Author Topic: Poll: smoking (Read 22692 times)

EZ · « **Reply #80 on:** February 03, 2006, 06:35:45 PM »

When I first started smoking I remember an older guy tell me,(If you dont start something, you dont have to quit.)
I didnt have to quit, I wanted to, but I wanted to before I had to. I think I said that right.

EZ

IMERC · « **Reply #81 on:** February 04, 2006, 10:57:29 AM »

imposed control.

maple flats · « **Reply #82 on:** February 04, 2006, 07:09:31 PM »

I voted the business should decide. I smoked until 1974 and hate the smell of smoke. I do however think a business should have to put up a BIG sign at the entrance that says if smoking is allowed. This sign should be big enough to read from your car, then the decision to enter or not is up to the public. Government should not be taking away any people's rights, less government is better government. I will vote with my patronage or lack thereof.

wiam · « **Reply #83 on:** February 04, 2006, 08:18:58 PM »

I think the employees of a businell should have a say. They do not really have a choice.

Will

extrapolate85 · « **Reply #84 on:** February 04, 2006, 09:23:43 PM »

For the record, I don’t smoke and dislike being anywhere around it. I lived in Europe for years and things are slowly changing there (notably in Italy and Spain), but by in large, the percentage of smokers is much higher in Europe than in North America and they smoke everywhere. However, on average, Europeans live longer than Americans or Canadians, and their health care costs are much lower. Perhaps we should encourage smoking amongst those representing frivolous malpractice lawsuits (I would be willing to send in my tax-deductible donation for a carton of Lucky Strike filterless to the ambulance-chasers association), discourage it amongst the general population, and we would all live longer. At least we could all afford healthcare easier. Whoops! Sorry, I am heading off on a tangent.

Seriously, A fair amount of companies like Boise Building (the old Boise Cascade company), Riley Creek Timber, no longer allow the use of tobacco products (including snoose) on company property - even outside! I suppose that since, they are paying the lion-share of the health care costs of their employees and it is their property; they have the right, but it must be tough if you are a smoker.

woodnut · « **Reply #85 on:** February 06, 2006, 07:27:45 PM »

Hey all, might as well start with something I did well 20 years ago when I was 25 and all the way back to 2nd grade. Should they ban smoking in public places? Probably. Government Is there For our protection-and for a few too many other folks, not to change the subject.

Qweaver · « **Reply #86 on:** February 12, 2006, 05:56:01 PM »

I quit smoking 30 years ago but I believe that smokers have a right to smoke wherever they want as long as they do not inflict their smoke on others. Let the owners decide where and if smoking is allowed in their place. How many non-smokers burn wood in a fireplace and "inflict" their smoke on others? Live and let live.
Quinton

Cedarman · « **Reply #87 on:** February 12, 2006, 06:14:13 PM »

If I was an employee that did not smoke in a business that allowed smoking, I would either put up with it or quit. In the restaurant business, I could probably find a smoker in a non smoking establishment and work out a trade. Jobs are too plentiful to put up with one you don't like or be at at place you don't want to be.

Can I get someone to spray the woods for ticks so I can be sure I don't get Lyme disease when I log trees? I want everyone else to alter their lives so that my whims are catered to.

I don't care for smoking, so I avoid smoke as much as possible.

WH_Conley · « **Reply #88 on:** February 12, 2006, 06:35:01 PM »

Cedarman, wouldn't work, too simple.

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #89 on:** February 12, 2006, 06:45:08 PM »

First off, this isn't ment as an attack..that being said.. The smoker vs the non smoking wood fire user doen't fly with me because I've seen forest fire smoke haze the air alot thicker than any chimney smoke. In the last 8 years there have been 3 big fires up in Quebec that filled the air so full of smoke it was like standing next to the fire. Who are we gonna sue for forest fires?? The government? because they didn't spend enough tax dollars to patrol every mile of forest for arsons and lightning strikes?

Max sawdust · « **Reply #90 on:** February 12, 2006, 07:09:09 PM »

Forest fires what about irresponsible smokers that drop their butt in a tinderbox forest, or throw it out the car window.

I actually worry about that when it is real dry, any kind of fire is bad in a dry forest.

Max

SwampDonkey · « **Reply #91 on:** February 12, 2006, 08:12:32 PM »

I worry about it from mid April to the end of October every year. It don't have to be bone dry for crown fires in balsam and spruce. There was one wing nut that was bailing straw on the farm and set the fields on fire and left the place. I went up to the upper farm and it was 100 feet from my woods, had to put the fire out before it got into the dry weeds, and then the softwoods.

Father never burned fields in his life and I had told this nut about making fires earlier that day, when I seen some bales burning, that it wasn't allowed. You can't tell some people anything.

Little hard to sue for damages from a guy living from cheque to cheque. Lets see $600/acre for scarifying, reforestation, new seedlings and tending, plus 7 years of growth lost, on 60 acres.

Forestry Forum
Sponsored by: