Smoking = R

I live in Ohio and last fall a bill was passed by the voters that banned smoking from any public locale. This includes the workplace. the result of this is the company I work for has went tobacco free.

While I have no issues with this since I do not smoke it has caused some problems. Many of the workforce decide to leave for lunch and smoke. They have to park out on the highway and then re-enter before work starts back up. A side affect of this is the company has asked for help from the sheriff department and they have said they will not get involved. The company I work for employs over 12k people so you can imagine the numbers that do this.

Much debate over this has went on, I agree vote on the issue but I feel the affects have been far larger than anticipated. The end result is non-smokers are less exposed to second hand smoke however safety concerns of other kinds have vastly increased. I would have rather seen the bill say that while the work place is a smoke free environment they must establish a place on premises that smokers can go that will not cause second hand smoke to reach anyone not willing to be exposed.

I think it is a good thing and a needed step to make smoking anti-social. Most people will tell you they started smoking because of a social event whether that is peer pressure or whatever. Very few people just stop in a store one day and say I think I will take up smoking even though everyone I know is against it or does not do it themselves. This would help far more than passing laws that everyone knows the government will not completely enforce... They garner way to much tax revenue from the sales of tobacco product.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
What if you're someone's kid, and you can't leave? Before the Ontario smoking ban was implemented, I would always see smoking parents, sitting in the smoking section, with their kids right with them.

---

Dude, I see obese 2-year-olds all the time. Momasita shoves too many tortillas in front of them and they're astonishingly overweight so soon in life. I see people giving soda to their 1-year-olds. My nephews climb trees so high, if they fell out, they'd probably die. Don't talk about smoking like it's the plague of our children. People raise their kids how they like around what they like. So long as you're not beating them in America, you probably won't have the government step in and do something. So if you're going to be consistent, let's outlaw giving your toddler enchiladas every night for dinner. Let's make breastfeeding mandatory, while we're at it. I sure as shit wish it was when I was a baby 'cause I'm pretty fucking certain that affected my long-term health quite severely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
I kinda prefer:

If you want to smoke in a public place, leave. Vote with your dollar.

---

It cuts both ways. The free market takes care of things very easily that way. I know plenty of people around here who did JUST what you're describing. A certain gas station put up a no-smoking sign one day all of a sudden. The same ring of upper-age retirees that hung out there now hang out at a different gas station; the next-to-last one in the county that lets you smoke inside.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
It's totally appropriate for the government to regulate minimum health and safety requirements in the workplace. This includes requiring ear plugs to be available to construction workers, etc, etc. The same workplace safety protection should be offered to the staff at a smoke-filled bar or restaurant.

---

I suggest a gas mask of some kind, though it might hurt your tips.

I think the whole ratings system is fubar'd anyway. So adding smoking to the 'R' rating is just silly. I know I've seen quite a few PG-13 movies in the past 5 years that have nudity in them. A two second shot of breasts or someones ass is still nudity. Why is a 13 year old allowed to see that but not someone smoking? Or how about all the adult humor thats put into most animated movies now a days.

I know in the end its the parents responsibility to decide what their kids get to watch. But the current system clearly doesn't give enough information to help parents choose.


Oh and how did we go from smoking affecting the rating of a movie to smoking in public? While related by the smoking thing its clearly two separate topics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
So if you're going to be consistent, let's outlaw giving your toddler enchiladas every night for dinner.

---

Disagreeing to this would not be inconsistent. The decision of what to feed one's child is a parenting decision in which a given diet represents, in part, the parent's technique for raising the child in the best way. Now, there can be disagreement here as to whether or not a diet is in fact the most appropriate, and perhaps even objective proof that it's not, but I think the government should (for the most part) stay out of these types of parenting decisions.

Parents smoking near the child is different. It is not a parenting decision because it is not associated with any technique for raising a child. It's completely negligent because the welfare of the child in question hasn't even been taken into consideration by the smoking parent. The government should offer children some protection against negligent parenting.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
I kinda prefer:

If you want to smoke in a public place, leave. Vote with your dollar.

---

I agree with Ari for once...I'm stunned! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Daryonn
I would have rather seen the bill say that while the work place is a smoke free environment they must establish a place on premises that smokers can go that will not cause second hand smoke to reach anyone not willing to be exposed.

---

Over here nearly everywhere has 'smoking' areas. Normally they are outside, round the back of the building. Occasionally there is a bike-shed-like-canopy. Basically, its discouraging smoking, but providing a safe place for people that feel like they -have- to light up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
A certain gas station put up a no-smoking sign one day all of a sudden. The same ring of upper-age retirees that hung out there now hang out at a different gas station; the next-to-last one in the county that lets you smoke inside.

---

.... Um....

When you say "gas station", you mean one of those places with inflammable materials all over the place, right? With every chance of slight wastage, producing a distinct odour? Who in his right mind lights a cigarette in a place like that?

And, in a lame attempt to drag this back on topic... the reason smoking in a movie ought to rate it R is because it invariably involves a naked light...

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
I kinda prefer:

If you want to smoke in a public place, leave. Vote with your dollar.

---

Obviously you would if you don’t smoke. It’s that age-old stereotypical argument where a woman moans at her husband for leaving the toilet seat up, he points out she’s just as capable of putting it down as he is and they go round and round with the same argument. Or chicken/egg debate, if you prefer

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Before the Ontario smoking ban was implemented, I would always see smoking parents, sitting in the smoking section, with their kids right with them.

---

That’s what we call shitty parenting. I am so sick and tired of governments having to intervene because people aren’t capable of using common sense and taking the responsibility of raising their child.

And back to the real topic – WTF? Seriously, it’s detrimental to celluloid art. Can you imagine Clint Eastwood’s “Man with no name” looking the same without a roll-up hanging out of the corner of his mouth while he sneers, revolver in hand at the screen? What about the classic rebel characters? James Dean? Humphrey Bogart? Hell, even Sean Connery as James Bond!

How about making movies with scenes of people over-eating R-rated as well? Obesity jus just as dangerous and prominent as smoking-related diseases these days, perhaps even more so. But do you have to be over 17 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate-Factory? NO! Who cares that it encourages risking diabetes? If people are SUCH automatons that seeing someone else smoke is going to make them want to then maybe we should just ban movies altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veddillion
How about making movies with scenes of people over-eating R-rated as well? Obesity jus just as dangerous and prominent as smoking-related diseases these days, perhaps even more so. But do you have to be over 17 to go see Charlie and the Chocolate-Factory? NO! Who cares that it encourages risking diabetes? If people are SUCH automatons that seeing someone else smoke is going to make them want to then maybe we should just ban movies altogether.

---

Obesity and diabetes are not really considered to have a forced negative effect on everyone around you. There are some cases, but lighting up effects everyone in the same room, whether they are friends, people working there, or strangers.

Being obese/having diabetes doesn't cause disease in other people. That is why this is a completely different scenario.

You're missing the point entirely. I agree with not being allowed to actually smoke in the movie theatre, but that's not what we're discussing. It's the images of people smoking which, as far as I know, have not yet been proven to cause disease.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Veddillion
You're missing the point entirely. I agree with not being allowed to actually smoke in the movie theatre, but that's not what we're discussing. It's the images of people smoking which, as far as I know, have not yet been proven to cause disease.

---

We're also not discussing a ban on movies that contain smoking; they might simply be inappropriate for kids. Children are inarguably influenced by the portrayal of 'cool' people smoking in popular culture. So I don't think it's unreasonable that movies that feature a lot of smoking, sometimes to the point of glorifying the act, shouldn't be viewed by children.