Smoking Ban at the Ralph?

[K Gun Special]

I'd like to see a link to this info, if there indeed is one, and you didn't pull these numbers out of your overly pious, holier-than-thou rear end...

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics...ing/#definition

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

 

i try base my arguments and reasoning on facts and not beliefs. Good job with the name calling, strengthens your point

[Webster Guy]

Well smokers aren't putting money in Ralphies pocket like the drunks (over) buying beers do.

So to them banning smoking is irrelevant, alcohol not so much.

 

I have no issues with having a smoking area outside somewhere away from me. Yeah, the disgusting smelling smokers by you is gross, but not a huge deal.

 

But damn, isn't being degraded by being herded into some leper colony area enough to make you stop smoking, at least for the few hours you are inside the stadium? Geez I would sure think so.

Aaaahaha Leper Colony area. Good one. I was reminded of the designated smoking areas in airports (Atlanta comes to mind) where all the nic addicts are behind the glass wall puffing away, and all the people walk by outside and look in like it's a freak zoo.

 

My kids get a kick out it, looking in at all the poor saps that can't kick the nic. I always tell em that you never ever want to be in that room, and that every single person in that room wishes they weren't in there either. Its a great lesson to never start.

 

Ralph should sell the new SNUS stuff. Its pretty good, tastes like mint leaves, you don't spit or anything, and people cant tell you even have one of the little pouches in because they're so thin. And he could make some cash which he doesn't from cigs. You see, Ralph needs more money for his hobbies (eating, sleeping, wetting the bed, napping and burning 1st round pics on RB's)

[justnzane]

where and/or how is it protected under the Constitution? its not and it can be made illegal under law.

 

 

It is a freedom and liberty. Since there is no law that explicitly states that tabacco products are illegal to all, there should not exist any law that infringes upon said right in a public place. Furthermore, there should be no law in place to restrict tabacco use on private property as New York state does as it also violates the proprietor's rights.

[K Gun Special]

It is a freedom and liberty. Since there is no law that explicitly states that tabacco products are illegal to all, there should not exist any law that infringes upon said right in a public place. Furthermore, there should be no law in place to restrict tabacco use on private property as New York state does as it also violates the proprietor's rights.

 

 

There is a law that prohibits smoking in public buildings, just like you cant drink in public street but you can still drink.

 

Smoking and drinking for that matter are not rights protected under the Const.

 

I do agree however that if you choose to do either in your own home on your property, that is your right, but the right is one of property and privacy, not the right to smoke or drink.

That being said it is still constitutional to ban either - just as they've banned marijauna and other drugs. I dont think that will every happen.

[CodeMonkey]

It is a freedom and liberty. Since there is no law that explicitly states that tabacco products are illegal to all, there should not exist any law that infringes upon said right in a public place. Furthermore, there should be no law in place to restrict tabacco use on private property as New York state does as it also violates the proprietor's rights.

Laws regulating personal conduct can be justified on three grounds, one of them being The Harm Principle. Which states that laws are justified if they prevent individuals from causing harm to others. In other words, the second hand smoke argument. How this applies to a open air smoking area at the Ralph, I don't know. But your constitutionality argument in general doesn't hold water.

 

But more interesting (at least to me) is if it's wrong to ban cigarettes, then why isn't it just as wrong to ban other drugs, such as alcohol or marijuana. I know the reality is that they can't ban cigs because we have so many addicts already, but it is a interesting legal debate.

[oak tree 12]

Smokers should have no rights. Zero. Nada. You want to kill yourself? Fine. Do it on your own property until they invent a way to keep your filthy smoke from infiltrating my air.

 

And while we're at it? Throw your filthy butts in a TRASH CAN, not out your car window or wherever you happen to drop them. It's litter, jackasses.

 

i have news for you pal your a hypocrite,your freaking car pollutes your environment more than the minority of smokers,try getting a life!

[judman]

It sounds like there is a lot of pent up aggression, anger, and emotion from some people who post on this board.

 

When I am frustrated, I light up. Maybe you should too. See you in the yellow smokers corral. YEEEEEE HAAA!

 

Go Bills!

[K Gun Special]

It sounds like there is a lot of pent up aggression, anger, and emotion from some people who post on this board.

 

When I am frustrated, I light up. Maybe you should too. See you in the yellow smokers corral. YEEEEEE HAAA!

 

Go Bills!

 

 

haha well done!!! :)

[eball]

i have news for you pal your a hypocrite,your freaking car pollutes your environment more than the minority of smokers,try getting a life!

Silly analogy. The utility of motor vehicles vastly outweighs the risk. Say the same for your cancer sticks.

 

I have a great life -- it's largely smoke free!

[eball]

Not quite. The act of drinking does not adversely affect the person standing next to the drinker, unlike second hand smoke. That said, a person's actions while drinking can affect others, but I'm not sure that the poster was referring to that.

That's precisely what I was referencing. A drinker's conduct/behavior may be punished if he/she is affecting others. The drinking in and of itself has no impact on anyone but the drinker.

 

Those in close proximity to a smoker, however, have NO CHOICE but to leave the area to escape the second-hand smoke.

 

Any analogy between drinking and smoking is a poor one. Take the scenario away from a stadium and into everyday life, and it's even worse (i.e., is the person having a cocktail at the table next to you in the restaurant causing you any distress?).

[eball]

Drinking does not, by itself, affect anyone but the person doing the drinking.

 

This was his quote. It didn't specify standing next to anyone, thus my response. People are killed by DUIs every day. A majority of domestic violence cases involve alcohol, as does a great deal of general misconduct and even criminal behavior. (Hi Marshaun and Donte!). Family after family is torn apart due to alcohol use so yeah, I am going to run with the opinion that the bolded statement is dumb.

Bill, why did you choose to ignore the sentence RIGHT AFTER THE ONE YOU BOLDED?

[BRH]

What's so hard about that? You dare us....

What's more, he dares you on the internet.

[BRH]

My issue is when they ban even those small areas and you cannot have a smoke without actually walking outside the gate into the parking lot (and re-entry is prohibited BTW).

And?

 

If people want to smoke, fine. Go home and smoke.

[billsfreak]

Hell, it was that way well into the 80's! Any given concert is like that, too. Regulations or not. It sucks, but unless you're at a game every day, it's not gonna hurt you. Especially outside. Smells like stir fried dog crap, but then again so does the barf in the isles.

 

(Doctors feel free to correct my above statement, if there are any of you around!)

I agree with your point. I don't smoke anymore, and haven't in alot of years, but breathing second had smoke in a big open air stadium is going to do a fraction of the harm that living with someone who smokes will. I think the people that die from second hand smoke are around smokers on a consistent basis, kinda like those drinkers that die from liver damage, they dont get that way having one drink a week.

[dollarcoin]

Really? People in my section care. Last year some jackazz decides to light up a smoke, after security told him to put it out twice, the guy in the row behind him said "here, let me put that out for you" and dumped a beer on his head. Problem solved. They both had to leave.

 

Cool story, bro.

 

Sounds like security was just going to let him keep smoking though, right?

[CodeMonkey]

Sounds like security was just going to let him keep smoking though, right?

Security will tell you to stop but from what I have seen that's it.

I have never seen or heard of anyone actually removed for smoking, has anyone else?

 

Hell, most of the security guys probably smoke themselves ... and not in the designated area

[yall]

Security will tell you to stop but from what I have seen that's it.

I have never seen or heard of anyone actually removed for smoking, has anyone else?

 

Hell, most of the security guys probably smoke themselves ... and not in the designated area

 

This.

 

Probably what angered me most last year was a security guard and an Erie county Sheriff being total dickwads about making sure people literally had the tips of their toes inside the line while at the same time they were smoking outside of the lines.

 

People will put up with a lot of BS, but when you are flagrantly breaking the same rule you are attempting to enforce it tends to get folks a bit riled up.

[judman]

People can smoke anywhere in the parking lots, and on the streets around the stadium. Once inside the stadium, it is totally controlled, only permitted in certain spots.

 

If you are against smoking, and smokers, you should avoid them.

 

I am an occasional smoker. I smoke outdoors every single time I have a cigarette. I go out of my way to avoid people who don't want to be around it. Like in the yellow areas outside the concourses!

 

Cigarettes should be outlawed, ha! Telly Savalas might look ok with a lollypop, but what about James Dean?

 

Check this link:

Great Smokers in History

[Bill from NYC]

Bill, why did you choose to ignore the sentence RIGHT AFTER THE ONE YOU BOLDED?

 

Probably because I have witnessed such a great deal of death and violence which was alcohol related, the particular sentence grabbed me if you will. I'm sorry if you didn't mean what I bolded in a literal sense.

 

Sometimes I suppose I take it as a given that people have seen the kind of violence that I have, which is a shortcoming on my part. What I will tell you in no uncertain terms is that alcohol consumption at RWS if FAR more likely to impact your game day experience (and health) than a bunch of people smoking on an outdoor ramp, under the watchful eye of security. Once again, I am at a loss to see why you, as an intelligent person, would fail to see this but I am NOT looking for a conflict, OK?

[thebug]

Cool story, bro.

 

Sounds like security was just going to let him keep smoking though, right?

 

 

I think he would have asked him to leave shortly anyway. The same security guy removed a smoker a few weeks before that. this guy lit a big !@#$ing cigar. People around him were pissed. He did not get a second warning (he was also pretty hammered though).