Ohio just passed a smoking ban in all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, or places of employment...

Since i live in ohio, its been talked about quite a bit, so i thought i'd bring the discussion here.

While i agree in principle with the law, i.e. you should be able to go out for a drink or dinner without having to deal with second hand smoke, it seems of course there are instances where the law is being enforced even though common sense says something else.

One example... Truck Drivers are NOT allowed to smoke IN THEIR CABS because it is a "place of employment"... and they even are REQUIRED to post a "no smoking" sign! :lolhit:

Okay.. the law was made so OTHER people didn't have to smell your smoke. I would imagine that if YOU smoke, you won't mind the second hand smoke. And if you were a truck driver and wanted to complain, you could complain to yourself, and i'm sure you'd listen to what you have to say.... okay i'll stop. But seriously.. that is a prime example of common sense and the law being on opposing sides.

I heard many reports on Bowling Alleys losing 50% of their customers the day the ban went into effect...

I've heard idiots on the radio call in and say this law shouldn't be allowed because its limiting their "way of life" or something like that... which is complete BS. Ohio didnt BAN smoking.. they just said you can't do it in bars and restaurants or places of employment. You are welcome to step outside and smoke. So you CANNOT say that the government is somehow "controlling" you.. because that would be a lie, and it is a scare tactic.

And to be honest... While it might be a lifestyle choice.. smoking really doesnt do anyone any good. The argument could be made "the less the better" as far as smoking goes.. but i know Liberals wouldn't dare here a word of that.. i mean, how dare I have the NERVE to say something is WRONG.. even when there are years of medical research and data to back me up, along with millions of early graves resided by lung cancer victims.

I am a realist.. so i'll get to the point. I think the law did more good than bad, but it is a bit too strict. I do have a few suggestions for the State of Ohio.. not that anyone who can do anything will read them:

1. Allow certain bars to obtain a smoking license, depending on your alcohol to food ratio. If you are mostly a restaurant, you should be a no smoking. But if you are a shithole bar... smoking should be allowed. Put a "surgeon general's warning" on the door, so people know what they are getting into.

2. Don't say truckers can't smoke in their own trucks.. that is beyond retarded

3. Don't allow laws to be passed before they are fully written.

Yes you read that right.. the ban is actually not yet enforceable. Why, you ask? The freakin bill ISNT EVEN FULLY WRITTEN YET. They can slip in anything they want, put a nice little juicy bottom line, pain-in-the-ass, stipulation. What the hell is that all about?

Its like me having this convo with my parents:

ME:"can i go out tonight?"
PARENTS: "well what are you going to be doing?"
ME: "well i'm not sure, but can i go?"
PARENTS: "well okay, you did your chores"
ME: "Awesome.. because yea we are going to buy some crack, kill a few babies, and then top it off with a nice hooker from East 55th street!.. i'm glad you gave me permission mom! love ya!"

Taxes keep going up on cigarettes, and any realist knows that Browns Stadium, Gund Arena, and all those big tourist attracting, revenue making mammoths in Cleveland were BUILT by smokers and their high taxes on cigarettes. It seems smokers will get the short end of the stick.. so this is how they thank you huh?

So yea, they got it right, but they went too far...

I was really happy when I heard it passed. In addition to not wanting to breathe in second-hand smoke, smoke irritates me very easily and on several occasions I've had to leave bars and restaurants early due to simply being miserable. I have no problems with people smoking as long as they don't do it near me.

One example... Truck Drivers are NOT allowed to smoke IN THEIR CABS because it is a "place of employment"... and they even are REQUIRED to post a "no smoking" sign!

That specific scenario is certainly silly, but keep in mind this is designed for the bartenders and the like that have to be around smokers all day. Also, the way I understand the law is that this is being policed by setting up a hotline that someone calls when an establishment is violating the law. So, unless the trucker blows the whistle on himself...he should be fine.

edit: You live in Avon Decka? Hah...I live in Lakewood during the week and spend the weekends in Lorain...small world :)

Quote "And to be honest... While it might be a lifestyle choice.. smoking really doesn't do anyone any good. The argument could be made "the less the better" as far as smoking goes.. but i know Liberals wouldn't dare here a word of that.. i mean, how dare I have the NERVE to say something is WRONG.. even when there are years of medical research and data to back me up, along with millions of early graves resided by lung cancer victims."

Obviously smoking is not good for you. But,your quote above could be rewritten replacing "smoking" with different types of food and drink. Certain fats and alcohol for example. I hope you won't begin to make complaints when governments begin to ban these substances as well.

I am a realist.. so i'll get to the point. I think the law did more good than bad, but it is a bit too strict. I do have a few suggestions for the State of Ohio.. not that anyone who can do anything will read them:

1. Allow certain bars to obtain a smoking license, depending on your alcohol to food ratio. If you are mostly a restaurant, you should be a no smoking. But if you are a shithole bar... smoking should be allowed. Put a "surgeon general's warning" on the door, so people know what they are getting into.

2. Don't say truckers can't smoke in their own trucks.. that is beyond retarded

3. Don't allow laws to be passed before they are fully written.

Good post.

I agree in principle with pretty much everything you're saying.

I think that capitalism should be allowed to work. Let all businesses designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking. Post it clearly outside the door. Let people know before taking a job in such an establishment what the policies are, and let them decide for themselves whether they want to work there. Let customers decide which businesses they wish to patronize. Live and let live.

I heard many reports on Bowling Alleys losing 50% of their customers the day the ban went into effect...

Where I live in Canada we have been smoke free for many years. Businesses in my area complained, screamed and yelled over the amount of money that they lost (at first). However that levels out. People that wouldn't frequent establishments prior to the ban now will because they can breathe while they eat/drink/bowl. Most bars and restuarants have sheltered areas outside where smokers now congregate. There are usually ashtrays and wind/snow shelters.

As for the truckers, the only restriction I would place there is no smoking in the rig if you don't own it. If it's yours puff away. If you are just driving it, that becomes unfair to the owner and others who will have to drive it later.

I think that capitalism should be allowed to work. Let all businesses designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking. Post it clearly outside the door.

I disagree somewhat with that position. Banning smoking will not prevent "capitalism from working".

There has to be SOME point at which it is desirable for an authoritative force --the government in this instance-- to intercede on the behalf of the common good, and tell the one group who are releasing carcenogenic gasses into the immediate atmosphere that all of us must breathe that they can no longer do it where others have to breathe their noxious, unhealthy smoke fumes.

The smokers are not being told they can never smoke again; just that they must not do it where other people have to partake of it with them.

Seems eminently fair to me........except for the preposterous rule about the truck drivers. That is indefensible, for the government or anyone else to mandate that a truck driver cannot smoke in his own truck.

This is one horrible law. You cannot force people not to smoke in public spaces. Where are they supposed to smoke? In their own houses? Come on... the sidewalk belongs equally to us all, whoever wants to smoke, smoke wherever the fuck you want. This bullshit law is not going to last because there is no way of enforcing it...people will still smoke where they please and nothing is going to happen. It will only take one person to get fined and if it's the right person he'll take it to court and a huge scandal is going to erupt.

This is one horrible law. You cannot force people not to smoke in public spaces.

It is a very good law. Not only can you do it, it should be done everywhere. I should not be forced to breathe in another person's caginogenic smoke. Let them kill themselves somewhere where I do not have to share in it.

Come on... the sidewalk belongs equally to us all,

Yet the freedom to do anything you want on the sidewalk does NOT exist. you are not allowed to shit on the sidewalk. I think we'd both agree that that is an excellent rule. Well, it is ALSO an excellent idea to not allow people to fill the sidewalks with noxious, unhealthy smoke fumes. I personally would about as soon step over somone's excrement that to breathe in their fetid, stinking smoke fron their cigar or cigarette.

Where are they supposed to smoke? In their own houses?

Yes. That's one place they could use. Unless they have children. Then, they should not be allowed to smoke there either. Perhaps they could build a small carcinogenitorium out back for the purpose.

It will only take one person to get fined and if it's the right person he'll take it to court and a huge scandal is going to erupt.

Bring it on. The times are changing, and the pendulum is begining to swing in favor of non-smokers.

Its just a matter of time bfore the society comes to its senses and forces those who want to inhale deadly fumes to not do it in the presence of the rest of us.

It is a very good law. Not only can you do it, it should be done everywhere. I should not be forced to breathe in another person's caginogenic smoke. Let them kill themselves somewhere where I do not have to share in it.

You are not forced to, if you don't like it, move away from that person. Why should he leave? Just because he smokes...?

Yet the freedom to do anything you want on the sidewalk does NOT exist. you are not allowed to shit on the sidewalk. I think we'd both agree that that is an excellent rule. Well, it is ALSO an excellent idea to not allow people to fill the sidewalks with noxious, unhealthy smoke fumes. I personally would about as soon step over somone's excrement that to breathe in their fetid, stinking smoke fron their cigar or cigarette.

The smoke from the ciggarette will go up in the air and you will never even breath it, unlike polution, or should we ban that too???

Yes. That's one place they could use. Unless they have children. Then, they should not be allowed to smoke there either. Perhaps they could build a small carcinogenitorium out back for the purpose.

Agreed, children is one thing I can understand.

Bring it on. The times are changing, and the pendulum is begining to swing in favor of non-smokers. Its just a matter of time bfore the society comes to its senses and forces those who want to inhale deadly fumes to not do it in the presence of the rest of us.

Actually, the majority of the people smoke, I don't see how the pendulum is swinging the way of the non-smoker.. This law will change, and it's going to change soon.

How do you think the owners of bars, restaurants and such feel. They are losing clientele. And as most of their clientele are smokers, then they are losing business. They can't afford that, so they will do something about it. Things will change.

Terrible idea, banning smoking on a person's private property, on which they pay taxes.
Kids or not.
But, if they wish to pursue this, they can also tell parents to ban fatty foods, too much pop, too much tv, and "dangerous" outdoor equipment, like a swingset.




edited for typos

You are not forced to, if you don't like it, move away from that person. Why should he leave? Just because he smokes...?

You have it backwards. I am not the one doing something objectionable and health-endangering. I should not have to segregate myself from the situation...the person spewing carcinogensg into the public space shoud be the one forced to remove himself.

The smoke from the ciggarette will go up in the air and you will never even breath it, unlike polution, or should we ban that too???

BZZZZZZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing. I have walked down sidewalks and I get a VERY strong breathe of what others are smoking. And yes, we SHOULD begin working to eliminate pollution.


Actually, the majority of the people smoke, I don't see how the pendulum is swinging the way of the non-smoker..

Actually, you are as woefully MISinformed about that as you are about the rest of the issue.

Approximately 22 percent of the adult population in the US are smokers.


How do you think the owners of bars, restaurants and such feel. They are losing clientele. And as most of their clientele are smokers, then they are losing business.

We heard all the same --"If you ban skoking, many of these places of business will suffer grave economic consequences!"-- nonsense in California when smoking was banned there. It did not come to pass. Your prophecies are groundless.

Ok, so I don't know some numbers, made a false statement. I still believe that this law will be changed rather fast. There is no way of enforcing it.

I voted against it myself, based on my rather libertarian leanings, but inasmuch as I really hate sitting in smokey restaurants, I'm not terribly outraged.

The current complete inability of the government to enforce the law is a good example of why it's usually better to lobby your elected officials to pass the laws you want instead of passing them by referendum, though.

Great topic, Decka. I agree with you, too.

It seems smokers will get the short end of the stick.. so this is how they thank you huh?

No shit. If the sanctimonious non-smoking public had any idea about smoking and the true cost to society (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/cost.htm), they'd crap their pants.

Actually, you are as woefully MISinformed about that as you are about the rest of the issue. Approximately 22 percent of the adult population in the US are smokers.

Are you aware, FT, that that small percentage of smokers supports the other 78% of non-smokers to the tune of $4.3 billion net, annually? And that's after considering the added healthcare costs associated with smoking... Canadian smokers contribute to their economy 4.5 times more than their American counterparts.

Non-smokers are so eager to insist people abandon their personal habits and force them to adopt the non-smoker's glorious way of life. But just imagine if all the smokers quit tomorrow....

The federal government could forget about the billions of dollars in taxes/fines it takes from cigarette companies every year. Do you have any idea how much each state counts on those cigarette tax dollars? Education funding would plummit, nationwide. And can you imagine how many people would be out of work, how many small businesses would fold if no one smoked anymore? We're not just talking about huge cigarette manufacturing companies like RJR Reynolds, but the millions of people and hundreds of industries that support them - small tobacco farmers, companies that make other smoking products (such as pipes, lighters, ash trays, book matches, snuff, chew, etc.) The national AND global economies would suffer dramatically.

And THEN who would we bleed dry to make up the difference in tax revenue? The elderly? God knows we spend enough money on healthcare for millions of old farts that're just gonna croak in a month or three anyway. And how about the fatties? How much do they add to our nation's healthcare costs, how much downtime do they cause businesses? Ooh, I know! We'll go after the people who own/work at fast-food joints! Hell, they're contributing to the delinquency of the obese - they should pay a price for that!

:mad:

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of paying the bills for all the prissy, whiney, pristine-and-proud-of-it non-smokers (especially the obese ones!). About time you people paid your OWN damned freight.

Pun intended.

:upyours:

Smoking bans in public places are good things. Smoking is a form of assault and criminal mischief, where smoking individuals harm the individuals surrounding them as well as much of the nearby property near them. For that reason, I think it's marginally criminal behavior and should be treated as such.

NYC has recently banned trans-fats. However, fat trannies are still legal.

:)
SMW

Hah--do I have grounds for a lawsuit because a fat person sat in a chair in a restaurant, damaged it, but you couldn't tell that the legs were weak, and then I sat in it and it broke?
Seems to me that's a CRIME.:eek:

I am tired of being treated and looked at like I'm a crank addicted welfare mom because I --gasp--light up in my own car, or, WORSE, in my own home with kids present.

Smoking in a public place is one thing--telling smokers what they can and cannot do on their own land is something else.

If they want my cigarettes, come and get them.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that people should only be allowed to smoke in their own homes. They may rent an apartment where they aren't allowed to smoke. Then they have nowhere to smoke. That is in effect a means-discriminatory smoking ban. Irresponsible to say the least.

Thanks for replying everyone...

Bit.. Smoking ISNT being "banned"... you can still smoke outside. And while FT might disagree i think its perfectly safe to walk around people who are smoking outside, because most of the smoke just blows away in the wind. And i did openly chuckle at the "shitting on the sidewalk" line... hehehe

It just still baffles me how a law can be passed even though its not even fully written yet... if the government wanted to, they sure could fuck us all over.... I hope it's not the beginning of a trend.

And Carbon.. yea i used to head out to Lorain every now and again.. i actually worked at the Pizza Pan on Route 58 about 3 years ago LOL. I also used to work in Cleveland... yea its a small world indeed.

I think that capitalism should be allowed to work. Let all businesses designate themselves as smoking or non-smoking. Post it clearly outside the door. Let people know before taking a job in such an establishment what the policies are, and let them decide for themselves whether they want to work there. Let customers decide which businesses they wish to patronize. Live and let live.

That sounds perfectly logical to me.

As for the part about the bill being passed before it was even finished being written, why isn't anyone outraged about that?? Not a good idea at all.

As for the part about the bill being passed before it was even finished being written, why isn't anyone outraged about that?? Not a good idea at all.

Yeah, it's at least a sloppy practice. I'd like to know more about the situation though before I condemn it. For instance, maybe they've have already agreed to model the bill after a bill already in existance, or perhaps there is some record of the bill although it hasn't actually been written down.

I am tired of being treated and looked at like I'm a crank addicted welfare mom because I --gasp--light up in my own home with kids present.



I don't think it should be legislated against anymore than letting your kids eat hot dogs for dinner every day, but you have to admit that that's pretty irresponsible parenting.

Yeah, it's at least a sloppy practice. I'd like to know more about the situation though before I condemn it. For instance, maybe they've have already agreed to model the bill after a bill already in existance, or perhaps there is some record of the bill although it hasn't actually been written down.

It was a referendum put to the voters, actually. Whichever executive agency is in charge of enforcing the ban hasn't had enough time to write the regs stating how they're going to police it yet, since there was only a month between the election and the effective date.

Well, they could write that they're going to police it by killing smokers on the spot! Heehee...

Let customers decide which businesses they wish to patronize. Live and let live.
Sound so simple but it's not. There are costs to society that have to be considered. So society has every right to restrict or prohibit harmful behavior in public places. Not in a person's home however. Lets the kids start a class-action suit if they don't like it.

And to be honest... While it might be a lifestyle choice.. smoking really doesnt do anyone any good. The argument could be made "the less the better" as far as smoking goes.. but i know Liberals wouldn't dare here a word of that.. i mean, how dare I have the NERVE to say something is WRONG.. even when there are years of medical research and data to back me up, along with millions of early graves resided by lung cancer victims.

Actually, when ever I hear one of these discussions on the radio its always the conservatives arguing against the smoking bans. In fact, the only two people I've ever heard try to argue that 2nd hand smoke poses no danger, they were both conservatives.

I do agree with the rest of your post.

It's a great situation for everyone but the smoker. Let's see, State and Federal governments get zillions in revenue from those taxes they raised on cigarettes, the smokers ARE addicted to their products so not only is a lot of revenue raised, but it'll be a STEADY flow of revenue. And of course the anti-smoking nazis get to push their view on the ways things should be ran on smokers and they're breaking their arms patting themselves on the back getting laws like what happened in Ohio passed. Not that it'll stop smokers, you understand. They throw people in jail for smoking weed, yet a dedicated group of people not only smoke it, but they're trying to get it legalized. You guys have noticed that NO state has ever even considered a BAN on the sale of cigarettes, you want to talk about a loss of tax revenue, that would be a stake in the heart of any State government. So, basically our government plays both sides against the middle. They'll make laws RESTRICTING where tobacco can be used, which makes the anti-smoking zealots happy as pigs in mud, they'll wrap themselves in the cloak of morality stating that they're "discouraging" smokers from smoking by making it more expensive to smoke and lining their pockest with the cigarette tax revenue, but they won't actually ban the sale of tobacco. So the bucks keep on rolling in. Of course the smokers get more of their hard earned money taken from them and told to go smoke "somewhere else."

It really is a crock of shit what has happened with smokers, dammit.

I am tired of being treated and looked at like I'm a crank addicted welfare mom because I --gasp--light up in my own car, or, WORSE, in my own home

Gee.

My suggestion would be for you to STOP carrying those people in your car, or allowing those people into your home, who **look at you and treat you like you are a crank addicted welfare mom** whenever you light up there.

Of course the smokers get more of their hard earned money taken from them .....

This particular topic of a smoking law enacted in Ohio has nothing to do with more money being "taken from" smokers.

,,,,,,,and told to go smoke "somewhere else."

Yep, that's it.

THAT is the evil, horrendous thing that this law is attempting to do; to have the smokers smoke somewhere else.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, the humaaaaaanity!!!!!!

I am perfectly willing to allow for seperate but equal facilities for smokers and non-smokers. I think that should take the form of allowing businesses to decide whether to be smoking or non-smoking. This is similair to what happens in residences. If I visit someone who prefers I don't smoke in their house, then I don't smoke there. When someone visits my house, I am going to smoke. If they don't like it, they can leave.
The advantage to having seperate businesses is that smokers will be able to enjoy their cigarrettes in a place where others will accept this. Non-smokers will not be offended, because there will be signs to warn them of what to expect if they enter. Non-smokers will be able to have places where they can go without being bothered as well.
This seems reasonable to me. What seems unreasonable is being told that if I wish to go out for an evening, I must go outside to smoke regardless of the weather. If smokers wish to congregate with other smokers, what exactly are they doing to harm anyone but themselves. If you don't want to be where they are, then don't be there. If non smokers wish to congregate somewhere, and not allow smoking to annoy them, that is fine with me. I will choose to be elsewhere. I am willing to be tolerant of others who do not share my enjoyment of tobacco, I only ask that others be tolerant of me in return.

The law works very well in New York. No bars or restaurants have lost any significant business. In fact, many have seen their business increase as people who don't like breathing second hand smoke have begun to frequent them.

If smoking affected only the smoker I would be against anti-smoking laws but as non-smoking bystanders are also affected I am in favor of them.


New York City has recently passed an even more restrictive law. They have banned the use of transfats by commercial establishments.

Gee.

My suggestion would be for you to STOP carrying those people in your car, or allowing those people into your home, who **look at you and treat you like you are a crank addicted welfare mom** whenever you light up there.

If only it were that easy....a few are relatives. One couple is my son in law's parents--as sorry a fat and pompous couple of baboons I have yet to meet.

I would do away with em, but we get too big a laugh from watching them waddle , or struggle to get out of their chairs.

I am perfectly willing to allow for seperate but equal facilities for smokers and non-smokers. I think that should take the form of allowing businesses to decide whether to be smoking or non-smoking. This is similair to what happens in residences. If I visit someone who prefers I don't smoke in their house, then I don't smoke there. When someone visits my house, I am going to smoke. If they don't like it, they can leave.
The advantage to having seperate businesses is that smokers will be able to enjoy their cigarrettes in a place where others will accept this. Non-smokers will not be offended, because there will be signs to warn them of what to expect if they enter. Non-smokers will be able to have places where they can go without being bothered as well.

I agree with you completely.

I am willing to be tolerant of others who do not share my enjoyment of tobacco, I only ask that others be tolerant of me in return.

Never going to happen.

The law works very well in New York. No bars or restaurants have lost any significant business.

And that's probably going to be the case in most places, although any city on a border is going to lose business as all of the smokers head over the border.

New York City has recently passed an even more restrictive law. They have banned the use of transfats by commercial establishments.

Which, to me, is one of the more outrageous laws that's been passed this year. What business is it of the government to dictate what I do and do not eat? I'm sick of ninnies trying to save me from myself. I'm more than capable of doing that on my own.

Yep, that's it.

THAT is the evil, horrendous thing that this law is attempting to do; to have the smokers smoke somewhere else.

So, if a few members of society are annoyed by the activities of an even lesser number of other members of society, those other, fewer-numbering members of society should be sent outside/away?

Fine. Next time I'm on a plane with a screeching, squalling infant, I'll show them the door with impunity.

:rolleyes:

What seems unreasonable is being told that if I wish to go out for an evening, I must go outside to smoke regardless of the weather.

What IS unreasonable is being told that if I wish to go out for an evening, I must go outside to get away from YOUR smoke.

I am perfectly willing to allow for seperate but equal facilities for smokers and non-smokers.

I dunno.. some liberals on this board have made it clear that seperate but equal NEVER works... and isn't fair... like in Civil Unions vs. Marriage.

It sounds pretty right to me though..

I dunno.. some liberals on this board have made it clear that seperate but equal NEVER works... and isn't fair... like in Civil Unions vs. Marriage.

It sounds pretty right to me though..
How disingenuous.

Smoking is a harmful practice that can pollute the lungs of not only you, but those around you. Allowing gay marriage is not harmful to one's health.

Yep, that's it. THAT is the evil, horrendous thing that this law is attempting to do; to have the smokers smoke somewhere else.

So, if a few members of society are annoyed by the activities of an even lesser number of other members of society, those other, fewer-numbering members of society should be sent outside/away?

Nooooooo.......

...but when a majority of the members of a society are having their health harmed by the activities {i.e., the release of foul-smelling, carcinogenic fumes into the immediate atmosphere} of a lesser number of other members of society, then YES, those other fewer-numbered members of society should most certainly be sent outside/away.




Fine. Next time I'm on a plane with a screeching, squalling infant, I'll show them the door with impunity.


Not fine.

a) you (or those people who smoke) have to deal with crying babies far, FAR less than I (or other non smokers) have to deal with people's cigarette smoke.

b) a crying baby --while it WILL cause you roughly the same sort of aggravation and anger as cigarette smoke causes me and other people, in reflecting on how some people could not care less if they're annoying or bothering others-- will not harm your respiratory system.

Nooooooo.......
...but when a majority of the members of a society are having their health harmed by the activities {i.e., the release of foul-smelling, carcinogenic fumes into the immediate atmosphere} of a lesser number of other members of society, then YES, those other fewer-numbered members of society should most certainly be sent outside/away.

Oh give me a fucking break, you never even get to inhale the smoke as it vanishes into the air. (if you are talking about a restaurant, club or any sort of establishment, then yea I understand)

Nooooooo.......

...but when a majority of the members of a society are having their health harmed by the activities {i.e., the release of foul-smelling, carcinogenic fumes into the immediate atmosphere} of a lesser number of other members of society, then YES, those other fewer-numbered members of society should most certainly be sent outside/away.

I love it when extremists use bolding, colors, different fonts, and caps to make their point. So entertaining! :corn:

Now, Freethinker, you've made repeated assertions that a whiff or two of second-hand smoke significantly harms non-smokers. Do you have valid documentation to back this up? I'd be very interested to see the reports/statistics from reputable major studies on this subject - can you provide them?

You might want to read this first, tho: *

Smoking Out Bad Science
By Lorraine Mooney
Copyright 1998 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Wall Street Journal - European Edition (March 12, 1998)

For the past 15 years the anti-smoking lobby has pushed the view that cigarette smoking is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For having failed to persuade committed smokers to save themselves, finding proof that passive smoking harmed non-smoking wives, children or workmates meant smoking could be criminalized. Last week the science fell off the campaign wagon when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all.

But don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. smoking, like fox hunting, is something that certain factions want to ban simply because they don't like it. It has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one. Today, National No smoking Day in Britain will be marked by demagoguery from the Department of Health, which has already set its agenda to ban smoking. The U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco or Health (SCOTH) report on passive smoking, due out Thursday, is headed by a known anti-tobacco crusader, Professor Nicholas Wald of the Royal London School of Medicine.

However, it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.

This is what anyone with common sense might have expected. After all, the dose makes the poison. But in 1988, IARC decreed mainstream tobacco smoke as a carcinogen, fully expecting that the second-hand product would have a similar, lower effect which would be capable of measurement by linear extrapolation. In anticipation of confirmation of this belief many countries have been adopting anti-smoking policies in the name of public health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confidently stated that 3,000 Americans die annually from inhaling environmental tobacco smoke, and the state of California leads the pack with a total smoking ban in all public places enacted on Jan. 1, 1998. Although Iran did enact such a ban in 1996, this was overturned as unconstitutional. The Indian city of Delhi has a smoking ban and Britain is working toward one.

Before the IARC study, no other reliable study on ETS was available. For the effect of the modestly increased risk of ETS to be detected, the number of cases in the study must be very high in order to distinguish the effect from other background noise. Acting in the most unscientific manner, the U.S. EPA decided to pool results of 11 studies, 10 of which were individually non- significant, to arrive at a risk ratio of 1.19. As is always a problem with this kind of meta-analysis, the studies were all different from each other in various ways so that they were not measuring the same thing.

Last October, the British Medical Journal ran the results of a similarly flawed study by SCOTH's Mr. Wald claiming an increased risk of lung cancer from ETS of 26%. It was supported by an editorial and timed to coincide with noise from the anti-smoking lobby and a Department of Health press release, talking of "shocking" figures and alluding to innocent victims.

The Wald report has been dismissed as a "statistical trick" by Robert Nilsson, a senior toxicologist at the Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate and a professor of toxicology at Stockholm University. He says that there are so many unacknowledged biases in Mr. Wald's analysis that the alleged risk figure is meaningless. For example, Mr. Wald relies on data from the memories of spouses as to how much their dead partner used to smoke. Survey bias is often considerable, potentially far higher than the 26% estimate of increased risk, but this is not even mentioned by the authors. Mr. Nilsson also explains that Mr. Wald's meta-analysis has pooled data from non-comparable studies. His most stinging criticism is aimed at the BMJ editorial board, who he considers must be "innocent of epidemiology" to have allowed publication of the Wald paper in its existing form. --Wall Street Journal - European Edition (http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm)

Not fine.

a) you (or those people who smoke) have to deal with crying babies far, FAR less than I (or other non smokers) have to deal with people's cigarette smoke.

I'm curious to know what research methods you've used in your study of smoking. How many respondents were included in your survey? Did your survey include representative numbers of people who regularly travel for their jobs - flight attendants, for example? How about people who spend inordinate amounts of time with wailing babies - nurses and doctors, nannies, day-care workers, etc?

b) a crying baby --while it WILL cause you roughly the same sort of aggravation and anger as cigarette smoke causes me -- will not harm your respiratory system.

I agree - a hysterical, wailing infant will not harm my respiratory system. However, sustained high-decibel noises can easily damage one's hearing. Particularly when you're sitting right next to the source of the endless brain-curdling screeching and have no option to move away.

From blenders to rock concerts, the world today is a noisy place. So how loud is too loud? Bruce Plakke, associate professor of communicative disorders at UNI, says the answer might surprise most people.

''Vacuum cleaners, screaming babies, lawn mowers –- these can all cause noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss if the exposure occurs long enough,'' says Plakke. "Vacuum cleaners run 60 to 90 decibels (dBA); four hours of 90 dBA will result in hearing loss. Screaming babies are 100-117 dBA; all it takes is one hour at 100 dBA before hearing loss occurs." -- University of Northern Iowa (http://www.umpr.uni.edu/news.asp?NewsID=1146)


* Additional debunking of second-hand smoke myths, lies, and hysteria can be found here (http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm).

Hmm... I don't like second hand smoke. Even though I guess you could consider me a smoker. I don't even like my own second hand smoke... I hate smoking in a car with the windows closed. Makes me feel sick. I much prefer the smoke that goes through the filter than the smoke coming from the other end...

Hmm... I don't like second hand smoke. Even though I guess you could consider me a smoker. I don't even like my own second hand smoke... I hate smoking in a car with the windows closed.

I think you'd have a hard time finding many people who enjoy second-hand smoke, smokers included. This is why I never smoke in a car with non-smokers, and why I open the windows when I smoke in my own car. This is why I never smoke in the homes or vehicles of non-smokers. This is why, when I have non-smoking visitors staying with me, I don't smoke in my own home. This is why, when I'm out in public with a cigarette, I take particular pains to make sure the smoke doesn't annoy those around me. This is why I have a ceiling fan going in my home whenever I smoke. This is why I keep windows open, why I burn candles, why I use air fresheners and odor eliminators. I don't particularly enjoy a room full of smoke, just like anyone else.

So yes, second-hand smoke isn't particularly pleasant, but (and here's the main point) it will not give you lung cancer, radically damage your health, or kill you. Unfortunately, the smoker-haters out there aren't honest enough to admit this, to themselves or others. They invent dire health dangers and insist that society as a whole is at risk, when the actual truth is, they just don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Of course, you can't get legislation passed against something that you personally don't care for, so the lies, myths, and hysteria abound.

And nice folks like Nonthinker... er, Freethinker ... happily contribute to the smoker-haters' discrimination pogrom, even while smokers foot the bill for the nation's healthcare, education, etc.

Kind of pathetic, isn't it?

Oh, and one more thing - if you ever need blood, be sure to ask for a donation from a smoker. We have higher white cell counts than non-smokers, which helps the body defend against infectious disease and foreign materials in the immune system. If you're an O-neg like I am, blood donation centers literally beg for a pint or two.

And since I'm in no rush to do anything nice for the smoker-haters who've dedicated themselves to making my life more difficult, I think I'll begin insisting that my valuable blood donations be denied to the smoker-haters of the world.

I guess I can admit it. I'm a smoker-hater hater. ;)

You sound like a very courteous smoker. :)

So yes, second-hand smoke isn't particularly pleasant, but (and here's the main point) [b]it will not give you lung cancer, radically damage your health, or kill you[b]. Unfortunately, the smoker-haters out there aren't honest enough to admit this, to themselves or others. They invent dire health dangers and insist that society as a whole is at risk, when the actual truth is, they just don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Of course, you can't get legislation passed against something that you personally don't care for, so the lies, myths, and hysteria abound.

Nice argument coming from a self proclaimed extremist (nice use of bolding).

Breathing smoke is harmless? What are you smoking??? Spitting tobaco on you is harmless, so should that be allowed? If not, why not...because its unpleasant???

Good post, Fran.
As other posters have noted, you appear to be a polite smoker. I am as well, or I try to be, in the interests of courtesy.
I'm afraid that the discourteous smokers amiongst us, those who blatantly drop butts, blow smoke into other's faces, and generally just make oafs out of themselves, have it made it hard for the rest of us.

Yeah, I'm one of those smokers it's hard to complain about. :) And don't kid yourself; there are a lot of us out there.

But the smoker-haters continue their discrimination, anyway. Lovely people. :hahanot:

Spitting tobaco on you is harmless, so should that be allowed? If not, why not...because its unpleasant???

I believe this discussion is about the purported "health dangers" of second-hand smoke, and the legislation pushed forward by smoker-haters to discriminate against those of us who do smoke.

I've offered documented proof that those purported "health dangers" do not exist and have challenged those who spread such lies to provide their own proofs that second-hand smoke puts the public's health at risk.

If you have such proofs, please share them with us.

If you wish to begin a discussion about and/or bring forth legislation against spitting tobacco on passersby based on some sort of imagined health risk, be my guest. I suspect, however, that you will find no legitimate basis for such a health claim, even among the chewer-haters.

:cool:

Yeah, I'm one of those smokers it's hard to complain about. :) And don't kid yourself; there are a lot of us out there.

But the smoker-haters continue their discrimination, anyway. Lovely people. :hahanot:



I believe this discussion is about the purported "health dangers" of second-hand smoke, and the legislation pushed forward by smoker-haters to discriminate against those of us who do smoke.

I've offered documented proof that those purported "health dangers" do not exist and have challenged those who spread such lies to provide their own proofs that second-hand smoke puts the public's health at risk.

If you have such proofs, please share them with us.

If you wish to begin a discussion about and/or bring forth legislation against spitting tobacco on passersby based on some sort of imagined health risk, be my guest. I suspect, however, that you will find no legitimate basis for such a health claim, even among the chewer-haters.

:cool:

Forget the health dangers. The smell alone is enough to ban it. I don't care if it's smokers or perfume salesmen, no one should be able claim a right to make you reek of a noxious odor.

Smokers aren't being picked on, they're just mad that they're not getting the special treatment that they're used to.

Forget the health dangers. The smell alone is enough to ban it. I don't care if it's smokers or perfume salesmen, no one should be able claim a right to make you wreak of a noxious odor.

Smokers aren't being picked on, they're just mad that they're not getting the special treatment that they're used to.
What the hell are you talking about, "right"? If the smell is bothering you, go somewhere else. Eat at a different restaurant, drink at home instead of a bar. I don't smoke and I hate the smell of cigarette smoke to the point that I cough profusely whenever I smell one, but I hardly believe it a good idea to have the government enforce my opinion of this onto others. I avoid people who smoke in situations where they smoke, and that's all.

What the hell are you talking about, "right"? If the smell is bothering you, go somewhere else. Eat at a different restaurant, drink at home instead of a bar. I don't smoke and I hate the smell of cigarette smoke to the point that I cough profusely whenever I smell one, but I hardly believe it a good idea to have the government enforce my opinion of this onto others. I avoid people who smoke in situations where they smoke, and that's all.

Have you not heard of "rights"? I'm not going to explain it to you, I think you're a big enough boy now to look it up yourself.

Yes, I should have to stop eating my dinner and move somewhere else to appease the smoker.

I suppose if someone started yelling obsenities in my face in a restaurant, you would say "you should eat somewhere else."

Oh give me a fucking break, you never even get to inhale the smoke as it vanishes into the air. (if you are talking about a restaurant, club or any sort of establishment, then yea I understand)

I am talking about places like restaurants and other indoors venues.

I love it when extremists use bolding, colors, different fonts, and caps to make their point. So entertaining! :corn:

?!?!?! ROTFL.

I am not an "extremist" on the smoking issue.

I have never once in my life asked --much less insisted-- that a person put out a cigarette. How that qualifies me as "an extremist", I cannot fathom.

I am simply saying that I think it is a good thing for the government to make rules that would force people who spew carcinogenic smoke into the immediate atmosphere to remove themselves to another location before partaking of the foul-smelling, unhealthful practice that they are addicted to.

If that is what in your mind qualifies as *an extremist*, then I'd say you are guilty of a bit of projection on this issue.

Now, Freethinker, you've made repeated assertions that a whiff or two of second-hand smoke significantly harms non-smokers.

You evidently have me mistaken for someone else.

The only thing, if you were to try to couch it in the sternest terms possible, that could be drawn from what I have said here is that I have intimated that exposure to second-hand smoke is likely harmful to non-smokers.

I like you F. de Marzipan, and I enjoy reading your views....but your allegation that i have repeatedly said that "a whiff or two" causes "significant harm" to non-smokers is not true.

______________________________________________

Leper posted something that captures this entire issue in a nutshell---

""Smokers aren't being picked on, they're just mad that they're not getting the special treatment that they're used to.""

Have you not heard of "rights"? I'm not going to explain it to you, I think you're a big enough boy now to look it up yourself.

Yes, I should have to stop eating my dinner and move somewhere else to appease the smoker.

I suppose if someone started yelling obsenities in my face in a restaurant, you would say "you should eat somewhere else."
If the management is unwilling to do anything about it, yes. Yelling obscenities isn't illegal either. It's up to the business to decide if prohibiting the yelling of obscenities is something it wants to do.

Yelling obscenities isn't illegal either.

You're wrong.

Well if it is illegal, it sort of proves that it shouldn't be compared to inhaling second hand smoke.

You're wrong.
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

I hate to have decency, consideration and courtesy rear their ugly heads, but the fact is the lack of these is what created these laws.

If all smokers behaved like Rendova and Fran these laws probably would never have been enacted. Smokers with the "whoever wants to smoke, smoke wherever the f___ you want" attitude (which I read in an earlier post) are the catalysts of these bans.

Responsible smokers should reserve their ire for them.

I hate to have decency, consideration and courtesy rear their ugly heads, but the fact is the lack of these is what created these laws.

If all smokers behaved like Rendova and Fran these laws probably would never have been enacted. Smokers with the "whoever wants to smoke, smoke wherever the f___ you want" attitude (which I read in an earlier post) are the catalysts of these bans.

Responsible smokers should reserve their ire for them.
Agreed. People should be considerate about the effect their actions have on those around them. Unfortunately, so many people are simply not.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
That doesn't extend to all speech, regardless of how good that phrase makes us feel. If I start verbally abusing Kindergarteners, or the famous "FIRE!" in a movie theater, there will be consequences.

That doesn't extend to all speech, regardless of how good that phrase makes us feel. If I start verbally abusing Kindergarteners, or the famous "FIRE!" in a movie theater....
Or McCain/Feingold.

Forget the health dangers. The smell alone is enough to ban it. I don't care if it's smokers or perfume salesmen, no one should be able claim a right to make you reek of a noxious odor.

Smokers aren't being picked on, they're just mad that they're not getting the special treatment that they're used to.

That's the next step that has been taken by some authorities in Canada. It is now illegal to wear perfume or any other body substance that has any odour.

Are you kidding??

I'm not kidding about the perfume etc. It is happening and more places are considering it.

Jesus. So I wouldn't be able to wear Axe? I'd have to smell like whatever places I've been all the time? :-P

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

It's called the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment. States can legislate against speech which is likely to incite a breach of peace, and they do. Most, if not all, states have a "fighting words" crime. Here, in Texas, it's a form of "disorderly conduct," fineable for upto $500...it has to be in a public place tho.

I'm not kidding about the perfume etc. It is happening and more places are considering it.

Interesting. I think that's going too far myself. I would be ticked if people were making ME smell like perfume or smoke, but I don't give a damn how they smell.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to show us the proof that second-hand smoke is "health-endangering."

I believe I've offered enough evidence to dispell the illusions many people have about the costs of smoking to society ("Costs?" None! The truth is, smokers are an enormous benefit to everyone.), as well the assertion that a little second-hand smoke will harm the health of non-smokers, children, or other living things.

When all is said and done, the only legitimate complaint non-smokers can make is that cigarette smoke doesn't have a pleasant odor. (Hell, New Jersey has an unpleasant odor, but no one shuts it down!) Yet we continue to see legislation - falsely labeled as a public health issue - that discriminates actively against the individuals from whom the odor eminates.

Following close behind, is the perfume law that discriminates against people who have any sort of ... I guess the best way to describe it is "non-human smell."

I expect the next step is to write laws against people who haven't bathed often enough, and have too much of a human smell.

:rolleyes:

Smokers aren't being picked on, they're just mad that they're not getting the special treatment that they're used to.

Could you expound on that please, Leper? What "special treatment" are smokers used to? And if that "special treatment" is so darned attractive, why doesn't everyone smoke?

Finally, Freethinker, you (and Leper) seem not to have noticed the quote you've so kindly made available to me:

The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. -- Gustave Le Bon

Hmmm... Disillusionist is a bit pretentious, don't you think? Just call me The Debunker. :D

I'm not kidding about the perfume etc. It is happening and more places are considering it.

I've heard that as well. At some point society needs to just tell these people "I'm really very sorry that you were born with this particular issue, but ultimately it's your problem and you need to figure out how to deal with that." But of course we won't, because that would be "mean."

Some folks just don't understand the concept of moderation when it comes to perfumes. What may be pleasant becomes malodorous, especially if they're using it rather than attending to daily personal hygiene. Some individuals have such body odor that nothing will mask it and the resulting combinations are intolerable.

Could you expound on that please, Leper? What "special treatment" are smokers used to? And if that "special treatment" is so darned attractive, why doesn't everyone smoke?



The "special treatment" I'm referring to is that foisting secondhand smoke on strangers is not considered criminal behavior.

If a perfume salesmen walked into a bar and started spraying copious amounts of purfume so that eveyone around him started smelling like perfume and the stench became strong enough that people's eyes started watering, that perfume salesmen would be elgible for criminal consequenses. Smokers should be treated the same way. You could make the analogy with a number of things: pesticides, industrial emmisions, etc.

Not only that, the ARE health effects. Anyone with a breathing disorder has that disorder aggravated by secondhand smoke. Furthermore, it's just logical that if the smoke harms the smoker, then it will harm other people breathing in the smoke as well....granted, the smoke may by disappaited by a 100 fold, but even if being around 100 cigarettes is the equivalent of smoking one cigarrette yourself, then that should be banned. And I'm aware that there are studies which say secondhand smoke doesn't harm, and there are studies that say otherwise. If that's the case, shouldn't smokers have to be the ones to take caution?

Nevertheless, I maintain smoking is enough of a nuisance to be prohibited whether or not there are health consequences. It makes people's clothes stink, it makes their hair stink, it makes everything capable of retaining an odor stink.....in addition, it irritates your eyes and lungs, whether or not there are negative health consequences involved.

You could make the analogy with a number of things: pesticides, industrial emmisions, etc.
Yeah, well where does it stop? Maybe we should just prohibit everything, eh?

There are certain things people do that while possibly dangerous affect only them; riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving a car without a seat belt, etc.. The government has no business regulating those things.

There are other things people do that affect not only them but others as well. Smoking is one of those things. I am under doctor's orders to not be in the vicinity of second hand smoke. I had cancer years ago caused by smoking and if I were to inhale too much smoke, even second hand, it might well bring the cancer back. I can't even use my wood burning stove.

An analogy would be drinking. If you want to sit in your den and drink yourself into a stupor...........no problem, you are hurting only yourself. If you want to drink and then get into your car............big problem. Then you risk hurting me.

If you wish to sit in your den and smoke three and a half packs of unfiltered Camels like I used to do each day...............no problem. Like me, you are hurting only yourself. If you want to sit in a restaurant and smoke.............big problem. You are affecting my lungs as well as yours.

I completely agree, Frogger.

But what if a bar or restaurant wishes to cater to a smoking clientele? If the patrons and employees are all in agreement to allow smoking, what's the problem? That's where I think these bans go to far.

I'm sure that's the best idea economically anyways, sedan. It seems like the most logical idea from every angle.

Is this discussion still on topic? Some kind of record, methinks.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to show us the proof that second-hand smoke is "health-endangering."

Are you really arguing that second-hand smoke is not at all detrimental to your health? I don't care if it's BARELY detrimental; it's getting into my system without me having a say in it.

I believe I've offered enough evidence to dispell the illusions many people have about the costs of smoking to society ("Costs?" None! The truth is, smokers are an enormous benefit to everyone.)

The evidence I saw you post merely discredits past studies made on second-hand smoke. I somehow cannot imagine cigarette smoking being unhealthy when you breathe it in directly, but yet when you exhale it suddenly because safe for everyone else. Also, I find the argument that smokers help society more because of the taxes on cigarettes rather ridiculous. If smokers were not purchasing cigarettes, they would actually be spending more of their money on other products, helping to drive the economy as less of their money would be taxed.

When all is said and done, the only legitimate complaint non-smokers can make is that cigarette smoke doesn't have a pleasant odor.

My complaint against smokers is this: It is not healthy for more to breathe in second-hand smoke and that smoke irritates me greatly. It's hard to go out and enjoy yourself when your eyes are watering and you have a runny nose. I have absolutely no problem with courteous smokers like yourself, but there are plenty of assholes out there who are not considerate.

I completely agree, Frogger.

But what if a bar or restaurant wishes to cater to a smoking clientele? If the patrons and employees are all in agreement to allow smoking, what's the problem? That's where I think these bans go to far.

This argument makes sense to me, but the reality of the situation was that every bar and restaurant was catering to the smokers because they'd probably lose 20% of their business to other bars or restaurants if they did this.

I think something could be worked out to create smokers' havens. Maybe make it legal in bars, but not in restaurants or something like that. Frankly, I don't have complaints about smoking in bars. My complaints generally occur in some place where I'm not expecting it, like a restaurant or bus or something like that.

Here in Maryland the law says that smoking is only allowed in designated sections of restaurants, usually the bar. I don't know what the rule is about actual bars, but I assume they allow smoking...

This argument makes sense to me, but the reality of the situation was that every bar and restaurant was catering to the smokers because they'd probably lose 20% of their business to other bars or restaurants if they did this.

I think something could be worked out to create smokers' havens. Maybe make it legal in bars, but not in restaurants or something like that. Frankly, I'm don't have complaints about smoking in bars, it's generally when it occurs in some place where I'm not expecting it, like a restaurant or bus or something like that.
Okay - now we're on the same page. I fully agree.

This argument makes sense to me, but the reality of the situation was that every bar and restaurant was catering to the smokers because they'd probably lose 20% of their business to other bars or restaurants if they did this.

The same thing was predicted when California did it.

It didn't happen.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to show us the proof that second-hand smoke is "health-endangering."

Suppose I just think it stinks and I don't want my clothes to smell like yours?

Love the new sig, Brooks.

Love the new sig, Brooks.Thanks. Sadly true sometimes.

I believe this discussion is about the purported "health dangers" of second-hand smoke, and the legislation pushed forward by smoker-haters to discriminate against those of us who do smoke.

If you wish to begin a discussion about and/or bring forth legislation against spitting tobacco on passersby based on some sort of imagined health risk, be my guest. I suspect, however, that you will find no legitimate basis for such a health claim, even among the chewer-haters.


Nice dodge. Your point was that you should be allowed to blow your smoke on others because its merely gross but not harmful, so since spitting ALSO fits this same description (as you admit), then you must believe people should be allowed to spit on others. If not, why not...whats the difference?


I've offered documented proof that those purported "health dangers" do not exist and have challenged those who spread such lies to provide their own proofs that second-hand smoke puts the public's health at risk.

If you have such proofs, please share them with us.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to show us the proof that second-hand smoke is "health-endangering."


Here you go

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html

You're welcome.

Your point was that you should be allowed to blow your smoke on others because its merely gross but not harmful

Not even close. My point is that the hysteria surrounding second-hand smoke is based more on incorrect/misleading information and personal vendetta than it is on facts.

Nice dodge, though.

If you'd actually read prior posts of mine, you'd know that I do everything I can to avoid annoying people when I smoke. The problem arises when some sanctimonious puritan fuckwad strolls by and catches a whiff of the smoke I've (and/or smokers in general) deliberately blown elsewhere, and goes nuts about all the eeeeeevil, dirty, "death-causing!" chemicals emanating from my general direction.

As if the air they're sucking up is actually clean, anyway. :rolleyes:

Did you hear about the town of Calabassas, California? Not long ago, the city council banned all outdoor smoking within city limits (nope, you can't even have a relaxing smoke in your own freakin' back yard). What the smoker-haters fail to notice (or would rather not think about, anyway) is the fact that Calabassas sits right next to the 101/Ventura Freeway. Ten full lanes of cars travelling into and out of LA and The Valley every day, within spitting distance of the "pristine" air of Calabassas.

City Air Breathes Free?
The city of Calabasas, California, has banned outdoor smoking:

"The California Air Resources Board, which is the agency which regulates air quality in California, has adopted a regulation to treat secondhand smoke as a toxic pollutant of the air, like the kinds of things that come out of petroleum smoke stacks and out of the tailpipes of cars,” said Michael Colantuono, Calabasas city attorney.

Which invites the question: Why doesn't Calabasas ban cars and their "toxic pollutant" tailpipes?

More:

The city said it would relax the ban at times when non-smokers aren’t present in a public area.

Huh? How would that work?

Still more:

Business owners will be responsible for ensuring that all employees and patrons comply with the new law.

Of course, businesses will also be responsible for not doing business in Calabasas, California if they decide that it's not worth it anymore (or, if they must do business there, then they will be responsible for passing on the cost of compliance to others in the form of higher prices, lower wages or lower profits).

A local government certainly has the authority to ban smoking inside its own buildings, as well as in parks and playgrounds and other public property. But I think sidewalks are a stretch, and outdoor businesses are way over the line — he who pays the property taxes should call the tune. --A Stitch in Haste (http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1140142007.shtml)

Here you go

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html

You're welcome.

I guess you didn't read it, did you? That's what you get from going by a press release! ;)

The Surgeon General’s report is, essentially, a rehash of all previous reports on second-hand smoke.

The Surgeon General’s report's conclusion is that there is no definitive proof that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, nor that it definitively contributes to the development of lung cancer. They do, however, infer that second-hand smoke is dangerous, based on a compilation of all previous studies.

(Only 3 percent of lung cancers occur in people under 45, regardless of smoking status. About 10 percent of men and 20 percent of women with lung cancer never smoked, nor lived with smokers. 1 in 5 women diagnosed with the disease never lit a cigarette. People who get lung cancer early in life, like Christopher Reeve's 44-year-old wife, are more likely to have genetic factors fueling their disease.) The report states that further investigation on genetics and gender is needed to make such definitive claims.

The report uses meta-analysis of EPA statistics from epidemiology studies published over the period 1981-1992 (many of the same reports I've already debunked and/or provided links to sites which debunk same).

From the report:

For a variety of reasons, EPA's conclusions have been controversial. While many in the scientific community have accepted the EPA conclusions, others have criticized them. First, the findings in the studies were mixed, and of the 30 studies examined by EPA (one Japanese study could not be used because of the presentation of data), 24 found an increased risk, though only five were statistically significant at the 95 percent level, and six actually found a negative risk (with one statistically significant). Of the eleven U.S. studies, eight found a positive risk and three found a negative risk, though none was statistically significant.

In all cases, the primary objects of the study were non-smoking women subjected to second-hand smoke from a smoking spouse (which, ergo, doesn't take into account the differences between men's and women's physiological pecularities).

Most egregious, the studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control group members, or their surrogates, to determine second-hand smoke exposure. In other words, their method of testing second-hand smoke follows no legitimate scientific means of measurement - they simply asked women who lived with smokers, or close friends of these women, to estimate the amount of second-hand smoke they'd been exposed to. Very scientific!

You're welcome. :thumbs:

The Surgeon General’s report's conclusion is that there is no proof that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, nor that it definitively contributes to the development of lung cancer. The CRS report states that further investigation is needed to make such definitive claims.




Well, I hate to break it to you, but lung cancer is not the only harmful effect from smoking. I have a sister who hacks up half a lung every day because of her smoking habit. Not only that she gets respiratory illnesses all the time because the smoke has shredded her immune system. Another example, one of my best friends has bad asthma and she can't go out to bars because the smoke aggravates her asthma.

You have any studies that say smoke doesn't harm people in these ways? I'd be surprised if you do.

The problem arises when some sanctimonious puritan f_____d strolls by and catches a whiff of the smoke .... and goes nuts The problem arose when yellow-moustached addicts wouldn't leave the restaurant when sitting next to a table of children.

Let's suppose second hand smoke isn't harmful. It's still wrong to subject other people to it when you can easily go slightly elsewhere.

Ever get annoyed in a theater sitting next to someone with really bad body odor? That's what cigarettes are to a non-smoker (and the smell from the clothes, hair and mouth of a smoker is easier to prevent than body odor).

I smell it. And I am telling you it's not ham.

Not even close. My point is that the hysteria surrounding second-hand smoke is based more on incorrect/misleading information and personal vendetta than it is on facts.

Actually, it was one of your points when you said "they just don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Of course, you can't get legislation passed against something that you personally don't care for"...so spitting on others would be legal according to you.



I guess you didn't read it, did you? That's what you get from going by a press release! ;)

The Surgeon General’s report is, essentially, a rehash of all previous reports on second-hand smoke.

The Surgeon General’s report's conclusion is that there is no definitive proof that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, nor that it definitively contributes to the development of lung cancer. They do, however, infer that second-hand smoke is dangerous, based on a compilation of all previous studies.

(Only 3 percent of lung cancers occur in people under 45, regardless of smoking status. About 10 percent of men and 20 percent of women with lung cancer never smoked, nor lived with smokers. 1 in 5 women diagnosed with the disease never lit a cigarette. People who get lung cancer early in life, like Christopher Reeve's 44-year-old wife, are more likely to have genetic factors fueling their disease.) The report states that further investigation on genetics and gender is needed to make such definitive claims.

The report uses meta-analysis of EPA statistics from epidemiology studies published over the period 1981-1992 (many of the same reports I've already debunked and/or provided links to sites which debunk same).

From the report:


In all cases, the primary objects of the study were non-smoking women subjected to second-hand smoke from a smoking spouse (which, ergo, doesn't take into account the differences between men's and women's physiological pecularities).

Most egregious, the studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control group members, or their surrogates, to determine second-hand smoke exposure. In other words, their method of testing second-hand smoke follows no legitimate scientific means of measurement - they simply asked women who lived with smokers, or close friends of these women, to estimate the amount of second-hand smoke they'd been exposed to. Very scientific!

You're welcome. :thumbs:

So you have studies that claims its dangerous and others that claims its not, as is the case with most issues. So, that leaves common sense which tells anyone that breathing in smoke is unhealthy. Sure, just a little bit is not going to harm you, but long-term it can.

As for the "smoker-haters", they are the extreme just like the other extreme non-smoker-haters who are disrespectful about their smoking habits.

Actually, it was one of (F. de Marzipan's) points when she said "they just don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Of course, you can't get legislation passed against something that you personally don't care for"...so spitting on others would be legal according to you.


Exactly.

Following F. de Marzipan's assertion to its logical conclusion, if a person came into a restaurant or a bowling alley, or any other public place and spat tobacco juice on another person, the person who was spit on would, if they dared complain about being spit on, have little to no recourse.

The person doing the spitting could simply inform the person they spit on -- "Hey, tough shit buddy!....if you don't like having tobacco juice spit on you, why don't you just go somewhere else!.....don't expect ME to not spit on you or to be forced to go to some other place to spit!!"

How F. de Marzipan or any other smoker thinks that that would be the equitable solution to such a disagreement is WAY beyond my ability to understand.

I would love to be in a restaurant when F. de Marzipan was trying to enjoy dinner.

I would go up to her table and say, "Mind if I fart in your face? I find a good fart after dinner really relaxes me. I know it is a bit gross and the smell might ruin some people's appetite but, hey, this is a free country and if you are upset or annoyed, so what. I enjoy farting in public and there is nothing you can do about it."

So you have studies that claims its dangerous and others that claims its not, as is the case with most issues.

Right. So why is the world so caught up in insisting that a little second-hand smoke will do some sort of terrible, irrevocable damage? There simply no conclusive proof of this. Why, when a smoker points out that there IS no conclusive evidence, is the smoker vilified? Insulted? Derided and looked-down upon? Simply because I challenge the conventional "wisdom" to say that a whiff or two of second-hand smoke will do nothing to your health? Or is it that the sanctimonious purer-than-thou types hate me because they can't prove their hysterical claims?

So, that leaves common sense which tells anyone that breathing in smoke is unhealthy. Sure, just a little bit is not going to harm you, but long-term it can.

This is the point, dna. I know smoking is potentially dangerous to me; why are non-smokers so insistant that catching a whiff of my cigarette smoke (which, I will remind you, I studiously avoid annoying others with) will somehow damage their health? There is simply no proof that this is so. And this should be abundantly clear to those with even a little common sense. Hell, the air you're breathing as you walk past me on the street has infinitely more crap in it from cars, buses, and diesel engines than it does from a whiff of my second-hand smoke.

I would love to be in a restaurant when F. de Marzipan was trying to enjoy dinner. I would go up to her table and say, "Mind if I fart in your face?"

I don't smoke in restaurants. Even when it's legal to do so. Why? Because as I've already said, just like everyone else, I don't care for a room filled with cigarette smoke. I do however, like to smoke, so I take great pains to avoid smoking when it will annoy others in my vicinity. I go outside/away, instead. I don't even smoke in my own home when there are non-smokers visiting (and make sure the house doesn't smell like smoke when they arrive).

I'm a bit more courteous than that. I guess you're not.

*shrug*

The problem arose when yellow-moustached addicts wouldn't leave the restaurant when sitting next to a table of children. --Brooks

I seem to remember that back in the day (before smoking was banned in most dining establishments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States#Bans_in_ public_places_or_bars.2Frestaurants)), restaurants had separate sections for smoking and non-smoking patrons. If someone was smoking in the smoking section at a table next to children, I think perhaps the parents of the children might have something to answer for, don't you?

It's still wrong to subject other people to it when you can easily go slightly elsewhere. --Brooks

I agree. That's why I go outside/elsewhere.

Didn't I say this already? :confused:

There simply no conclusive proof of this. Why, when a smoker points out that there IS no conclusive evidence, is the smoker vilified? Insulted? Derided and looked-down upon?

I'm just disagreeing with you. When I see you being "vilified", "insulted" or "derided" then I'll answer that question. In the mean time, how come you keep calling those who do believe that 2nd smoke is harmful "smoker haters"?

Simply because I challenge the conventional "wisdom" to say that a whiff or two of second-hand smoke will do nothing to your health?


Or is it that the sanctimonious purer-than-thou types hate me because they can't prove their hysterical claims?

So its "hysterical" to believe that breathing smoke is unealthy? Who is beliefs are "purer-than-thou" now?

This is the point, dna. I know smoking is potentially dangerous to me; why are non-smokers so insistant that catching a whiff of my cigarette smoke (which, I will remind you, I studiously avoid annoying others with) will somehow damage their health?

Hell, the air you're breathing as you walk past me on the street has infinitely more crap in it from cars, buses, and diesel engines than it does from a whiff of my second-hand smoke.

When did this debate change to just a single "whiff" of your smoke? You seem to be arguing as if this entire debate is only about your 2nd hand smoke. Its not just about you. Its about smoking in public, which includes the many smokers who are not as courteous as you. Its about having to breathe ALL their "wiffs", not just yours.



There is simply no proof that this is so.

Except the 10s of thousands who die each year. Here is some of that proof from the CDC that you say doesn't exist:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ets.htm



I agree. That's why I go outside/elsewhere.

Didn't I say this already?

*shrug*

Again, its not just about you.

As for the truckers, the only restriction I would place there is no smoking in the rig if you don't own it. If it's yours puff away. If you are just driving it, that becomes unfair to the owner and others who will have to drive it later.
that is the one of the exemptions-you have to own the truck, but what is unfair to the owner of the truck is that close to 80% of all truck drivers smoke, and the industry has a major retention problem as it is. one of the other exemptions is that it only applies to trucking companies based in OH. if you were a smoker, and were going to be in working for 14 hours a day, who would you work for-the mom & pop in Youngstown, or J.B. Hunt who has a terminal in Niles, but is based in Arkansas?

BTW-someone that works 8 feet from an exhaust stack with a toxic output measured tons and complains about cigarette smoke has seriously misplaced priorities.

When I see you being "vilified", "insulted" or "derided" then I'll answer that question.

You're not the person(s) I had in mind when I spoke of being vilified. I'm referring to people who say things like this:

Smoking is a form of assault and criminal mischief, where smoking individuals harm the individuals surrounding them as well as much of the nearby property near them. For that reason, I think it's marginally criminal behavior and should be treated as such.

In the mean time, how come you keep calling those who do believe that 2nd smoke is harmful "smoker haters"?

Are you trying to convince me that people who would treat smokers as criminals aren't smoker haters?

So its "hysterical" to believe that breathing smoke is unealthy?

It's hysterical to go on and on about the dire health consequences of catching a whiff of cigarette smoke while walking down the street, when the concentration of pollutants caused by automobile exhaust at street level is astronomical. A full 60% of urban smog is caused by motor-vehicle exhaust – nearly all the rest comes from the burning of fossil fuels by power plants, heavy industry, burning of vegetation, natural environmental events (such as volcanoes, forest fires, etc.), chimney smoke, use of aerosols and pesticides, and so on.

It’s hysterical to believe that one is somehow “safe” or “safer” when inside, where there is no cigarette smoke. Did you know that indoor pollution can be many times higher than outdoor pollution? Manufactured items like furniture and carpets can be found in most homes, restaurants, bars, and places of business. Are you aware that the foam in a sofa’s cushions is manufactured from a variety of chemicals and that some of those chemicals remain active long after the furniture has left the factory? Did you know that toxic organic compounds (such as formaldehyde) are emitted from carpets, soft furnishings, certain pressed-wood products, and fabrics for years and years? Inadequate ventilation can increase indoor pollutant levels by not bringing in enough outdoor air to dilute emissions from indoor sources and by not carrying indoor air pollutants out of the home. High temperature and humidity levels can also increase concentrations of some pollutants. Household pesticides and cleaning solvents often contain volatile toxic compounds. There’s still that old bugaboo in many older buildings, asbestos insulation. And then there’s the mold issue…

If the anti-smokers out there are concerned about reducing the levels of carcinogenic pollution in the area/world, they should concentrate their efforts where they will do the most good. Once again, 60% of urban smog is caused by motor-vehicle exhaust, ergo, automobiles and the fossil fuels they burn are the big enemy in the fight against carcinogenic pollution. Not someone having a smoke out on the street.

If anti-smokers are more concerned about what the air around them smells like than actual air pollution levels, they’re completely missing the point and should just stay at home where everything smells lovely and the couch cushions can do their work.

When did this debate change to just a single "whiff" of smoke?

Oh, about the time people started saying things like this:

I have walked down sidewalks and I get a VERY strong breathe of what others are smoking.

I should not be forced to breathe in another person's caginogenic smoke. Let them kill themselves somewhere where I do not have to share in it.

it is ALSO an excellent idea to not allow people to fill the sidewalks with noxious, unhealthy smoke fumes. I personally would about as soon step over somone's excrement that to breathe in their fetid, stinking smoke fron their cigar or cigarette.

Where are they supposed to smoke? In their own houses?
Yes. That's one place they could use. Unless they have children. Then, they should not be allowed to smoke there either. Perhaps they could build a small carcinogenitorium out back for the purpose.

Its just a matter of time bfore the society comes to its senses and forces those who want to inhale deadly fumes to not do it in the presence of the rest of us.

the person spewing carcinogensg into the public space shoud be the one forced to remove himself.

Smoking is a form of assault and criminal mischief, where smoking individuals harm the individuals surrounding them as well as much of the nearby property near them. For that reason, I think it's marginally criminal behavior and should be treated as such.

I think it is a good thing for the government to make rules that would force people who spew carcinogenic smoke into the immediate atmosphere to remove themselves to another location before partaking of the foul-smelling, unhealthful practice that they are addicted to.

And this all leads to the “other location” conundrum. The smoker-haters and their ilk have many demands. Here are just a few:

• Smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke indoors (this is already true of the large majority of work places, bars, and restaurants)

• Smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke outdoors because prissy passersby might smell something they consider “icky” for a second or two

• Smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in their vehicles (the example of truckers has been pointed out)

• Smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in their places of residence (many apartment buildings/condos discriminate against smokers)

• Smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in their own backyards (such as is currently the case in Calabassas CA and several other cities/municipalities around the country)

• Smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in their own homes if they have children

When non-smokers/smoker-haters make the same demands of the industries/individuals that create/emit the vast majority of the world’s carcinogenic pollutants, they’ll have a leg to stand on when complaining about catching a whiff of cigarette smoke. Anything short of that is hysteria and/or selfish, self-important whininess.

Its about smoking in public, which includes the many smokers who are not as courteous as you.

Maybe someday, the smoker-haters will be as courteous as I am, too.

Except the 10s of thousands who die each year. Here is some of that proof from the CDC that you say doesn't exist:

You haven’t checked out the links I’ve provided, have you? If you did, you’d know that I’ve already addressed (and debunked) the CDC’s “proof.”

You're not the person(s) I had in mind when I spoke of being vilified. I'm referring to people who say things like this:

"Smoking is a form of assault and criminal mischief, where smoking individuals harm the individuals surrounding them as well as much of the nearby property near them. For that reason, I think it's marginally criminal behavior and should be treated as such."

Are you trying to convince me that people who would treat smokers as criminals aren't smoker haters?


You're quoting me and making assumptions that are incorrect. I never said I "hated" smokers. Traffic violations are criminal violations (in Texas at least) and I don't hate everyone who speeds. It might mean that I am more likely to dislike that person, but I take more into consideration than smoking habits in deciding whether I "hate" someone or not.

I say we just kill anyone found with a cigarette in his/her possession.

Problem solved.

I say we just kill anyone found with a cigarette in his/her possession.

Problem solved.

I posit that this is exactly what the anti-smoking crowd wants. They just can't say so out loud and be taken seriously. So they use other tactics, like complaining about how very deadly and carcenogenic cigarette smoke is, and how terribly awful it is to get a whiff of it from 50 feet way, as they stroll through an auto-exhaust infused atmosphere on the way to their highly polluted houses. Even though there are numerous studies and reams of documented evidence that prove otherwise.

"Proof be damned!" they mutter to themselves. "Cigarette smoke smells icky and the world should be free of any and all icky-smelling things! "

Sorry kids. Human beings have been "self-medicating" since they were invented and this isn't about to change any time soon. Banning the "medication" - whether it be cigarettes, booze, drugs, etc., - is not the answer either (both Prohibition and the decades-long "war on drugs" have shown the foolishness of this quite effectively). Educating the masses is.

But some folks prefer the self-satisfied bliss that ignorance provides. And who can blame them? Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing!

:thumbs:

Get off it, Frannie. You're acting like an ass. No one is advocating killing smokers. All that is being asked is that you don't share your disgusting and dangerous habit with we non-smokers.

I posit that this is exactly what the anti-smoking crowd wants.
I'm one of the anti-smoking crowd members, and I don't want a mass murder of people who are stupid enough to smoke. I just don't want it around me when it doesn't have to be. Sure, there is no definite proof of second hand smoke causing respiratory system problems, but if it is hurting your lungs, it can easily be inferred that it will hurt mine if I breathe the same fumes.