Stolen Empeg/Car

Got my car with my 50gb Empeg stolen today.
And carplayer.com is out of stock

So, if anyone in sweden sees a black Audi A4 Avant -02 ( Reg: TDY 705 ). Please give the police a call

/Fredrik

Don't forget to contact support to get your player blacklisted.

Rob

My condolences. I hope you get it back

Nice car, I'm sorry to hear about this unacceptable incident though.

I'm currently looking at purchasing an Audi.

Sorry about your loss, car probably going east as many others from Norway...


TommyE

I noticed you listed the Empeg as stolen first.
did you value it over the car?

Fredrik, so sorry to hear of that. I hope everything turns out ok, I am sure all the board members in Sweden will keep an eye out.

the empeg would be harder to replace :-)

He'll have no problem finding someone to sell him a new Audi, and I would hope that the majority of it's value should be covered by insurance. But insurers can be funny about stereo equipment, and even if they do pay out, he will still have to find someone to sell him an empeg.

My condolences.

well it's no doubt that if my car caught on fire (i seem to have a talent for this) that I would grab the Empeg without thinking twice

Well seeing is how one of the units in my apartment complex just became a pile of ashes (in the last oh say 2 hours) my roommates and I(while watching the firemen work) were discussing what we would take. My list was pets, empeg, and a bottle of liquor. Everything else is fairly easily replaced and I have renters insurance.

As msaeger and genixia said. Its harder to replace the empeg...

Somewhat good news...

The car was found earlier today with the jerks that stole it. Dont know yet if the Empeg still was there.

They probably tried to get away from the police and drove throu an field, so I'm a bit worried how the car looks like...

Stay tuned for updates

/Fredrik

Well at least they didn't find just a couple parts with your serial no in some chop shop.

In reply to:

---

Don't forget to contact support to get your player blacklisted

---

So, for example, [censored] would render the player useless?

OK, OK...

sshh..... delete that!

In reply to:

---

I noticed you listed the Empeg as stolen first.
did you value it over the car?

---

I know that I would. Like someone mentioned, the empeg is harder to replace. I can always get another car.

In reply to:

---

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

---

Okay, I give up - what does it mean.

something like:
I've got a catapult. Give me all your money or I will catapult a big fuckin' rock at your head!

LOL

Var i landet var detta?
[eng: where in sweden did this happen?]

Puh! The empeg was still there!
But the remote is missing

Some damages under the car("small"), some burn markes in the ashtray - but the worst was that they had been smoking in the car

(It happend in Växjö in sweden btw)

Thanks for all support!

/Fredrik

But the remote is missing

Then hurry up and get yourself a new remote from the Empeg store before it closes down for good at the end of the month!

! The empeg was still there!

Excellent! (I love my car, but if the Empeg was stolen I would also be more upset about that. I can always get another car...)

but the remote is missing

Worst case, buy a Kenwood remote from Archeon!!

Some damages ....- but the worst was that they had been smoking in the car

Ah, Sweden!!

Will do!

I probably get some colored lenses while at it...

>> Some damages ....- but the worst was that they had been smoking in the car
>Ah, Sweden!!

What? You all smoke in the car?
Ugh!

ewww.. smoking in a car distroys it those bastards, i wonder if they played with the empeg at all?

No. NOBODY smokes in my car !
I once had a friend who didn't believe that when I said it. He kept on insisting that I would drive with the windows open....on the motorway!
So I finally got tired of his nagging and kicked him out and drove on. I tuned on the next exit 10 minutes later, and passed him on the other side. He was still standing there (but he hadn't seen me). So I turned back on the next exit and picked him back up. He'd been standing there for a good 30 minutes. Keep in mind that this was before the breakthrough of GSM phones, so he really had no place to go or no-one to call.
At that time he was pretty pissed about it, but at least he'd lost his appetite for smoking!
Actually we reminice on that story quite a lot, but we can all laugh about it now.
Oh yeah, my friend has also stopped smoking since then...

Yeah, when you got it back, was the same playlist playing? Or did they figure out how to search and stuff and play their own playlist? If my car was stolen, I'd be happy to know that the thief was at least jamming on my stereo.

Better this way. If they couldn't figure it out, they probably just left it there. It looks like it was a case of joyriding. I am glad you got it back in (mostly) good condition.

You might want to alert support, and make certain they take your name / serial number off "The List".

They played with my system when my car got nicked, I'd had a BIG BAD BASS CD in there, and they'd been listening to it alright. Seems like they had removed the sub before they crashed the car tho, strange order to do things

Ive just bought a spare dock, faceplates, and remote before the store closes, but ouch! Half of what I paid for my empeg
It does leave me wondering if there is going to be a big slash price sale at the end of the month, but I want going to chance it...

What? You all smoke in the car?
Ugh!

That was a *nice* "Ah, Sweden"! I am probably one of the most anti-tobacco people you might ever meet. I just find the national/regional differences interesting. With respect to smoking, if I could make a comparison to the U.S., I guess I could say Sweden ~= California where France ~= Las Vegas (one of the most smoke-friendly places here) or North Carolina.

I just hope it wasn't a cigar!

In reply to:

---

That was a *nice* "Ah, Sweden"! I am probably one of the most anti-tobacco people you might ever meet.

---

Ahh... sorry!
Well its somewhat rare that someone smoke in their cars here in sweden. Even some of the car-companies(like Saab) don't include the cig-lighter when you buy the car.

/Fredrik

It was at random still att the top 20 songs soo if they had been listening it was a very short while...

They were just to stupid...

They tossed out my PalmVx, GBA+3 games, The cars servicebook, , the alarm-manual(!) and some more...
But they did take and kept the window/handcleaners things you get when you wash the car. Strange fellows...

In reply to:

---

ewww.. smoking in a car distroys it those bastards

---

Well yes.... But they only smoked one cigarrette. I cleaned the whole car with soap and water. I cant smell it anymore, neither can my girlfriend(or is she just being nice?)

Ahh... sorry!
Don't mind me....I'm smiley-impaired!
Well its somewhat rare that someone smoke in their cars here in sweden. Even some of the car- companies(like Saab) don't include the cig-lighter when you buy the car.
That is now common here, too. No lighter in my Subaru, just the socket and a plastic plug. Of course then Subaru turns around and decides to play tobacco billboard again in WRC (grrrr....) so the behavior is not always consistent.

If you can imagine it, in 1985 I was working on a medical intensive care unit (many of the patients were smoking-related lung disease) and you could smoke in the very small conference room in the middle of the unit! Not so today. Perhaps one or two things change for the better!

It does leave me wondering if there is going to be a big slash price sale at the end of the month

Don't worry, that's not going to happen. Remaining stock will be kept for servicing (in addition to our existing servicing inventory).

Rob

In reply to:

---

If you can imagine it, in 1985 I was working on a medical intensive care unit (many of the patients were smoking-related lung disease) and you could smoke in the very small conference room in the middle of the unit! Not so today. Perhaps one or two things change for the better!

---

Its just like when I was little all grownups smoked all the time and everywere. That was really stupid...

But shouldnt say to much, I do like to have a nice cigarr(cuban) and a whiskey(scotch) once and awhile. But it only tends to be in the summer when I can enjoy it outside.

/Fredrik

North Carolina (where I'm sitting as I type this) actually has some fairly restrictive smoking laws. In Raleigh (the capital), there is no smoking allowed in public buildings except for in sections of restaurants. Las Vegas has way more smoke in it than Raleigh does. Then again, Raleigh is a pretty urban place. It's definitely worse out in the country, where you can still find some high schools that have smoking sections for students (this speaks to both the rural acceptance of smoking, as well as to the number of high school students over the age of 18).

You say public buildings, but I think you mean private buildings that are open to the public. I think that's f'd up when laws are being made telling people what they can and can't do in their own building. If you don't like smoke, don't go in. In france (or was it canada?), they recently passed a law to the effect that you can't smoke in a donut shop with kids in the shop. So you know what happened? All the donut shops banned kids. That's what you get when you have f'd up laws.

How many people go to a doughnut shop for a smoke?? Most food shops around here ban smoking, and it has nothing to do with principles or the law - it's just to prevent the food getting all smokey!

Sadly it now seems British law is moving in that direction, and a Bournemouth cafe owner was recently jailed for letting people smoke in his premises. Oh, wait, that was a different kind of smoking

Rob

Exactly, it should be the shop owner's choice, not law.

My point was that given their limitted options I find it interesting that "all" of the doughnut shop owners have chosen to have people smoke in their stores rather than let kids in. That definitely sounds like France.

Rob

Intrigued to see what happens when they open the first Edinburgh cannabis cafe - looks like it will be soon.
Technically illegal, but the police would rather go for the hard stuff and let your typical stoned student get munchies in peace.

I would rather them smoke in the car than puke or piss in it. Course I smoke

California is even more restrictive. No one can smoke indoors anywhere (except for cigar shops). I love going to a club and not getting that stuffy nose from breathing in all that smoke.

I work at a restaurant as a valet and out front there is an ash tray. It's kind of funny, but when there's a convention in town it gets filled with cigarettes. Otherwise it stays empty most of the time. I'm convinced that either the strict anti-smoking laws forced people to quit or most smokers just moved out of state

Yay for California. One of the reasons i love this state. Not that i often go to bars or clubs anyhow, but when i do, at least i won't be sick for the next two days from the smoke. However, most of the shows (small concerts) i go too still have plenty of people smoking, as it's rarely enforced other than at bars.

California is even more restrictive.

I don't doubt it. I was just refuting the implied notion that there was this sort of laissez-faire attitude in North Carolina towards smoking.

Well when they finally get all of us smokers to quit and loose all of the tax money we have to pay and they end up raising beer tax $.50 a can, don't cry to us.

I gave up going to baseball games when they banned smoking in the seats in Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati (which is an open stadium). I could have people dump beer on me and cuss around me but god forbid I smoke and offend their asses. I don't smoke around people who don't like it but sometimes it gets taken a little too far.

I don't smoke around people who don't like it...

And just how do you manage that neat little trick, Laura?

Since you are a smoker, I suspect that you do not know just how much your sense of smell has deteriorated, and you probably do not realize just how far away a non-smoker can be from your cigarette and still be troubled by it.

You might think that, oh, 50 feet would be plenty of separation, but if you lit up a cigarette within 50 feet of me, I would know it in a few seconds. I'd be too polite (actually, probably just too much of a wimp) to say anything about it, but it would make me unhappy.

tanstaafl.

It's possible. I've known people who are smokers, and when they told me they smoked, I was surprised to learn it-- there was no evidence that they smoked, their apartment and clothing did not smell like smoke, etc. There is a such thing as people who smoke politely and discreetly. They're rare, but they do exist.

I don't smoke in houses or cars or around people who don't like it. There are smells that offend me like perfumes and colonges. Can I expect everyone that I might come in contact with not to wear them because I don't like it? No.

People just need to lighten up a bit about it. It's becoming another political correctness issue. I just think there are worse things one can do in life than smoke. I don't lie, cheat or steal but I smoke.

Yeah, you're right. Our sense of smell does deteriorate. You have no idea how much more pleasant the world can be when you don't have to smell other peoples BO, farts and bad breath.

But I admit that is a selfish point of view. But there was a period of 2 months after I had restarted smoking that I couldn't bring myself to tell my wife. She didn't notice, and I had to tell her because the guilt was getting to me, and it was getting too hard to sneak away for a quick smoke at weekends. So it can't be *that* bad. But generally I only smoke outside - never in the house or car. Spending an evening in a smoky bar results in my clothes stinking.

Can we have a law that makes farting, not showering and not keeping our breath fresh illegal? Why not? Kinda ludicrous really isn't it. A bit of commonsense and consideration goes a long way.

bo, bad breath and farting arent damaging to the next person tho, when compared to smoking, are they... other than the unpleasant factor. so in that respect i can justify laws against one and not the other.

being a nonsmoker i tend to rejoice at the non-smoking notices i see in food establishments, and other public areas - and i do find smoking unpleasant to begin with, but i have no problem with smokers who are 'considerate' about what they do - like mentioned here, going outside or out the back to have a smoke... not leaving butts and ash all over the place, and so on. i think that really is the most you can ask from any decent person who also smokes.

the problem really would stem from establishments that offer no control whatsoever over smoking, or those that promote it even. ok, so you cant help that if youre in a bar or a club, well i guess smokers there can tell nonsmokers to go get stuffed... as the majority of people in those places would (i guess??) be smokers anyway? but i can live with that section of 'public areas' crossed off from my list of comfortable zones. but if you have to put up with that wherever you go, like trying to go into a donut shop to buy a sugar donut, and coming out a walking ad for marlboro, i think thats a bit too much.

I don't smoke and find it to be the most disgusting habit invented by mankind and feel the smokers are inconsiderate slobs (like when they throw the butts out their car windows try to find a place were you don't see those things on the ground) but I don't want more government regulations there are far too many already. I prefer to just not go to smoke filled dumps.

Hi.

I don't smoke in houses or cars or around people who don't like it. There are smells that offend me like perfumes and colonges. Can I expect everyone that I might come in contact with not to wear them because I don't like it? No.

There is one problem though:
If you smell of smoke, perfume or whatever, that doesn't stick to me when I pass you. I might dislike the smell, but (almost) as soon as you are gone, the smell is gone, too.
However, if you smoke near me, the smell of that smoke will stick to me, which offends me, to say the least. So generally, I don't have a problem with you smoking, but I would have a problem if you did it near me.

Well, I guess we don't ever meet in person, so well, do whatever you like.

Regarding the political correctness issue: I do think that smoking near people who don't like that is impolite. It shouldn't be made illegal though. If you asked me, I would change laws a bit:

1. legalize marihuana (alternatively: prohibit alcohol and tobacco, but that is unlikely)
2. make it illegal to smoke in publicly accessible buildings except for areas where it is explicitly allowed. It should only be allowed either in the whole building or only in areas where the smoke can't get to non-smoking areas.
3. fine some serious amount (like 40$ or something) for throwing litter (like chewing gums, cigarette remainders etc.) on streets or generally to any place other than trash cans. (Have you ever been to the moscow underground when it was still in good shape? You could earn a two days stay in jail just for spitting your old chewing gum to the ground. As a result, the underground was perfectly clean.)
   

While I am not very serious about prohibiting alcohol, the rest are serious wishes of mine. Geee, I'm pretty extreme there, right?

cu,
sven

cu,
sven

There are no indications (other than those invented by lawyers) that reasonable amount of second-hand smoke is harmfull. That said, smoking around nonsmokers is about as polite as farting. Which reminds me: I was cursed with a company of a co-worker who insisted on wearing something patchouli-derived he called cologne, which to me evoked images of a moldy old mattress left to rot for a year or two in a flooded basement. Now, with all due respect to Doug's fine nose , this was much worse than a smoker 15 meters upwind.

Being a cigar and pipe smoker, I appeal to all non-smokers to understand that no fine meal is complete without coffee and brandy accompanied by a nice smoke. While most restaurants in Croatia still have decent sections for smokers, global trend is dusturbing . Come on, people, live and let live!

And finally, there is a saying here: kissing a smoker is similar to licking an ashtray

Geee, I'm pretty extreme there, right?

To the contrary, I think you are perfectly reasonable.

fine some serious amount (like 40$ or something) for throwing litter (like chewing gums, cigarette remainders etc.) on streets or generally to any place other than trash cans. (Have you ever been to the moscow underground when it was still in good shape? You could earn a two days stay in jail just for spitting your old chewing gum to the ground. As a result, the underground was perfectly clean.)


The Singaporean method would work... 6 cracks of the cane on your palm. But mabe that's a bit extreme

The Singaporean method would work... 6 cracks of the cane on your palm

What, "work" like the way the death penalty in the States prevents murders ?

The Singaporean method would work... 6 cracks of the cane on your palm.

I prefer it to a fine, because it is equally harsh (or mild) whatever offender's financial status. But perhaps community service (e.g. a weekend or two of pavement sweeping) would do .

There are no indications (other than those invented by lawyers) that reasonable amount of second-hand smoke is harmfull..

What is a reasonable amount of second-hand smoke?

Hi.

I prefer it to a fine, because it is equally harsh (or mild) whatever offender's financial status.

Well, don't know wether the states have something like this in their laws, but in Germany, there is something called "Tagessatz", basically it is the (theoretical) amount of money someone has available each day (that is income+certain part of capital). I think something like a half of those would fit (or may be a whole), I guess.

cu,
sven

When you say publicly accessible buildings, do you mean government buildings? In that case, I think it would be reasonable.

If you mean any privately owned building that the owner wishes to allow public access to, then I think that is very unreasonable. If you don't like the smell of someone's building, don't go in- you don't have to accept their invitation to come in. You don't have to shop at their store. That would be like me coming to your house and telling you to stop smoking. You'd just tell me to leave if I don't like it. For many businesses, it is in their interest to create a smoke-free environment, so they do. But it should be the choice of the owner whether to allow it or not, not a government mandate. That's just wrong.

In California you can't smoke indoors. Not even in a bar. Makes sense. How would you like it if I dumped toxic chemicals in your backyard?

Calvin

How would you like it if I dumped toxic chemicals in your backyard


Uhhhh.... this is the same California with the bad smog problems caused by vehicle emissions, right?

Like I said, it should be the shop owner's choice. So if I chose to allow the dumping of toxic chemicals in my backyard, then obviously I wouldn't have a problem with it.

In California, the logic used for banning smoking in bars and restaurants is that while patrons may have a choice in where they go, workers must work day in and day out at their jobs. Anyone who claims you won't get enough seccond hand smoke to do damage working 40 hours a week in a smoky bar is deciving themselves.

Now, you could argue that the waitresses could find jobs elsewhere, but that's like saying people could find jobs in buildings without asbestos so companies shouldn't be required to remove it or seal it in.

Matthew

Except that there isn't even any real evidence that 2nd hand smoke even has a real impact. And yeah, you're right, the workers don't have to work there- they choose to. The difference between asbestos and smoke is the asbestos isn't obvious like smoke. Getting rid of asbestos is just standard safety. You can see and smell smoke, so if you don't like it, leave- it's not your building.

Besides, I done seen some show on people in japan that live to like 120 yrs and smoke everyday.

I don't have an issue with banning smoking in public places... I'm a smoker, I can deal with that, what really agitates me is the poor lady a few miles away in Maryland who's been banned from smoking in her own Townhome because the neighbors complained.... The court actually told this lady she couldn't smoke in her own home... I'm sorry thats just absurd...

Except that there isn't even any real evidence that 2nd hand smoke even has a real impact.

Just because you haven't bothered to look for it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very first hit I got from a Google search on the subject (read more about it here yielded the following information:

The Environmental Protection Agency firmly maintains that the bulk of the scientific evidence demonstrates that secondhand smoke -- environmental tobacco smoke, or "ETS" -- causes lung cancer and other significant health threats to children and adults. EPA’s report ("Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," EPA/600/6-90/006F) was peer-reviewed by 18 eminent, independent scientists who unanimously endorsed the study’s methodology and conclusions. Since EPA’s 1993 report which estimated the risks posed by ETS, numerous independent health studies have presented an impressive accumulating body of evidence that confirms and strengthens the EPA findings. It is widely accepted in the scientific and public health communities that secondhand smoke poses significant health risks to children and adults.

A U.S. District Court decision has vacated several chapters of the EPA document "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" that served as the basis for EPA's classification of secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen and estimates that ETS causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smokers each year. The ruling was largely based on procedural grounds. EPA is appealing this decision. None of the findings concerning the serious respiratory health effects of secondhand smoke in children were challenged.

Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user. OK, so go ahead -- use it and die. Just don't use it anywhere near me.

tanstaafl.

So if I chose to allow the dumping of toxic chemicals in my backyard, then obviously I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Sure, go ahead and dump all the toxic waste you want in your back yard -- but be prepared to lose everything you own and spend some time in jail when your toxic waste finds its way into my water supply.

tanstaafl.

"-- but be prepared to lose everything you own and spend some time in jail when your toxic waste finds its way into my water supply"

It's an analogy, kemosabe.

"Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user"

So do greasy hamburgers.

Whether or not ETS is harmful or not is pretty irrelevant. The point is it's your building and if you want to inhale toxic fumes, then that's your business. If you want to smoke dope, then that's your business. And if someone else doesn't like it, then they don't have to go in your building. Nobody is misinformed about what they're in for and I think it's pretty clear cut. Don't come to my house and tell me how to run it. It's like a backseat driver. When some starts backseat-driving in my car, I stop the car and offer to let them walk. They usually stop.

I wonder if I complained about my neighbors noisy grandchildren if they would be banned

People should have the fricking right to smoke in their own homes for gods sake. Seems like that could start a mess of stuff being banned by neighbors if it bothers them. I'm surprised that held up in court. That doesn't bode well for anyone.

I'm surprised that held up in court.

why our legal system is a joke if you can sue a business for falling down in front of their store how can anything be surprising.

Well, notice he said townhouse, not house. Townhouses are (usualy) conduminiumized and known for their horrible homeowners associations. They can write just about anything into the documents that go along with the place. Another common example is satelite dishes, which are forbidden a large portion of the time... Without actual details, it's impossible to say what's really going on.

That being said, it's their house, and I agree it's outrageous...

Matthew

If any of you read the New York Times in the last couple of days, you might have noticed an article about a Manhattan co-op board requiring non-smoking in the building, related to something about the smoke going through the ventilation system. A day later, an architect wrote a letter to the editor saying that any building which allows smoke to waft through the ventilation system between rooms has some serious code violations...apparently such objections aren't that uncommon. I think that private residences shouldn't have rules about smoking though.
YZ, any place where it is a "work environment" already follows rules about workplace safety. Second-hand smoke is just another hazard. Do you find it ridiculous that the government regulates a dry-cleaner for the chemical fumes? Why not regulate a restaurant for the cigarette smoke fumes?

One more thing, I am a non-smoker and don't appreciate cigarrette smoking. I just spent a couple of months in Madrid, which may be the smoking capital of the world, and I was dreading the thought of all that smoke. I was chill though, and after a while, I just didn't care as much. Maybe living in CA has gotten me just a little too uptight about it...

There are no indications (other than those invented by lawyers) that reasonable amount of second-hand smoke is harmfull.]

Roy Castle's death was faked by lawyers? Now there's a conspiracy theory...

Peter

Because people enjoy smoking. They do it for the pleasure of it. It's an activity that many people partake in. How about this, instead of banning smoking in private buildings, the owners can choose to put up a sign outside that says, "If you don't like second hand smoke, you are not allowed in here."? That way everyone will be happy.

Correct me If Im wrong, but I think the whole point that Yz is trying to make is that, if the owner of a resterant or bar wants to ban smoking from his place, so be it, but the Government should not have any regulation over it, and I agree.

whereas I myself am a smoker, I dont like people smoking around me in a resterant while Im eating, and I can see where other people wouldnt either, but if they are a few tables away it doesnt bother me, but in a bar, when Im drinking I like to smoke and the only time it really gets bad is when there is poor ventilation in the bar, or its extremely crouded with a lot people smoking.

Exactly.

I totally think smoking has its place, and people have a choice to do it. In fact, sometimes it's alright with me. But the regulations about smoking in restaurants don't have as much to do with the restaurant goers as they do with the waiters and waitresses. Second-hand smoke creates a hazardous work environment and it is for that reason the gov't is justified to regulate it. For restaurant goers, the "choice" argunment is totally fine (diners can "choose" not to go to a smoking restaurant). However, for employees, it has long been standard that the concept of workplace "choice" does not outweigh the need to eliminate work hazards. There was a time in this country when owners of businesses could justify unnecessary workplace hazards by saying that their workers "choose" to work there. Now, only countries like Thailand and the Philippines are able to pull off policies like that.

It is often stated that non smokers can choose to go to a non smoking restaurant, but this doesn't work in practice. I don't know of any non smoking restaurants in Cambridge (apart from McDonalds type places but they don't count) yet I'm sure a large percentage of the population here would prefer to eat in a smoke free environment. I only know of two smoke free pubs here, out of - umm - hundreds probably!

This is an instance where consumer demand is not influencing business.

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who doesn't mind smoke in pubs/bars/clubs but who doesn't enjoy eating in a smokey environment. I'm not a tobacco smoker myself, unless I've had way too much ale!

Rob

I would advise that you open a smoke-free restaurant and make a load of money!

I think there's a difference between work place hazards that can be easily prevented and work hazards that just come along with the job. For instance, being a soldier in the army can be dangerous, yet you don't see any countries outlawing militaries, do you? Many businesses cater to a smoking environment and many people enjoy a smoking environment. That being said, it should be understood that smoking is a hazard (if it even is) that naturally comes along with certain jobs.

Warehouses don't want asbestos- the asbestos doesn't serve any purpose. It's just toxic waste. Smoking is different. It's something that some people enjoy. Outlawing it means that those people who enjoy it can't do it. If you don't like the smoke in a restaurant- don't go in/work there. You don't have a right to go in to/work at a privately owned business- you can go in/work at only if the owner allows you to. These people want to smoke in a building that is owned by someone who wants them to smoke in their building and the owner may or may not also want you in their building, so you saying that they can't smoke there is just wrong. It's just none of anyone's business except for the owner's.

Exactly, Yz33d. All those pansy waiters who want to live to see 60 can just move to states that have non-smoking restaurants. What right do they have to trample the liberties of the good-hearted smokers of the world, and what right do they have to eliminate the freedom of smokers not to have to walk 50 feet to smoke outside? Outrageous, those cretins!

Similarly, I'd like to see a movement to do away with those odious government regulations that prevent car-owners from drinking the alcohol of their choice freely in the protected environment of their own moving vehicles. Those who say drinking and driving causes accidents can just choose to drive on non-drinking roads!

The nerve of some people. Sheesh.

If you read my post again, you will notice that I said something aboout either allowing it explicitly in the whole building or in a secluded area inside the building would be ok. I just meant that the default is that smoking is not allowed, but can be allowed by the owner. I just would like to make sure that smoke from the smoking areas (pun intended) can't get to the non-smoking areas.

cu,
sven

"Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user"

So do greasy hamburgers.

Nope. They do not cause permanent damage to the body like smoke does. And don't say it is an analogy: If it where so, you could sure give a real example.

Oh, and tobacco isn't really the only good that causes medical problems to those that use it "as intended". Alcohol fits in there as well, just not to the extend of causing cancer.

cu,
sven

"Tobacco is the only product sold to the general public that, when used as intended causes the death of the user"

"They do not cause permanent damage to the body...."

Uhh, dude, I'm jumping in here but, neither do cigarettes, IF, you only had one a week I'm sure you'd be pretty much ok. But if you take them over a long period of time several times per day they'll kill you..

Hamburgers, several times per day, over a long period, will also kill you (most likely via congestive heart failure)

"I don't smoke in houses or cars or around people who don't like it."

WHOHOOO!!! I aplaud you! No one has a right to complain. Thanks for being cool to the non-smokers out there.

Hi.

Uhh, dude, I'm jumping in here but, neither do cigarettes, IF, you only had one a week I'm sure you'd be pretty much ok. But if you take them over a long period of time several times per day they'll kill you..

Well, this is not exactly true. Even a single cigarette does permanent damage to your body. However, that amount of permanent damage doesn't cause much trouble because the human body has _lots_ of reserves to work from. As an example: After an accident, almost 4 years ago, I lost most parts of my right leg. The rest that remained was only half covered by skin, so I had skin transplanted from the left leg to the right. On follow-up surgeries, that transplanted skin was removed again and the skin that had remained was stretched to finally cover the whole stump again. Nowadays, you couldn't tell that I had once transplanted skin (so called meshcraft) there. Yet, the skin that was originally there is gone forever, which I can tell because when I am touched at the inner side of the stump (where the meshcraft originally was), I have the sensation that I am touched at the front middle. Likewise, touching the lower front gives the sensation of being touched on the hollow of my knee.
Much like you can't tell from the outside that I ever had meshcraft transplanted to my right leg (or the stump of it), you can't always tell which damages a cigarette caused. As you might know, the inner of your lungs (well, most of it) is covered by a kid of extremely fine (and short and sensitive) fur. This fur is partly covered and damaged by small tar particles when enhaling smoke. While the body is able to repair most of the damage and regain its original ability to clean the lungs from dust and other small particles, the regrown fur isn't as strong and agile as the original one. So: There is permanent damage, even if most of it is repaired by the body.

But as I see it, we mostly agree anyway.

cu,
sven

PS: I more and more gain the feeling that Yz is nothing but a troll.

Warehouses don't want asbestos- the asbestos doesn't serve any purpose. It's just toxic waste.

Are you kidding? Do you think that companies decided to place asbestos in buildings years ago just because it was fun? Or maybe it's a form of spontaneous asbestos generation?

Asbestos was, and is, one of the best thermal insulators and fire retardants in the world. It is really only friable asbestos that has been banned (for good reason), which occurs mostly in pipe insulation and ceiling coverings. In fact, non-friable asbestos is still used for many applications, including such things as automobile and elevator brakes, roof shingles, and floor tiles.

I think I am just gonna agree to disagree with you on this one. I think our disagreement goes beyond smoking, and into every other realm that involves "ownership" issues, property rights, and personal rights in general. I am not gonna play "he is just a young immature kid" on you because there are plenty of adults who think this way, and I am probably not older than you. I think that some people who tout such political ideas hide selfish personal gains behind the claim of "ownership" rights. ("They can't tell *me* what to do!") In a general sense, we live in a world dominated by self-interest, but I don't think that holds true in every specific instance.

It's not about being selfish. If I come to your house and tell you to change your air-freshener cause I don't like how the current one smells, are you being selfish if you choose to not to change it?

I think it's selfish to go to someone's place of business and demand that they stop doing a perfectly legal and justified acivity simply because you don't like it. Afterall, the owner doesn't have to let you inside in the first place, so why should you have any say on what legal activities go on inside?

You're right, my mistake. The problem where I worked is it usually got where it didn't belong- the floor, on the products, etc.

You said you were for the legalization of marijuana and the banning of tobacco. Why the different takes on these two drugs? As I understand it, weed does just as much damage to the lungs as tobacco.

Actually, there are only about one hundred pubs in Cambridge (used to be more, but you know that, just down the road from the ex-Globe and ex-Racehorse...).

Interesting story about smoking.... I had a friend in the military who was a adamant non-smoker, his two roomies where smokers. Everyday he'd tell them to quit, that it was a nasty habit, they would respond that "we can't, it's just not that easy", his response "sure you can, it's all in your head". So his roomies bet him 100 bucks each that he couldn't smoke for a month then quit. So to prove a point he smoked for a month.... and is now a chain smoker 10 years later.

I'm glad you got your car back.

Hey, that was off-topic.
Oh, my mistake.

I'm glad he got his car back too, but even happier about the 'peg. Now can we get back to the coffin-nail discussion?

Smoke IS toxic waste. Look up the componets and ingredients in cigarettes and cigarette smoke and see for yourself. There are even radioactive substances in there.

I think if there was such a possibility as to outlaw any kind of potential harm, to outlaw violence and outlaw war, then certainly it would have been done. In this particular case, this is voluntary behavior that hurts other people.

Calvin

Can the owner of a business arbitrarily shoot customers he does not like because he "owns" the business? No? Why? Because it is illegal.

Can the owner of a business allow smoking in his business arbitrarily? No? Why? Because it is illegal.

Calvin

The problem with Yz33d is he may pretend to believe in the civil rights of the individual, but then he picks and chooses sides. The argument of why somebody should be told to not do something against their will can equally be turned around into why somebody else can put toxic substances into your personal space without your permission. Yz33d doesn't make sense at all.

Calvin

The question is whether or not it should be illegal.

"can equally be turned around into why somebody else can put toxic substances into your personal space"

Except it's not your space if you don't own the place.

In any situation that I can not avoid, where somebody else puts cancer causing substances on me, or in me without my permission should be made illegal. Do you agree?

Calvin

Yes.

I own my lungs, I own my body. So if you and I were in a store that neither of us owned... and I sprayed a hazardous liquid on your face and the owner did not care either way, then that is ok? Regardless of the physical location, if there is no choice of the matter, (e.g. I have to eat, I have to take a flight, I have to go into a business establishment to complete my business) what right of yours is it to put me in danger without my permission? Or are you saying that people should just stay home and not buy things, not go to stores, not go anywhere even if they wanted to, against their free will?

Calvin

These laws are more recent the smog pollution days. These days California has an almost fascist-strict obsession with any kind of pollution. They're planning on tightening down the smog testing system to require dyno-testing of all cars. Smog is significantly reduced these days. I'm sure toxic waste dumping in backyards is out of the question here. You can't light up a cigarette indoors goes without saying. So while I don't totally agree with all of these legislative moves, the policies are definitely working towards a cleaner environment.

Calvin

Personally, I don't give a rats ass whether smoking (tabacco or pot) is illegal or not. If you want to do it, do it somewhere else. Do it in your car. Do it in your own home. Just don't do it in a public place. You may choose to run a crackhouse, or a business that allows smoking or whatever you call it, it comes down to the same thing. You opened a business that allows other people to hurt their patrons against their will. If the business owner wants to run a *public* establishment where any person may choose to enter, then they should not be assaulted against their will. If the business owner wants to open up a shop that says "for smokers only" (such as the cigar smoking rooms in california) then clearly that is ok. It is clearly marked that it is not a public place, it is for smokers only. But to open an establishment and to mark it as a non-public location is tantamount to a "whites only" sign. Most people are not going to want to go in there.

Calvin

First of all, you have a choice to go in or to not go in a store. If smoking is allowed, don't go in. If you go in, then you obviously plan on breathing the air inside. So, if there is smoke in the air (which you should be able to detect unless you are blind and have no sense of smell), then you are choosing to breathe it in. Perhaps a comprise could be a law requiring a sign on the door stating that smoking is allowed.

Besides that, a little bit of smoke isn't gonna hurt you. You'll be alright.

I don't see why you continue to argue a point that's clearly covered by law?

He thinks the law infringes on the personal rights of the business owner and therefore the law is wrong.

I'm trying to lead this a little to say that the law is correct because without it, other people will infringe upon my rights in any public situation. He does not seem to understand this. It's strange really, as yz33d seems to believe so strongly in personal liberties that he should advocate giving up the personal freedom to go anywhere so that a small number of people can infringe upon the majority of people who don't really want shit in their lungs.

Calvin

If you own a place, you can say who goes in and who doesn't (short of being racist, which while I don't condone any kind of rascism, I still think the owner should be able to not allow anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants). It is a private establishment, of which the owner may or may not choose to open to the general public, meaning to allow anyone and everyone in. That doesn't mean it becomes public property.

Let's say that you open your home to the general public, meaning you'll allow anyone who wants to come in to come in (let's say you're having a garage sale or something). I decide to go in your house and I am allergic to cats (they'll get me really sick). I go in your house and see you have cats, now do I have a right to legally have your cats removed so that I can enter your home, which you so graciously invited me to do? Afterall, it's not illegal nor wrong to own a cat, yet they have a negative effect on my health. Yes or no?

"I'm trying to lead this a little to say that the law is correct because without it, other people will infringe upon my rights in any public situation. "

Right, and I think it is incorrect.

"It's strange really, as yz33d seems to believe so strongly in personal liberties that he should advocate giving up the personal freedom to go anywhere so that a small number of people can infringe upon the majority of people who don't really want [censored] in their lungs. "

The difference is that some people believe they have a right and the freedom to go into any business they wish, but they don't- not without the owner's permission.

Well, when you get to be old enough to vote, you can see about getting the law changed.

LOL - How about when you are old enough to buy cigarettes! (actually, 19 should be plenty old enough) I was going to post that in another thread when someone said that we aren't truely free if we are forced to pay taxes that go to causes we don't support. Well guess what - those causes wouldn't be supported if people didn't vote those policy makers into office!

As far as this thread goes.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What do you think I should do?

Yeah, I know. I was just taking a cheap shot

But is this something that should be legislated by state or federal government? Town or City Govt, I can understand. I understand that a small percentage of non-smokers cannot bear to be in a smoking establishment. As I understand that a large percentage of non-smokers can't bear to be in a smoky environment. (that applies to smokers too). And I can understand that non-smokers currently don't have much choice in avoiding smoking establishments (outside California).

But, I can't bear to be in a non-smoking pub for any length of time There's just something relaxing about a pint and a cigarette together that a non-smoker couldn't understand. State- or federal-wide bans would remove my choice. I could deal with and accept non-smoking towns, as I can deal with the concept of non-drinking towns. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. If you have a problem with me smoking in a pub 5 miles away then you have larger issues than second-hand smoke.

As regards to the health issues; no legal, religous or moral code that I know of states that anyone has the absolute right to prolong their life by removing other peoples' liberties. You may or may not like this, but that's the way it is.

Look on the bright side - you're worrying about the possible long-term effects of repeated inhalation of second-hand toxins. Is that all? Over 2/3 of the World's nations are locked in armed conflict. Over 1/2 the World's population live in poverty. Nearly 1/6 of the World's population can't read or sign their names.

Keep it in perspective and enjoy life.

Better yet, take up a cause that means something.

This "I'm in your face NOW, smoker!" mentality is weak. When I smoked I had people walking up to me on the street to deliver some really original lectures. You know what? If you really care about your health and the health of others, get tobacco products criminalized. While you're at it, take up the cause on all fronts -- lobby for cleaner water, air and food. Call or write your representatives and let your voice be heard. Sound too tough? Rather write anonymous slams to strangers online or be rude to people on the street? That's your right, Jack, but you aren't fooling me with your sincerity.

To backfill my statement a bit, I agree that one should not smoke around those who don't want to die an early death. But the sanctimonious crap that flies so easily out of the mouths of people who probably eat a steak for dinner, chug six beers, get five hours of sleep, wake up and drink a pot of coffee, eat two donuts, drive to work in their SUV, work a stress-filled morning, eat fast food for lunch, chew on a roll of Tums an hour later, get home late to an irate spouse and try to catch up on bills while drinking bottled water because the tap water tastes so damn horrid just sounds FUNNY to me. And not ha-ha funny.

In short, "Keep it in perspective and enjoy life."

How many people go to a doughnut shop for a smoke??

When I lived in New England (Walpole, MA), the Dunkin' Donuts was the hangout for the Alcohol Anon folks. It was just like a bar for them, except they all drank coffee and smoked sitting inside until the town got the no smoking ordnance passed. The DD was dead at night after that...

Thanks for the link.

MAKE IT STOP OHHH PLEASE MAKE THIS THREAD STOP!!!!

I've a title for a horror movie,

"The thread that wouldn't DIE"

Colorado now has temporary laws in place stating that drivers may only smoke with all windows up, and nothing is disposed of out the window. Also, no smoking outside except in enclosed areas. Campgrounds are locked down to small gas cooking now.

I definitly understand the reasoning behind it, and think anyone caught breaking this should be taken in, and held responsible for their actions. "We'll let you off easy and only make you pay 1% of the fire damage and control fees." Aka, still probably $10,000 minimum.

Not sure where this is specificially (state wide or in a few counties), just herd it from someone watching the news. The fires we have had already have been way higher then the normal for this time of year, and the drought is just getting worse. For once, we might have more fires to pay attention to in this state instead of lending help in surrounding states.

"The thread that wouldn't DIE"

The best way to kill a thread is to simply stop feeding the trolls.



Although I will admit that in this particular thread, I am guilty of throwing a few morsels out. Sorry.

If I come to your house and tell you to change your air-freshener cause I don't like how the current one smells, are you being
selfish if you choose to not to change it?

Depends.

Since you like to reason by analogy, let's extend the point. If your air freshener (or by extension, toxic waste, or excessively loud music, or noisy/vicious dogs, or procession of crack-heads visiting your home at all hours to buy drugs, etc.) is extreme enough to damage me or reduce the value of my property -- then I have not only the right but the neighborly duty to request that you change your behavior.

Freedom and rights of ownership extend only to the point where you are not causing harm to other people. It is pretty hard to meet that criterion when it comes to using tobacco.

tanstaafl.

I'm just gonna start cut and pasting my previous posts.

Let's say that you open your home to the general public, meaning you'll allow anyone who wants to come in to come in (let's say you're having a garage sale or something). I decide to go in your house and I am allergic to cats (they'll get me really sick). I go in your house and see you have cats, now do I have a right to legally have your cats removed so that I can enter your home, which you so graciously invited me to do? Afterall, it's not illegal nor wrong to own a cat, yet they have a negative effect on my health. Yes or no?

It's hard to meet the criterion on that one, taanstafl. Well?

eternalsun, you wanna take a crack at that one, too?

Actually, a friend of mine was telling me the other day how his gf was dealing with a guy that owned a well. He was nice enough to make it public so that everyone in the community could drink from HIS well for free. There was then a study that found that there were high levels of toxins in the well. (high being unacceptable to the health board, not that the water was glowing or anything, or that anyone was even getting sick). Guess what he was FORCED to do? Put a $35,000 filtration system on his free well. So in effect, he was fined $35,000 for his gacious gesture. He wasn't FORCING anyone to drink, but there it was.

Personally I believe this is inane, but -=shrug=- Whatcha gonna do?

do I have a right to legally have your cats removed so that I can enter your home, which you so graciously invited me to do?

No.

But if you engage in activities that cause me harm when I am not on your property (like dumping toxic waste in your backyard that contaminates my drinking water supply, or playing music so loud that it disturbs me in my own home down the street, or keeping noisy/vicious dogs that get loose and endanger my safety, etc.) then I have a right to complain.

I guess it comes down to this: you can do whatever you like on your own property, as long as your actions do not endanger people who are not on your property. To carry the example to a ludicrous extreme, you may well be entitled to own your own bazooka so you can do target practice in your back yard. But if those rockets escape the confines of your property, then that would not be acceptable.

tanstaafl.

Right. I completely agree.

Yeah, that's pretty messed up. They wouldn't let him just cut off his neighbors' access to the well?

Thanks!


/Fredrik

MAKE IT STOP OHHH PLEASE MAKE THIS THREAD STOP!!!!

Yes, isnt it fantastic that I managed to start this discussion... Dont really see how though...

/Fredrik

I quit.

Smoking?

That's great! See? This thread does serve a purpose!

Like I said, the idea of owners permission has gone out with civil rights and "whites only" signs.

Calvin

Ancient thread alert!

I rebuffed your characterization of North Carolina before, but I'm here to rerebuff.

Starting in January, it will no longer to be legal to smoke in North Carolina (public) bars or restaurants.

Welcome. As you can see, you're a little late for the party.