NEWSFLASH: Chancellor (Ha! "Chancellor") Moeser is not a conservative.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 1:00:26 AM

I'm torn on this issue when it comes to places like restaurants and bars and shit. I don't think it's fair for me to subject someone just tryna earn a living waiting tables to my deadly vice, but damn if I don't feel weird drinking a beer with no cigarette.

As far as the airy outside goes, bite me. If there's one place a man should be allowed to smoke, it's a college campus. And what is happening to our replacement smokers? We got 12-year-old kids having unprotected sex and getting fucked up on mommy's pills...and they can't pick up a cigarette while they're at it?

If this law is more than symbolic, they should consider some accompanying indoor or outdoor smoking lounges. There's absolutely no reason they shouldn't make that happen.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 3:21 AM. Reason : ...]

10/26/2007 3:15:37 AM

I think the way Japan does it is the most effective (and clean). Basically you setup ash-tray things every building or so, and mark off a zone about 15 feet around it, that's where you can smoke. You put your butts in the ashtray and go on. It may sound like herding but it clearly defines where you can smoke and where you can't (outside at least) and minimizes trash.

You guys gotta admit, having cigarette butts everywhere is kinda disgusting because 90% of the smoking population is inconsiderate when it comes to that shit.


[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 7:30 AM. Reason : looks like i'm waking up TSB this morning!]

10/26/2007 7:29:08 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, but conservatives aren't the ones banning and attempting to ban smoking."

don't tell mike huckabee that, then

10/26/2007 9:17:53 AM

Quote :

"This from the guy who told me to "Think globally, act locally" when I said that the NCSU ACLU was lame for complaining about the NPO."

The NPO is communism.

Also, smoking bans are not a conservative liberal thing either. I also somewhat remember hookdouche state during the proposed smoking ban that the government can do whatever they want with their own property, but leave private property alone. Well, I guess he isn't consistent in his stances.

10/26/2007 9:55:32 AM

barack obama is a chain smoker fyi

10/26/2007 10:20:34 AM

Quote :

"If memory serves, it's illegal to carry onto any school campus anyway. I believe federal law prohibits the carrying of firearms on educational premises"

IIRC, shortly after the Virginia Tech shit, I believe they listed a short list of schools that do allow concealed carry...definitely a small percentage of colleges, but that would lead me to believe its not a federal law...or if there is a federal law it must only apply to K-12 grades and not colleges

Also the daily dose of hypocrisy in TSB is all the fools screaming OMG BUSH IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS are now happy to take away a freedom

10/26/2007 10:23:30 AM

Smoking is guaranteed by the constitution?

10/26/2007 10:34:09 AM

the first the smoking ban took effect on July 4th.

you cant smoke anywhere near the dental school or the med school.

there are signs up everywhere. and people still smoke because they are idiots and think since there is no sign within like 20 feet, they can smoke.

everyday i tell people "hey this is a non smoking area"

some are real nice about it, and others just shrug me off.

its disgusting to see all those cig. butts.

im happy with this campus wide ban.

they sit out with their oxygen tanks and smoke cigs.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 10:34 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 10:34:27 AM

Clean air is guaranteed by the constitution?

10/26/2007 10:34:42 AM

Another thread ruined by TreeTwista.

10/26/2007 10:35:51 AM

another website ruined by a bald faggot

10/26/2007 10:36:06 AM

Quote :

"Clean air is guaranteed by the constitution?"

no, but smoking cigarettes in public sure is.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2007 10:36:40 AM

it sure is great when the govt tells us how to live our lives

10/26/2007 10:39:27 AM

But you don't care, so why are you posting here?

10/26/2007 10:39:47 AM

you DO care, hence why you're posting on tww under a dozen aliases

SUSPEND

10/26/2007 10:41:00 AM

Sure, I'm interested in topics in this section. If you aren't, then why are you here trolling?

10/26/2007 10:42:26 AM

the most immature poster on this site tells people to grow up...then after that the biggest troll on the site tells people to stop trolling

i didnt think it was possible, but you're more hardheaded and ignorant of reality than george bush

10/26/2007 10:44:00 AM

Now if you could just tie all that back to the Smoking Ban at UNC, we might could get somewhere.

10/26/2007 10:46:45 AM

smoking bans in public places are one thing

course i think i recall you being one of the communist faggots who also thought the govt should be able to ban what a private bar/club owner allows (smoking or no smoking) at his own private club...probably because you're a big govt fag

10/26/2007 10:48:41 AM

To all the people screaming "THUR TURK UR RURGHTS!"

Smoking is NOT a right. It is not guaranteed in the Constitution, and it is not a universal human right that everybody should have regardless of the law. Smoking a cigarette is no more a "right" than smoking a blunt is, or having a beer, or performing a dangerous sport.

What IS a right (or ought to be, at any rate) is the ability to do to yourself what you will, provided you harm nobody else or their property. The problem with smoking is that it doesn't always fall under this category. The second-hand smoke, in addition to being a carcinogen, can make people with asthma or allergies very uncomfortable. No, the smallest amount of smoke will not kill you and I'm not saying that people have the right to not be offended, but since everybody has to breathe the same air, your actions as a smoker force everybody else to be exposed to the same shit you put into your body, whether they consent or not. When you smoke, you're dirtying up a publicly-accessible, commonly-owned resource. You do NOT have exclusive ownership of the atmosphere, so you have absolutely no authority to sully it when others are also trying to use it. In a well-ventilated area this isn't an issue, but inside enclosed spaces it becomes a problem.

Anyway, your rights stop where they infringe upon another person's rights. Do you have the right to force somebody to undergo some condition without their consent? No. So why is it okay for you to stand in a room full of non-smokers and blow your smoke everywhere? The typical rebuttal is "people don't have to stay there if they don't like smoke," which is all well and good, but why should everybody else have to leave just because one person decides that they want to smoke right then and there? Why does everybody else have to bend over backwards to accommodate that one person? That one person could just as easily decide to hold off until he gets home. One person showing restraint for the convenience of the rest of the group is courtesy; forcing the rest of the group to accommodate you at the cost of their inconvenience is just plain selfish.

Yes there are health benefits to not smoking, but I'm not entirely for forcing people to stop doing things that are unhealthy for them. I think a better solution would be to give them incentives to discontinue doing unhealthy things, or at least disincentives to do them in the first place, such as higher cigarette taxes. But the main point is that smoking isn't an activity that should be guaranteed for all people. You do not require smoking to live a meaningful and prosperous life, so why should it be a right? If you choose to do it, do your best to keep it to yourself. But also understand that it can potentially harm others. Understand that, when you smoke, you will eventually involve other people who don't want to be involved. And that this why it will NEVER be a right.

10/26/2007 11:59:50 AM

Quote :

"Smoking is NOT a right. It is not guaranteed in the Constitution"

neither is clean air

10/26/2007 12:04:35 PM

Tr00. But unfortunately, we're all forced to share the same air. Unless you want to build a self-contained environment for yourself that recycles its own air, the air that you breathe eventually gets breathed by others. When somebody decides to smoke in public, he puts things into the air that not everybody wants to put into their own lungs. Some people won't care, but others will. Again, well-ventilated areas shouldn't be an issue, but the more confined the air, the more people will notice.

It's really about common courtesy and the common good. Imagine if there was a lake that everybody had to drink from. Now imagine that somebody pisses or shits in it every day. That one person, because he couldn't be bothered to drop his shit elsewhere, has introduced toxins and disease into the water supply that not everybody is willing to risk exposing themselves to. You don't own that lake, you don't own the air, so why do you get to decide to make it uncomfortable or even risky for other people to use?

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 PM. Reason : blah]

10/26/2007 12:08:25 PM

as a smoker, i dont have any problem whatsoever if a particular building or even if all buildings (other than private property) ban smoking...i have more of an issue with open air policies...if you get a whiff of 2nd hand smoke every day you're not going to get lung cancer and die...some people smoke for 60 years before they get lung cancer and die...just because you don't like the smell of cigarettes/2nd hand smoke doesnt mean you're going to get asthma and die

and the lake analogy is really pushing it...i guess we're all forced to share the same air as far as audio goes too...if i didnt like your voice you shouldnt be able to talk because its polluting my ears

10/26/2007 12:13:06 PM

meh smoking is one of those personal freedom things that potentially interferes and conflicts with the freedoms of others.... namely 2nd hand smoke.

like car insurance and such, it's just one more thing that's supposed to help protect others

being a non-smoker I'm pleased that i will no longer have to wade through a vale of smoke whenever you go out a door on that campus... but other than that I could care less

Quote :

"if you get a whiff of 2nd hand smoke every day you're not going to get lung cancer and die"

results in statistically significant increases in lung cancer
but by all means continue with the asinine statements

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : s]

10/26/2007 12:13:51 PM

some of you make it sound like every time you go into or out of a building there are 50 people chain smoking right outside the door and theres a perpetual cloud of thick smoke always present

10/26/2007 12:15:28 PM

depends where it is, and the weather

10/26/2007 12:17:25 PM

This is retarded I do not smoke but I do not see a problem with people that do as long as they are outside or do not cloud me w/ their second hand smoke indoors.

10/26/2007 12:17:44 PM

if find those that get all pissy when asked not to smoke hilarious.... they act like i just stole candy from their child

10/26/2007 12:19:08 PM

can you still smoke in one part of dabney? i remember when i was at school you could

Quote :

"results in statistically significant increases in lung cancer but by all means continue with the asinine statements"

link? interesting the health risks of smoking werent brought to the forefront until 30-40 years ago yet somehow they've conclusively shown long term effects of an unquantifyable amount of 2nd hand smoke

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2007 12:19:08 PM

Quote :

"if you get a whiff of 2nd hand smoke every day you're not going to get lung cancer and die"

Strawman argument. I never said that even the smallest amount of cigarette smoke. I even acknowledged that this was so. It's really about the statistical odds of getting cancer, which IS a product of the concentration and length of exposure.

Quote :

"some people smoke for 60 years before they get lung cancer and die"

Anecdotal evidence. And again, it's about the odds; you can have a 60% chance of getting cancer within the the next 8 years and never have it, and conversely you might only have a 1% chance of getting cancer within the next 50 years and just get really unlucky.

Quote :

"...just because you don't like the smell of cigarettes/2nd hand smoke doesnt mean you're going to get asthma and die"

But why do those people who do not like the smoke have to be forced to be exposed to it? It'd be one thing if a non-smoker deliberately went to privately-owned businesses where smoking is allowed and bitched about it, but beyond that why is it whining just because somebody doesn't want to be exposed to a toxin?

Quote :

"i guess we're all forced to share the same air as far as audio goes too...if i didnt like your voice you shouldnt be able to talk because its polluting my ears"

Prove that the sound of my voice causes you demonstrable physical harm or is a threat to your health.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : blah]

10/26/2007 12:19:50 PM

oh come on HUR, you should like this, it comes from UNC afterall

10/26/2007 12:19:51 PM

^^i could care less if it was banned from any building, as long as private bar/club owners get to make their own decisions...but banning it outdoors is pushing it

and how much smoke are you exposed to from 2nd hand smoke vs. the amount of smoke an actual smoker is exposed to? its gotta be like 1/10000000th

Quote :

"Prove that the sound of my voice causes you demonstrable physical harm or is a threat to your health"

prove that 2nd hand smoke is a significant threat to your health

10/26/2007 12:22:05 PM

I'm torn on these things.
On the one hand, I like a free country. If private businesses want to allow smoking then I think it should be 100% up to them to decide just as I have a choice in whether or not I want to visit that business.

On the other hand smokers are disgusting and inconsiderate. I see them tossing butt out of cars almost every day. Buildings that ban smoking within 50' usually have signs and ashcans located right at the 50' mark, yet when you walk to the door you see hundreds of cigarette butts from all the losers who couldn't be bothered to stop smoking until they were right at the door. They are disgusting. They do stink up your clothes which will then stink up your bedroom until it's time to do laundry. Quite frankly, smokers annoy the piss out of me.

So this is one issue I just don't get involved in. I let the government infringe on people's rights because ultimately they are doing my dirty work and I feel that I personally benefit from it. Pretty fucked up, huh? At least I can admit to my own selfishness on the issue.

10/26/2007 12:22:21 PM

Quote :

"umbrellaman: Strawman argument. I never said that even the smallest amount of cigarette smoke. I even acknowledged that this was so. It's really about the statistical odds of getting cancer, which IS a product of the concentration and length of exposure."

Are you seriously talking about strawmen after this:

To all the people screaming "THUR TURK UR RURGHTS!"

?

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ...]

10/26/2007 12:22:38 PM

Quote :

"i could care less if it was banned from any building, as long as private bar/club owners get to make their own decisions...but banning it outdoors is pushing it"

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that much. But you've got to understand that smoking is not a right, and that there is a sufficient body of literature out there to suggest that it causes more harm than good. If smoking was completely banned tomorrow, a few people might get a little pissed about it but overall society would not be impacted in a negative way.

^ Your hyperbole detectors have obviously failed.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : bridget]

10/26/2007 12:24:31 PM

where is the proof you all speak of that 2nd hand smoke is so bad for you? common sense would tell us that burning anything and ingesting the sublimated smoke is not good for our respiratory systems...but nobody smokes 1 pack of cigarettes and dies of lung cancer...and if you smoke 1 pack you're getting a lot more direct exposure to the smoke than simply catching a whiff of smoke here and there throughout your day

and i am courteous of non smokers, or at least as courteous as i can be...i'll attempt to blow my smoke straight up in the air as opposed to at people, etc...but please come forth with some evidence that 2nd hand smoke is so bad

how is it that some people smoke 2 packs a day for 70 years...but getting a tiny fraction of that as 2nd hand smoke is going to cause you health problems?

10/26/2007 12:28:19 PM

^^Sorry, I realized how late my post was to the argument and had to change it.

Anyway,

I never said smoking was a right.

And I never said second-hand smoke wasn't harmful.

Which is why your posts to this thread suck so bad.

And no, my hyperbole detectors have not failed. You devoted like two hundred words to an argument ("smoking is a right") that absolutely nobody had brought up--it was the dumbest post I've read in a long time.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 12:32 PM. Reason : It was a blatant strawman.]

10/26/2007 12:29:41 PM

Quote :

"oh come on HUR, you should like this, it comes from UNC afterall "

???

Quote :

"On the other hand smokers are disgusting and inconsiderate."

the asian and indian exchange students are smelly and disgusting why do we not ban them from
the wolfline and within 100 ft of a classroom. Maybe we could ban farting too b.c this smell
offends me in class or any other closed environment when someone is being inconsiderate.

Quote :

"If smoking was completely banned tomorrow,"

As long as your outside or in a designated area smokers hurt no one by themselves. The government
should not serve as the nanny in society protecting people from themselves.

10/26/2007 12:33:46 PM

btw when i ask for proof that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous, i'm not talking about putting a white lab rat in a shoebox and pumping 100 pounds of smoke in there with no oxygen...i'm talking about the 2nd hand smoke that people are actually exposed to, which, IF OUTDOORS, isnt much

10/26/2007 12:35:22 PM

Quote :

"link? interesting the health risks of smoking werent brought to the forefront until 30-40 years ago yet somehow they've conclusively shown long term effects of an unquantifyable amount of 2nd hand smoke"

There's that "unquantifiable" statement again where you don't have any idea how you are using it.

Who cares when the effects were brought to the forefront. That's not a point to argue.

You can right now today collect any given person that has been subjected to second hand smoke for whatever length of time you are interested in and find out what their health is compared to some other control.

Jeez. You call yourself a scientist?

10/26/2007 1:34:47 PM

Looks like you're right, bridget. Nobody explicitly said that smoking was a right. I got a little carried away on my diatribe there. And I'm not saying that you should never ever smoke; if you want to, I think you should be able to as long as you can do so without harming other people. But a bunch of people were whining about how this is completely unfair and stuff, and all I'm saying is GET OVER IT.

TreeTwista, your evidence: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/

It's from the US Department of Health Statistics, a report from the Surgen General about the effects of second-hand smoke. Read Chapter 7. But in a nutshell, here are a few of the conclusions that the report reached:

"The evidence is sufficient to infer a relationshipe between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location."

"The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker."

"The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a risk of nasal sinus cancer among nonsmokers."

"The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma among nonsmokers."

And that's just for cancer. There are other chapters dedicated to other health effects linked to second-hand smoke, such as cardiovascular disease.

I admit that I haven't read the report in its entirety and I'm far from being an expert on the subject. But this is what the report has concluded. You can nitpick the process by which they got their numbers, but you asked for the proof and I have provided it.

Quote :

"The government should not serve as the nanny in society protecting people from themselves."

Nobody's aruging for a nanny-state. But that doesn't give you a license to expose people to substances that they don't consent to and have been proven to be toxic. We don't need the government to take care of us, but we do need it to protect ourselves from one another because 9 times out of 10 we're too selfish to think about others. There are laws in place for a reason.

And naturally we'll get the argument (if we haven't already) that cars should be banned since they pump out noxious gases and environmental pollutants. Which is also a valid point. However, cars do provide a nice utility for society; they get us to places much quicker. They are not without their dangers, but they are very useful. Who does smoking benefit? What possible utility does that give to society?

10/26/2007 1:45:39 PM

Twista, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke#Current_state_of_scientific_opinion

That's a good starting place -- look at the citations they offer and read that stuff if you're interested. It's notable that basically every major medical organization thinks second hand smoke is harmful.

10/26/2007 2:47:31 PM

like i said before, common sense would tell you that burning something and inhaling the sublimated smoke is not good for your respiratory system...but HOW bad is it? damn near anything can be shown to have health risks...it seems though that people are implying that people get lung cancer from merely walking around outside and being exposed to smoke, whereas it takes years and years for actual smokers to get lung cancer

Quote :

"The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker"

living with a smoker != walking past a smoker outdoors

10/26/2007 3:10:29 PM

umbrellaman is probably an active member of MADD also

10/26/2007 3:16:09 PM

The argument is...you can chose for yourself to diminish your health by smoking...you don't, however, have the right to make that choice for the people around you. Plus it's nice to be able to go some where and not leave smelling like smoke all day/night.

10/26/2007 3:19:37 PM

^i agree with that in theory and i dont have a problem with bans inside buildings...i'll say again i do think private bar or club owners should be able to dictate their own policies...in which case if a bar owner allows smoking, you know that there will be smoking there and you can choose to go there or not to go there

when we talk about banning smoking outdoors within 100 feet of a building...thats a little different...you're not exactly being forced to be in an enclosed space thats full of smoke since you're outdoors

10/26/2007 3:26:03 PM

^^Yes, exactly. Thank you.

[Edited on October 26, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : blah]

10/26/2007 3:26:36 PM

should i be able to walk down the sidewalk on hillsborough street without being forced to breathe in poisonous automobile exhaust?

10/26/2007 3:27:42 PM

Society has deemed that cars are a necessary evil. They are also deciding that cigarettes aren't.

Next argument.

10/26/2007 3:28:59 PM