Kobe's public beaches ban tattoos

[Mike Oxlong]

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.

You have a bad habit of both changing the argument and misquoting. The discussion you entered was whether or not it has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoke is bad for one's health. You narrowed that to whether or not it bothers people with asthma when questions were raised about your assertions. You also have twisted what I wrote about asthma to try and bolster your argument about second-hand smoke and how it affects the general public.

[Mock Cockpit]

I'm happy not to smoke inside, I reckon that's fair enough. Outside, well I won't light up around children but otherwise it's fair game. A beach ban is laughable if it's from a health perspective. From a litter perspective well I can understand but if it's for health reasons then fuck off. Your car, in the 30 minutes it took you to drive to the fucking beach, put more nasty chemicals into the air than I could in a lifetime of smoking.

[Ganma]

[maraboutslim]

What does it mean to "kill" in this sense? If one dies at age 79 instead of the 80 they would have died at, does that mean they were "killed" by smoking? Seems quite ridiculous to me.

I never miss a chance to quote Redd Foxx: "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing."

[Samurai_Jerk]

When the movement to ban smoking almost everywhere in the US started some people said it was ridiculous and next thing you know we'll be banning unhealthy food. Those who supported the ban said that was a BS slippery-slope argument and it would never happen. Now cities are banning certain kinds of cooking oil and making zoning laws to get rid of fast food restaurants.

But I guess it's a good thing they don't allow smoking in fast-food restaurants in most (all?) places in the US now. I'd hate for these kids to be exposed to unhealthy second-hand smoke.

[Ganma]

Personally I don't mind a bit of smoke. A few smokers in a bar...no problem. But when I first came to Japan years ago restaurants were sickening places to go to, you could hardly see the person sitting next to you for the smoke. I don't care if the science says yeah or neigh, that shit is simply a health hazard. You may as well be eating your dinner in a burning barn.

[Yokohammer]

Let's say we're in a restaurant, and I'm sitting beside you letting off rip-roaring stinking farts every minute or so while you're tying to enjoy your meal.

You complain to me about the smell, and I tell you that there is no scientific evidence that my farts are going to harm you in any way. I also add that there is no law against farting, so you have no right to complain. Besides, it doesn't smell all that bad to me! Why don't you just go to another restaurant where nobody is farting, eh?

I rest my case.

[matsuki]

From a litter perspective well I can understand but if it's for health reasons then fuck off. Your car, in the 30 minutes it took you to drive to the fucking beach, put more nasty chemicals into the air than I could in a lifetime of smoking.

Litter is another fun one. All those arukitabako muthafuckas flick that shit everywhere. (despite there being more ashtrays available than trashcans in this country)If they want to tax the fuck out of smokers, a cigarette litter cleanup tax that actually goes to cleaning up all that shit would nice.

[Greji]

Litter is another fun one. All those arukitabako muthafuckas flick that shit everywhere. (despite there being more ashtrays available than trashcans in this country)If they want to tax the fuck out of smokers, a cigarette litter cleanup tax that actually goes to cleaning up all that shit would nice.

I'd like to comment on smoke, ashes and litter, but I am in a non-smoking cafe, and have to go outside for a butt. I'll think about posting after I come back, if I live that long.....

[Samurai_Jerk]

Litter is another fun one. All those arukitabako muthafuckas flick that shit everywhere. (despite there being more ashtrays available than trashcans in this country)If they want to tax the fuck out of smokers, a cigarette litter cleanup tax that actually goes to cleaning up all that shit would nice.

That's one thing I definitely don't like about smokers. They think the world is their ashtray.

[Russell]

You have a bad habit of both changing the argument and misquoting. The discussion you entered was whether or not it has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoke is bad for one's health. You narrowed that to whether or not it bothers people with asthma when questions were raised about your assertions. You also have twisted what I wrote about asthma to try and bolster your argument about second-hand smoke and how it affects the general public.

If you check out my previous posts, you will see that I went in this discussion by supporting Coligny's case about the problems with second-hand smoke, and I added a medical source stating the health problems with second-hand smoke. From that on we started citing reports and discussing whose scientific report was more valuable, according to the following pattern:

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...

or something like that.

What I initially pointed out is that it was observed that the number of heart attacks in countries banning smoking decreased significantly. I backed it up by a report about a place in which they banned smoking, and, boom, the number of heart attacks goes down, after which they remove the ban through a court order and, boom, the rate goes up again.
There are also papers concerning much larger populations, like Italy's:
Effect of the Italian Smoking Ban on Population Rates of Acute Coronary Events
Since this observation concerns a large population, it is reasonable to speak of a confidence interval of 100%. Yes, that is a bit unscientific, but it is close to the point anyway.

[Russell]

I'm happy not to smoke inside, I reckon that's fair enough. Outside, well I won't light up around children but otherwise it's fair game. A beach ban is laughable if it's from a health perspective. From a litter perspective well I can understand but if it's for health reasons then fuck off. Your car, in the 30 minutes it took you to drive to the fucking beach, put more nasty chemicals into the air than I could in a lifetime of smoking.

As a non-smoker I am basically fine with your attitude. When I am outside I will be happy to move someplace not affected by your smoke. After all, outside there are more possibilities to move than inside. On a beach it may be difficult, though, because they can be pretty crowded, leaving limited whiff-free places.

For outside places that are not crowded, though, I think anti-smoking ordinances are counter-effective. There are universities and hospitals that do not allow smoking on-campus, and even smoking in one's car may be forbidden. The problem with this is that smokers that can't go without for an extended period of time then have no other option than to smoke in a place that is less visible, and that is likely somewhere inside.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I think one of the things I most enjoy about being a smoker is how it makes all non-smokers pre-menstrual. Chill out a bit guys!

[Mike Oxlong]

There are also papers concerning much larger populations, like Italy's:
Effect of the Italian Smoking Ban on Population Rates of Acute Coronary Events
Since this observation concerns a large population, it is reasonable to speak of a confidence interval of 100%. Yes, that is a bit unscientific, but it is close to the point anyway.

This link is to a study done in Rome, the city of Rome. Not the entire country of Italy.

We evaluated changes in the frequency of acute coronary events in Rome, Italy, after the introduction of legislation that banned smoking in all indoor public places in January 2005.

You could be right on the issue. But speaking of 100% confidence intervals, conflating the evidence in Rome with the entire country of Italy. Not helping the message.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Let's say we're in a restaurant, and I'm sitting beside you letting off rip-roaring stinking farts every minute or so while you're tying to enjoy your meal.

You complain to me about the smell, and I tell you that there is no scientific evidence that my farts are going to harm you in any way. I also add that there is no law against farting, so you have no right to complain. Besides, it doesn't smell all that bad to me! Why don't you just go to another restaurant where nobody is farting, eh?

I rest my case.

I know some vegetarians that can't stand the smell of cooking meat. Maybe we should ban that from public places too.

[Mock Cockpit]

Let's say we're in a restaurant, and I'm sitting beside you letting off rip-roaring stinking farts every minute or so while you're tying to enjoy your meal.

You complain to me about the smell, and I tell you that there is no scientific evidence that my farts are going to harm you in any way. I also add that there is no law against farting, so you have no right to complain. Besides, it doesn't smell all that bad to me! Why don't you just go to another restaurant where nobody is farting, eh?

I rest my case.

Sorry about that but it's edamame season.

[Iraira]

I know some vegetarians that can't stand the smell of cooking meat. Maybe we should ban that from public places too.

Can we just ban them from spouting off about how wonderful they feel since they gave up meat two weeks ago. The death penalty to anyone who comes with that "You have 5 lbs. of undigested red meat in your intestines" bullshit.

[matsuki]

I think one of the things I most enjoy about being a smoker is how it makes all non-smokers pre-menstrual. Chill out a bit guys!

Sure, some people overreact but it all really comes down to people either being polite or not....though if you want to see pre-menstual, try stopping a smoker from lighting up before or after a meal. (or practically doing anything) I've got prrrrrrrrrenty of friends who smoke and have no problem being upwind while they puff on their cancer sticks OUTSIDE. It's the asshole smokers that ruin it for all of you.

Can we just ban them from spouting off about how wonderful they feel since they gave up meat two weeks ago. The death penalty to anyone who comes with that "You have 5 lbs. of undigested red meat in your intestines" bullshit.

Ugh, I guided a tour with 2 of these fucks..."Japan has lots of vegetarian food!" they thought...

Ever see one of them try to start eating meat again?

[Yokohammer]

I know some vegetarians that can't stand the smell of cooking meat. Maybe we should ban that from public places too.

SJ, I know you're talking about bans and laws and how over-the-top they can be at times, and I understand that. I was attempting to point out the common sense and courtesy that's supposed to come into play before bans and laws.

My stupid farting example, for example. Banning farting is as unrealistic as banning the cooking of meat, as in your response. One obvious difference is that most people would be offended by the former, whereas only a small minority who have made a specific and limited lifestyle choice would be offended by the latter. More to the point, vegetarians complaining about the smell of meat cooking in a restaurant that serves meat would be equivalent to me complaining about smoke in a smoking section.

As for cigarette smoke, I personally find it offensive in restaurants (even as an ex-smoker) and will actively avoid restaurants and cafés that don't have a non-smoking section. I always choose a non-smoking car on the Shinkansen as well. Regardless of any scientific evidence for anything, I simply do not want to inhale someone else's smoke. It stinks. And I think most non-smokers feel the same way. So it comes to a tug-of-war between a large group of people (possibly the majority, not sure 'bout that though) who are not actively polluting the air and another group who are. The passive group have no control over the matter, only the actively smoking group do. Therefore the onus is entirely on the smokers to engage in their "hobby" in a responsible manner.

If only it were that simple. What happens if they can't smoke responsibly and refuses to show consideration in a situation where they are causing discomfort to others?

Well, gosh darn it, that looks like a situation that might require some sort of enforcement. There's simply no way around it. The problem is where do you draw the line. Unfortunately the only fast solution to that usually turns out to an "all or nothing" response. The long-term solution is education, which doesn't seem to have had a particularly high success rate thus far.

[IparryU]

Sure, some people overreact but it all really comes down to people either being polite or not....though if you want to see pre-menstual, try stopping a smoker from lighting up before or after a meal. (or practically doing anything) I've got prrrrrrrrrenty of friends who smoke and have no problem being upwind while they puff on their cancer sticks OUTSIDE. It's the asshole smokers that ruin it for all of you.



Ugh, I guided a tour with 2 of these fucks..."Japan has lots of vegetarian food!" they thought...

Ever see one of them try to start eating meat again?

just for my red snot points... fuck you vegitarians. dont kill the innocent plants! Let them be in peace and don't slaughter them! I shall brown paint you bastards!

[Samurai_Jerk]

[quote="Yokohammer"]SJ, I know you're talking about bans and laws and how over-the-top they can be at times, and I understand that. I was attempting to point out the common sense and courtesy that's supposed to come into play before bans and laws.

My stupid farting example, for example. Banning farting is as unrealistic as banning the cooking of meat, as in your response. One obvious difference is that most people would be offended by the former, whereas only a small minority who have made a specific and limited lifestyle choice would be offended by the latter. More to the point, vegetarians complaining about the smell of meat cooking in a restaurant that serves meat would be equivalent to me complaining about smoke in a smoking section.

As for cigarette smoke, I personally find it offensive in restaurants (even as an ex-smoker) and will actively avoid restaurants and café]

I don't have a problem with common sense restrictions and I don't generally buy the slippery-slope arugement. However, in the case of smoking it seems to be coming true. Cities like New York have made such strict rules that most cigar bars were put out of business, bars and night clubs where you have to be 21 or older to get in can't allow smoking, even totally seperated smoking areas with filtration systems are generally not allowed and now people can't even smoke outdoors in parks. A lot of places in Europe are going more or less the same way and even Cuba has banned smoking in restaurants.

For restaurants and bars in New York they said it was an issue of employee health since customers don't have to patronize an establishment. I'll buy that up to a point but if you don't want to be exposed to smoke don't take a job working in small bar that can't have a seperate smoking section, a night club or waiting the cigar room at a steak house. Common sense goes both ways.

Edit: BTW, ex-smokers are often the worst when it comes to supporting this kind of shit so the fact that you used to be a smoker only works against you . FYI, I've never been one (other than a cigar on special occasions) and fucking hate cigarette smoke. I also won't generally go to retaurants or cafes that are extremely smokey.

[matsuki]

I don't have a problem with common sense restrictions and I don't generally buy the slippery-slope arugement. However, in the case of smoking it seems to be coming true. Cities like New York have made such strict rules that most cigar bars were put out of business, bars and night clubs where you have to be 21 or older to get in can't allow smoking, even totally seperated smoking areas with filtration systems are generally not allowed and now people can't smoke even smoke outdoors in parks. A lot of places in Europe are going more or less the same way and even Cuba has banned smoking in restaurants.

For restaurants and bars in New York they said it was an issue of employee health since customers don't have to patronize an establishment. I'll buy that up to a point but if you don't want to be exposed to smoke don't take a job working in small bar that can't have a seperate smoking section, a night club or waiting the cigar room at a steak house. Common sense goes both ways.

California has gotten pretty crazy too, not that I don't enjoy it but banning it from bars and such is pretty extreme. (...and not like any of the Asian-owned places follow the law anyways)

[Yokohammer]

... even totally seperated smoking areas with filtration systems are generally not allowed and now people can't smoke even smoke outdoors in parks. ...

I agree that this is going too far.

So why is that? I'm guessing it's because legislators are so lazy and/or overloaded these days that they can only agree on all-or-nothing rules. Anything in between involves lots of details and choices that are just too much trouble and take too much time. Enforcement is the same. The enforcing officer will have to judge fine grays if the solution isn't simply black or white, and that requires training and common sense and ... gee, we're back to square one.

This does not bode well for a well-tempered society.

Edit: Re. me being an ex-smoker. Yeah, I should have kept my dark past a secret.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I agree that this is going too far.

So why is that? I'm guessing it's because legislators are so lazy and/or overloaded these days that they can only agree on all-or-nothing rules. Anything in between involves lots of details and choices that are just too much trouble and take too much time. Enforcement is the same. The enforcing officer will have to judge fine grays if the solution isn't simply black or white, and that requires training and common sense and ... gee, we're back to square one.

This does not bode well for a well-tempered society.

A well-tempered society that is comfortable with gray areas is certainly not how I'd describe the US.

The problem in NYC is Mayor Bloomberg seems hell bent on turing the place into his own little version of Utopia.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I agree that this is going too far.

So why is that? I'm guessing it's because legislators are so lazy and/or overloaded these days that they can only agree on all-or-nothing rules. Anything in between involves lots of details and choices that are just too much trouble and take too much time. Enforcement is the same. The enforcing officer will have to judge fine grays if the solution isn't simply black or white, and that requires training and common sense and ... gee, we're back to square one.

This does not bode well for a well-tempered society.

Edit: Re. me being an ex-smoker. Yeah, I should have kept my dark past a secret.

Hammer, on the smoking issue, Naztralia is more draconian than anywhere in the States, even in Queensland.
Irrelevant to the point I'm about to make, but it goes with the unfortunate state of U.S. politics. Congress there is so fucked-up with so many lobbyists, self-interests to be served, political in-fighting and wheeling and dealing. Read the legislation for just about any bill that goes through the U.S. Congress and it is packed with appendices filled with matters that seems to be totally unrelated to the law. These are all scratch-my-back-today-and-I'l-scratch-yours-tomorrow deals.
Nothing is simple in U.S. politics -- witness the debt ceiling debate this week. It's a fucking nightmare.
And, back to smoking. Health is indeed an important factor in the draconian approach to anti-smoking in the U.S. since the 1964 Surgeon General's warning linking cigarettes to cancer. It's indisputable smoking hastens cancer's onset. Passive smoking probably does the same if people are forced to inhale enormous amounts of smoke. But, please tell me people, what doesn't cause cancer? Carcinogens are found everywhere. Cars, food, etc. I don't want to defend smoking, but argue that the principles behind making it socially unacceptable are flawed despite their tremendous success.
Still, the biggest threat smoking presents is to the profits of the U.S. pharamaceutical companies, because it kills off all their patients because they can't be bled dry for long enough.
The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has got to be one of the most evil businesses on earth. It makes almost incalcuble sums of money, hires the best and brightest, then these funds and brains to develop highly profitable medicines like anti-deressants that it can pump into people throughout their lives, while in the meantime research into still incurable diseases -- cancer, for one -- progresses at a snail's pace due to insufficient funding. Being light years ahead of the rest of the world because of the money and facilities on offer, among other factors, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry perpetuates the cycle around the globe as imitators in other coutnries follow the successful business model. Oh, and the pharmas make a pretty penny out of the anti-smoking movement, too.
I sympathize with non-smokers. I agree they should be able to eat in peace. I try to be a polite smoker, as well as a clean one. So stop hounding me from the few remaining places on the planet where I'm allowed to light up and have a relaxing ciggie without having to feel like I've just smashed a puppy in the snout.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Iraira]

Carcinogens everywhere, the natural state of earth disrupted, etc.,...all of these things are killing us,right? Wrong! Life expectanties in all Westernized nations (including Japan in this mix) are longer than they were 30, 50, 100 years ago, and the spread of "dangerous" chemicals in society is more pronounced than the soot causing industrial melanism to be observed in butterflies/moths in 18-1900s England. Everyone is just too sensitized/panicked by Rachel Carsonesque panic pieces and faulty science. "Is your toilet seat killing you? Watch blah-blah-blah News at 11pm. Your ass may depend on it."
Granted, I don't want some Chinese factory dumping green-yellow waste into a river in my backyard, and I don't really want some clove cigarette smoking people next to me while I'm trying to enjoy whatever I'm eating, and I don't mind tats on the beach, and I prefer real boobs over silicone, although after 2am, does it really matter?

[IparryU]

[Ganma]

My stupid farting example, for example.

I totally agree with the farting ban. Everyone should be supplied with corks when interacting with other members of the public, especially in elevators and on trains.

[Ganma]

[quote="Samurai_Jerk"]
Edit: BTW, ex-smokers are often the worst when it comes to supporting this kind of shit so the fact that you used to be a smoker only works against you ]
True. One ex-smoker friend of mine now can't go near any place where smokers are gathered. So we can't go the same cafes and bars we used to frequent.

[Yokohammer]

True. One ex-smoker friend of mine now can't go near any place where smokers are gathered. So we can't go the same cafes and bars we used to frequent.

Did he/she quit recently? If so that's probably more out of fear that he/she will start up again if surrounded by smokers. Been there, got the T-shirt (but declined the ashtray). But now that I've been smoke-free for around 23 years I don't have that issue. I'm quite happy to be around smokers as long as wherever it is is well ventilated and I don't have to breath their concentrated exhaust (yech), especially while I'm eating. Outdoors is rarely a problem, except for the guys who insist on puffing away with a lit cigarette while pushing through crowds (I really can't understand that).