Smokescreen biometric reader keeps track of the nicotine crowd

Life is tough for a smoker: not only are you slowing killing yourself from ten different cancers, it's getting harder and harder to enjoy that rich, deadly tobacco in public venues. Smokers in most big cities are already accustomed to heading outside for a nicotine break, and now some are being confronted with a fingerprint reader called 'smokescreen' that controls re-entry to clubs and bars after they've sucked down those precious puffs of smoke. Made by UK manufacturer idscan, smokescreen is marketed as an easy way for owners to combat bracelet or hand-stamp fraud, and also keeps track of how many people are outside at any given time. Best of all, those nic-heads loitering for too long and killing the ambiance can be locked out after a preset amount of time, either forcing them to the back of the line or perhaps giving them the kick in the pants they need to quit.

[Via CNET]

[Iain @ Oct 10th 2007 9:09PM]

Ala Bruce Willis in the Fifth Element. All it needs is a lit quit smoking sign on it.

[cDub @ Oct 10th 2007 9:17PM]

Illigalize tobacco already. Im sick of being pushed around like this for having a vice.
Timing a smoke break? C'omon.

[Tony @ Oct 10th 2007 9:40PM]

Illegalize?! That's not even a word even if it were spelled right!

[cDub @ Oct 10th 2007 10:12PM]

I make up words when im mad.
:-)

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 1:58AM]

I believe the word you're looking for is "outlaw". Smoked away too many brain cells, perhaps?

[mushrooshi @ Oct 10th 2007 9:26PM]

They need these in the parking lots near my schools. And it should activate cams.

[mushrooshi @ Oct 10th 2007 9:56PM]

Wow. I can't believe people who leave comments like "gay" actually have sufficient intelligence to even know how to post in a blog. You deserve a cookie, young man. You deserve a cookie indeed.

[ratnikh @ Oct 10th 2007 9:46PM]

Governments should just go ahead and try to proscribe tobacco. I say "try" because despite the massive amount of U.S. Consitution-violating laws, the same percentage, if not higher, of the population still smokes. The problemis, a small percentage of people who wants to appear health and eco friendly make passes at legislation that appear good-intentioned and few wants to risk a poor image for opposing them.

I find it extremely disturbing that property and business owners do not have the right to dictate what legal activities their clients may engage in. A bar owner who restricts his clientele to people 18 years of age may not allow persons to smoke inside. Does that seem right? Shouldn't the property own be allowed to choose, providing the patrons have the choice of whether or not to attend?

Put another way, would it be right for vegetarians or vegans to legally dictate that since they find the taste, smell and potential health hazard of meat objectionable, that all restaurants should ban meat? Even if some establishments chose to cater to the omnivore crowd rather than pleasing a minority of the population at a potential monetary loss?

Are the two examples very different?

[Syd @ Oct 10th 2007 9:51PM]

Of course they are different. Smoke I have no choice but to inhale if it is in the air around me. A steak, on the otherhand, would have to be willfully placed in my mouth and swallowed by me.

I have a right to breathe as clean an air as possible.

[Josh @ Oct 10th 2007 10:11PM]

You can choose to leave the establishment that allows smoking. And show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where it says you have the "right to breathe as clean an air as possible." I'm not saying you need to be deprived of clean air, but you can just as easily go somewhere else.

[Typhoid Mary @ Oct 10th 2007 10:06PM]

Why do you think you have the right to breathe the cleanest air possible? Where the hell is that written? If you don't like smoke (and I don't either) just walk away...that's your right.

[Syd @ Oct 10th 2007 10:11PM]

Some things don't need to be written. It's called common sense.

[Josh @ Oct 10th 2007 10:20PM]

So I should be able to choose not to let you fruit up my establishment with your "oh no, there's cigarette smoke around" rhetoric, right? But wait, then you'd complain about not being able to breath your clean air wherever you wanted, about how your rights are more important than anyone elses because you disagree with the way they are written. Am I just about on target?

[Syd @ Oct 10th 2007 10:22PM]

Easily go somewhere else? What if I am struggling in a small town to make ends meet, and my only opportunity for work is cleaning tables in the local bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed? What if there is only one entrance from the parking lot to the office I work at, and smokers, who seem to not care, are outside that door puffing away (it happens to me daily).

The deal is this. Second hand smoke causes health problems. I want every protection from having to breathe it. A public entrance to a building is not the place to do your bad habits, nor is a place where people have to work for a living.

It just goes to show how awful the sickness of smoking is that people can't manage it enough to do it at home, and only at home. I'm glad all my bad habits are such that I can practice them only within the confines of my own living space, and not subject them to others.

[chuck @ Oct 10th 2007 11:03PM]

Second-hand smoke is only a small part of the issue, people. The bigger issue is the cost to the economy (and the public funds -- tax money) that is lost as a result of the health issues caused by smokers. Sure, smoke your life away, don't worry about any of us second-hand smokers. Health issues caused by your smoking will cost your employers, as a result both of your absence from work and as because they are subsidizing your health insurance. End result, you get cancer. Then what? You don't have the money to pay for your health care? Guess what? All the rest of us are paying for it.

I am so tired of hearing the "it's my life, I'll smoke if I want to, eff off" routine. Is this what you think? You are a dumb American.

[illicit @ Oct 10th 2007 11:27PM]

@ Chuck

With the same logic, should tax payers have to pay for people who have medical issues because they are obese? Should the government restrict how much food one can intake because there is the possibility that they could have health complications because they eat too much or because they consume too much sugar and get diabetes? At what point will the government decide we're not fit to run our own lives and setup cameras to run them for us?

[anonymous @ Oct 10th 2007 11:28PM]

I think it all boils down to common courtesy. This isn't associated just with smoking, but many areas of today's society. People have no respect or regard for others. Having a vice is fine... it's your body, do with it what you want. But when your vice affects others, it's just rude and selfish. Rationalize it however you want, but if i came in to your bar and just started farting all over the place, I think you might be a bit offended. So all in all, it's maybe not so much about your right to smoke, but the fact that you just don't seem to care about how your actions affect others. Believe me, I'm no hippy, but if i see one more person blatantly toss their cigarette butt on the ground, i'm gonna dump my trash in their yard. WTF?!!!

[Typhoid Mary @ Oct 10th 2007 11:38PM]

"Syd @ Oct 10th 2007 10:11PM
Some things don't need to be written. It's called common sense."

There is no such thing as common sense, as sense is not so common a thing. Actually things HAVE to be written - Thus the laws in place about smoking.

You have no right to clean air Syd, if you did then there wouldn't be any cars, factories and other things that pollute the air.

You do have the right to complain to your boss to ask the smokers at your job not to loiter around the entrance. If you cant do that or he refuses to ask them to move then you do have the right to quit and find yourself a smoke free work environment if it means that much to you. Or you could learn to hold your breath
for the short time it takes to walk past them.

[ratnikh @ Oct 11th 2007 12:46AM]

Correct, Typhoid Mary!

@Syd, if the smokers around you are being rude, ask them to stop. They are enjoying a legal (albeit self-detrimental) activity. As for your hard-luck small-town employment scenario, nobody promised you a job either. Many have opportunities for employment that are not within their safety requirements. People with peanut allergies can't work at the Snickers factory, and people with bronchial asthma who can't work at the babypowder factory. People with bad backs can't work in some warehouse or shipping & receiving jobs. If you can't stand or perform the working conditions, that is *your* problem and yours alone. An American citizen who pays taxes and owns their own business should have the right to allow whatever legal activities they deem appropriate, so long as they fully disclose such up front: "This Bar & Lounge is a Smoker Friendly Facility, Non-Smokers are welcome if they choose, but no Non-Smoking areas are provided."

Do you then have the right to complain when you enter? Yes. You do. You also have the right to leave and bitch about it while others stay and enjoy smoking in their favorite establishment. If, on the other hand, smokers are deliberately being a nuisance by not disposing of butts in a provided receptacle, that is of course a different story, but no dofferent that the countless millions who throw soda cans, food wrappers, chewing gum, and so much other trash into our country's streets and parks.

I have no problem with venues being non-smoking. I do have a problem when it is government enforced with no legal option to the contrary. It is simply an ever-growing encroachment on American's rights to live as they choose.

[Dave @ Oct 11th 2007 1:27AM]

"Second-hand smoke is only a small part of the issue, people. The bigger issue is the cost to the economy (and the public funds -- tax money) that is lost as a result of the health issues caused by smokers."

Congratulations. Lost tax revenue is the exact same argument many people use to argue against legalizing gay marriage and it is the also the same argument many are using to try to regulate fast food. Soon, you may legally be required to exercise.

Also, it amazes me that people are trying to argue that "courtesy" should be enforced by law. If I'm a private business owner, I own the business. It's mine. I paid for it. It's my right as the owner of that establishment to be discourteous to non-smokers and allow others to do the same on my own property.

People need to realize that we're all going to die. ALL of us--smokers and non-smokers alike. Let's not also deprive others around us of the little enjoyment they have in their short life by trying to prevent them from partaking in one of the few remaining legal vices on private property--because telling others how to live is the ultimate discourtesy.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 6:37AM]

"And show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where it says you have the "right to breathe as clean an air as possible.""

Show me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights it says that you have a right to smoke? Great, now we have an instant stalemate.

There's nothing in those documents that says you have a "right to not have a bullet in your brain", but that obviously doesn't give me the right to shoot you just because I think it's my choice to live my life by killing whoever I feel like just for the heck of it.

*Gasp*, oh no, homicide is illegal! The big bad government is taking away my right to live as a serial killer! And those crazy non-killers are dumb enough to claim that they have a right to not have bullets in their brains! Silly hippies, don't they know that so-called "right" isn't even in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights at all?!

[imacmatt09 @ Oct 10th 2007 9:46PM]

Maybe that will make me quit. Take my word for it don't start smoking.

[webon @ Oct 10th 2007 9:53PM]

quitting smoking is the easiest thang to do, I've done it thousands of times

[Typhoid Mary @ Oct 10th 2007 10:03PM]

Thanks Mark Twain :)

[Vagrant @ Oct 10th 2007 10:29PM]

Yeah...umm...so anyways, when the next smoker exits, we'll all go in through that door.

Smoker's enjoy smoking in pairs/groups. That thing isn't going to keep track of anyone as two, three, fifteen go in the door, as soon as one opens it.

[Paul @ Oct 10th 2007 10:34PM]

I read the subject and thought "wow, a fingerprint device that detects trace amounts of nicotine on fingers"

Then I read about the device.

This thing has -NOTHING- to do with smoking at all, that is just the way they are trying to market this thing.

You could use it to monitor employees use of bathrooms or access to the coffee room.

Quit getting all righteous about smoking, this device has nothing to do with it.

[JBo @ Oct 10th 2007 10:45PM]

Anyone who is willing to give up their biometric information for the purpose of lighting up is an idiot.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 1:58AM]

Pfft, anyone who lights up in the first place is an idiot.

[Katharsis @ Oct 11th 2007 3:37AM]

Who are you calling an idiot? Do you drive a car? If so, you're killing more people *and* ruining the environment with your toxic fumes than I do with my smoking. Do you know the ration between people dying in car accidents versus people dying from smoking? Are cars illegal? Right. I'll probably die in a car accident before I get a chance to develop cancer. Want to get self-righteous about smoking? Sell your car and buy a bike. Idiot.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 5:30AM]

What benefit do you get from a car? Transportation. What benefit do you get from a cigarette? Umm, a lighter wallet? Perhaps you smoked away the part of your brain that comprehended things like cost-benefit analysis.

[Katharsis @ Oct 11th 2007 6:32AM]

In front of a traffic light, you're in your car on your way to work. You could've taken public transport but you didn't because, well, you have a car. I pull up next to you on my bike, smoking a cigarette.
Your cost to me & others: noise, pollution, health risks, general traffic danger, congestion
Your cost to yourself: same + stress from congestion
Your benefit to me & others: -100
Your benefit to yourself: public transportation? Otherwise: fine, you need a car.
My cost to you and others: -100 (subtracting your cost #1)
My cost to myself: a lighter wallet, but money's not an issue right now. Cancer? Whatever.
My benefit to you & others: none, except in the negative because my cost is -100
My benefit to myself: I enjoy it.

Conclusion: if you really need a car, you really need a car. I won't bitch about it. You will about my smoking though. Now how is that fair? Looks like you don't even need to smoke to not be able to do a decent cost-benefit analysis.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 3:42PM]

As you mentioned, many people (including myself), don't live in an area with sufficient public transport to eliminate the need for a car (In fact, I'd argue most places in the US fall into that category). So, as you said, if I need a car (as I do), then fine.

But, why do you need a cigarette?

Just because you can? That can't be the reason because then you'd be contradicting your own car argument.

Because you're addicted? Well, you weren't born addicted, were you? So you obviously weren't addicted when you smoked your first one. So addiction doesn't explain why you "needed" that first one. Nobody held a gun to your head and said, "Here, smoke this cigarette or I'll kill you.", did they?

You admit that there are legitimate reasons to need a car. So, give me a good reason why you needed to start smoking, and I'll admit your car argument to be a perfectly valid analogy.

[shakman @ Oct 11th 2007 7:52PM]

@ Abscissa

I suppose you never enjoy a glass of wine, a cocktail, a beer...? Oh what, you quite enjoy a drink? But what is your benefit to society when you drink? What benefit to your health? Oh, but it's your choice. You enjoy a drink. C'mon, anti-smokers never play a straight bat. Admit it, you are unfairly biased against smokers.

I enjoy a cigarette occasionally, usually when I drink. That's right, I enjoy it. I'm not a hardcore smoker but, just like non-smokers who enjoy a drink, I enjoy a drink _and_ a smoke. We have laws in Australia preventing smoking at bars too, pain in the arse that it is. And my local just reduced the area of our beer garden, the only outdoor area that allows you to smoke and drink - great {sarcasm intended}.

I agree that you may not necessarily like to breath second hand smoke. You may be paranoid about its affects on your health and you have the right to feel that way if that's how you feel. But when a truck goes by you in the street letting out excess exhaust fumes do you flag down the driver and ask him to cease driving immediately? If you do you're an idiot and I can only hope that he is making an important delivery to your house and you have unwittingly delayed it. But you seem reasonably intelligent and I think your normal reaction would be to hold your breath until the truck has passed then continue on with your life.

Your subsequent emails regarding homicide are ludicrous and only show your desparation to make a valid point when you can't.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 11:16PM]

@Shackman:

"I suppose you never enjoy a glass of wine, a cocktail, a beer...? Oh what, you quite enjoy a drink?"

Not that it matters, but I don't/can't drink due to severe heartburn problems.

What does matter is that if someone is drinking right next to me, that causes no detriment to me, unlike smoking.

"But what is your benefit to society when you drink? What benefit to your health? Oh, but it's your choice."

Unlike smoking, drinking doesn't need a beneficial justification simply because it doesn't cause problems for bystanders that aren't already handled by appropriate laws (DUIs/DWI's, for instance)
"Admit it, you are unfairly biased against smokers."

If by "unfairly biased against smokers" you mean that I despise smokers just because they're smokers, then yes, absolutely. In fact, I won't merely admit that, I'll wave it around proudly.

"Admit it, you are unfairly biased against smokers."

If by "unfairly biased against smokers" you mean that I despise smokers just because they're smokers, then, yes, absolutely. In fact, I won't merely admit that, I'll wave it around proudly. I absolutely AM biased against smokers. I can't stand the bastards, and I make no apologies about it.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 11:19PM]

Meh, something in the copy/pasting screwed up and duplicated part of that post. THAT I'll apologize for ;)

[Katharsis @ Oct 12th 2007 3:49AM]

@Abscissa

Sorry, but your rebuke just doesn't make sense. You've been pwned but are too proud to admit it. That's fine.

[Abscissa @ Oct 13th 2007 6:06PM]

It makes perfect sense to anyone who hasn't smoked away half their brain. Try an actual rebuttal instead of that "You're just wrong" handwaving.

[Katharsis @ Oct 15th 2007 4:39AM]

You don't smoke, you don't drink. Can't be too hard to avoid going to a bar. Let bar owners choose if they allow smoking or no, and you just go to the boring places that don't allow it. I don't have that choice when it comes to cars. You've never even thought about people who drive their car for no good reason, laziness not being a good reason. I wonder how many cigarettes to the mile. You get all high and mighty (and extremely boring) about smokers but you don't care about cars. That, to me, is nonsense.

[Sirocco @ Oct 10th 2007 11:40PM]

I'm not a smoker myself, but have you no compassion for the wicked?

[suv4x4 @ Oct 11th 2007 6:27AM]

Nope.

[Spartacus @ Oct 11th 2007 2:24AM]

Damn you people are uptight. I need a cigarette after reading this thread.

[CB @ Oct 11th 2007 4:06AM]

Ad expected the never ending job of singleing out potential harm and getting a focus group to find a scientist who will 'prove' it's harmful, no matter how obscure the link, then having it banned will go on and on . 'common sense' has long left the building.
A friend of mine is a public health official and she confirmed that now smoking is banned they are all out after alcohol, starting with potential legislation for before work/lunchtime drinking, drining, including looking at technology to check your sobriety, OK many firms ahve this in place allready, but when it becomes the law of the land things start to get silly, it will be drugs next, then your fitness, weight, general health,DNA....BIG BROTHER!!!!!!!!

[shakman @ Oct 11th 2007 9:27PM]

Hey CB, I hope you don't live down-under. I work night shift and my only option to have a social drink with my workmates is in the morning. We don't get rolling drunk but people walking past the early openers always look sideways at you. I find it quite amusing. There are a lot more people working night shift than most people think and in all lines of work (I'm in Banking/Finance). Making legislation that bans the sale of alcohol in the morning and/or at lunch-time would force me to have everyone back at my place to socialise, and the neighbours sure won't like a party breaking out at 7am :)

[E-Nasty @ Oct 11th 2007 4:36AM]

People crack me up with the crap about "Oh what if I have to work in a bar or other establishment which allows smoking?"

YOU DON'T, DIPSHIT.

There are certain occupational hazards. Roofers are in danger of falling off of roofs. Police officers are in danger of being shot, assaulted, etc. Commission-Only salespeople are in danger of not getting a steady paycheck. These are things that one realizes before accepting a job. Dealing with smoke in a bar, restaurant, club, etc is an occupational hazard. If you don't like it, find a new job, fucktard.

People hear about "rights" and the Constitution. Read the fucking thing. There aren't any rights mentioned for clean air, gay marriage, privacy, abortion, etc. Also (while I'm on my soapbox), if you're an ILLEGAL alien, you don't have rights for shit. Go home. Come back and do it right. We speak ENGLISH here in America.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 5:31AM]

Calm down, Archie Bunker.

[Ty @ Oct 11th 2007 12:39PM]

You anti-smoking west coasters are so cute I want to hug you.

[Abscissa @ Oct 11th 2007 3:31PM]

Nice try, I'm a Clevelander.

[Ty @ Oct 11th 2007 3:35PM]

Hugs for you!

[Steve @ Oct 13th 2007 12:54PM]

I had some woman TELL me to put my cigarette out while standing at a bus stop in the street while she was standing in a thick cloud of exhaust from the bus. There's one way to deal with non-smokers who've decided to become health inspectors. Tell them to fuck off. I find those two simple words quite effective in day to day city living.

[People-Suck @ Oct 14th 2007 10:25AM]

Here it is. If it's a privately owned establishment, that caters to adults, do whatever the hell you want with it. It is your property and you can decide if smoking's allowed or not. I would certainly hope that if you cater to families or children that you would care enough to not allow smoking, but again, it's your right to have a smoke filled Chucky Cheese type establishment if you want.
I think the bigger complaint is smokers usual disregard for people around them. Like Anonymous pointed out, you set your tobacco and paper product on fire releasing smoke and toxins into the air. Fine, your body, do what you want. The problem is when you do this in a crowd of people that aren't in a private establishment, but outside trying to enjoy the norm which is smoke free air (minus smog and everything else). You are altering their environment by smoking, they aren't altering yours by not. So again, have some @#$#$ courtesy for other people and how you affect them and don't be trapped in your "me" world and think the world revolves around you. And i also agree that you should try using an ashtray instead of just throwing your butts in the street or out your car window -just another since of no respect for people or our planet (not a hippie either).
In summary... Place of business... it's up to you whether you want to allow smoking.
Smokers... it's up to you whether you want to smoke, just don't be so selfish to impose your nasty habit on others... it's your decision to smoke, not ours.
Non-Smokers... smokers are right that you shouldn't be forcing your non-smoking way of life on proprietors of private establishments. If you feel that strongly, lobby your congressman to make smoking illegal outright, but don't say it's ok to smoke and then limit every establishment to be non-smoking against the owner's will.