could do us all a favor if they themselves stopped breathing altogether. Just my opinion.
thebandit27 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) God, you bandits are really sensitive. You're a s/n on an anonymous message board, so I'm more concerned with the argument than the stance of someone from who I pulled a sentence. The argument that people can't choose to not breathe for four hours is retarded. Obviously retarded people don't understand that it's retarded because, well, they're retarded. I suppose that if you ignore logic, reason, and sensibility, then yes, my post reeks of over-sensitivity. All I said was that, if you're going to call someone a "busy body activist", it would probably be prudent to understand their stance on the situation. As I explained in this very thread, I'm an ex-smoker, so I've lived the debate internally. Apparently that part of the argument isn't of concern to you... As for your last paragraph, well, thanks for taking such a level-headed look at the situation...very mature of you. I think we're done here. Edited June 20, 2011 by thebandit27
Gordio Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I had to walk through a smoking area to meet a friend last year during a game and it was disgusting. My wife even had to go home and wash her hair right after the game because the cigarette smoke made it stink so bad. If you can't go 3.5 hours without a smoke you need to take this day to re-examine the priorities in your life. This is a pretty weak arguement. I have probably been to over 100 bills home games in my lifetime(I am 38) & one thing I do know is it is impossible to not have your clothes stink after tailgating & watching football for over 8 hours. I mean with all the grills going, & especially in the winter time when people get the fire pits going, your clothes are going to have that smokey smell to them. It is pretty hard to avoid out at the Ralph on gamedays. My wife makes me throw my clothes right in the wash as soon as I get home from the games on Sunday. She can not stand the smell. So I doubt having a little smoking area is really going to make the big of a difference. I am a non smoker also.
Peace Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) So we're all stupid for drinking alcohol, eating fried food, not getting enough sleep, etc.? I know I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I'm saying just going through life in general on a daily basis is causing permanent, irreversable damage to our vital organs. If someone can scientifically prove that they got cancer or emphysema from second hand smoke for the seven to nine times we are all at the Ralph in a given year, I'll gladly give up my position. Until then, I'll continue to say it may be a nuisance to some, but I believe the outdoor smoking areas should remain in tact. Keep booting out those who light up in the stands, leave the people outside in the smoking areas alone. I am not worried about cancer risk from second hand smoke at the Ralph. It's just gross. I'd also not like to walk through the Philly subways and breathe in the stench of urine. At the Ralph, they can control other people's discomfort having to walk through a smoke cloud. I am a fan who applauds it. Bill doesn't like it. This isn't some bigger issue about personal freedoms and the Constitution...it's something they are doing to improve the experience. Edited June 20, 2011 by Peace
Bill from NYC Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I am not worried about cancer risk from second hand smoke at the Ralph. It's just gross. I'd also not like to walk through the Philly subways and breathe in the stench of urine. At the Ralph, they can control other people's discomfort having to walk through a smoke cloud. I am a fan who applauds it. Bill doesn't like it. This isn't some bigger issue about personal freedoms and the Constitution...it's something they are doing to improve the experience. They should ban seats as well..... http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/08/healthwatch-sitting-vs-smoking/
Hplarrm Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 They should ban seats as well..... http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/08/healthwatch-sitting-vs-smoking/ Naw, if they did that it would likely cause a backlash because it would cause a backlash as no social good would come from banning seats. A smoking ban works because what it will do is demonize and depopularize smoking to yet another extent. The ultimate effect of this will be to reduce the number of kids who get addicted to cigarettes as their use becomes less and less of a social norm. The tough thing for the cigarette biz is that if you do not become addicted when you are a kid the statistical probability is that you will never smoke. I agree with you that these types of bans are an infringement on the ability or right in our society to do things which harm us. This results in some cruelties but I prefer the laissez faire way of operating. However, I know I am willing to tolerate some fairly draconian controls which even though they infringe upon the rights of adults to choose serve to also reduce the number of kids who smoke. An example of this is the downright confiscatory level of taxation on smokes. it is wrong to tax adults so heavily and even worse to pay on those who are addicted to make this tax a moneymaker. However, this tax raises the marginal cost of use so high it is even obvious to kids they cannot afford it. Kids smoking rates go down. Likewise, as smoking has become more demonized and uncool it further removes opportunities for kids to experience a society friendly too or just tolerant to smoking. I think few disagree with adults having the right to smoke if they choose. However, I also am in favor of doing things which marginalize smoking and make it less doable or popular for kids to smoke. If kids do not get addicted and get the chance to decide whether to smoke as adults they tend to smoke less. Even if it is inconvenient for you as an adult don't you see how actions which lower kids smoking are a good idea. I think it is not going to be very successful to be a little pregnant on the smoking issue where we make it easily doable for an adult but make it hard or impossible for a kid to try and then get addicted.
eball Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 So we're all stupid for drinking alcohol, eating fried food, not getting enough sleep, etc.? I know I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I'm saying just going through life in general on a daily basis is causing permanent, irreversable damage to our vital organs. If someone can scientifically prove that they got cancer or emphysema from second hand smoke for the seven to nine times we are all at the Ralph in a given year, I'll gladly give up my position. Until then, I'll continue to say it may be a nuisance to some, but I believe the outdoor smoking areas should remain in tact. Keep booting out those who light up in the stands, leave the people outside in the smoking areas alone. Wow, talk about missing the point. Smoking wasn't banned at RWS because of the disease risk to non-smokers (even though it is a proven fact). And it's not a nuisance to "some" -- it's a nuisance to most, if not all, non-smokers (who greatly outnumber smokers, by the way). I'm actually ambivalent to the notion of allowing an "out of the way" smoking area -- as long as I don't have to walk through to get to my seat, restroom, or concessions, what do I care what others inhale? But I agree with SDS' premise that this ban is "really" an attempt to do away with the morons who ignored the in-the-seat and restroom smoking ban. If it's not allowed anywhere, they no longer have the "I didn't know" excuse. And that, my friend, is the whole point.
Peace Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 They should ban seats as well..... http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/06/08/healthwatch-sitting-vs-smoking/ That's not a retort that makes any sense. Smoking bothers the **** out of the people around you. Having a beer can be done responsibly. So can sitting. Smoking bothers almost everyone. If I sprayed a can of fart spray into the air, I'd hope I got banned too. I applaud the Ralph for removing it even further from its grounds.
CodeMonkey Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Well, this is timely: New Warnings Just saw that, slide 7 in particular fits several of the discussions in this thread.
Orton's Arm Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Hate to break it to ya, but people have been smoking tobacco since around 3000 BC - 5000 BC Link (it's Wiki but if you don't believe that you can look yourself) And recreational drugs are far from out. The drugs of choice may have changed, but you are clearly just unaware if you think recreational drugs are "out." The tobacco plant is native to the Americas, but not to the Old World. From the Wikipedia article you cited: "Frenchman Jean Nicot (from whose name the word nicotine is derived) introduced tobacco to France in 1560, and tobacco then spread to England. The first report of a smoking Englishman is of a sailor in Bristol in 1556. . . . Soon after its introduction to the Old World, tobacco came under frequent criticism from state and religious leaders." From the Wikipedia article about cigarettes: "The widespread smoking of cigarettes in the Western world is largely a 20th century phenomenon – at the start of the century the per capita annual consumption in the USA was 54 cigarettes (with less than 0.5% of the population smoking more than 100 cigarettes per year)." Prior to the 20th century, most tobacco consumption took the form of cigars, pipes, and other non-cigarette methods. I think people would be better off if the tobacco plant didn't exist. But since it does, and since there are smokers, I think there should be a reasonable balance between the right to breathe clean air on the one hand and smokers' cravings on the other. In the past that balance was tilted too heavily towards smokers. I ran track back when I was in high school, and I remember several parents would smoke while at track meets. When you're running the mile and the two mile, you get really, really out of breath. To have the air you're breathing mixed with carbon monoxide-laced secondhand smoke makes a big difference, especially when you need every last oxygen molecule you can possibly acquire. I was also displeased by the fact that there were no physical barriers to prevent the smoke from the smoking sections of restaurants from drifting into non-smoking sections. But to eliminate smoking areas from Ralph Wilson Stadium seems to go too far in the other direction. If the problem is smoke drifting from the smoking area into the rest of the stadium, then maybe put the smoking area a little farther away. It saddens me that people such as Bill from NYC will no longer be attending Bills games because of this. He's been a loyal follower of the Bills through the 15+ years of post-Polian ineptitude. He's seen the Bills throw tons of early picks at RBs, only to throw more early picks at the RB position a few years later in an effort to upgrade/replace the early pick in question. He's seen the Bills throw tons of early picks at DBs, only to watch those DBs go first-contract-and-out. Considering he's endured all that, it would be nice to have him there, in person, to see the Bills finally get turned around. I think this most recent draft is a solid step in that direction. I hope this question doesn't seem naive, but is it possible to use a nicotine patch as a sort of temporary substitute? If having frequent cigarette breaks is a 100, and if going for four hours without smoking is a zero, what number would a nicotine patch be?
Peace Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 It saddens me that people such as Bill from NYC will no longer be attending Bills games because of this. He's been a loyal follower of the Bills through the 15+ years of post-Polian ineptitude. He's seen the Bills throw tons of early picks at RBs, only to throw more early picks at the RB position a few years later in an effort to upgrade/replace the early pick in question. He's seen the Bills throw tons of early picks at DBs, only to watch those DBs go first-contract-and-out. Considering he's endured all that, it would be nice to have him there, in person, to see the Bills finally get turned around. I think this most recent draft is a solid step in that direction. Who gives a crap? No one is really not going to games because of this. Bill and 6 other people will skip a game. The vast majority of people laud this private company's decision to ban smoking. The decision will not sell or forfeit ticket sales--it will just make the experience better for a lot people. To not have to walk by or through a stench cloud will make me that much happier. If I can't high five Bill on the way in, I'll just tell him about the game on here. It's his loss, not mine.
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I hope this question doesn't seem naive, but is it possible to use a nicotine patch as a sort of temporary substitute? If having frequent cigarette breaks is a 100, and if going for four hours without smoking is a zero, what number would a nicotine patch be? 3.5. (I know, cheap shot. Couldn't resist.)
Recommended Posts