| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by gilster
on Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:00 am |
|
You guys got to see the picture that they put with this article....
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/09/12/smoking-ban-gets-chargers-fans-ejected/1#c7465136
Smoking Ban Gets Chargers Fans Ejected
Michael David SmithPosted Sep 12th 2007 9:20AM by Michael David Smith
Filed under: Chargers, NFL Fans, San Diego
There's no smoking at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, and a few hundred fans found that out the hard way on Sunday.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that about 250 fans were ejected for smoking during Sunday's Chargers-Bears game. (More than 100 fans were arrested for fighting or drunkenness.) Last season, fans who were caught smoking in the stadium were usually just asked to put the cigarette out, but this year security in the stadium is getting more aggressive.
And I think that's great. An NFL game should be a pleasant experience for the fans in the stands, not an opportunity for fans to have carcinogens blown in their faces. I hope all 31 stadiums have the same policy. |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1213
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by CigarBoy
on Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:39 am |
|
| The Bengals banned smoking, so I now watch my beloved Bengals from my trusty couch, but there has been a lot of complaints from anti-smoking whiners that he Bengals do not enforce it very well. |
|
|
CigarBoy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Posts: 236
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Torquemeda
on Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:43 pm |
|
Just like what I hope justice does to anti-smokers, I'm hoping your Bengals "smoke" the Browns this week.
See, know what the difference is between the Browns and a Cigarette machine?
You can get "Players" out of a cigarette machine. |
|
|
Torquemeda
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: May 23, 2005
Posts: 1089
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
"And I think that's great. An NFL game should be a pleasant experience for the fans in the stands, not an opportunity for fans to have carcinogens blown in their faces."
The writer of this opinion is an anti that needs a punch in the face.
I did read some more comments on there. I agree that the rich smokers at football games need to get thrown out too. But NOOO, they go afta the smoking fans who were lucky enough to buy a ticket period!
That's no different from a cop telling me "I'm not giving him a ticket for smoking because of his looks. I'll give you one though." If you gonna enforce a smoking ban, but let the rich smokers smoke in those club areas of the stadium, then that's sheety.
And yes, I almost actually got a ticket for smoking on a train stop platform. But the otha guy next to me was smoking too and he never received the ticket threat.
Da Bears already have a no smoking policy at Soldier Field. I wonder if those security folks even have the right to confiscate packs from smokers. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 647
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by dumpstermcnuggets
on Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:55 am |
|
Jay wrote: And yes, I almost actually got a ticket for smoking on a train stop platform. But the otha guy next to me was smoking too and he never received the ticket threat.
Da Bears already have a no smoking policy at Soldier Field. I wonder if those security folks even have the right to confiscate packs from smokers.
They should NOT have the right to confiscate cig packs from people, IMO. Not to mention, I doubt that those 'rent-a-cop'(since hey, that is the truth about the 'security' they have at Soldier Field!!) guards truly have the right to confiscate cig packs, and just would rather kick patrons out for smoking.
And hell no, that I'd ever put up with a ridiculous policy, like the one in place at Soldier Field. I'll just ban myself from going to Soldier Field events, the way I started doing this summer(with banning myself from Ravinia events), after learning that Ravinia Music Festival has a 100% outdoor smoking ban! (heck, even Six Flags Great America BLOWS Ravinia away by 93834268x times, since at least they chose to allow smoking in certain outdoor areas within there, instead of an outright ban).
The same will only happen(banning myself from going to events at these 2 places), if Wrigley Field and/or Comiskey Park/'The Cell' institute 100% smoking bans in their ballparks next year. Which I dunno yet if they'll choose to do that or not(and major props go out to Shea Stadium in NYC for not instituting a 100% ban, unlike what stupid Yankee Stadium chose to do). |
|
|
dumpstermcnuggets
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2006
Posts: 312
Location: Health Fascism Capital of the Midwest, Illinois
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Tristeneugene
on Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:24 pm |
|
I truely believe that the non smoking campain is very unfair towards smokers BUT,,,
THIS is exactly the type of belief and behavior that hurts the defense of and for smokers, right here--------->1. ''I understand that everyone has a right to not be exposed to cigarrette smoke, should they choose not too. The problem and reality are this....you cannot ask a smoker to go 3-4 hours and reasonably expect them to comply, that's simply not how the addiction works no matter how many sporting teams make smoker's lives difficult....'' ''.... I pay the same ticket price as the non-smokers, and I should have the same consideration of being able to watch the game, without being inconvienced.''
(The above quotes are excerpts from that article)
It is this type of statement that really fuels the fire against smokers. Smokers that wish to experience the least of smoking restrictions needs to band together and kick the asses of people that insist on this type of thought and action. |
|
|
Tristeneugene
Newbie
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 29
Location: Sacramento/Nuremberg
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Sat Mar 15, 2008 7:08 am |
|
Tristeneugene, What do you think about this article?
I'm very curious, because we here aren't just fighting for 'smokers rights', it's much bigger than that. Smoking bans are the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=140997
New crusade for smoke foes
Dangers posed by fireplaces, wood-burning pizzerias bring warnings
By Ames Boykin | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 2/24/2008 12:26 AM
Crackling logs in the hearth offer a toasty reprieve during these brutal winter months.
People also tend to melt at the smell and taste of pizza baking in a woodfire.
But one suburban resident wants these fires to go cold in the name of good health.
Kenneth Dubinski of Elk Grove Village is leading a group seeking to prevent wood smoke from wafting through the air, pushing to ban what he calls the new secondhand smoke. He is working to galvanize support on the heels of a statewide tobacco smoking ban.
For Dubinski, this is familiar terrain: He actively railed against smoking on airplanes in the 1980s and fought for the smoking ban in public places which took effect last month.
Since his hometown of Elk Grove Village lifted the ban on outdoor wood burning in 2004, Dubinski has smelled something foul.
"The main thing is people are worried about secondhand smoke. That's what this is. I come home and get headaches," he said, blaming wood smoke from his neighbors.
Dubinski, who has been active in mobilizing a small yet determined group under the name Breathe Healthy Air, points to a dossier of research he has collected.
Wood smoke is a major contributor to particulate matter in the air and can be linked to increased risks of emergency room visits and hospitalizations for cardiopulmonary conditions and premature death, according to the American Lung Association.
Besides kicking up particulate matter, wood-smoke emissions contain carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde and chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer, the association said.
Dubinski cites such evidence as he battles wood smoke. He also wants lawmakers to issue financial incentives for converting wood-burning fireplaces to natural gas. No state lawmakers have taken up the issue yet.
A ban is a hard sell to those Chicago-area residents who adore their fireplaces and wood stoves -- and many are fuming at the idea.
Bill Wilson, who runs Brix Wood Fired Pizza in Lombard, chuckled at the thought of banning the very thing that lures his customers.
"Everybody says, 'Man, that smells so good. I had to come in,' " Wilson said.
Besides, he said, it's part of our primal existence.
"If we didn't have wood burning, nobody would be here," Wilson said. "That's how the caveman lived. If he didn't have fire, he wouldn't eat."
Rick Vlahos, of McHenry, who works as senior manager of training for the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association, loves his wood stove. He says he used it frequently when he lived in Palatine and Schaumburg.
About 20 years ago, federal environmental regulators began restricting wood stove emissions to create cleaner air. As a result, modern wood stoves belch a cleaner smoke, he said, recommending stoves built before 1988 be retired.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency officials have no immediate plans to recommend the statewide ban or limitations that Dubinski and other wood-burning foes seek, said Jill Watson, state EPA spokeswoman.
The agency does acknowledge, however, that wood smoke contributes to air pollution.
Wood smoke has become more of an issue in the more mountainous Northeast region due to air inversions that trap the smoke. New Hampshire state lawmakers are looking at placing limits on outdoor wood furnaces, called wood boilers, by ensuring they are at least 50 feet from property lines.
Wood smoke has created similar concerns out West. In the San Francisco area, there's a proposed ban on burning wood on bad air days.
"In an environment like Chicago where there are no mountains, smoke just dissipates and goes away," said Vlahos of the barbecue association.
Opponents of wood smoke argue remnants of the acrid smoke hang in the air, aggravating people with asthma and other breathing problems.
There's been resistance locally to local wood smoke foes, one reason Dubinski's group is calling for action at the state level.
When Dubinski appealed to Elk Grove Village trustees to reinstate the ban on outdoor fireplaces, he received a resounding "no" from Mayor Craig Johnson.
That would infringe on people's property rights, Johnson said.
"There's probably more smoke put in the air by the California forest fires than would be from any fire pit in the country over 10 years," Johnson said.
Dubinski, however, said it becomes his business when it creeps into his personal space and causes him headaches.
One forum for the debate has been the letters columns of the Daily Herald, where Dubinski and his supporters regularly appear, sparking spirited replies from wood-burning fans.
Residential wood burning can be blamed for about a third of particulate pollution, federal environmental officials estimate.
So why should Dubinski see wood smoke as more of an environmental enemy than exhaust from trucks and cars, which appear to spew more pollution in the Chicago area than fireplaces?
Nationally, cars and trucks make up 21 percent of particulate pollution -- less than wood smoke, Dubinski said.
"I don't smell the diesel from (Route) 53," Dubinski said. "I smell the smoke from these guys wood burning." |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1213
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Lynda F
on Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:56 am |
|
Tristeneugene wrote:
THIS is exactly the type of belief and behavior that hurts the defense of and for smokers, right here--------->1. ''I understand that everyone has a right to not be exposed to cigarrette smoke, should they choose not too. The problem and reality are this....you cannot ask a smoker to go 3-4 hours and reasonably expect them to comply, that's simply not how the addiction works no matter how many sporting teams make smoker's lives difficult....'' ''.... I pay the same ticket price as the non-smokers, and I should have the same consideration of being able to watch the game, without being inconvienced.''
(The above quotes are excerpts from that article)
It is this type of statement that really fuels the fire against smokers. Smokers that wish to experience the least of smoking restrictions needs to band together and kick the asses of people that insist on this type of thought and action.
You find that bad? For centuries people have smoked. Non-smokers never opened their mouths and suddenly decide to shove smokers around and out and openly discriminate against us, and you think we should just gladly and quietly accept this? We have been quietly accepting the restrictions over the past 30 years. We didn't start getting nasty about it until the anti movement started to attack us literally. Since when is lying down and being walked on a good thing?
Sorry. I've been considerate all my life, but the anti-smoker movement has pushed my last polite button and I will NOT quietly accept being trampled on.
There is NO need for total bans. Designated smoking areas work, as much as we may hate them, but the do work.
It's called reasonable and compromise and when people ARE reasonable and willing to reasonably compromise, everything is fine and everyone is happy.
The anti movement took reasonable and compromise OUT of the picture.
Sorry, maybe you are content to lie down and allow others to trample all over you. I'm not. |
|
|
Lynda F
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: May 02, 2007
Posts: 501
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Tristeneugene
on Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:04 am |
|
Again you not only attack me out of anger but you base your attack on a context that is not included here!
You know nothing about me, you don't know who I am nor what I do etc. so do not lash at me. Saying things like I ''...may let others trample all over me..'' is incitive and ignorant.
If you are so angry you feel the need to beat someone up, go somewhere else. Your argument is off point and belligerent. KNOW what you are talking about before you shoot your mouth off. Credibilty and trust really takes a beating when you fire half cocked.
If you want to do something about it, (which your seeming so pissed points you do) then join an advocacy program for your cause instead of using this site as your spanking post. So! If you are part of a group, polling forum etc. GOOD! If you are not,, GET ON IT! |
|
|
Tristeneugene
Newbie
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 29
Location: Sacramento/Nuremberg
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:55 pm |
|
Tristeneugene wrote: It is this type of statement that really fuels the fire against smokers.
What changed the whole complexion of the issue was when the pharmaceutical companies decided to carve out a chunk of the nicotine market. To achieve this, they are funding anti-smoking lobbying to the tune of hundreds of millions per year.
It's open season on us and, ya know, I'm just a little bit bitchy about it too. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
|
|
