Kobe's public beaches ban tattoos

[matsuki]

i have had a few occasions where some asshole lights up right next to my kids in a sit down type of environment. the fuckers ended up quickly moving away or putting out their cigarette really fast...

if it is just me and the wife... shoganai. but not around the kids... that is where the line is for me. I have seen other FG parents do the same and the j-families around that didn't smoke were quite happy with it, but they wouldn't have supported them if the smoker were to get all mad and talk shit. TIJ

Usually, if you say something, most reasonable people here apologize and either move or put it out. It's usually the grumpy old man or ladyboy host types that will ignore you or try to fight with you. I've had pretty good success with taking pics/video of them...they tend to leave...but drunk oyaji may be more trouble than they're worth.

[Hokgwai]

I'm treading on thin ice here. But the recent tattoo fad....(and it is a fad) never sat well with me.

Actually before it became the "thing to do" I kinda liked and admired some of the tattoos people had back in the day. Particularly if their tattoo honestly "said something".

But as the craze has increased, the art has become less impressive and the meaning increasingly meaningless. (Don't get me started on Kanji tatoos)

Come on face it. A tattoo is basically a permanent T-shirt. Do you wanna wear the same T-shirt for the rest of your life?


The influx of young Japanese getting tattoos....(and we ALL know if tattoos weren't popular in the West recently, they wouldn't be wearing them ) is a textbook example of how little Japanese regard their own culture in contrast to foreign cultures.

I'm glad some places in Japan impose the ban. I'm glad some folks are willing to stand up for taste.

[Samurai_Jerk]

i have had a few occasions where some asshole lights up right next to my kids in a sit down type of environment. the fuckers ended up quickly moving away or putting out their cigarette really fast...

if it is just me and the wife... shoganai. but not around the kids... that is where the line is for me. I have seen other FG parents do the same and the j-families around that didn't smoke were quite happy with it, but they wouldn't have supported them if the smoker were to get all mad and talk shit. TIJ

What do you do, threaten them? If the restaurant allows smoking, you should STFU. If you don't want your kids around smoking because of an irrational belief in the dangers of second-hand smoke, don't take them to places that allow it.

[Ganma]

I wonder how they'd take this:

You got a problem, bro?

[IparryU]

What do you do, threaten them? If the restaurant allows smoking, you should STFU. If you don't want your kids around smoking because of an irrational belief in the dangers of second-hand smoke, don't take them to places that allow it.

I dont threaten them, I just ask them if they think it is ok to smoke in front of children. If you say it at the right voice level, they get the point.

I feel you on the smoking restaurants, cause if it is smoking... don't go there. But public places where an ashtray is quite far away from where I am sitting is just a "i don't give a fuck" attitude.

But in any case... tattoos don't fuck withe peoples breathing, taste, or health, so why the fuck ban it?

[matsuki]

While I agree that most of the tats I've seen lately, especially in Japan, are just horrid...much like the tramp stamp, they just save you the trouble of talking to the person by wearing the retard badge for everyone to see. Have a chuckle and move on. Wasting any more time on the issue and you drop down to their level.

I'm glad some places in Japan impose the ban. I'm glad some folks are willing to stand up for taste.

They should ban the [s]shitty assembly of haphazard backwater potted plants and garbage[/s] "Japanese Garden" if they want to stand up for taste

[Samurai_Jerk]

I dont threaten them, I just ask them if they think it is ok to smoke in front of children. If you say it at the right voice level, they get the point.

I feel you on the smoking restaurants, cause if it is smoking... don't go there. But public places where an ashtray is quite far away from where I am sitting is just a "i don't give a fuck" attitude.

But in any case... tattoos don't fuck withe peoples breathing, taste, or health, so why the fuck ban it?

Again, there is not one credible study that has conclusively shown second-hand smoke to be dangerous. Even if there was a strong link, occasional exposure at a restuarant wouldn't cause any harm. The food your kids are eating at most restaurants is far worse for them.

Anyway, I'd rather be in a restaurant full of smokers than a restaurant full of kids. I hate it when people with kids sit next to me in a restauarant. Then I have to listen to all the stupid shit their kids say and I have to be more careful about what I say. It has a negative affect on my ability to relax which probably impacts my mental health. I think next time that happens I'm going to request that the people move to another table. I'll make sure I do it in the right tone of voice too so they'll know I'm serious. I wonder how well that will go?

It's ridiculous the way people with kids want the rest of us to adjust our behavior for the sake of the children. The world is a dangerous fucked up place. If you can't handle that reality, don't breed.

[matsuki]

[FG Lurker]

[Coligny]

Again, there is not one credible study that has conclusively shown second-hand smoke to be dangerous. Even if there was a strong link, occasional exposure at a restuarant wouldn't cause any harm. The food your kids are eating at most restaurants is far worse for them.

I'm starting to see a pattern here...

no need to be a health hazard to be a pita...

My old french cat will fuck you up if you smoke beside her. She can't stand tobacco and more than a few people got few bad scratches from their habits... I'm pretty sure she never read one of them fancy reports aboot second hand smoke.

Beside fake or not, these studies would not exist if smokers were to understand that like dirty hobos covered in diarheas, the sight and smell is not what your aiming for when going to a restaurant. The same way I never try to spray paint a model aircarrier at the bikkury donkey in fact...

But as usual debate goes like:
-it's not dangerous anyway
-yer missing the point but there you go:
<insert second hand smoke danger report here>
-It's a fake report
-still missing the point don't ya...

Typical case of "your freedom to swing your hand stop when the freedom of not having it in my face start..." but with
"You freedom to light one up stop when my freedom not to be doused in smoke start"

Beside, after having dealt with computers from heavy smokers, I totally doubt the claim that second hand smoke is totally harmless...

[FG Lurker]

Beside, after having dealt with computers from heavy smokers, I totally doubt the claim that second hand smoke is totally harmless...

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting. Computers from a smoke-free environment gather dust but you can blow it out with compressed air. Computers from an environment with smoke get clogged with this gooey shit, dust gummed up with nicotine and tar. You can still blow it out with compressed air if you have a compressor but it comes out in disgusting black chunks.

[FG Lurker]

I'm not a big fan of tattoos and I understand why some businesses won't hire people with tattoos that can't be easily covered. However, I have a big problem with any sort of public facility banning people from using it because they are tattooed. Tattoos are not illegal and don't harm anyone around them.

The problem isn't the tattoos themselves, it's is that some (many?) of the heavily tattooed fuckwits this is aimed at like to pretend they're yakuza and cause problems. Banning tattoos is a way to let these idiots know they're not welcome.

[Russell]

I'm starting to see a pattern here...

no need to be a health hazard to be a pita...

My old french cat will fuck you up if you smoke beside her. She can't stand tobacco and more than a few people got few bad scratches from their habits... I'm pretty sure she never read one of them fancy reports aboot second hand smoke.

Beside fake or not, these studies would not exist if smokers were to understand that like dirty hobos covered in diarheas, the sight and smell is not what your aiming for when going to a restaurant. The same way I never try to spray paint a model aircarrier at the bikkury donkey in fact...

But as usual debate goes like:
-it's not dangerous anyway
-yer missing the point but there you go:
<insert second hand smoke danger report here>
-It's a fake report
-still missing the point don't ya...

Typical case of "your freedom to swing your hand stop when the freedom of not having it in my face start..." but with
"You freedom to light one up stop when my freedom not to be doused in smoke start"

Beside, after having dealt with computers from heavy smokers, I totally doubt the claim that second hand smoke is totally harmless...

The only way I could have said this better is without the French accent, but otherwise Coligny is spot on! This computer fan example is actually a very strong and convincing argument. I never heard it before, but it makes totally sense!

Anyway, if I am exposed to second-hand smoke for 1 hour, my clothes stink terribly, so I do not even want to think how that affects my lungs, which are specialized in taking in air.

A respectable medical source (Mayo clinic) says this:

Secondhand smoke exposure is a risk factor for having a heart attack. It's thought that chemicals in secondhand smoke can irritate the lining of your arteries, causing them to swell (inflammation). This inflammation can narrow your arteries, increasing your risk of having a heart attack.

Breathing secondhand smoke can also cause the cells in your blood that are responsible for clotting (platelets) to increase in number, making your blood more likely to clot. Too many platelets can cause a clot to form that may block an artery, causing a heart attack or stroke.

Also, it appears that heart attack rates go down in areas after those areas pass smoking bans. If you smoke, the best way to reduce your heart attack risk is to quit. If you're regularly around smokers, encourage them to quit or smoke in outdoor areas that will reduce the amount of secondhand smoke others will breathe. This is especially important if you have had a previous heart attack or have been diagnosed with heart disease.

The fairytale of the tobacco industry about the harmlessness of second-hand smoke is just what it is: a fairytale.

[Mike Oxlong]

[yt]aGoZ-b1OaW4[/yt]

[Russell]

An author mentions an investigation from 1991 (or 1992; he doesn't know the exact year) in which they failed to find statistical evidence for the malicious effects of second-hand smoke. Not very convincing, isn't it?

In the mean time, in countries that instituted smoking bans in restaurants, it was observed that the number of heart attacks among non-smokers decreased substantially (25-30%). Need I say more?

[Coligny]

[quote="Russell"]An author mentions an investigation from 1991 (or 1992]

A bit worse than that...

Michael Crichton... The guy from Jurassic Park...

Which is the science novel equivalent of Tom Clancy for military novels...

And a classy guy at that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#Michael_Crowley

[Mike Oxlong]

In the mean time, in countries that instituted smoking bans in restaurants, it was observed that the number of heart attacks among non-smokers decreased substantially (25-30%). Need I say more?

A link to that would be nice.

You're not talking about this sort of thing, are you?

Changes in U.S. Hospitalization and Mortality Rates Following Smoking Bans


Abstract:
U.S. state and local governments are increasingly restricting smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.

I found it on Wikipedia in the passive smoking entry, which is where it looks like your research was done.

[IparryU]

this thread is starting to remind me of the movie "Thank You For Smoking"

[Russell]

A link to that would be nice.

Here is a scientific paper:
Reduction in the Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction Associated With a Citywide Smoking Ordinance

And here is the easier-to-read editorial in the journal:
Smoking Bans Prevent Heart Attacks

There are lots of similar papers. With all those smoking ordinances worldwide, a treasure trove has opened up for this kind of research. And the nice thing is, that basically the statistical confidence interval is 100%, because the incidences of heart attacks in whole populations are measured.

If that is not yet convincing, next time ask any asthma patient.

[Mike Oxlong]

There are lots of similar papers. With all those smoking ordinances worldwide, a treasure trove has opened up for this kind of research. And the nice thing is, that basically the statistical confidence interval is 100%, because the incidences of heart attacks in whole populations are measured.

If that is not yet convincing, next time ask any asthma patient.

Really? That's a pretty impressive confidence interval, considering that this is an observational study. No other variables are being considered or controlled. Yes, some studies have noted a correlation. Others have have seen increases in the number of hospital cases, as discussed in my earlier post. In the article Do Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks? (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 15 No.1 Spring 2010) Dr. Marlow concluded:

[INDENT]Claims that smoking bans in public places have led to dramatic reductions in AMI incidence are not supported by the evidence. Scientifically invalid claims, though promulgated in the name of protecting public health, have adverse consequences.[/INDENT]

As for the red herring, no one is claiming that passive smoke does not bother or trigger asthma in people with the condition, though allergies, exercise, heartburn, etc. are all triggers, which vary from individual to individual.

[matsuki]

next time ask any asthma patient.

THIS

I know far too many people with Asthma (luckily not me) that have it horrible here. Some of them have parents that smoke indoors and have done so from when they were children...fucking cruel as shit.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I know someone who is allergic to perfume and is affected by being in a room or elevator with someone who's wearing the stuff. Apparently this is not so uncommon. Should we ban perfume use in public places too?

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Here is a scientific paper:
Reduction in the Incidence of Acute Myocardial Infarction Associated With a Citywide Smoking Ordinance

And here is the easier-to-read editorial in the journal:
Smoking Bans Prevent Heart Attacks

These are U.S. figures. Any statistics from the U.S. regarding heart attack (and my native Australia, for that fact) have got to be colored by obesity rates and cannot be wholly blamed on smoking, passive or otherwise.

When all factors are taken into account (which they rarely are) obesity is a far deadlier health hazard in Western society than cigarette smoking has ever been.

[Yokohammer]

Should we ban perfume use in public places too?

No, only in restaurants.

Actually, for women who understand that the scent of their perfume should only be detectable from very close (intimate) range there is no problem. The problem is the less subtle lasses who ladle the stuff on so you can smell them coming from a mile off. They stink up the entire room and are not appreciated anywhere I happen to be eating.

[Samurai_Jerk]

No, only in restaurants.

Actually, for women who understand that the scent of their perfume should only be detectable from very close (intimate) range there is no problem. The problem is the less subtle lasses who ladle the stuff on so you can smell them coming from a mile off. They stink up the entire room and are not appreciated anywhere I happen to be eating.

Just ban the French and that would take care of 90% of the problem.

[Yokohammer]

Just ban the French and that would take care of 90% of the problem.

Can we make an exception for Coligny?

Edit: I suppose we should smell him first ...

[matsuki]

I know someone who is allergic to perfume and is affected by being in a room or elevator with someone who's wearing the stuff. Apparently this is not so uncommon. Should we ban perfume use in public places too?

That would really suck to have that allergy.....but unless the offensive person bathed in perfume, you're not likely to be bothered by it unless you're up close or in a small/enclosed place as you described. There are also allergy medications which probably suck to take but would probably be a necessary evil if I was stricken with that shit.

[Russell]

Really? That's a pretty impressive confidence interval, considering that this is an observational study. No other variables are being considered or controlled. Yes, some studies have noted a correlation. Others have have seen increases in the number of hospital cases, as discussed in my earlier post. In the article Do Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks? (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 15 No.1 Spring 2010) Dr. Marlow concluded:

[INDENT]Claims that smoking bans in public places have led to dramatic reductions in AMI incidence are not supported by the evidence. Scientifically invalid claims, though promulgated in the name of protecting public health, have adverse consequences.[/INDENT]

As for the non-sequitur, no one is claiming the passive smoke bothers or triggers asthma in people with the condition, though allergies, exercise, heartburn, etc. are all triggers, which vary from individual to individual.

I always have trouble taking a study serious by an economics professor who has received past funding from the Tobacco industry. There have been many studies in the past, supported by this industry, claiming that health of smokers would be unaffected by their smoking. We are now way beyond that, and it is now commonly accepted, based on scientific evidence, that smoking is in fact bad for one's health. It is just a matter of time before the same happens regarding second-hand smoke's health effects on non-smokers.

Your statement that it depends on the person whether second-hand smoke is bad for one's health is irrelevant. Similar arguments were also made with regard to smokers in the past. As long as there are non-smokers whose health is affected (and there are plenty), there should be no question about preferred policies. Kind of funny that I never hear of anyone frequenting a smoker's place to improve one's health.

[Samurai_Jerk]

That would really suck to have that allergy.....but unless the offensive person bathed in perfume, you're not likely to be bothered by it unless you're up close or in a small/enclosed place as you described. There are also allergy medications which probably suck to take but would probably be a necessary evil if I was stricken with that shit.

And people who are afraid of second-hand smoke can wear masks and oxygen tanks.

[matsuki]

And people who are afraid of second-hand smoke can wear masks and oxygen tanks.

True, but even that wouldn't address my gripe. Being covered in tar laden smoke and ending up smelling like an ashtray. You're lucky if that smell comes out ...hell, it's one of the biggest concerns when buying a used car, apt, home.