JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
0
peachy871
I have to admit...at first glance, didn't agree with Icewind. At second glance, realized that Icewind did not mention condoning violence at all but was talking about why the police decided not to get off their butts to do something about it. And unfortunately Icewind may have a point. While violence is wrong, the laws in Japan are far too lax when it comes to domestic violence, violence against women/children, stalking etc. So although they should be doing something about it, current laws don't seem to compel them to unless "a crime was committed"...and far too often, that crime winds up being an irreversible act, like murder.
And hey...maybe I didn't read the article closely enough yesterday or something was edited since I last read it but the last line clearly shows that the mother didn't lay charges when she consulted the police. Hmmm...was that her being hesitant or did they tell her she didn't have grounds to lay charges?
Posted in: High school student arrested for stabbing father in Chiba
0
peachy871
The mother already tried that. The police won't get involved unless a crime is committed (read, someone gets killed). In other words, the police obviously don't consider domestic violence a crime thus fail to do anything about it until too late.
Easy to understand the boy's feelings and his desire to protect his mother and little brother. Yes, obviously attempted murder is the wrong way to get out of the situation. But there needs to be more avenues for people in this type of situation so that they can escape it and not have to fear being left destitute because an abuser has complete power over their lives.
Posted in: High school student arrested for stabbing father in Chiba
0
peachy871
I like the 3-D experience. I watched both Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3-D and liked the depth it added to the movies. That being said, I don't think I could really imagine 3-D being as effective or crucial to films that aren't heavily based on CG or a fantasy storyline. Maybe that will come about. And likely in time, further technology will eliminate the need for the glasses. For now, I think 3-D has finally found its niche and is here to stay.
Article Unavailable
0
peachy871
Carrying around mikoshi and giving a shake isn't wild. Now Danjiri festivals...those are wild!! The folks in those are nuts!! I love watching both types! Can't really beat festival atmosphere in Japan!
Posted in: Sanja Festival
0
peachy871
I am so glad to see something like this on the market. With this product, Japan should have no problem going ahead and making a lot of places non-smoking! Maybe they will be less cowardly about banning cigarettes in restaurants, bars, etc.! Yay!!
I have always thought smokers should be allowed to smoke if it can be done in a way that does not harm others. I drink, I am aware of the dangers of alcohol and what it can do to my body but I am also aware if I consume alcohol, it is not harming someone else's health. Cigarette smokers, however, can harm others around them when smoking...or at the very least, cause others to go home with their clothes and hair stinking. This new product, if it is chemically similar to a cigarette, well, smokers know the damage they might be doing to their bodies if they suck those chemicals into their bodies. Their choice, it is their will. Now, I don't have to worry about "second-hand smoking" against my will. Great product. Bring it!!
Posted in: Smokeless tobacco product goes on sale
0
peachy871
LOL @ papasmurf...love the posts! And you are so right...even if one abhors them, they are so ubiquitous that you can't help but know their names and have no idea how that information ever got in your head because you certainly didn't seek it out!! It only took me about 2 months before I knew who each one was...still trying to figure out how that happened...
Posted in: SMAP to begin nationwide tour July 31
0
peachy871
They could have been arguing or doing something else. And if they weren't arguing, it isn't really a big stretch to figure out what got out of control.
Posted in: Woman found strangled in Tokyo hotel after suspect turns himself in
0
peachy871
Yay! Some eye-candy for the gals! Looove Abe...gotta be one of the hottest actors around! And he looks like a man! Not all effeminate and over-coiffed! rowwwrrrrr!
Article Unavailable
0
peachy871
Actually, it would make much more sense for the smokers to be sent to the upper floor of anywhere that decides a whole floor can be designated for smoking. The smoke does travel upward and I have been to upper floor that were non-smoking but they just smelled of the smoke that was coming up the stairwell from below. Non-smokers should have the first floor and the smokers the second; simple logic.
And to be honest...love yourock's comment! All this back and forth and suddenly a random statement! Cracked me up!!
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
But the point is, restaurants are eating establishments. I go there to eat. Not to smoke. And the folks who choose fatty food from the menu do so at their own risk...that food goes into their body and doesn't affect anyone else's. Not a very good argument if you are trying to support sending nicotine and tar through the air over to where I am trying to taste my meal, be it salad, rice or kushikatsu.
Just the same...I really think smokers should have a place to smoke. Designated smoking areas..ah frig it...no matter what I or anyone else types about smoking areas, we are just going to get rebuttals about being fascists and wanting to outlaw smoking and that we are just imagining health risks from smoking, etc.
Many smokers cannot quit or at least don't want to. Either they are addicted to it physically (their body needs the nicotine) or mentally (certain situations make them want to light up; it's habitual rather than a physical need). Those folks should indeed be given spots where they can light up but such that it doesn't affect others who choose not to light up.
For many years, non-smokers have had to be the ones to seek out somewhere special to enjoy fresher air...but it is coming to light that non-smokers are in the vast majority so it would make more sense for them to have more space and the smaller number of people to have less space.
Having or not having space for non-smokers and space for smokers isn't really the issue; these things are already starting to happen in Japan (welcome to the 80s!), the newer problem now are those who choose to ignore non-smoking designations and light up anyway where they are prohibited to. That is the bigger issue here.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
Here...a scientific paper regarding smoking in Japan and why some people quit. Disclaimer: lots of big words; some folks might want to have a dictionary handy. LOL (just teasing!)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598550/pdf/336.pdf
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
A lot of posters on here are not advocating a total ban on smoking, they are only saying that it makes sense for smoking to be relegated to SPECIFIC SMOKING AREAS away from other people. It is not a difficult concept, really. But most of the smokers on here see "please don't smoke around me" and instantly translate that into "all smoking should be banned everywhere and cigarettes should not exist anywhere ever". Please try to read what many are actually writing on here and stop playing martyr.
All many of us on here are trying to say is that smoking stinks, it is hazardous to your health, the health of others so perhaps designated smoking areas are the way to go.
And I hadn't thought of this at all until this thread, but why are non-smokers the ones who have to be actively polite with regard to the smoking issue. Why on Earth can't it be proper etiquette for a smoker to ask first before lighting up around others? Non-smokers are the ones not smoking yet are expected to be humble and the ones who must practice proper etiquette in a smoking situation. What???
There is not one thing wrong with smoking bans in public places, especially considering that when those bans are enacted, smokers are usually indeed provided with somewhere to go to support their habit.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
I do! I do! Do I get a prize now? I have chronic, although slight, bronchial problems, one of my brothers has respiratory problems and my mother suffered throat problems. And our family, on both sides has a strong history of extremely good health; such problems don't exist in our family either now or with the generations before us...except for my family who had a smoker in the house for several years. Fortunately, my father stopped smoking in the house after my mother's run in with the doc and her problems cleared up. My brother's problems remain but are better than they used to be and I daresay getting a chest cold is not as much torture for me as it used to be. But what do I know?
I think you will find that is what many folks on here are saying. Instead of making non-smoking the exception, it should be the rule and the smokers should finally be the exception, they should be the ones to relegated to the special areas...not everywhere. There is truly no point, for example, in having a smoking section in a restaurant. But the mall that has opened up near me has smoking rooms: nice little enclosed areas for the smokers to go do their thing if they can't handle shopping for an hour without a fagg. I think that is fair.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
I agree wholeheartedly Cleo, it is time for it to be up to the government to designate smoking areas.
It has been stated over and over on here that if non-smokers don't want someone to smoke around them, they should ask the smoker to refrain. So basically, those folks are saying that the onus is on the majority of society who have made a conscious choice not to stick known carcinogens in their mouths and light up??? It is their responsibility to fend off smoke that offends them or harms their health? Why isn't the responsibility on the smokers to be polite? Let me rephrase that...the smokers who light up anywhere they bloody well please (not all smokers are that callous!). For a change, if a smoker in a public place is about to light up, how about he or she take a turn at being the polite one and ask nearby folks if they mind? Is that so much to ask?
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
manfromamerica...all very good points but the problem is, many smokers cop an attitude when asked not to smoke in an area that is neither designated non-smoking nor smoking. Of course smokers are people too...everyone knows that. Smoking does not make someone a bad person. The thing is, the "good smokers", (like my own father who hasn't smoked in anyone's home in decades; always goes outside) are not the ones who are imposing their smoke on others. It is those who are indifferent to the fact that children are near them, or they are next to other people, or who choose to scoff at non-smoking signs who are the problem. And some of we "childish" people who are shy for various reasons, have difficulty getting up the courage to ask someone to kindly smoke elsewhere when we have either witnessed or been personally subject to a barrage of abuse in such a situation.
For so many years now, non-smoking areas have been few and far between. Smoking is permitted in many places in Japan still. It is indeed changing and so it should. Non-smokers are the majority but they have been the ones who have been forced into the non-smoking areas. Why can't it be reversed? Shouldn't the majority of the population have a say? Make most places in public non-smoking and for a change, have the smokers seek out smoking areas. That is starting to happen in some places and I think it is totally fair. Smokers are in the minority should should be allotted space accordingly. Oops...I must be a "monster"; just suggested fair treatment for non-smokers even though suggesting smokers still get a place to smoke. Shame on me.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
That is hilarious, illsayit. I am sure you are not addicted, but you might want to choose phrasing a little different than every addict in denial uses. If you can stop at your own will, prove it. LOL. Seriously though, perhaps you are not addicted, perhaps it doesn't affect you so much. But not everyone is you. Every person is different and can be affected in different ways by smoke, alcohol, stress...bla bla bla...our bodies and minds react and can handle it in varying degrees. Most smokers are addicted to the nicotine while some are not.
Perhaps illsayit, you don't agree with the health hazard issue. Good point. Science is just stupid, isn't it? I mean, the fact that, when my father still used to smoke in the house, my mother developed throat problems, was called a liar by the doctor who performed the throat scope when she told the doc that she has never smoked a cigarette in her life. Then, miraculously, it got better in leaps and bounds after my father ceased smoking around her...yeah, it's all ridiculous. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Look, all smokers can disagree all they want with the health hazard issue and sure, tobacco might not be the only cause for some things, but it is a main factor in many problems. Normal, healthy everyday living doesn't cause a build-up of tar in the lungs. Not sure what does, since smoking doesn't, according to your theory. Maybe because people heard of tar building up in the lungs, the suggestion then planted firmly in their heads, their lungs just magically produced tar on their own. Maybe someone who heard the suggestion that nicotine and carbon monoxide increases blood pressure wouldn't have developed high blood pressure if no one educated them that it was so.
But wait a minute! If the power of suggestion is so strong, why did so many people develop a build-up of tar in their lungs, lung cancer, ephysema, and so on back when everyone was told that smoking was healthy? I guess people back then weren't so susceptible to the power of suggestion and became sick despite the proclaimed health benefits of tobacco.
Sorry, but the argument is a really weak one. Nice try though.
I have no problem with people smoking but I have a huge problem with folks who don't keep it to themselves.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
Strange, anyone I have ever seen or heard politely telling a smoker that they are in a non-smoking zone or even point out where the smoking area is, was either given a dirty look and were ignored or were yelled at. Unfortunately for me, I am someone who is very uncomfortable with confrontation so I refrain from asking for my rights as someone who chose not to be a smoker.
Fair enough, while some folks on here say they had no trouble quitting once they made their mind up or that they have no trouble going without a cigarette for extended periods, not all smokers can do that; everyone's body is different with regard to addiction. I totally understand how addictive smoking can be for some (grew up with a smoking parent who constantly tried to quit). So those folks who can't kick the habit and choose to continue smoking need a place to smoke. It is the smokers who don't care about anyone else who need to be told how to practice some etiquette and not smother the clothes and hair and lungs of the rest of us in smoke.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
Actually, opinions is what this blog is for. As for anti-smokers having a say, if they are residents in Japan, of course they can complain about it and even support Japanese who feel the same way. While I respect your opinions, I think many folks find it difficult to ignore smoke when they wind up covered in it just because they chose to dine at a family restaurant or have a coffee somewhere. Smokers should be allowed to smoke, yes, but not everywhere.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
HeyLars, have to admit you do have a good point there. I don't like the stink that wafts by out of the cars from smokers, but I suppose it is only for a second. And yes, the fumes coming out of the cars is horrible too. Can't wait for the day that changes.
Actually that number is just about right. Probably slightly more accurate if it read "about 25 years behind". I distinctly remember in the mid-eighties when my father could no longer smoke in his office and it seemed hilarious to we kids that he would have to huddle outside with the other smokers. Then came the caged in smoking areas in eating establishments in the late 80s/early 90s and not long after that, no smoking in anywhere with food...in fact no smoking anywhere public at all except bars and clubs. And since then, smoking wound up banned even in the bars and clubs.
Here, in restaurants, I try my best to enjoy my food despite the clouds of cigarette smoke that adds an extra je ne sais quoi to the flavour. And as long as I have been here, it still throws me for a loop when I walk into an office and it smells of stale and fresh smoke while the staff smoke away at their desks.
Japan still has a loooong way to go but they are working on it! If the French can ban smoking, surely the Japanese can start to learn to smoke in the smoking areas rather than pretend they have no idea what the no smoking symbol they are standing next to, means. lol They will get there!
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run
0
peachy871
I understand where baka is coming from...I have gotten that too, just as a car goes by when I am walking down the sidewalk or when standing at a crosswalk waiting to cross. I know I have gotten a few seconds of stink in my face. I wouldn't really consider smoking to big a deal if it wasn't for second hand smoke.
That is hilarious! There are SO many countries with much stricter non-smoking rules and they haven't collapsed or fallen under some tyrannical regime!! What a paranoid knob! And banning smokers without sound evidence? Has the guy got no education whatsoever? There is pllllennnty of evidence out there.
And sorry...they have to pass laws to stop people from smoking at the hospital? That just blows me away. I know smoking in hospitals back home in the West was banned because we had to pass laws to get it banned, yes. But that was decades ago...the evidence is out there and in this day and age, it is ridiculous to even imagine a cigarette in a hospital.
I wish someone could invent a smokeless cigarette. I am not anti-smoking, I am anti-sharing-your-crappy-smoke-with-me. Butt out.
Posted in: Anti-smoking 'monsters' have smokers on the run