I don't smoke, but hatred of smokers has gone beyond over the top

I can understand not wanting to experience secondhand smoke. In government buildings, public transportation and other similar inclosed areas of assembly a ban is entirely reasonable. However, I think banning smoking in -all- restaurants is beyond absurd. Establishments should absolutely be free to choose whether or not to allow smoking. If you don't like to experience smoke, you can go to a restaurant/bar where there is none. If you do smoke, you are free to go to an establishment which allows it. If you are a waiter/bartender, don't apply to places that allow smoking. It's simple enough, and provides a choice for everyone, rather than a purposed destruction of one irrationally despised minority's rights.

As for the "your life choice affects my health, therefore I ban it" argument, I don't think you want to go down that road. The beef industry negatively impacts this nation's physical and environmental health on a large scale, even for those who choose not to eat beef--important pharmalogical/biological resources in the rainforests of South and Central America are destroyed every day to provide grazing lands, and the impact of mass-produced cattle on the atmosphere is not at all pleasant. Those who buy SUVs for city driving are actively damaging the environment, and the health of surrounding pedestrians / commuters on a far greater scale than those who drive fuel-efficient vehicles more suited to the environment. But since neither beef-eaters nor SUV-drivers are a despised minority that is very rewarding to bully with legislation, bans or regulations on those two socially destructive behaviors will never happen.

Now ask yourself why you feel that the behavior of smoking can be banned, when other "life choices" that cause far more damage to those who do not partake are allowed to continue. And then realize it's because smokers are a despised minority, and fun for small-minded people to pick on legislatively and feel superior to. And then realize the rightwing uses homosexuals in the exact same way--"they could hurt my kids, I'm not gay myself and I don't know any gays anyway, &c." Legislative bullying of a disliked minority is offensive to me in any context, and I'm surprised so many supposed "progressives" don't appear to feel the same way.

Please note: I am comparing the way homosexuals and smokers are used POLITICALLY, not saying that gays = smokers or that their struggles are in any way similar. I'm just saying that it's politically easy to pick on a minority that some people irrationally dislike and/or wish to have no contact with. It's the phenomenon of "I'm not one, and I believe it hurts society, therefore I will ban it" that I see as similar.

The only benefit from smoking is to the smoker, himself. There is no benefit to anyone else, as opposed to your other examples of meat growing and transportation.

I am pleased that smoking is banned in so many indoor situations because it makes me deathly ill. I literally cannot breathe around a smoker.

However, I'd never agitate to see smoking banned outdoors. I've seen an addicted smoker rummaging though coffee grounds and eggshells at 3 AM looking for a butt that's long enough to smoke. I can't imagine the uproar that would ensue from prohibition.

So set fire to that thing downwind, if you must, and we'll get along just fine.

Take drinking (please! :P). But seriously, the impact of drinking on domestic abuse, on automobile accidents, on mental health, &c. causes, I would conservatively estimate, at least as much secondhand grief as secondhand smoke. But will that ever be banned? No.

all do it to excess. That is an erroneous assumption.

And isn't that the issue with smokers?

Somebody eating a hamburger doesn't force me to eat it with him. A smoker forces me to breathe in his smoke. That's the difference.

Again, set fire to that thing ouside, thanks, and we'll get along just fine.

Again, isn't that your issue with smokers?

Mass production of cattle forces negative environmental changes on the whole world population (something evil smokers can never lay claim to), and it denies our relatively wealthy national population biological and pharmalogical resources from the rainforests at an exponential rate (though the grazing lands made there are poor, profit is the rule here). So forced indirect harm is still characteristic of each.

(and yes I eat beef, and I drive a car)

Tobacco ruins soil, on a huge scale worldwide - it's every bit as comparable to your mass grazing argument.

This is almost the Bush rationale on the Kyoto treaty, that because other countries (China, etc.) don't have to work as hard on global warming, we don't have to.

I'm in favor of doing what we can, when we can to stop all pollution & environmental degradation & stopping smoking in all public indoor environments works for me.

to a function that supports the economy that I rely on. Again, there has been a failure to grasp the concept of risk versus benefit.

The excess exhaust when compared to a more urban-styled vehicle is totally superfluous--it provides no benefit to anyone.

I actually use the 4-wheel-drive capability of my SUV in the pursuit of activities that are beneficial to the environment, in addition to driving it to my job daily.

*

compared to sedans. We should begin insurance and licensing penalties on large personal vehicles because when they collide, they smash with more ferocity! AND they have emission standards relaxed by lobbyists who favor SUV manufacturers. There would be no new SUV's if all cars had to match the state of the art pollution standards that are now commonplace.

SUV's are 1st a form of transportation. Smoking is for pleasure PERIOD

I used to smoke and I have a friend that still smokes. We have known each other for over 40 years. She quit smoking a couple of times when I was still smoking. Whenever I would light up she would wave her hand towards the smoke. I was very careful when I smoked around others, but she still would do this. Then I quit smoking and she restarted smoking. That was 14 years ago. She still smokes and I don't. I don't "wave my hand" nor do I make comments if she should light up in a restaurant. I do get a stuffy nose and sometimes a headache, sometimes a sore throat depending on how long we stay in a smoky environment and how smoky the environment is.

Somebody sitting next to you having a drink or eating a steak do NOT have the same affect on those close by.

If the restaurant has another room that has a door that actually closes, then the restaurant should be able to allow smoking. Unless it can be contained that way, then no, smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places where other people and babies are subjected to 2nd hand smoke and it's affects.

by the way, I never tell my friend not to smoke, nor do I wave my hand when she does. She elects to go outside to smoke her cigarettes when she is over and even in her own home she smokes outside. I usually go outside with her when she smokes. I just wish that she would quit for her health.

Every person that I know that has died before the age of ....say 65 was a smoker. Not saying that they died of lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease...but they all died of SOME TYPE of cancer or some type of heart disease. I find it really odd and alarming to have come to that realization. (of course that doesn't include car accidents....)

I in 10 of those who drink are alcoholics.

with beef or any other activity. Beef, alcohol, and most everything else is safe, or even beneficial, in small doses just as it is harmful in massive amounts.

Even if you follow the directions, and use as recommended, smoking is harmful to health.

And unlike beef and alchohol, the greatest benefit of smoking is to feed an addiction. Otherwise, very few people would bother. It's the sine qua non of the product.

the establishment, not the state to allow smoking or not. If it makes you ill, then don't go there. It should require the establishment to post a sign so people know they allow smoking.

Do you propose that parents leave their kids at home when they choose to go to a smoking establishment, or should the kids be forced to be around all that dangerous toxicity?

do you propose banning porn theaters because you don't want your kids to see porn?

Who cares if the cook washes his hands after he goes to the bathroom? Who cares if the meat refrigerator goes on the fritz now and then? Who cares if the restaurant has rats? The restaurant owner should have freedom to run his restaurant however he pleases without interference from the busybody germ Nazis, and the public should have a free choice to decide between germ-free restaurants and the other restaurants.

It's all about property rights and freedom of choice . . . it's not about public health . . . you're getting sleepy, sleepy . . .

If a bar says "we allow smoking" and you have a choice to go or not.

You know up front what you are doing and make a choice.

You go into a restaraunt assuming they abide by the health codes.
Have you ever seen a place post a sign that says "we don't abide by the health codes"?

Again nobody forces you to go into a smoking establishment. It's very simple.

patronize the bar or not as a matter of consumer choice.

Why are the restroom Nazis making poor bar owners spend all that money on toilets? That's a clear interference with property rights, and this is an issue that can be adequately addressed as a matter of consumer choice with a sign that informed the patrons that the bar does or does not have a restroom.

Now, I have never seen a bar that had a sign which said "we don't abide by the health codes" but I have also beet to cities where they don't allow smoking in bars and I have never seen a bar which said "we allow smoking" notwithstanding the contrary law.

The fact is that the interests of public health have mandated that bars have restrooms, and that they abide by certain health regulations. Any smoking ban is simply an extension of that same regulatory scheme. You may disagree with the underlying science which supports that extension, but it is very widely accepted in the medical community. It's very simple.

extensions and all...

No one is saying that you cannot smoke tobacco. The ban in effect for some places is merely a ban on smoking in areas where your smoke affects other people. Guess what? Most jurisdictions also ban alcohol in some areas where alcohol is likely to affect other people (or does your state allow you to have an open container of an alcoholic beverage in your car?).

In many jurisdictions, there is a ban on alcohol that is partial and not absolute.

In many jurisdictions, there is a ban on tobacco smoking that is partial and not absolute.

Smoking bans are public health matters. If you disagree with the underlying science, you are simply mistaken. If you disagree with the balancing of competing public interests, your view is a minority view in some jurisdictions and a majority view in other jurisdictions.

I agree that in those jurisdictions where the public sentiment is in favor of allowing smoking in public buildings, that should be the law because I believe in democracy. Do you disagree that in those jurisdictions where the public sentiment is in favor of banning smoking in public buildings, that should be the law? If so, why do you believe that this is an issue which should be immune from the principles of democracy?

There are places where smoking is not allowed and there are places where they allow smoking and everyone has a choice to go where they feel most comfortable. What I am against is absolute bans like just got passed here in my town. In all 90% of bars and restaraunts didn't allow smoking but the anti-smoke brigade was not happy so they had to force the remaining to not allow it. This was in places that most of these uptight crybabies never even set foot in but they still wanted to force their viewpoint down everybody's throats.

It's the absolutism that bothers me most. I think smoking is a stupid move unless you are growing the tobacco yourself but I'm not gonna force that on anybody.

your car, etc.? You say "It's the absolutism that bothers me most." You should talk to the marijuana legalization advocates about absolutism. Marijuana smoking is absolutely baned; tobacco smoking is just restricted.

I personally favor a smoking ban in public indoor spaces even in places where I don't frequent and it's not because I'm an uptight crybaby. It's because I think that secondhand smoke is unsuitable in anyone's work environment, and that includes the work environment of the waiters and busboys and bartenders in the bars and restaurants which would otherwise allow smoking. I also don't accept the argument that "they can just go work somewhere else" because you could say the exact same thing about every potential regulation against an unclean, unsafe, or hostile work environment. You might enjoy the luxury of choosing one workplace over another but not everyone enjoys such options in the kiss-up-kick-down Bush economy.

I also don't think that where people feel most comfortable smoking should determine where it should be legal and where it should be illegal. I know people who feel most comfortable drinking a beer on a long car drive -- just one beer, not nearly enough to come even close to the legal limit -- and yet they are generally prohibited from having a beer in that place. I'm not uncomfortable with that law, are you?

Finally, some tobacco smoking bans limit only municipal buildings, some also cover restaurants without separate ventilation systems for the smoking and nonsmoking sections, some also cover all restaurants, some also cover bars, and some also cover the area near the entrances near restaurants or bars. It's a sliding scale. I live in a place that bans smoking in restaurants but not bars. I would ban it in bars, too, for the reasons I mentioned above, but I am prepared to accept the vote of the majority of the voter who have set the sliding scale somewhere different than where I would have set it. You never told me why it is that you don't think that the community's vote expressing its collective judgment about where the sliding scale should be set ought not apply?

Your straw man is irrelevant. I asked about children being forced to be around smoke when they had no choice.

Your analogy is a false one. Try again.

Your the one that is way off base.

Here in Oregon, one can be an accompanied minor in a bar until 10pm. Just make smoking bars off limits to anyone 21 or younger. How hard is that?

It's sensible, and fair, and doesn't force kids to be exposed to the smoke that's already killing the smokers, so I think it's a reasonable suggestion.

People should be able to do with their property what they wish in a free society. The bars in our area have suffered greatly in our area due to the smoking bans. (My hubby is a former bar owner, and my best friend Casey still has one, and we are really friendly with the rest of the bar owners in town.) Most of the owners we know scrimped and saved there whole lives to buy a money maker, and now they are barely eeking through, or they're losing money trying to sell.

I worked in the service industry when I was younger paying my way through school, and you know what.. I would come in early to work to "claim" my tables in the smoking sections.. If I had to work the non section I was an unhappy camper for the night.. In my experience, smokers spend more money, stay longer, more often bought "drinks" with their meal, and on a whole, just flat out tipped better. On top of that the vast majority of the "complainers" came from the non-smoking sections.. It was almost funny to a degree, we would bet on the ratio of people that would send their meals back from the two sections.. (We were bored, but it made the night interesting.) As a former owner, my husband will flat out tell you that smokers are easier to deal with, and they are generally the "regulars" that would come in night after night and spend money in his establishment.

In our area especially (it's really red) smokers are drinkers, and drinkers are smokers. People of "one vice" rarely exist.. So, now "if" non-smokers actually come to the bar for the social aspect, then they don't usually drink.. They buy cola, or water.. which aren't nearly the money makers that booze is. Smokers that do come to the bar don't stay as long.. If they have to get up to go out to smoke, there is a big chance they will just keep walking instead of coming back into the bar to have a few more.. We have one bar in the area that is fighting the ban.. They continue to let people smoke, and they end up paying close to $10,000 a month in fines for it, but even after they pay the fines, they are still making much more than the non-smoking bars..

Personally, I think the best course of action is to allow people to do with their property what they wish.. If one wanted to open a non smoking bar, have at it, and advertise the hell out of it as both a non-smoking bar, and a smoke free work environment.. And hope for the best.. But let the owners decide what they want.. Personally, I've never met a bartender or bar waitress that did not smoke, so worrying about their "health" is probably a moot point. If people are concerned about their health, let them go to non-smoking bars to work, and let them go to non-smoking bars to hang out. Imposing your will on others though, isn't the answer.. Fundies in our area are having a field day with this, bars are dropping like flies at this point, and they proclaim it "God's will".. If this keeps up they will get what they really want, which is to see all bars in our area close.. This isn't fair to the owners, this isn't fair to the regulars that have been stripped of their hang out, and it isn't fair to the workers that are making less money..

We live in a free country, and that should include the freedom to make decisions.. The freedom to decide what kind of establishment you want to operate, and the freedom to be a patron, in the establishment of your choice.

on edit- grammar

I don't believe the arguments about bar-owners losing business. All you have is anecdotes, I think they may actually gain business, I'd like to see statistics. It's always harder to get seated in the non-smoking sections of restaurants and bars I visit; the smoking sections are empty. I am certainly happier to come back from an evening listening to music without a headache and without my hair and clothing reeking of tobacco.

Come to where I live.. Come meet the owners I know.. Ask them to see how far they are behind in their mortgages over this mess. Come ask them yourself.. Ask how many have had to put off college for their kids, and medical procedures because of this bull. Ask how many won't be able to retire on time, if they will ever be able to at all. I've worked in this biz for years sweetie, there ain't a "thing" you can tell me. We were really lucky because we got out before the ban.

I've got quite a few extra bedrooms.. Come for a visit.. See it yourself.. They are losing everything over this crap, everything they have worked their whole lives for.. Come see for yourself.. Have a vacation on me. Maybe if you see it, you'll believe it.

I can even be around cigarette smoke residue without getting sick. Smoking should be banned in public places, just as it should be illegal--and probably is--for me to go around spraying carcinogens in other people's faces.

and common sense. :hi:

And comparing the homosexuals' struggle to that of the smokers is absurd. Smokers wouldn't be treated that way if they didn't ignore all the evidence its not only harmful to them, it's more harmful to the people around them, especially their children. Not all, but a lot of smokers don't give a shit about those around them, and it is them who have caused the smoking bans in public places. Bans in restaurants not only protect customers, but also the staff. And for the love of God, we're liberals. As obsessed as this place is with buying blue, why the fuck are most of the people here still giving money to big tobacco who are republicans!?
Mel

If I wanted to make a direct comparison between the two in a general sense, I would have made it.

the person he loves, and he was denied the right to make end-of-life decisions at the hospital where his non-spouse was being treated, and he was denied the ability to inherit all of his non-spouse's property without extensive court proceedings.

All of this because he was a smoker.

It's terrible how badly smokers are treated in America. It's not as if smoking is a habit that one could quit and thereby save US public health care dollars that might otherwise provide care for people suffering from non-self-inflicted ailments.

I also agree that your analogies to meat-eating and alcohol are equally valid. Let me tell you about my friend who works at a restaurant, he's suffering from second-hand cirrhosis of the liver and second-hand clogged arteries . . .

:thumbsup:

Namely that there is a one-to-one comparison between smokers and homosexuals. There isn't. But there is the same phenomenon of "I'm not one, I think they are harmful to society, therefore I shall ban them." This point remains unanswered, though plenty have told me I am actually saying something that I say nowhere. And my points about the secondhand griefs of the beef industry outweighing those of smoking remain wholly unanswered--people are still erecting strawmen that are easier to knock down in an attempt to feel good about defeating something, even if it isn't remotely connected to any one of my statements. Predictably a few even less talented debaters will glom onto this strawman defeat and raise a pathetic cheer, but how can this advance the discussion if the debater is only arguing points he/she invented for the purpose of defeating?

who do not get drunk above the legal limit for DWI. That's a better analogy. In both cases, the conduct is legal. In both cases, the conduct is a personal choice. In both cases, valid questions can be raised about the wisdom and social responsibility of the conduct.


Here is another good analogy: Smoking is like riding a motorcycle without a helmet. It's legal in most places, but it's a bit of a daily living IQ test. You can list the reasons for not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle, but no person who is acting based on reason would conclude that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a wise decision. Similarly, you can list the reasons why people smoke, but no person who is acting based on reason would conclude that smoking is a wise decision.

Your analogy is a bad analogy (and a bit offensive). Those who demonize homosexuality do so for religious reasons or to manipulate that religious vote for political reasons. In contrast, those who oppose smoking do so for public health reasons. I can tell you whose political agenda is furthered by homophobia. Can you tell me whose political agenda is furthered by public smoking bans?

By the way, I have never heard anyone advocating against smoking in public on grounds that "I'm not one, I think they are harmful to society, therefore I shall ban them." That's a strawman, and you should know it. Instead, I tend to hear the arguments that smoking in public places should be discouraged because (1) it is a known health risk, (2) even where the risk is willingly assumed by smokers and their voluntary companions, it is still unwillingly assumed by the workers in a smoking-permitted workplace.

Our society allows drinking alcohol, but imposes reasonable limits to mitigate the public risks from drinking.

Our society allows smoking tobacco, but imposes reasonable limits to mitigate the public risks from smoking.

How could they be? If there are both smoking and non-smoking establishments, customers and staff alike can choose which they wish to patronize/work in. Banning smoking in every establishment is by definition an unreasonable limit--that cigar stores in Washington state are banned from allowing their patrons to smoke is absolutely unreasonable. As for the employees complaining, that would be like someone working in a pet store suing his boss for cat dander exposure--if you plan to work in that field, you should expect such a hazard.

You're still rebutting arguments I've never made. Banning smoking in all establishments is very much a case of "I'm not one, I think they are harmful to society, therefore I shall ban them"--because it isn't just wanting exposure to secondhand smoke to be voluntary, it's wanting exposure to secondhand smoke to be eliminated entirely. The driving force behind both is a lack of understanding/empathy and a desire to eliminate an imagined risk to society. There is no risk if there are both smoking and non-smoking establishments--do you understand? I never said all places must allow smoking, which would be as unreasonable as saying no places may allow it. Opponents of public acceptance for homosexuality would claim that there is objective harm done by homosexuals as teachers, scoutmasters or what have you. They are wrong, but they are using the same exact logic you use against smoking, and thus you prove my point. As for whose political agenda is furthered by smoking bans, anybody whose constituents include irrational busybodies who prefer one group having its rights totally trounced to avoid the slightest inconvenience to themselves will benefit politically from passing draconian smoking bans. Irrational busybodies who want the rights of homosexuals totally trounced with regard to marriage or even what happens in the privacy of their homes to avoid the slightest inconvenience to themselves are operating on the same principle.

* The American College of Chest Physicians concluded "A great deal of new evidence suggests that the respiratory system may be vulnerable to damage caused by inhaled environmental agents during the prenatal period," said Rachel L. Miller, MD, the study's lead author at the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health, part of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY. "This study indicates that the combination of exposure to combustion by-products in the womb and to second-hand smoke during infancy can cause significantly more respiratory problems than either exposure on its own," added Dr. Frederica Perera, the study's Principal Investigator and Director of the Center.

* The EPA has also concluded Secondhand Smoke Can Make Children Suffer Serious Health Risks. Breathing secondhand smoke can be harmful to children's health including asthma, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia and ear infections. Children's exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for: (1) increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma; (2) between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age); and, (3) respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year. The developing lungs of young children are severely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke for several reasons including that children are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest risk of damaging health effects. A few basic actions can protect children from secondhand smoke: (1) Choose not to smoke in your home and car and do not allow family and visitors to do so. Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable to the health risks from secondhand smoke, (2) Do not allow childcare providers or others who work in your home to smoke, (3) Until you can quit, choose to smoke outside. Moving to another room or opening a window is not enough to protect your children.

* The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has determined that the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke (SHS) or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day, and has warned that all patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease or with known coronary artery disease should avoid all indoor environments that permit smoking.

* A study of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction in Helena, Montana before, during, and after a local law eliminating smoking in workplaces and public places was in effect, has determined that laws to enforce smokefree workplaces and public places may be associated with a reduction in morbidity from heart disease.

* The 1999 National Cancer Institute Monograph 10, based on the 1997 Cal-EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) review of population-based studies, confirmed that SHS is fatal and has numerous non-fatal health effects. SHS chemicals include irritants and systemic toxicants, mutagens, and carcinogens, and reproductive and developmental toxicants. More than 50 compounds in tobacco smoke are known carcinogens. SHS exposure causes lung and nasal sinus cancer, heart disease, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Serious impacts of SHS on children include asthma induction and exacerbation, bronchitis and pneumonia, middle ear infection, chronic respiratory symptoms, and low birth weight.

* SHS is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers in the U.S. each year. For every eight smokers the tobacco industry kills, it takes one nonsmoker with them.

* SHS is a major source of PM pollution - a risk factor for pulmonary disease, asthma, and lung cancer - and that three cigarettes smouldering in a room emits up to 10-fold more PM pollution than an ecodiesel engine. The study concluded that high levels of PM exposure from SHS may account for frequent episodes of short term respiratory damage in nonsmokers.

* Secondhand smoke exposure during childhood has been associated with an increased risk of spinal pain, such as neck pain and back pain in adult life. Researchers suggest this may be due to the negative effects of smoke exposure during childhood on the developing spine.

* The excess risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) associated with passive smoking is 50-60%, twice what was previously thought by researchers, and the risks of CHD for passive smoking are virtually indistinguishable from active smoking. A study published in the July 2004 edition of the British Medical Journal found higher risks of CHD because, rather than using marriage to a smoker or working in a smoky environment as their measure of exposure, the study's authors used plasma cotinine (metabolized nicotine), a direct biochemical measure of total SHS)exposure. By doing so, they captured SHS's entire exposure effect.

* Even a half hour of secondhand smoke exposure causes heart damage similar to that of habitual smokers. Nonsmokers' heart arteries showed a reduced ability to dilate, diminishing the ability of the heart to get life-giving blood. In addition, the same half hour of secondhand smoke exposure activates blood platelets, which can initiate the process of atherosclerosis (blockage of the heart's arteries) that leads to heart attacks. These effects explain other research showing that nonsmokers regularly exposed to SHS suffer death or morbidity rates 30% higher than those of unexposed nonsmokers.

* The 1986 Report of the Surgeon General; the 1986 National Research Council report, Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects; and the 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, established that SHS exposure causes lung cancer.

* The 2002 Environmental Health Information Service's 10th Report on Carcinogens classifies SHS as a Group A (Human) Carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans. There is no safe level of exposure for Group A toxins. In addition, the 2002 World Health Organization International Agency's (IARC) Monograph on Tobacco Smoking, both Active and Passive concluded that nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers.

* In 1991, data showed that nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population had measurable levels of serum cotinine in their blood. In 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals found more than a 75 percent decrease in median cotinine levels for nonsmokers in the U.S. since 1991- an indication that smoke-free environments significantly reduce exposure to SHS.

Here's a site with the references: <http://www.no-smoke.org/htmlpage.php?id=17>

THERE IS A SUCH A SUPERABUNDANCE OF LITERATURE TO CONFIRM SECONDHAND SMOKE IS A HEALTH RISK THAT ONLY AN ADDICT WOULD SUGGEST OTHERWISE.

Also, your argument that "customers and staff alike can choose which they wish to patronize/work in" is morally bankrupt if you mean it seriously. It is true that customers have some freedom to chose what establishment they patronize except when they are minors, or when they are with a large group and have no alternative transportation, or when they are at a work related function, or when . . . . Your suggestion that staff at those restaurants could just "choose" a different place to work is what is morally bankrupt. To illustrate, let's try your argument in some other contexts: "those miners' families should quit whining about the poor safety record at the mine -- the miners could have chosen a different place to work;" or "that secretary who keeps bitching about getting her ass pinched should quit whining -- she could just chose a different job;" or "Scott McClellan should quit bitching to his mother (who just abandoned the Republican party in her bid for Texas governor) about having to spread Bush's increasingly obvious lies -- he could just chose another job" (actually, that last one was a joke). Maybe you have never faced the choice between supporting your kids in a less than ideal job, but other workers DO NOT enjoy the luxury of simply "choosing" another job. Did you really think the underpaid waitresses and busboys in those smoky establishments "chose" those jobs from a wide panoply of options, and they freely elected to work for minimum (or sub-minimum) wages to bring you food and clean up your dirty dishes after you are done because they didn't want the stress of running a Fortune 500 company? Simply put, the exposure to unhealthy or unsafe or hostile work environments is not a choice that the worker should be blamed for, and you should be ashamed for imposing blame and responsibility for the inadequacies of the workplace on the workers who have to tolerate that workplace.

Finally, I am recovering from stage IV nasopharyngeal cancer. The only risk factor I have is that both my parents were heavy lifelong smokers (until my father was diagnosed with smoking-related bladder cancer). My oncologists at MD Anderson believe there is an indisputable link between secondhand smoke and cancer, asthma, emphysema, SIDS, bronchitis, pneumonia, an a panoply of other diseases. You may think that they are just "busybodies" but I trust you'll forgive me if I take their analysis of the health risk over yours.

For right now I will say I don't doubt the risks of smoke. And I do think it's lousy that minors get it forced on them unnecessarily, or that people are forced to experience it who would choose to avoid doing so. However, I do think there is a happy medium to be found where there are establishments such that smokers and non-smokers both can be happy. It will never be perfect, and we should err on the side of non-smokers, but I think denying the smokers the right to smoke in -any- and -all- businesses is wrong.

So smokers aren't like those asking for homosexual rights.

Smokers are like the marchers to Selma, okay?

For the simple reason was there are no clean test subjects to test for second hand smoking. In fact many house hold cleaning products also cause the same side effects as second hand smoke. You can also link pesticides past and present to the same diseases as those listed by the EPA report. We live in a toxic waste dump and contaminate ourselves daily. BTW, anyone who has been around people that have asthma and emphysema can tell you that perfumes and aftershaves can give them the same reaction as smoking causes.

and the science still isn't complete on global warming either. :eyes:

Sid

cough

Thanks, but no thanks

There is PLENTY of evidence that secondhand smoke is bad for you.

Provides evidence where it has been proven that second hand smoke causes anything other than griping. And the EPA report from 1992 will not do. It has been debunked time and time and time again.

...you foot the bill and I'll be more than happy to provide you with evidence from my own body.

We'll go to my pulmonologist and have a pulmonary function test performed.

Then, we'll go to a bar for a few hours.

The next day, we'll go back to the pulmonologist and have another PFT done.

Then, we can keep up the PFTs for a week or so to gauge how my lung function improves as we get further from the second-hand smoke experience.

After that, my pulmonologist can sit you down and explain exactly what physiological changes the smoke produces in my lungs.

That will sure enough move it out of the anecdotal realm.

The bill for all of this should run under two grand.

You game, hotshot? You want to put your money where your mouth is? Or do you just want to sit around and "gripe?"

Since Asthma can be triggered by nothing more than stress.

Where were all the people who were so "deathly" alergic to cigarette smoke in the 50's - 60's -70's?

Hmmmm?????

...and most anyone who was claiming pulmonary problems in the '50s and '60s is most likely dead now.

want to talk to my allergist?

He'll tell you what second hand smoke does to my mucosal lining in my lungs, and in my nose and throat.

Are you insane?

Second hand smoke is harmless?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :crazy:

it's that simple.

:-)

Plus, cigarettes themselves contain many of those household cleaning products.

...and I don't have nearly the reaction to perfumes that I do to smoke. It also seems that smoke spreads more quickly and thickly than perfumes will.

Just about the only accurate statement in your post.

I suggest you read the labels on house hold cleaning solutions and find out whats in them and what happens when you breathe the fumes in. Not to mention how many bright people out there that mix house hold cleaners, like bleach and pine sol, then wonder why their lungs burn. I left out certain other facts that people never think about, like the fact during the early 1960's DDT was poured on school kids when there were out breaks of lice or other vermin. Remember DDT was banned because it effected the DNA of Eagles and other sea birds that lived off fish. Also don't forget that asbestos was used every where in the school, from the boiler rooms to the sound proofing in the band rooms kids were exposed to asbestos from the 1930's until the late 70's. Then during the late 40's and 50's A bomb testing done out in the open, god knows where all of the fall out from that went, but i bet you it found its way into the air, land, water and food supply. Unknown to the american people John Wayne did not get lung cancer from smoking like everyone was told. Every cast member from the movie She Wore a Yellow Ribbon died of the same type of lung cancer as JW died from. Though smoking didn't help. Guess where that movie and 3 others made during the same time period were made? Less then 100 miles from where our wonderful government was exploding Atomic bombs at. So where are they going to get clean test subjects from to test their second hand smoke theories on? Then you have smoke stacks from industry that dumped god knows how many toxins into the air and still continue to dump the same toxins in the air, how much they don't know, they put filters inside the smoke stacks that filter out some but not all of those toxins. So where are they going to get clean test subjects from to test their second hand smoke theories on? Yet second hand smoke is whats causing all the health risks. Yeah right.

That doesn't detract from the fact that cigarette smoke, secondhand and direct, is ALSO very bad for us.

are therefore talking from a standpoint of ignorance.

For many, starting smoking was a choice, but after becoming addicted, is no longer a choice but an affliction.

And don't tell me that even after addicted it is a choice, cause then you would be speaking from even a further level of ignorance.

Thanks.

Quit making excuses, because if you have kids, there are no excuses for smoking around them. I don't care how much they're addicted to ANYTHING. And I grew up with parents who smoked their whole lives, one of whom died for it. He had every opportunity to quit, but he chose not to. The doctor even gave him several options to try for free to quit. He didn't even want to try. He killed himself, and now my (Future) kids will never know how wonderful of a granddad he would have been. Smoking is a choice. And your opinion of my ignorance is biased, and therefore irrelevant. I couldn't care less what you think of me.
Duckie

Experience, than that is by definition speaking from ignorance.

It is even more ignorant for you to accuse me of making excuses and smoking around my kids, as I make certain that they are not subjected to it.

And just because some doctor offers you something to quit doesn't mean "Wow, it's that easy huh? All this time I just had to wait for a doc to offer me something? oh ok, I can quit now". That is absurd. I have tried everything on the market and cannot quit.

Don't tell me I'm making excuses, and don't persecute and judge smokers because of their addiction.

Smoking for me, is not a choice. If you don't like it too damn bad. You don't have a leg to stand on since you are ignorant on the addiction from never having had experienced it yourself, and therefore cannot judge nor speak to it with any real level of understanding.

Thanks.

and there is a price to pay for quitting smoking. many millions of people have paid that price, and lived to
tell about it.

You will quit WHEN YOU REALLY WANT TO QUIT. When the price of smoking is greater than the price of quitting is
when you will quit. no sooner, no later.

You are playing the victim when you are in fact the perpetrator in regard to your addicition.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/clark2008.htm

PS - been there, done that.

And please, spare me your self righteousness in preaching to me just because you were an ex-smoker. I'm thrilled that you quit and glad something worked for you, but it is incredibly narrow minded to think that your addiction and way you were able to handle it is equivalent to others addictions. Every addiction is different.

So please, I don't want to hear the tired old crap about how I can quit when I'm ready, as it isn't really quite that simple. I suffer from a severe addiction upon which I at this time have no control over, until they actually develop some type of quitting assistance that is actually effective for me. I'm hoping the coming soon rimnobant may do the trick.

And yes, I am a victim. I'm a victim of being a naive 13 yr old that thought the marlboro van was cool and had no idea what starting smoking would end up doing to me. Now 18 yrs later I recognize it as the worst decision I ever made. But don't tell me that now it is still my choice, as it is a load of naive crap.

...and I quit after close to twenty years of the habit without the aid of anything or anyone. I simply made my mind up and I did it.

For what it's worth, I was also working in an environment where I was surrounded by smokers who did it continuously while we worked.

Sorry to say, but I don't think you'll ever quit as long as you tell yourself you're a victim without any control over what you put in your own body.

I smoked for 28 years, smoked while holding my babies (we didn't know then that first-hand smoke was bad, let alone second-hand smoke), quit cold-turkey in 1982 (with a cigarette in one hand and a lighter in the other), found quitting far easier than I dreamed it could be, and love, absolutely love, to inhale second-hand smoke. However, I also know it's bad for me so avoid it whenever possible. I sympathize with those who have trouble quitting, and wish they understood that a few weeks, even a month or so, of discomfort is worth a lifetime free of smoke. The discomfort won't last forever.

Do you, or do you not, continue in a habit you know is killing you, if you are a smoker?

If yes, then you are choosing to continue that habit. That it is made easier to decide so thanks to the addiction is understandable, but it's still a choice.

I see it with my parents - my mom quit, my dad hasn't (to my knowledge). It's a choice, even if it's a hard one (dad could do it - they both quit drinking, so I know he can).

However, even though it's a choice, everyone facing the choice does have my sympathy. Addictions are terrible.

,

I smoke (I KNOW I shouldn't, but I do). I am very conscious of the effect that it has on non-smokers and try to be hyper aware of them and go out of my way not to disturb them with my habit. I do not need to be bullied and banned to accommodate Amerika and it's non-smokers.

And how convenient that states with casinos have been banning smoking is all the bars in the state except the ones in casinos.

Money talks? Yes, indeed, it actually shouts. The purported reason for these laws is "protecting the health of the workers." I guess your health isn't worth protecting if you work in a casino, eh?

Redstone

on native american reservations. Our state laws don't apply to them, for the most part.

It's not that the laws don't apply to casinos, it's that the laws don't apply to native american reservations.

:eyes: We're not just talking about in the seats, either. Anywhere.

...has excellent air filtration and circulation systems.

I could see being obnoxious to smokers. Until then....it's a bunch of crap. :hi:

That's the point I was trying to make on the SUV business. :hi:

due to the fact that you appear to be 20 pounds over your projected weight, we are required by law to refuse service to you.", as well, if we continue on with this. :hi:

whereas (if you smoke) smoking in my vicinity does.

I'd like to lose my fat, and I'm working on it.

Maybe it would do me good if I had to lose weight to go to restaurants. I wouldn't like it, but I don't like my fat either!

your fat effects my insurance bills? Not that I believe that crap either, its just the excuse they use to up the rates.

but as far as an immediate direct HEALTHCARE danger, my fat is harmless, unless it bumps you into the street or something. (I'm not that fat, but I'd like to lose about 50 lbs)

Indoor smoking is more enclosed and the effect more direct and significant.

Yes, cars pollute and affect health. So then what? Anyone who causes ANY pollution cannot object to second hand smoke and call for a ban?

And how is supporting a ban "obnoxious" exactly?

Tell that to my grandmother...a sufferer of emphysema, who never smoked a day in her life...nor did her husband. What she did do, was live in a major metropolis...populated by many drivers. Until you're ready to ride a bike daily and eschew that which makes your life convenient all the while polluting the breathing space of others...I call crap.


and, on edit: To claim that the treatment of smokers by many (not all) people who support a nonsmoking ban is not obnoxious is to be totally obtuse. Check out the archives on this subject.

so why should it not extend to smoking in enclosed spaces as well, which is as bad or worse as what your grandmother put up with?

I don't understand what you "call crap" on here.

Are you in favor of allowing smokers to polute enclosed spaces?

the rest of my nonsmoking family.

Again, give up the car...maybe I'll pay a bit more attention to your point of view.

If so, then your point of view is equally worth dismissal I guess.

If you say no, then you're a liar.

Learn how to seperate an issue unto itself.

I'm happy to admit I drive a car and it pollutes. Even still, the open air is preferable to breath than an enclosed area full of cigarette smoke, CORRECT?
Yes, correct. Thus, my "point of view" stands regardless of the pollution I (or you) add to the open air.

"I'm happy to admit I drive a car and it pollutes. Even still, the open air is preferable to breath(e) than an enclosed area full of cigarette smoke, CORRECT?"

You've just lost your own argument. 'Preferable' to whom? It's your car exhaust that contributes to localized pollution, acid rain, the depletion of the ozone layer, and global warming.

I live downtown in a major city (Toronto), and even though this city is cleaner by comparison to most, the air here (especially in the summer months) is often 'chunky-style', i.e. visibly full of pollution, which can smelled for miles.

That's NOT cigarette smoke, sweety. THAT'S your car! As I've said elsewhere on this thread, you can go into non-smoking buildings and escape cigarette smoke. Where do I go to escape the air I have to breathe every time I step OUTSIDE?

It's not open to your interpretation.

You've gotta be kiddin'. The 'scientfic measures' are well known -- it ain't no cigarette smoke that's causing the depletion of the ozone layer, or global warming.

I'm talking about air quality and it's affect on those breathing it.

Are you going to tell me that the air in an enclosed room full of smokers is just as good as the air outside?

Debate in good faith please.

Neither one is to be ignored, IMHO.

...and commuted by bicycle for years. Unfortunately, my emphysema has made that a difficult order now.

Does that mean I'm still free to hold my opinion?

and your weight is announced as you approach. The clerk informs you that you are entirely too fat to be eating donuts or pizza or ice cream or whatever.

How does a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in anyway compare?

:P...of course that's one of the "issues" the smoking nazis use regarding medical insurance:)

Give it up.

cause health care costs to rise by burdening the insurance industry with totally preventable disease. We consume a disproportionate level of care and expense to the industry thereby driving up costs for everyone and prohibiting the companies from being able to offer health care to their workers. Now...that is not my idea, but it is fast becoming the argument for the government regulating even more of our choices.

Your over eating and packing on the fat along with the rest of the country causes many many health problems. Heart attacks, strokes, mobility issues and the list goes on. All of the overweight people have to be treated for overweight issues which causes the rates of insurance to soar which in turn causes me to not be able to afford it so I get to die in the waiting room of a county hospital waiting for a doctor to treat me while all the heart attacks and breathing failures and whatever else is being treated all because of the populations inability to say no to krispy creams. Trust me, it hurts others daily.

Now, is obesity the ONLY thing causing insurance to go through the roof? No. But it sure is way up on the list.

... and seen the yellow cloud that sits perpetually above it? That's not nicotine, my friend; that's exhaust from gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and the like, as well as corporate pollution that the gov't invariably turns a blind eye to.

I smoke, but I am a conscientious non-driver; I use public transportation. The difference here is that you have non-smoking establishments in which to eat, drink, etc.

Where are the non-carbon monoxide sections of US towns and cities?

Where are the streets encased in plastic bubbles that protect we non-drivers from the pollution spewed into the air by people who HAVE TO DRIVE their SUV everywhere, because they're above taking the subway or a bus?

It's been more than proven unequivocally that gasoline emissions far outweigh the pollution caused by cigarette smokers -- so why aren't we going after the BIG polluters, before we go after the small-fry?

Your argument is basically this:

There is car pollution everywhere and no restriction on it, therefore there should be no restriction on me polluting enclosed spaces with cigarettes.

I see this car point brought up again and again.

I don't want any cars running in the restaurant either! let's ban running cars indoors at the same time as we ban smoking indoors, OK?

"The difference here is that you have non-smoking establishments in which to eat, drink, etc."

Uh, no, we don't. Not here. That's why we went out for sushi the other night and ended up heading home after driving to every one of the four sushi places in our town.

We can rarely go listen to music. We can't go out and meet friends for a drink. We can barely go to restaurants. As ridiculous as it sounds, we had to move our location at an outdoor musical event three times last August due to the number of cigarette smokers there.

... that isn't part of this smoking ban thing?

If you TRULY can't eat, drink, or enjoy music in a non-smoking environment, that is JUST AS BAD as not being able to enjoy the same things in a smoking venue (of that's your choice).

So where is it you're talking about? I'm truly curious.

...Last year, a pilot on an arriving flight at our barely-existing regional airport announced to his passengers after touching down, "Welcome to Mobile. You can now set your clocks back 30 years."

It created howls of outrage as most unadulterated truth does.

My only beef was that, in some ways, he gave Mobile about 20 years of credit it doesn't deserve.

Let's put it this way: when an upper-middle class writer from Natchez, Mississippi (a small plantation town still firmly ensconced in the Old South) describes the town thusly, "The races in Mobile appear to remain far more separate than in other Southern cities," it says a lot.

Like Ford Field? :eyes: (Yes, smoking is banned everywhere inside Ford Field and many other enclosed sports stadiums. Outdoor stadiums, too. E.g. Pac Bell Park.)

to step outside or go to a seperate room, unlike the ciggy people.
I often give the pinky finger salute to Hummer drivers

Lawn chairs, TV trays and a tie dyed Bob Marley flag in the basement will make any person with actual taste gag, and could be more detrimental to society than tobacco users.;)

you've raised a great point. It'd be really nice if we could even get half as much enthusiasm towards expanding public transportation in North America as there is towards the banning smoking in public spaces crusade. For those of us living in big cities, air pollution from car exhaust is a much worse problem than smoking.

Won't happen. Because the issue at hand is not "I'm protecting everyone's health". That's a load of crap. All it is, is a group that latched onto something they personally didn't like and decided they would jump on that high horse with the political nazi's. If this many people were REALLY concerned with public health they would be lobbying for health insurance, clean air OUTSIDE of Joe's bar and host of other things. But that's not the case. The big concern here is not that "I would like to frequent Joe's bar so I would like the air inside of it to be smoke free" it's just I want to tell YOU what to do. The people that are on this crusade are not likely at all to go to any of the places they are having fits about. It's nothing more than an opportunity for them to feel superior in their self centered petty little world.

:eyes:

Nah, it's just some people don't want to smell stinky-ass cigarette smoke when they go to a restaurant. Air pollution, while being much more of a health threat, isn't as obvious or immediate, so people find it easier to ignore.

...I park my car next to your table and keep it idling, you've got a point.

I guess if one were forced to choose between a car or smokes, I could see your point.

Seriously, on the surface it sounds reasonable to say "Restaurants should be free to decide", but if they all decide to permit smoking, then where can people not wanting negative health effects go to eat? Or workers who don't want negative health effects to to work?

No, the only sane move is a blanket ban.

But SUVs are free to scatter carcinogens wherever they want. Isn't that what smokers do?

aren't smoking in a malicious way....meaning they don't wish any harm on anyone (even though they are perpetrating harm) then it's OK?

And all the comparisons to vehicles are a little boring and pointless. I don't want you running your Prius in the restaurant either!

And I don't say that everyone can smoke everywhere, I just say there should be both smoking and non-smoking establishments.

The air that all those vehicles are spewing into is preferable to an enclosed space with smokers in it.

"And I don't say that everyone can smoke everywhere, I just say there should be both smoking and non-smoking establishments."
So, if all establishments choose to allow smoking, what then?

I don't know for sure, but I think bar/dining room mixes in the vein of TGIF would see a severe loss of business if they went "all-smoking." I think it's unrealistic to assume all would choose the smoking route, though it is possible.

...where you can smoke anywhere anytime. There's no such animal as "non-smoking" here unless you're at a medical facility or office building.

at bus stops and transit centers?

Outdoors, right next to the road with big diesel buses driving by every few seconds. Have they gone too far, or is that ok with you too?

in concentrated quantities from which one cannot escape.

I am required to participate in a daily lunch (job requirement) in a restaurant which permits smoking. Even though we sit in a non-smoking section when we can (and generally we wait until the only non-smoking table large enough to accommodate us is available), since it is not walled off with a separate ventilation system I have to breathe smoke filled air for about an hour every day.

Aside from whatever the long term consequences are on my health, it makes me nauseous and aggravates my migraine headaches.

If this were in the open air, as cars are, I could tolerate it. Since it is an a single room restaurant, I am strongly agitating for a smoking ban in restaurants.

Economic arguments don't work in my case (take your business elsewhere). There is really no other place to go. I am not in control of the $11,000 or so our group spends at this restaurant annually and have no choice in the matter. If I did, it is unlikely that it would impact the management's decision since (1) they are all smokers and (2) we have tried requesting special accommodations in the past in connection with menu changes, for example, and have not received them.

And I would say that these days you are far more likely to encounter a few dozen instances of SUV exhaust than you are to encounter a few dozen smokers blowing so near you as to give you second-hand smoke.

In an average workday I encounter no SUVs close enough to blow exhaust on me, and never in a parking garage (enclosed or otherwise). I encounter at least two and as often as many as 6 smokers every workday to which I am exposed for a minimum of 45 minutes, generally closer to an hour. I have counted as many as six cigarettes consumed during lunch by each one of these smokers. About a third of the time they are seated at the adjacent table and they are never more than 3 tables away in a closed room with low ceilings and ceiling fans which just spread the smoke around the enclosed room. On the worst days there is not only cigarette smoke but cigar smoke.

As indicated, this is a job requirement - I can neither skip nor choose a different restaurant. My only hope for relief is a smoking ban which, frankly, cannot come quickly enough.

There are plenty of people who are bothered by secondhand smoke...enough to create a market for smoke-free establishments. If the market exists, it WILL be utilized.

According to the ALA:

"Household cleaning agents, personal care products, pesticides, paints, hobby products, and solvents may be sources of hundreds of potentially harmful chemicals. Such components in many household and personal care products can cause dizziness, nausea, allergic reactions, eye/skin/respiratory tract irritation, and cancer."

is a blanket ban in order? Im a non-hairsprayer... why should I be forced to breathe in some one elses nasty chemicals just because I have to go pee? :shrug:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35381

The objection is childish.

if the argument is that smoking must be banned for the good of peoples health. Then why not be consistent? If you are to be protected from me, then I would also like to be protected from you. (not you per se... but the collective 'you').
As a side note... I do smoke, chemical free organic cigarettes. No carcinogens. And bans dont bother me.

...if it's good enough for workplace safety Regs than it's good enough for second hand smoke....

... for several years. It worked beautifully. Bar/restaurant owners had a choice, based on their personal preferences and/or the prevailing penchants of their regular customers.

Everyone was happy. Non-smoking establishments attracted non-smoking customers and staff, and vice versa.

Nobody lost business, because customers who left to go to the 'other' kind of bar or restaurant were replaced by those whose preferred 'this' kind of establishment.

That bylaw, unfortunately, was ended last year. Since that time, bars and restaurants are going out of business all over the city. We live downtown near a major street, and six bars and two restaurants, all long well-established businesses, have gone under in the past twelve months -- and have not been replaced.

So there goes the 'everyone will decided to be a smoking bar' argument. I would also add that ten years ago, LONG before this was ever an issue here or anywhere else, there were OVER 450 restaurant/ bars who declared themselves non-smoking establishments -- BY THEIR OWN CHOICE, to cater to the non-smokers.

The height of stupidity and arrogance, IMHO, is when there is a viable solution to a problem that satsifies BOTH sides of an issue, and one side stands up and says, "NO, it's GOT TO BE MY WAY."

Compromise that results in a win-win situation for both sides should be not only preferable, but OBVIOUS.

I have never disagreed with a no-smoking policy in offices, public buildings, or movie theatres -- but to not allow bar/restaurant owners and patrons the ability to CHOOSE the environment in which they spend their leisure hours is beyond ridiculous - it's non-democratic.

In Winnipeg business didn't suffer. My wife and I go out a lot more now that places are smoke free.

The idea that business suffers is just plain wrong.

... who have gone out of business. We were told this BS in Toronto -- but the stats don't bear it out.

Just because you and your wife go out a lot more doesn't mean anything -- we smokers go out less. If every smoker who stopped eating or drinking out was replaced by a non-smoker who didn't used to go out, your case would hold water.

But the reality is quite different than that. If non-smokers were (as we were told they would) suddenly going out to places in droves that they'd eschewed in the past, the number of patrons in bars and restuarants would be at a status quo. But they're not.

We have restaurants and bars that are now boarded up - they haven't been 'bought up' by people opening non-smoking establishments. I also have many friends in the wait-staff business who are out of work for the first time in their careers, and others who have been cut down to part-time because the places they work have fewer customers.

The proof is always in the pudding -- and the 'pudding' has now shown itself to be a loss of business all over the GTA.

In my state they already did a ban in restraunts, and bars. After about 1 yr they had to repeal it and fix it to allow such buisness to have smoking allowed, but a seperate sections for each.

They had to do this because places were loosing money. There are a ton of people out there who only smoke occasionaly, like when they go out to eat, or when they go drinking. Also they found that many did not stick around long, and would just eat and run. Or have just a drink or to and run off. While when smoking was allowed these people stayed longer and spent more money.

If it was bullshit my state would not have repealed the law in the first place. It was not smokers that lobbied and spent so much money to have it changed, it was buisness owners.

there must not be a market for non-smoking restaurants. If there are indeed large numbers of people who don't want to go to smoky restaurants, non-smoking restaurants will prosper. Then you go go to your non-smoking restaurant and I can go to my smoke-filled one and everybody will be happy.

A blanket ban is not a sane move, but an attempt to remove freedom from others in order to satisfy your prejudices.

there must not be a market for no war with Iraq.

He didn't ask us, remember? As a matter of fact, he told us to shut up.

You cannot possibly believ that a state that enacts an complete smoking ban, by the vote of the people, is going to have all smoking bars and restaurants if given a choice. That argument is paranoid.

'fast food' makes smoking seem like a health BENEFIT by comparison.

... McDonald's became non-smoking:

"Now enjoy your nutrition-free meal in a smoke-free environment."

I am for the relegalization of laughing grass to say the least, but I do not believe you have the right to pollute the air of another with either tobacco or pot, although there is such a thing as accommodation. I think that smoking tobacco in front of children is child abuse and with good reason. It exposes them to an addictive substance and a substance with real health concerns.

And you are absolutely incorrect in the phrasing of your heading linking hatred to smokers.

You may say you hate the smoke, but your post says otherwise.

" I think that smoking tobacco in front of children is child abuse and with good reason."

Almost as hyperbolic as some of Bill O'Reilly's tantrums, just as hateful towards PEOPLE, not their activities, and just as loony as anything that comes out of his mouth.

Giving a child asthma certainly is child abuse. Getting them addicted to cigarettes is child abuse. I guess you never heard about "coming to smoking honestly."

Goodbye.

The claim that employees that work in bars or restaurants have the right to work in a smoke-free environment is ridiculous to me.

There are plenty of occupations where performing your duties poses a health risk. Working in the hospitality industry in the capacity of a server of some type means that your JOB is to make people comfortable. If they're comfortable smoking, it's your JOB to work with that.

Don't like it? Work in another industry. Restaurants should have the right to be smoke-free if they WISH, but there shouldn't be legislation requiring it...certainly not based on employee "rights".

My view is that there are people who smoke. Smoking may be harmful to your health, but it's not illegal. Those people who smoke might occasionally want to dine (or drink) out. A business owner should have the freedom to cater to those people's desires.

There are also people who don't smoke and are bothered by secondhand smoke. A business owner should have the freedon to cater to these people's desires too.


If you want to eat out and don't want secondhand smoke, eat at a place that has voluntarily restricted it.

If you want to work in the hospitality industry and don't want to deal with secondhand smoke, get a job at an establishment that has voluntarily restricted smoking.

In Ramsey County, for example, we have a somewhat sensible law that bans smoking in establishments whose sales of liquor account for less than half their total sales. Those establishments which have more than half of their sales made up of liquor can apply for a waiver to allow smoking. I would think that having some establishments which allow it and some which don't would provide the happiest medium.

...actually do so? I could see the validity of your argument if there really was a range of possible outcomes, but in reality, if smoking is permitted in ANY bars or restaurants, it will be allowed in ALL bars and restaurants, because the bar owners will never willingly limit their customer base.

I'm not sure what the answer to that would be. My guess is that in a lot of the bar/dining room chains like TGIF and its ilk would likely go non-smoking. More bohemian college-student-ish places would probably choose to remain smoking. The bar I serve in has a sealed off smoking lounge. I don't have any figures or anything for how sealed off it is, but I know I can't smell a whiff of smoke outside of it while the odor is quite potent (damn stogies) within, and it is fairly thoroughly sealed and has air filtration systems in place. And yes, I choose not to work in the smoking lounge. :D

There is a market for non-smoking restaurants. Maybe there's less of one for non-smoking bars.

And, in a case like we are discussing with a statewide smoking ban on the books, the situation is politically charged enough that there will be quite a lot of owners who see the benefits of choosing to cater only to non-smokers.

...where EVERY bar owner predicted that the California smoking ban would utterly destroy his business. It didn't, of course-- didn't even have any effect-- but prior to the ban every one of them was convinced that he would lose business if smoking was prohibited in his bar. And since smokers are addicted to tobacco, every one of them was probably correct about losing smokers' business if the smokers had anywhere else to drink and smoke-- prior to the blanket prohibition, NOT ONE BAR in my town was smoke free, and the chances of any of them banning smoking on their own were slim to none.

If you have an area that has enough nonsmokers that are politically active enough to try and pass a smoking ban, then the restaurants in that area would likely not all become smoking restaurants. It would be bad business to do so. So there will be businesses that will become non-smoking.

I live in a university town in Northern California, where far more people do not smoke than do. The conditions would seem to be ripe for the economic model you suggest, but it never happened. Maybe if non-smokers simply refused to patronize businesses that permitted smoking, but that would have meant a complete boycott, because there were none that prohibited it prior to the state law. So the bar owners got the best of both worlds-- non-smokers patronized them, because they had no alternative, and they believed that banning smoking-- thus creating that alternative-- would simply result in their smoking customers going elsewhere, a net loss of business.

Under the smoking ban, they still have the best of both worlds in terms of the customer base, it's just that now the smokers are the ones without alternatives.

Yet there are plenty of totally non-smoking restaurants and a couple of BARS.

So, your argument is false. The non-smoking bars are doing fine -- one of them is really going gangbusters. There was a NEED and an enterprising person met the MARKET DEMAND.

...for those twelve miners whose safety was ignored by the government???In a safe coal mine black lung is still a given-the guy who lived was the "least experienced" as in he was the one who retained the largest amount of his breathing capaciry.....

I worked in cotton mills, furniture factories, and mixing concrete. All these places were full of harmful particles in the air. I am sure between the cotton fiber, the saw dust, lacquer, and concrete dust i had more damage done to my lungs than any 2nd hand smoke ever would have caused.

I'm a non-smoker, and hate the smell of the stuff, and personally would never go into a restaurant that allowed it. But sheesh -- it DOES happen to be legal. As long as people can choose to avoid it I think we should lay off the rampant banning.

New York state, where I live, banned smoking from restaurants. I can now frequent restaurants that I wouldnt' before. But I don't know... I still don't feel right denying smokers that pleasure. Pleasures are hard to come by these days.

I've seen spewing cigarette smoke for others to ingest equated to homosexuality on DU. One causes cancer and kills people. The other hurts nobody.

Please find another comparison to use; this one is offensive.

I compare the way the two groups are used politically. Please note the difference.

The neocons claim that gays harm society in some way. That's very different than cigarette smoke, which actually kills people.

The two arguments do NOT have the same legitimacy.

I didn't say that the argument "gays hurt society" is valid, I just noted it was made. And it is made, and that phenomenon "I'm not one myself, I believe it hurts society, therefore I ban it" is important to note.

Drunk drivers hurt society, so we should ban drunk driving.

Same argument. Why not use that, instead of equating banning gays because they supposedly harm society to banning cigarette smoke, which kills people?

We work towards eliminating things that are harmful to society. That's what we should be doing, whether the harm is pollutants, drunk driving, murder, theft, corruption, vote tampering, etc. Unless you are trying to argue that we shouldn't eliminate things that hurt society because that's what the right does, there's no logical connection here at all.

It appears more like you are trying to set up a false equivalency, one between banning things for theocratic reasons, vs. banning things that kill people.

I thought it was clear that I wasn't at all comparing gays and smokers directly which I would never do (for starters one is a choice one is not; one causes harm, one does not), but I guess that impression is there even though I didn't intend for it to be there. I'm sorry to anyone who got that impression.

...and ban them for straights. My gaydar's broken, and I need a date! Not being able to tell is infringing on my rights to get laid.;)

(I have nothing to add to this debate)

I don't think anybody's equating the two issues. They're drawing a similarity between the ways the two issues are handled at times.

Now *there's* a group with no rights!

Or, what evidence there is, is speculation, at best. I think that most serious psychologists and researchers, who have no agenda, see it as a potentially genetic condition, while recognizing that the psychological and environmental play as large as, if not a larger, role. If this is the case, then it is possible that there are alternatives to homosexuality.

Homosexuality does put one at risk. Obviously, the AIDS virus is the first problem. The second, is that homosexuals are victims of discrimination and murder, and homosexual relationships have a tendency to be more violent than heterosexual relationships. In addition, while it doesn't harm society, directly, societal conventions and mores have to change to be more accomodating of a "rainbow" of relationships -- meaning that society does have to sacrifice. One example of sacrifice would be state or federal employees being allowed to extend benefits to their partners.

It is, of course, not the same thing, at all, but the comparison that the OP made is on a different plane of thinking, altogether. In essence, it's not that society has to allow homosexuality to be "possible," but that it has to accomodate homosexuality, not only in terms of resources and recognition, but in a psychological space that is difficult for much of humanity to bear. It is the same with all rights and responsibilities. Allowing a restauranteur or bar owner to choose whether or not to allow smoking, and allowing patrons and workers the choice of whether or not to go is freedom -- it's non-intrusive, and there is always a solution that is fair to everyone: no one should be forced to do anything.

The workplace argument only stuck, because it convinced enough people, it, in and of itself is arbitrary, and has nothing to do with the granting of natural rights. It is social engineering. People may be permitted, in the same way, to social engineer anything else they might find objectionable, or can make one peripheral argument stick to -- homosexuality being especially salient, on this point.

In that sense, the comparison is apt. Both banning gay marriage and a smoking ban are arbitrary authoritarian, socially engineered plots. Their foundations are the same.

BULLETIN: AIDS affects far more straight people than it does gays. "Homosexual relationships have a tendency to be more violent than heterosexual relationships"? Where are you getting this shit? Seriously. And this "I think most serious psychologists and researchers..." Who elected you their spokesperson?

And on a human rights level, do you really want employees chosing between cancer and poverty? Except for the accidents of history that have made smoking a common human vice/pasttime, OSHA'd ban it in an instant.

Besides, they've implemented extensive bans in lots of places and the bars and restaurants haven't suffered one whit.

I won't go into the cost/benefit analysis already mentioned above, save to say there's NO benefit from smoking. For gosh sakes, it doesn't even make you high!

And I think most liberals can get behind a statement such as "your free will ends where my face begins." As a former smoker and friend of smokers, I don't think class has anything to do with it. Smoking as a behavior endangers those unwillingly subjected to its effects, so it's legitimate to restrict it.

Outdoor bans are excessive, however.

Does reason dictate that the country legislate the issue to "protect" my "rights" or is it more reasonable that I choose a different job?

***News Flash***
Some people who frequent bars and/or restaurants smoke. If you have an aversion to smoke this is, perhaps, not the best career choice for you.

If you hate kids don't get a job in a day care. I know. It's a stretch, but If someone has no tolerance for something they should choose another field of work.

of industrial solvents, greases, gasses, etc. Shouldn't they do the same for food service workers?

In many jurisdictions, food service workers can apply for work at any establishment with confidence that they will not be exposed to toxic smoke.

I'm supposed to think this is a bad thing?

There are OSHA regulations that govern things like venting exhaust to the outside, over-spray filters in the bodyshop's paint booth and other stuff which relates to contaminating the environment. But the mechanic himself is offered very little protection and is still going to inhale a lot of junk. Brake dust, paint fumes, solvent fumes, burning coolant and oil, gas fumes, unless you work totally wrapped up in a hazmat suit--which of course is completely impractical. In some of the small spaces you have to worm into there isn't room even for eye protection let alone some breathing apparatus.

That is the whole crux of this - choice. You have a choice to go to a place that restricts it - well you USED to have choice. Now the only choice people have is YOURS.

My body, My life, My business if I own it and pay for it.

It is the busy bodys of the world who seem to want to tell others what they can and cannot do, or is that the fundies? Hard to tell the difference sometimes....

In a restaurant or bar, you force your employees to labor in an unsafe workplace. No employer has that right. No employer has the right to maintain a business in which the working conditions are unsafe, even if the customers prefer it that way.

Also, the vast majority of people don't smoke and don't want to when they eat and drink. Sure, you could have smoking and non-smoking establishments, but that seems impractical to me. And you'd still be killing your employees.

and have been for years. You don't like smoking, your employer allows it, work elsewhere.

If there was no business for it then no one would go, no one would work there, and there would not need to make more laws to restrict people and make more criminals.

Your kids do not choose to smoke, so should we ban it at home as well?

To maintain unsafe workplaces. Period. It's not an adult issue, it's the law. It just hasn't always been applied to tobacco.

And while I have no interest in the state banning smoking in private homes (unless those homes are insufficiently ventilated so people not of your household are forced to smoke), I sure as hell DO ban it in my home!

and unionize to be able to smoke with the patrons, we would stop them because it is best for them?

How nice of us....

To give their members the right to smoke. I suppose it's possible.

However, your workplace would still be unsafe, and unfair for applicants for job openings that would inevitably arise in such an establishment.

This isn't really a rights issue, it's a public health issue.

...itself, and so perhaps targeting smokers is a bit misplaced so long as their behavior can be managed in such a way as to permit non-smokers from being imposed upon. Tobacco is a nasty, addictive poison, and the companies that market it are drug dealers, pure and simple. Of course, I strongly support the legalization of OTHER recreational drugs, so I guess I can't begrudge the tobacco companies their right to market addiction and its health consequences. But although it isn't necessarily a logical position, I do begrudge them. I feel the same way about alcohol (even though I'm not a teetotaler by any means).

I think the argument that restaurants and bars can ban smoking or not on an individual basis is too naive-- most business owners won't restrict their own customer base willingly. Bars up here on the north Coast uniformly predicted that their business would suffer disasterously when California outlawed smoking in ALL bars, prior to which ALL bars in this town were generally pretty smoke filled. As far as I can tell, making people smoke outside hasn't hurt their business at all, and it has certainly improved the air quality indoors.

That's how I look at it.

ALL the bars. anti-smoking NAZIS. That's what they are. Period. Progressives? my ass. They will see the error of their ways when it's THEM who are being discriminated against and they WILL BE, eventually, for something.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

and poor, persecuted smokers to Jews. That's a really accurate comparison.

Oh, maybe you meant that this time, it's the Jews gassing the Nazis? :crazy:

Sid

My husband, a Jewish person, AGREES. HE says that ALL the time. Sorry if you don't like it, it's the truth. That comparison always pisses anti-smokers off. It must hit a nerve. :shrug:

Sorry - Its a choice that smokers make to harm themselves, they do not need to share it. Being gay is not a choice - nor is the choice given to employees of restaurants who allow smokers to smoke inside. I don't care if you choose to smoke, drink, use drugs (please refrain from driving under the influence, though), go naked - whatever as long as you do not affect others health. Its as simple as that.

I support the right of anybody to use alcohol, tobacco, or cannibis. But doing so in a public venue, be it a restaurant or road, means you have chosen to extend your drug problem beyond your own personal space and into the personal space of others.

are getting extreme, i have a problem with one point.
"If you do smoke, you are free to go to an establishment which allows it. If you are a waiter/bartender, don't apply to places that allow smoking." ....Suppose you already work there? That's a very RW talking point that needs to be debated. My prejudice would be to Union recommendations in places lucky enough to have them

of 120 chances are that restaurant had a smoking area long before you ever started working there.

so what ? can't improve working conditions?

But if the bar I serve in forced me to work in our smoking lounge, I would look elsewhere for work. If no "elsewhere" existed, I would look for a different job entirely. But if I'm right (and I have no proof that I am :D) there would be plenty of "elsewheres" out there. And there are usually some occupational hazards in unskilled positions--exposure to carcinogens happens in many blue collar professions; I don't know offhand if that occurs in comparable levels to a busy smoking-allowed bar or not.

so I am not able to go to an establishment that allows it.

If I inhale it, it isn't my choice!

Ban smoking in restaurants.

If smokers want to smoke, they can damned well do it outside, or in their cars or homes.

Please tell me why.

why should smoke be allowed in any restaurant????

tell me why?

It is poison to anyone who inhales it.

If you could put a bubble around yourself that kept all the smoke to yourself, then that would be fine.

But why should I limit myself to restaurants that I might like just because they allow smoking?

And non-smoking sections rarely work

Maybe the owners, the employees, and the customers like it that way.

Why do you think every establishment must bend itself to your wishes? I really don't understand why people are so totalitarian on this issue.

Look, I'm seeing more and more totally non-smoking restaurants all the time. If I feel like smoking with my meal, I don't go to them. That's my choice. Your preference is not go to restaurants where smoking is allowed. Go there.

That should supercede any "individual rights" issues in my opinion.

Besides, can you show me anywhere that banning smoking has shut down any restaurants?

It's always the bogeyman thrown out, that they'll lose their business.

Cities that have banned it, still have plenty, if not more, thriving restaurants!

Where else are the smokers going to go to eat? Are they going to just stay home and cook?

On edit, I'll leave out the personal expletives

Like I said, it's a fucking public health issue.

It is, after all, a public health issue and that trumps individual rights.

Glad to see you lay your cards on the table. And I wasn't going to talk about health fascists.

By the way, I'm not the one making the economic argument. My argument is only about individual rights. I think the rights of both smokers and non-smokers can be accomodated without resorting to blanket bans.

as I said in another post

If you want to kill yourself with tobacco smoke fine

just don't do it around people that have no choice in the matter with regards to inhaling your poison!

You have a choice: Don't go to a place that allows smoking. Is that really so difficult?

If I see a sign on a bar that says "Smoking Allowed," I choose to go in there of my own free will. No one is forcing me. No one is forcing you. You just want to force your preferences on everyone.

and I do get it

What I don't get is that I should have to choose whether to harm my health or go somewhere else.

that's bullshit

I could choose to work in a coal mine, but I've decided the risks aren't worth it.

I used to attend live go-go concerts in DC, but I decided the risk wasn't worth it.

You want to remove choice from others. You don't want people in a bar a hundred miles from where you live to be able to smoke because you might show up one night wanting some smoke-free tofu.

Alright, Southpawkicker. You can have the last word if you wish. Believe it or not, I have better things to do that engage in fruitless debates. Good night.

public places.

I really don't think bars should count.

But some might not want smoke in bars.

I don't go to bars.

Nothing there for me.

At no point does your right of "choices of places to go," supercede the right of an owner to allow smoking, and patrons to smoke. You can only enforce that through the tyranny of the majority.

The ONLY reason there is a smoking ban, is because of the workers thing AND the tyranny of the majority, otherwise, there is no basis in law and the granting of natural rights to elevate the immediacy of your "lack of choice" claim, over the smoker's right. None, whatsoever.

Is this the libertarian discussion group?

I thought it was DU

oh well

The "tyranny of the majority", is also known as democracy in action!

Let the people make the rules. Majority rules!

Let's all go back to sleep.

He probably is.

I guess I'm not quick enough to get your post.

Unless you are implying that the majority doesn't rule.

Well, in America it is quite possible that through theft and deception it doesn't.

But that doesn't have much to do with the smoking issue does it?

bans on smoking anywhere inside are the same people who are going to shoot dirty looks and mutter disparaging remarks at smokers they encounter on the street, where they have driven them all?

then quit!

I like that it is socially disparaging to be a smoker

that way maybe more people will become non smokers!

Now fuck off.

the road (like at a sidewalk cafe), and there are cars going by, you will be exposed to combustion products in a very approximate rate as I calculate:

A cigarette weighs about a gram and has about 1 cc of combustible material.

A typical car, getting ~20 MPG mileage is burning about 1 ml of gasoline every meter it travels. YMMV of course and as usual.

So if 100 cars go by while you are sitting there, you'll be exposed to the combustion products (within a 20 meter window to be reasonable) of

100 cars x 20 meters x 1 ml = 2000 cigarettes.

so put away that loser argument

yes auto exhaust is bad

yes cleaners are bad

and YES SMOKING IS BAD for you!

"Why should I limit myself to restaurants that I might like just because they allow smoking?"

There is a GREAT restaurant in my neighbourhood. Great decor, great atmosphere, great music -- and I hear the food is FANTASTIC!

Even as I smoker, I could patronize this restaurant in the summer, because they have an outdoor patio where smoking is allowed.

I have never eaten there. Why? It's a Mexican restaurant, and I HATE MEXICAN FOOD (personal taste, no offence to the millions who LOVE it.)

So according to your argument, I should call that restaurant and DEMAND that they serve French or Italian food, because:

"Why should I limit myself to restaurants that I might like just because they allow only Mexican cuisine?"

Just as I can choose a restaurant that serves the food I prefer, so can you choose a restaurant that serves in the environment YOU prefer.