Italy to ban plastic bags

[trippinprincezz13]

A buddy of mine said he went to a bar in California that solved the problem by cutting a big hole in the ceiling. The people sitting under the hole are "outside" and can smoke legally.

That's more or less what most bars here do. They have nice little walled-in patios with heaters. It's nice to sit outside.

It's basically not a problem for anyone, and now it's nicer inside because no amount of fans and other machinery actually eliminates that grotesque "indoor smoking" odor or the vile clampdown on one's lungs that accompanies it. Even as someone who smokes, I really only want to be smoking WHILE I'm smoking.

This. Before I smoked, I loathed the smell of cigarette smoke and it sticks to you if you're anywhere in the same room as it. I still hate the smell, even though I know I carry it on me to an extent (maybe less than 1/2 pack/day smokers - but I still hate it). I won't barely smoke in my car like I used to and at home everyone either smokes outside or by the window with a fan to pull the smoke out. I feel weird even smoking in hotel rooms that allow it and will sit by an open window (sucks in the ones you can't open the windows).

I certainly don't want smoke anywhere near my food, so bad with smoking in restaurants is fine with me. I remember when I was younger, the separation between the non-smoking/smoking sections was a divider between benches and a pane of glass that didn't go anywhere near the ceiling and were pretty much a joke.

In bars, ehh, it's often tight quarters inside depending on the bar and the night, and the smoke could get overwhelming pretty quickly, especially when you're not the one smoking. I was kind of sad when they banned indoor smoking in New Hampshire because used to go to a pool hall there and you could smoke, and it wasn't as bad as a regular bar as people were more spread out. I could get behind by permit only.

I prefer smoking outside anyway because I hate it lingering inside. If it's cold, I'll probably grumble a bit, but if it's THAT cold, I won't go. Around here, except for schools (college) and few other buildings, most places, at least bars and restaurants, don't seem to enforce any sort of distance rule as long as you're not blocking the entry way, so I don't have to walk more than a few feet if I don't want to.

[AFK]

Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail:  Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html

A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.

Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.

They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.

Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.

Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.

Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."

Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.

[Adios]

Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail:  Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html

A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.

Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.

They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.

Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.

Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.

Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."

Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.

Then I should be banned.

[Cramulus]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

smoking is a public health issue, not an employment issue

industries shouldn't get special rights just because they employ people and turn a profit

especially generally predatory industries like big tobacco

[Suu]

That's....really fucking scary.

[Adios]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

smoking is a public health issue, not an employment issue

industries shouldn't get special rights just because they employ people and turn a profit

especially generally predatory industries like big tobacco

Sure, the economy today could easily absorb the shut down of the tobacco industry. Right?

[hooplala]

Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail:  Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html

A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.

Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.

They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.

Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.

Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.

Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."

Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

[Phox]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that argument Charley. He's not arguing for the abolishment of the tobacco industry or a complete ban on smoking. What legitimate benefit does smoking have for a person, aside from assuaging their addiction?

[Fujikoma]

Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail:  Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html

A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.

Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.

They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.

Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.

Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.

Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."

Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.

See? I told you it wasn't going to stop with bars, outside areas (except certain designated smoking areas) and whatnot. Just wait, they're going to put a stop to it in your home, too, for the public health.

[Epimetheus]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.

[Adios]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

[AFK]

Since we're on the subject, I'll leave with you spags something that just came across my e-mail:  Regarding, yes, third-hand smoke

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2011/thirdhand-smoke-a-lingering.html

A new study found the chemical by-products of tobacco smoke cling to the air and surfaces of smokers' homes long after they've moved out, msnbc.com reported Dec. 16.

Researchers at San Diego State University led by psychology professor Georg Matt, Ph.D., analyzed the homes of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers for chemical smoking residue just before the residents completed a planned move. Two months later, they re-measured air and surface nicotine in the homes that had been rented or sold to nonsmokers, and checked the fingerprints of the new residents for nicotine.

They also analyzed urine samples of the youngest new inhabitants for cotinine, a nicotine metabolite.

Although the homes had been thoroughly cleaned, including painting and carpet replacement in many cases, nonsmokers living in the homes of former smokers had seven to eight times more nicotine on their fingertips than those who moved into nonsmoker homes, and urine cotinine levels were three to five times higher in their children.

Overall, air and surface nicotine was 30 to 150 times higher in the homes formerly occupied by smokers compared with homes formerly occupied by nonsmokers.

Smoke-related chemical residues, referred to as thirdhand smoke, "hang around for months after a smoker has left," said Matt. "While there was considerably less in homes once an active smoker moved out, there was still 10 to 20 percent of what was found while the smoker still lived there."

Such homes are "reservoirs of tobacco smoke pollutants," creating a source for involuntary tobacco exposure to those who move into them, the authors said.

See? I told you it wasn't going to stop with bars, outside areas (except certain designated smoking areas) and whatnot. Just wait, they're going to put a stop to it in your home, too, for the public health.

Where in that article does it say ANYTHING about proposing a ban on smoking in people's homes?  You think maybe, just maybe, the information would be used to educate and raise awareness?  I mean, if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to know that tobacco residues can have that kind of impact on your kids?  So maybe when you are looking at a house, that's another questions you can ask, to make a more informed choice?  

Put the tin foil away man.  

[LMNO]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

[Epimetheus]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

WTF? Whose ultimate goal? Certainly not mine, and I'm the only person I'm defending.

[Cramulus]

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I think that's a mis-characterization

I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking


and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.