May I dispel some stunning ignorance? Secondhand smoke risks!

I am saddened that in a dem forum, there are so many that are still actively DUPED into ignorance, by the corporate press. And the idiot obfuscation by hannity type shills.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American Lung Association states that even 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can impair coronary circulation—and that is in someone who does not smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke are 20¬ to 30 percent more likely to get lung cancer, and secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease by as much as 60 percent in nonsmokers.

Secondhand smoke is especially dangerous for children. The American Lung Association reports that, across the nation, children exposed to secondhand smoke miss seven million more days of school each year. In Oregon, SIDS is the second leading cause of infant deaths, and exposure to secondhand smoke increases that risk.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at a higher risk for asthma, respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, pneumonia, colds, and lower respiratory tract infections. Approximately 7,500 infants and 15,000 children in the United States are hospitalized annually because of lower respiratory tract infections that are due to secondhand smoke exposure.



http://www.dailyvanguard.com/ban-second-hand-smoke-1.1940178
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just a taste. And there are those even here, that would DICTATE that I have NO right TO BREATHE. Even here, there are people not only stupid enough to smoke, but get uppity about my rights not to be killed by an ignorant DEATH PANEL.

A non word "Dispess"

Jes saying?!?

Context and all.

"Queen of the typos."

:shrug:

IBTL

people don't get uppity about your rights not to be killed by smoke, they get pissed when you are too lazy to move away from it.

go as a 500 pound gorrilla, clearing out all the ill in your pompous path?

It's not my fault if people are too lazy to move away from me.

but everyone should have enough common sense to know not to go into a smoking area if they don't want to breathe second-hand smoke.

There is usually a little sign that says "NO SMOKING" on the door before you enter.

Oh, and if that evil corporation that owns the local bar refuses to put up that sign for people to see? Take a breath when you walk in the door. If it smells like smoke, they probably allow smoking and you should freely walk to the next place that does not.

you cant go around with a contagious disease that kills. Why are you allowed to make the world a superfund toxic minefield?

Weird man.
But, you know something, dumping oil into the environment is bad, but you can still choose to work or visit a place that deals with oil. Littering is bad, but you can still choose to work or visit a place that deals with litter. CD's are terrible, but you can still choose to work or visit a place with them. Smoking is no different.

Instead of worrying about me breathing in second hand smoke, how about you worry about me having the right to choose if I want to breathe it or not?

in the OP?

which refute and support the info in the OP. I've read or heard of studies that say the same for pot, guns, booze etc...
But I have not read or heard of any study which says that a man or woman is too stupid to stay away from smoke if they do not wish to breathe it.

Smoke goes where it goes. It doesn't suddenly stop on the invisible line between a smoking and non-smoking section in a restaurant. That is the chief problem. If smoke is allowed anywhere in an establishment, it goes everywhere.

then why are you not also capable of choosing not to frequent this establishment?

Here, before we had an all out smoking ban we had this:

1. No smoking anywhere minors are allowed. (So, no restaurant could have a smoking section, but if they enclosed their lounge, they could allow smoking there)
2. If smoking is allowed, it must be done in an enclosed, ventilated area.
3. Staff must not be forced to enter the area.
4. Some bars and pubs would be allowed to provide ventilation to their entire establishment, but all of those were at their own costs.

Many places chose just to get rid of smoking, others to install the equipment required. It was GREAT! There were plenty of places for smokers to go if they wanted, plenty of places for non-smokers to go, and people mostly shut up about it. Until they were forced to ban smoking. Then they were pretty upset that they weren't warned this would happen, especially after all the personal expense, and the fact that it was working so damn well.

not to live with an addict, or breathe the fumes that are spewed into the air every minute of every day by automobiles, by factories, pig farms, chicken farms etc. Or too stupid not to eat most of the food that is sold to us, or to take prescription drugs which have the potential to kill them.

There are many dangers all around us every day. But when those dangers are exaggerated and the proponents of them, take the stand that it is all about THEM, ME, MY etc, rather than have a rational discussion to try to sort out what is fact and what is fiction, they lose credibility. And that is what has happened to the secondhand smoke data as seen in the OP. It exaggerates and does not match people's own experiences, so most people tend to ignore it. And that's a shame, because some of it may be true, but the militant attitude that refuses to look at any other data, the position that everything is all about 'me' and 'you' does nothing to contribute to finding out actual facts.

As far as I am concerned, I don't worry about any of these issues since there is so much more to worry about. I worry far more about what is in the food we eat than I do about inhaling second-hand smoke which I've done all my life, as most people I know smoke, or did and appear to be far more healthy than all those who scream and panic every time they see someone even mention smoking. They are probably raising their blood pressure in their zeal to impose their beliefs on others, far more than a guy who smokes a pack a day, or whoever is exposed to the secondhand smoke.

People need to relax and realize, not everyone is scared to death of every single report they see on TV. If they were, we would not eat butter, wait, I think it's margarine, or eggs, no, wait, eggs are good today, that was yesterday or whatever the scary news of the day is.

be off the charts by now. Relax, you only have one life, try to enjoy it. The benefits of not panicing at every little scary thing, are probably far more health enhancing, than trying to push your views on the rest of the world, no matter how valid you think they are.

You're sitting in front of a computer. I hesitate to ask, but are you aware of the studies that claim you may be causing yourself to get cancer from the rays emanating from your computer? Do you use a cell phone? Surely you know the dangers of doing that? As I said, we live in a dangerous world, most of us don't let it prevent us from enjoying all the good things about it. But your computer and cell phone and automobile, your inability to live without all those crutches, is literally killing people in Africa. Now I know some people don't view African life to be as valuable as ours, but some of us do, and I'm sure their loved do.

So if preserving life is your goal, there's a lot more you need to do to prove you mean it, than just yell about the one thing that bothers YOU!

people really do need to relax and stop trying to live the lives of other people for them.

the claims in the OP. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that all the studies I've read that have been SAID to decry second hand smoke, actually in the real data don't. Pot studies are hilarious! My favorite was the one that concluded it was 'more addictive than heroin' because of the number of young people that seek treatment for it every year. It failed to mention the number of young people either a) forced in to treatment by their parents or b) given the option of treatment or incarceration by a judge.

Smoking is prohibited everywhere, except private homes.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/clean_indoor_air_act/ciaalaw.htm

they can't go in a FREE society.

Dose of your own medicine and all.

Smokers have no right to expect you to accomodate them, if you are in a dipshit dynamite wrapping club. And, you have no right to expect them to accomodate you, if you are in a club which allows smoking.

Its not that freaking hard of a concept to understand.

Did I walk in on my own free will knowing you guys were in there sniffing asses?

from the info the person posted. So I guess people dumb enough to smoke have kids to dumb to move away from second hand smoke or am I miss reading this guys point?

but 10 million people do it every day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm 59.
As someone said "eat right, stay fit and die anyhow."

The most dangerous day of your life is your last one-it's the day you found something you couldn't beat.

I figure I'm living on borrowed time, since by my figuring, I should have died about a dozen times already.
I've been shot at, foomped more than once, driven at 100mph on 30mph roads, snakebit, and a few other things and have the scars to prove it.

I said I'm a former smoker-haven't smoked in 30+ years.

And some of those were not choices, they were imposed upon me while wearing OD green clothing against my will.

on me.

care about the tons of filters that get tossed out every year. Filters that don't biodegrade, that stay in the environment for up to ten years - degradation in different in the Grand Canyon than in the Everglades, for example.

And the cig cos. put gunpowder in them, to keep them burning unattended. So that you will smoke more of them.

Where did you absorb this particular bit of untruthful idiocy?

To reiterate:

"And the cig cos. put gunpowder in them, to keep them burning unattended."

This is officially the stupidest statement that I have ever seen on this board.

Ever.

I believe I also read that Europe dissallowed this.

In the County of New York (Manhattan) cars and trucks spew one million pounds of petroleum particulates into the air every day.
Since 2006, NYC has the worst air quality of any city in the United States.
Auto exhaust is estimated to kill 10,000 non-smoking New Yorkers a year.

The car drivers who poison us non-drivers ought to "try" a little harder.

I`m so glad to FINALLY understand this issue so clearly! Thank you for your commitment to science, justice and truth.



*ahem*

in no way releveant to people smoking endangering the health of others.
You have a future on Faux News.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

on a par with the current "sugar scam" commercials.
But, hey, I'm sure the tobacco lobby pays well.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

I imagine it's somewhat necessary for people in LA to breathe, yes?

However, I don't think the same may be said of second-hand smoke.

you'd have a thread with 500-600 responses and a few thousand recommends.

Oh hell, here ya go!

to pretect the public, their mouth. Chewing.

As we all know, cigarettes contain nicotine. This is the addictive compound that gets the most attention when cigarettes and smoking are discussed. What is perhaps less well known, is that over 4000 chemicals are released from a lit cigarette. Although the exact amount of each chemical varies by brand, the chemicals are there in some amount in almost all cigarettes. Many of these chemicals have detrimental health effects for anyone exposed to them. Obviously, detailing them all here is not possible. I will mention about a dozen (give or take) to give you an idea of what's in that smoke.

Smart Smoker Free TrialGet your Smart Smoker Kit Today 14 Day Free Trial. Ltd Time OfferGetSmartSmoker.comChild ADHD Med CouponReceive a coupon for up to $50 off a med from a trusted ADHD leader.www.ADHDTreatmentforKids.comUrbanization EffectsMinimize Urbanization effects with Green Energy & transport: Siemens.www.siemens.com/SustainableCitiesSome of the chemicals are known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These include: nitrosamines, benzo(a)pyrene, urethane, and toluidine. Chemical carcinogens require extra protective clothing for laboratory personnel who work with them. Yet smokers expose themselves (and others) every time they light up.

There are even metals in cigarettes. For example:

Lead: Everyone knows that lead has been removed from paint because it is very dangerous to children, who not only tend to absorb more than adults, but are more sensitive to its effects. Adults with high lead levels in their blood may have high blood pressure, nerve disorders, muscle pain and even fertility problems.

Copper: Smokers have about twice as much of this metal in their bodies as do non-smokers. Chronic (long-term) exposure can result in a build-up in the kidneys, causing kidney disease. It also shows signs of being a carcinogen, although the evidence is not conclusive.

Mercury: Chronic exposure is known to cause adverse effects on mood, behavior and memory. More specifically, irritability, tiredness, sleeplessness, tremors and damage to the nerves in the arms and legs have been reported.

Aluminum: Chronic exposure can cause, shortness of breath, weakness, and cough.

Some other chemicals, in no particular order, and their health effects:

Acetone: Inhalation can cause dizziness and headache.

Ammonia: Chronic exposure to ammonia can have permanent effects on the lungs, nose, and eyes, including inflammation of the airways and irritation of the eye membranes.

Arsenic: More commonly thought of as a poison that causes death when ingested (swallowed), chronic inhalation of arsenic results in irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. It is also strongly liked to lung cancer.

Butane: Short-term exposure can cause nausea, vomiting, headache, drowsiness, and even suffocation, convulsions, or coma.

Carbon Monoxide: Everyone knows this one, it's the part of the car exhaust that kills when someone locks themselves in the garage with the car running. Chronic exposure can cause severe headaches, dizziness, tiredness, and nausea.

DDT: This chemical has been banned for use in the United States since 1972. Exposure to high quantities and cause headaches, nausea and convulsions.

Formaldehyde: Inhalation causes eye, nose and throat irritation. High levels can cause wheezing, coughing, chest pain and bronchitis.

Hydrogen Cyanide: Most people are aware that cyanide is poisonous when swallowed. Inhalation can also cause headache, dizziness, chest tightness, eye irritation and itchy skin.

Toluene: Inhalation can result in fatigue, sleepiness, headaches and nausea, as well as cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat).

Naphthalene: This material is better know as mothballs. We all know how smelling those makes you feel, i.e., headache and even nausea. Some other symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure are vomiting, diarrhea, and confusion. Chronic exposure has been known to cause cataracts, as well as inflammation of the lung and nasal passages.

As you can see, nicotine is not the only (or even the most dangerous) component of that cigarette.

I would not mind there being bars or restaurants that are for smokers, however, but they need to get away from the entrance to office buildings to smoke.

Those who want to smoke may do so only in enclosures that trap their air and scrub it before releasing it back into the outside atmosphere. They can pay an entry or subscription fee and enclosures can be constructed at various points, urban, suburban, and rural.

In my state, smokers are required to stay at least twenty feet away from building entrances. It's not good enough. I'm tired of having to run a gauntlet of cigarette smoke just to get in and out of the places where I conduct business.

Is secondhand smoke any worse than car exhaust? Yes. Cigarette smoke serves no useful purpose, whatsoever, and I have the right not to breathe it. And, for those who want to tell me that their right to poison my air is equal to, or trumps, my right to breathe air free of their cigarette smoke, fuck off.

Don't want to run a gauntlet outside? Fine - how about building indoor rooms with high exhausts to keep smokers in one place and indoors where they won't catch a cold and give that to you, too.

Breathing clean air IS a right. While a good idea, who would pay for these rooms? Would businesses be able to CHARGE smokers for using them? What if you didnt want to pay? WHere would you smoke?

It was great, it worked really really well.

Businesses that wanted to allow smoking could install a room with good ventilation at their own cost. It was their choice. Employees were never required to enter these rooms, unless by choice. Smoking was not permitted anywhere minors were allowed. Some bars and pubs were allowed to install new, up to date ventilation systems for their entire establishment. So, for example, a restaurant could never allow smoking in the restaurant itself, but they COULD enclose their lounge area if they WANTED to, IF their bar staff agreed to it.

Lots of places chose to do this, and found their businesses actually were doing better than similar that didn`t. We already had many places non-smoking before the law came in, and more moved to just non-smoking entirely. Businesses didn`t have to charge people to use the rooms, as they were already buying their products or services. The big uproar about this happened when the city decided on an all out smoking ban, and businesses that had invested were really angry. To my mind, it was a great solution. Everyone, smokers, owners, non smokers, had choices. Interestingly, the all out smoking ban ended up costing more to enforce than the partial ban.

Some places, like hospitals, provided outdoor smoking enclosures or partial enclosures. They were a good distance from the entrances, and helped not only to contain the smoke so people entering were not affected, but helped to protect their patients from the elements. No matter how strong a stand the health care professionals take against smoking, addicts will smoke. It depresses the hell out of me to see, in the dead of winter, people hooked up to IVs shuffling all the way out to the street in front of the hospital to smoke. Yeah, it`s their `choice`, but it still makes me sad. And I know that feeling, in fact, I`ve done it. Its a very, very powerful addiction.

Somebody could invent something that would help clean the air for establishments that choose to allow smoking. I don't know, some kind of filter thingy that could be placed on the ceiling. I know thats weird futuristic technology, but it may be possible.

Yes, the gauntlet sucks and it should be dealt with. It is not govts job to accomodate smokers one bit.

The right to breathe air free of cig smoke begins with your right to choose not to be around it. I HATE cig smoke with a passion and my daughter is severly allergic to it so I choose not to be around it. The establishment 20 miles away that allows smoking does not affect us one bit.

FAIL! Smoking is NOT a right. Your right to smoke ENDS when it pollutes the air that others are breathing. Besides, smoking is a PUBLIC HEALTH issue, like smog.

The last I checked, freedom of choice was a right, so it is a person right to choose to smoke or not.

I do not smoke, but you are correct, the right to smoke ENDS when it pollutes the air of others who do not wish to breathe it. UNLESS it is in an established smoking area and the non-smoker has chosen to enter that area and breathe that air.

IMO, cig smoke is not the same as smog. But, being openminded, I am willing to change my mind IF you can show me that people smoking in a smoking bar are seriously affecting the health of those not smoking in a bar 30 or so miles away.

Where ever do you get the idea that "freedom of choice" is a right? Can I choose to walk around town nude? Can I choose to burn my yard waste in my lawn against city ordinance?

the freedom of choice is a right that is violated often by those pushing their beliefs and fears onto others.

But, yes, you can choose to go to a nudist area and walk around nude. You see, in our uptight society, we have accepted that there is a "proper" place for such things and smoking should be no different.

the freedom of choice is a right that is violated often by those pushing their beliefs and fears onto others.

There is no "belief" or "fear" of secondhand smoke. The health issues are REAL and SIGNIFICANT and the impact to the population as a whole TRUMPS the "choice" to smoke. I'm done arguing with you as you continue to repeat unfounded and unsubstantiated claims. If you, or anyone else, CHOOSES to willfully ignore the FACTS about smoking and wants to smoke, go right ahead, in/on your personal property. As for public areas, such as bars, resataurants etc., (yes, any place open to the public IS a public area) the rights of patrons and employees to be free from secondhand smoke outweighs the "choice" to smoke.

We could argue until we are blue in the face, but it will not change these facts nor the final fact that this is how it has already been decided in court. Period. Its not going to change, ever.

EVERYBODY knows smoking is bad for them, NOBODY is arguing that it is not and NOBODY is making unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about that. It appears the reason you are blue in the face is because you are arguing what you want to be rather than what is. Easy thing to use when one's argument is lacking.

A small township in the KC area recently voted to give business owners the right to run their business how they wish, so saying its not going to ever change is pretty narrowminded.

I know you ran out of argument and are now "done," but hopefully you will listen to at least one thing being said: YES, the rights of patrons and employees to be free from secondhand smoke outweighs the choice to smoke. To make that work, all you have to do is say no smoking in places which do not allow smoking and smoking in places which do allow smoking. THATS ALL that needs to be done. The problem is solved and fewer business go bust, fewer employees lose their job and all patrons are happy.

Freedom of choice! Too bad so many are against it.

That meme has been proven wrong time and time again. Every time a state passes a smoking ban, the same card is played.."we will go out of business"....well, guess what, that DID NOT happen.

And Second Hand Smoke IS a public Health issue. I have run out of argument because you refuse to accept FACTS. When you choose to ignore FACTS, we can no longer have a debate.

some just lose business and therefore no longer need as many employees.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/15986685/detail.html?rss=kc1&psp=news

My pool league shut down because of the ban, and I will admit it is very nice to be able to go play pool and not have to breathe in smoke or reak of it after I am done. Got kind of lonely in there though, being one of the 7 or 8 still going nightly, so I quit going there at all and now drive about 30 minutes to a place where the smoking nazi's haven't trounced yet.

I do not ignore ANY facts at all. YES, smoking and second-hand smoke is bad. YES, the public should not be forced to breathe it if they don't choose to. I acknowledge, accept and agree with your facts on this, ok?

Now, could you please explain to me just how people smoking in a smoking establishment, endanger your health while you are in a non-smoking establishment across town? Or why you are not capable of not entering a smoking permitted establishment, when my little girl, since around the age of 3 or so, has told me she didn't want to go in there because "people were smoking?"

I hate how smokers need to stand *right outside* restaurant doors so it is impossible to go in or out without them blowing stinking smoke over me and my kids. I hate how the smokers in my office feel entitled to go outside and smoke for 20 minutes, while the rest of us take up the slack, and then stink up the office when they come back in because of all of the smoke that has accumulated in their clothes. They actually leave a foul smelling trail as they walk around the office. I did notice that the smoke-break brigade was overrepresented in my company's latest round of layoffs, which seems fair.

I never realized how much I reeked until I stopped smoking. And lest smokers think I'm one of those vigilante ex smokers out to deprive them of their "rights", I'm not.

I don't care if they smoke.

A couple of people have mentioned how they don't feel it's their responsibility to have to move away from non-smokers...that the non smokers should "move their lazy asses" away from them.

Well, if I'm in a spot first and someone comes over and starts blowing stinking smoke everywhere, why the hell should I move? I was there first. It's especially annoying if the person doesn't even have the manners to ask first, "Do you mind if I smoke?" If they did that, I might even say I don't mind and then move away. But assuming it's their space and that people have to just put up with it...really rude.

Anyway, I started out by saying I never realized how much I stunk. When I quit smoking 13 years ago it was a few years later when I had to go looking for some papers I had packed away. I opened the box, and god almighty, the stink...still there after five years. I'll bet if I found that box right now its contents would still stink.

People have the right to smoke...they don't have the right to make me smell like a filthy ashtray.

after 39 years and I still love the smell of cigarette smoke. Shrug.

It stinks, but it still has the power to make me want one, you know? Even after all this time.

What I miss most of all was how relaxed they would make me feel.


PS...congratulations on your 102 days! :)

Those defending smokers' freedom to endanger other people's health have no argument.
And yet they're still blathering.
I fear they've been dunked in the Sarah Palin pond of ignorance.

Tell you what though, I will concede if anybody can prove that people smoking in a smoking establishment are endangering the health of others who choose not to be around it. How are the people smoking in the poolhall endangering my health while I am eating in a non-smoking establishment 30 miles away?

Can you answer that or are you just going to do as the G and ignore the facts and scream 'righty think' in hopes of silencing?

which is why you're having difficulty with people responding. Your individual rights, while eating in a non-smoking establishment 30 miles away, are not affected by people smoking elsewhere. Second-hand smoke is an issue. It's dangerous. You can say it isn't. And appear as clueless as the anti-global warming folks who believe their data from crazy.com is equal to that of hundreds of qualified scientists. Your argument fails. You can believe it. You can argue it. But the overwhelming evidence, from experts who actually know what they're talking about, is against you. Your argument isn't equal. Take it to the right wing blogs where people don't care about facts. Just opinion. You'll do better there. Here, your arguments are juvenile.

It's tragic that this OP was even necessary, but it obviously was.

The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.2



Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).3



Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.4



Secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, including approximately 3,400 from lung cancer and 22,700-69,600 from heart disease.5



Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.6



Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7



Twenty-three states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Utah, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars.8



Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9



Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11



In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13



Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

Thats 50,000 deaths that werent necessary. And we try like hell to get anyone to give a fuck about the 45,000 unnecessary deaths from illness that occurs in the uninsured.

like they were gospel.

Many of them were SAID to contain data that proved second hand smoke caused all of this, but the actual examination of the data proved otherwise. I have no problems smoking away from people, in an enclosed area, whatever. I truly don't, and I'm always respectful of other people. This isn't about me being a smoker even. I lived somewhere that I had to smoke outside all the time, it wasn't a problem. In my apartment now, if a non smoker is coming over I cease smoking for a while before they come, open some windows, and go outside to smoke while they are here. Stuff like that. But I have a problem with the way some of this stuff is done, and the fact that NO ONE bothers to read the actual evidence! (At least the evidence I have seen)

My grandmother died of lung cancer in her 80s. It was conclusively NOT caused by smoking, but she was put down as a smoking related death anyway! Shit like that makes me angry.

her hubby smoked for years then quit, so when he was diagnosed with lung cancer 10 years later at 60, it was straight away ascribed to smoking. It later emerged that there was a much more compelling reason (IIRC it was a massive viral inflection that caused it). That's not to say that smoking doesn't increase the risk. Just that inflation of stats occurs naturally when its the easiest diagnosis.

Most restaurants/bars are smoke free now anyway, so stop complaining about it.

There's lots of toxic crap in the air we breathe.

How do they know 2d hand smoke was the culprit?

I honestly don't know. Could someone explain that to me?

Smokers tend to be lower on the economic scale.

The air quality in poor neighborhoods is worse than in rich neighborhoods.

Lots of cities on the East Coast were designed to have the lower class neighborhoods east of manufacturing areas, so the prevailing winds would leave all the stench and pollutants on the poor folks.

And the study you cited involved hospitalizations, not deaths.

if you live with a smoker or have contact with smoke, they automatically assume that is the cause of it. Which is crap. Even if it is NOT caused by those things, and sometimes they KNOW it isn't (with cancers and things sometimes) you STILL get put in a smoking-related death category. It's bullshit.

I admit more, better studies may have been done I am not yet familiar with.

I'm wondering where this is occuring.

they havent the courtesy to keep that shit to themselves so, they hold the cig at arms length, to screw you, and pamper themselves.

So now that the ban-brigade has forced smokers outside (remember, you guys put them there), you;re still not content. Sorry that your day is so easily ruined by a, what, two to four second encounter with second hand smoke, in an outdoor environment.

Be less weak.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

they're out there because the ban brigade put them out there.

Please find me the study that shows that brief (a few seconds per day) exposure to 2nd hand smoke in a well ventilated enviornment (i.e. outside) increases risk of smoking-related illness.

Right now you have heart failure from what? Second-hand smokers outside office buildings?

Cause a rapid increase of heartrate. Make you cough profusely, that also makes heartrate race. You will likely survive, if you are not ILL!

Second hand smoke does not make me cough profusely. Does not make my heart race. I have no question at all that I'll survive a few seconds encounter with it.

Please share a link to credible studies where a few seconds exposure to second hand smoke is shown to cause medical distress, I'd be interested in reading it. Perhaps I'll change my position.

Dr. Needlecast recommends that the best way to avoid brief exposure near building entrances is to hold your breath for 3-5 seconds.

there are many stats that show theree are many that drop on contact. They were ill to begin with. So what?

with second hand smoke.

How much contact are we talking about here? Someone walking into the general outdoor vicinity of someone who's smoking?

If you are so ill that a few seconds contact with secodn hand smoke can literally floor you, it would seem that going outside should be something you avoid all together lest a passing bus or truck with a poor exhaust system send you to the ER.

If you expect the world to stop it's regular flow to cater to you. If you are in such poor cardiac shape that a passing vehicle with a faulty exhaust system could kill you, I suggest you stay your ass inside. Wont have to deal with smokers there either.

Still waiting on stats...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.2

:rofl:

being subjected to it. There is really no way to ferret out how much also, the previous smoke contributed.

what studies this info is based on? I'm truly interested. All the information and studies *I'm* aware of, I have serious problems with. But I don't know if any of this information is supposed to be new or not. I figure since you have this much info, it should tell you somewhere how they got to that data. Even just the name of the study or something would be great.

There is no risk-free contact with exhaust fumes, barbeque smoke or aerosols, either. The existence or absence of risk, ON ITS OWN, is not grounds for hysteria. To make any kind of reasonable argument, you have to demonstrate substantial risk or harm. For brief contact with cigarette smoke, you cannot. The science simply doesn't doesn't bear out such a claim, and is unlikely to ever bear it out.

You're like a stuck record, harping on about numbers and facts which are trivial and don't show what you want them to show. And you refuse to actually respond to anyone who points that out. Not a great way to convince anyone except the choir. You still haven't made any effort to explain why an 0.275% increase in lifetime risk constitutes an unacceptable risk or what % constitutes an acceptable risk. Once we've established that benchmark, we can at least evaluate what other activities of choice you should, for consistency, be flipping your wig about, from noise pollution to poor hygiene.

The real reason you won't declare your benchmark is that you haven't given it any thought at all. There is nothing ethically or morally consistent about your hysterical reaction and no disagreement is entertained because it isn't about medical risk, at base. Its about your precious nose and personal dislikes leading you to dig up numbers and facts you have only a poor understanding of and use them as stick to beat nicotene addicts with, not realising how comically incompetent your fact processing skills are in the process.

Get the fuck outta my way asshole.

Answer even one question I put to you. What do you believe is the lifetime risk factor at which someone else' behaviour is unacceptable? 0.005%, 0.05%, 0.5%, 0.275%, 10%? That's all I asked earlier, and like most other responses to your insane screaming, you simply responded by screaming more. In my book an arithmetic increase of 0.275% risk is not "MURDERING" you (btw do you even know the difference between an arithmetic and geometric increase?). But maybe it is for you.

Once we've established that, lets go through the looooong list of voluntary behaviour by other people, from poor dental hygiene to driving 3 blocks to the shop when you can walk, that falls in the same range, and you tell me wether you want to shut down 80% of human activity that doesn't offend your precious nose but carries the same or more risk.

Because only a fucking cretin would say ANY risk justifies screaming and flinging poo like a goddamn ape.

I cough my guts out if I am caught for a nanosecond, in your toxic cloud. That nanosecond, raises my heartrate, blood oressure, blood vessel elasticity. I want to throw up. And I get dirty looks by smokers that dont appreciate my reacting.

Depending on whether you're referring to a mental or physical reaction and what, in the latter case, the cause is, that suggests one of three possibilities:

1. You're acutely asthmatic, or hyperallergic, in which case you have a condition that afflicts less than than 0.5% of the population and my very next question would be "do you believe it is reasonable to universally proscribe behaviour to cater to a condition suffered by less than 1% of the population? Or is it more reasonable to acknowledge you have a rare condition and ask those you interact with regularly to bear that in mind, while avoiding place where you're likely to be exposed? I'm going with the latter.

2. You're a hysterical hypochondriac who self-induces psychosomatic responses as a selfish attempt to force other people to cater to your whims. There are people who present full blown allergy symptoms - swelling, nausea, runny nose - when a cat is present. Unless they're unaware that the cat is there. Basically they just hate cats. This is a mild form of Munchausen's syndrome and the appropriate response is psychiatric counseling, not molleycoddling.

3. You really are referring to just mental distaste, in which case your argument is "its smelly and should be illegal", employing which logic we should ban garlic eating.

You can't have this all ways. Platelet stickiness, et al are simply chemically detectable reactions, which can be found for any olfactory experience, so simply rattling off a list you read somewhere isn't an argument. The only grounds for demanding behavioral restrictions on the general population is if those reactions constitute a statistically significant medical risk or cause an autonomous reaction of acute discomfort to a statistically significant number of people and your facts, numbers and personal testimony illustrate nothing of the sort. Causing temporary, acute discomfort to 0.5% of the population who could, generally avoid your presence, does not fall into this ambit.

And since the estimated 0.275% arithmetic increase in lifetime risk of premature death is only applicable to chronic exposure to SHS in confined spaces, its not even applicable to passing strangers on the street and catching a wiff a few thousand times during your life. Without even disputing your cited figures from the CDC et al (some of which are actually in dispute as has been illustrated to you on this thread), I can safely say you haven't made anything close to a scientific argument for banning smoking in outdoor public spaces.

If you are acutely asthmatic or allergic to something in smoke, you have my sympathy but seriously need to learn some people skills. But if, as is statistically likely, you fall into one of the latter two categories then I have to say the personality type is all too familiar to me. I have a close personal friend who has developed an astonishing array of faux-allergies over the years and asked his friends to make countless accomodations because he learned long ago that as soon as he claims its a medical condition, people fall over themselves to accomodate what are essentially unreasonable demands based on personal preference. The fake nature of the allergies have actually been established by those of us who know him by not, for instance, informing him that the cat slept on his bed when he wasn't there. He doesn't realise that even his friends think he's miserable, excessively indignant and unpleasant much of the time. If he wasn't also a genius I wouldn't be friends with him.

Seriously, life is so much easier and more pleasant when you learn to get over yourself. I've suffered diarrhea while staying in filthy hotels in Bangalore with a hole in the floor for a toilet and a bucket of water for toilet paper, and managed to find the whole experience fascinating and fun, something you're probably incapable of. People like you think they'll be happier if they can control every minute dimension of the world they live in, never satisfied unless their environment is a safe, sterile bubble and every conceivable irritation has been eliminated. Its so much easier just to change your own attitude and lead a more fulfilling life for it - and in most cases, its perfectly possible.

that might be hard.

Doesn't really matter though, you're the one pushing the argument that very brief contact with second hand smoke can either kill you or have lasting medical effects. Onus of proof is on you. So far, you've failed.

...to justify demanding that it stop? I'm fed up with it, too. I wonder if a smoker who owns a swimming pool would mind if I come over, several times a day, and pee in his or her pool. I promise to confine my urination to only one place in the pool.

One items is a side effect of smoking (second hand smoke). You are in no way forced to be near it and on the rare occasion that you must pass through smoke, it's a brief exposure that can often be avoided.

Peeing in someones pool is a deliberate act. Not that it would bother me much. People pee in pools. Its so diluted that its technically non-existant. Do you avoid the ocean because whales pee in the water?

...I can avoid the gauntlet of smoke I have to run just to get in and out of buildings where I am required to transact business. But, because my right to NEVER breathe poisonous cigarette smoke--rarely, briefly, or otherwise--so obviously supersedes the rights of smokers, eventually, non-smokers WILL prevail in every legal battle against smokers.

Oh, and, since you, clearly, did not grasp the swimming pool analogy, let me help you out: it had absolutely nothing to do with where I CHOOSE to swim. It was about how, absent some effective barrier, just as urine will not remain in one corner of a pool, secondhand smoke will not remain 20 feet from doorways (where, in my state, people are currently allowed to smoke).

It doesn't just hang around. If there is a wind, it'll follow the wind, and dissipate very quickly.

Please know, I don't smoke that close to buildings, but as I *HAVE* to smoke outside, I can't avoid having non-smokers come near me. It's impossible. I don't exhale my smoke when they're right by me, I hold my cigarette away from people if they're around me, it's the best I can do.

A little sidenote... the all out smoking ban that finally happened here actually started causing a rash of hospital visits and deaths. That was pretty scary. I wish we still had our half and half ban.

Your plan for how non-smokers can avoid your cigarette smoke is a little like the Republican health care plan: Don't get sick.

And your argument that the ban in your area "actually started causing a rash of hospital visits and deaths" is pretty specious, as well. Any purported rise in illnesses or deaths that could possibly be associated with a total smoking ban would need to be scrutinized and analyzed before it was held up as evidence in support of rescinding such a ban. In any event, problems which may or may not be associated with a ban are miniscule in comparison to the huge impact that smoking has on health and on public and private health care resources in this country.

it happened. We had multiple traffic deaths, beatings and some deaths by exposure. This is just in my local area, I don't think it happens everywhere. It gets as cold as -58F here in the winter, and quite a few people left bars/clubs, went out back to smoke and passed out. Of course that had a lot to do with alcohol, which I know. But it happened a lot less before the ban, that's all. Traffic deaths started happening because the ban was forcing huge numbers of bar patrons out on to the streets in front of clubs, and you can imagine what could happen there, especially in very very icy conditions. Fights were breaking out constantly in the same situations. I don't cite it as a reason to allow people to smoke anywhere they want, it's just what happened here, and it was scary. And our half and half ban was a plan I preferred. I didn't hold anything up as evidence for rescinding anything. It was an observation.

My "plan"? I never said I had a "plan" I just said that cigarette smoke outdoors dissipates. I also said that I personally do what I can to avoid getting in others faces with my smoke, but it's not always possible to do.

You're sure reading a lot more in to my post than it contained.

Don't smoke anywhere near non-smokers. Ever. That's how you do it.

As for those deaths and illnesses, even if you had brought documentation--which you didn't--I remain unconvinced of any relative good that might come from rescinding the ban. The numbers could never add up to the harm done by smokers, to themselves and others, and the huge costs that it imposes on all of us.

And my characterization of your remark as a "plan" was intended only to expose the selfishness of your argument. Got nuance?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go find a hanky. I'm all teary-eyed over those cigarette-smoking drunks.

I have to smoke on the street sometimes. It`s my only choice. I do the best that I can to avoid involving them in it, and 99% of the time, I do. Maybe it is `selfish` of me, but frankly, most of what people do is selfish. I do the best that I can, and if you want to be a self-righteous ass about it, go ahead. Fact is, smoke dissipates. And most smokers I know try to be respectful of others. Since when do you, or does anyone else, have the right to tell me what to do with my life? I am as respectful as I fucking can be of everyone around me. If that isn`t good enough, find a new planet. That`s the best anyone can do.

Your arguments about cost have little to no meaning to me. The amount that I pay in taxes covers MORE than my care could ever be.

I didn`t SAY that it meant the ban should be rescinded. I never said anything of the sort, in fact I already pointed out that I never meant that in what I said, so get over it. It was just something that happened here, and it was upsetting. The fact that you are making fun of the deaths of people is pretty disgusting to me. I don`t have documentation, it was many many years ago that this happened, and it was never MEANT to be used as an argument for letting people smoke wherever they want.

Fuck, non-smokers can be such assholes. Somehow because another person smokes, they`re sub human? They deserve your scorn? Fuck that. You deserve scorn for being a nasty jerk.

How about you provide YOUR documentation for this? The numbers could never add up to the harm done by smokers, to themselves and others, and the huge costs that it imposes on all of us. Actually, just the part about harm to others. I WANT that data. I want to find out if it`s newer than all the stuff I`ve read.

How about if you no longer attempt to defend the indefensible? How about if you get help quitting and how about if you keep trying until you're finally a non-smoker? Best of luck to you. It's in everyone's interest for you to succeed.

responding and TYPING IN CAPS and BEING UPSET and RESPONDING TO IGNORANT MOTHERFUCKERS in this thread than the brief ecounter of some folks smoking. I'm sure you were as far away from them as you could have been with your hand covering your mouth and nose anyway :)

:toast: :toast: :toast:

I wonder if you would dismiss this as a "2 to 4 second encounter".

As a farting human being, I just deal with it. Farts don't bother me very much. I got over the "gross" fact of farts when I was about 15.

STill think they're funny tho!

Where all of the smokers congregate and have a fine old time stinking up the doorway and shirking their responsibilities. That's where.

Poor you.

At what point did you say to yourself that you're such a special flower that you get to go through your life never seeing, smelling or hearing anything you might not like?

Welcome to being part of society. Sometimes people do things you don't like. Cope.

you would simply "cope" with it because "sometimes people do things you don't like"? Or would you be absolutely disgusted by the person's anti-social, ill-mannered and inconsiderate behavior? Because to me, someone blowing smoke in my face is pretty similar to them pissing on my shoes.

The issues is that no one is blowing smoke in your face, they're blowing it into the air. The fact that you have to very briefly share that air is not really their problem. Hold your breath for 5 seconds. Problem solved!

Someone urinating on my shoes is a deliberate act targeted at me. Plus it would make my feet wet all day. Otherwise, I don't really care that much. Urine is sterile.

Come on now, we're being silly aren't we?

Yes, if you are in such a disabled state that you can't hold your breath for the - AT MOST - six seconds it takes to motivate through the area near a building opening where people might be smoking, then you are, literally, asking the rest of the world to cater to your needs.

holding your breath for the space of three to six seconds causes a significant increase in heart rate.

cause your blood pressure to jump, your heartrate to jump, and many of the chemicals in cigs cause REAL problems.

I'm just waiting for you to provide me with statistical or medical evidence showing that very brief exposure to 2nd hand smoke can be instantly fatal or, at a minimum, that infrequent, brief exposure like you'd get from walking past a person smoking outdoors causes long term medical issues.

Also, I don't think red herring means what you think it means.

Should we ban them?

Are you claiming 50,000 people per year die from brief exposure to second-hand smoke or are we talking about the majority of those cases being instances of prolonged exposure over long periods of time?

Who's the final arbiter on what's so harmful to the public at large that we shouldn't be able to do it anymore?

Your argument appears to be that by eliminating smoking we'll remove 50,000 second hand smoke related deaths per year. My counter argument is that a lot of things could be eliminated that would prevent needless death, you've just found yourself an ox to gore in this broader debate. You're happy to ignore the slippery slope here as long as you achieve your goal.

And is easily evidenced by the rest of the ban brigade and other nanny staters who want to ban everything from soda to red meat to sugar to alcohol to Harry Potter books.

Almost everything is offensive to someone.

You're not the boss of me, I do what I want, as they taunt the audience.

You're the one who's demanding that segments of society stop doing what they find enjoyable for your benefit.

For a start.

How far you willing to go to ensure that you're not exposed to 2nd hand smoke?

How far you willing to go to ensure that you're not exposed to other things that are bad for you?

Smokers are huddled outside building entrances smoking becuase they were placed there by the ban-brigade. I really have no issue with that. I just think it's going to far when the ban brigade starts whining that it's being "exposed" to 2nd hand smoke for a time period of a couple of seconds and that the might have to smell a smell they don't like.

You have two options:

1. Accept that the world is full of things you might not want to see, hear or smell and accept that your probably do things that other people dont like. You can accept that as part of living your life in a society filled with other people who aren't you, you're going to have to put up with a small amount of things you don't like in exchange for probably producing some things other people might not like.

or

2. Remove yourself from the equation.

Option one is really the easy choice.

we have to decide what things we're exposed to by judging the balance between the good they do and the harm.

Cars, for instance, make it possible for many of us to work, or get to school, etc.

Cigarettes? Offer no real benefit. They are an addiction, and I'm all for treatment for the addicts. But I don't think I or anyone else, ought to have to put up with the poison so that a smoker may choose to smoke.

In what way are you being forced to put up with the poison? Has your state not enacted smoking bans? Are there places where you are forced to spend more than a very small amoung of time exposed to second hand smoke? Do said places lack ventillation?

My real problbem here is this (what I see) as a growing sense of self-righteousness that we as individuals shouldn't have to ever deal with things we might find offensive.

Certainly there are things that I find offensive or annoying. I'm a frequent traveler and hate the sound of crying children. But you know what? I deal with it because grand kids gotta go see Grandma and sometimes they're going to be on the same plane as me. I don't like tourists on my subway who cant follow simple instructions. But there are people from Omaha or wheve ever who want to come to DC and who are going to insist on stopping at the bottom of the f'ing escalator during rush hour to take pictures of a damn subway tunnels. Then I remember that a few weeks ago I farted in the hotel elevator as I was getting off and someone poor bastard probably had to deal with that. Sooooo, I just accept that life is going to sometimes assault me with things I might not want to see, hear or smell and I accept it as part of living with people who aren't me.

Cigarettes might not offer a tangible benefit. Tell that to the poor federal employee standing outside the building enjoying a few minutes peace from the rigor of what might be a really bad day and accept that four minutes with a ciagarette is their coping mechanism.

BPA in plastics sauses heart disease, and Diabetese. Bush admin, and I believe others, allow a five year grace period, before you must reveal any dangers caused by you rnew chemical. FIVE FRIGGIN YEARS. BPA in plastics and the risks, were hidden by Bush and gang. Then, three weeks before we kicked his sorry ass out the door, they reveal that it does cause disease. Nice, responsible. STupid FUCK. So, NO, they dont GIVE A FUCK about your health.

You're all caps-lock spun up. Better stop or you'll have a coronary event.

That being said, plenty of known toxins are allowed at work in limited, controlled quantities. You don't think the stuff in the plumbers cabinet is safe to drink, do you?

What CHOICE did I have, when the gov all the way down LIED!

Are there any states that still allow workers to smoke inside public buildings (other than bars)? I don't understand the connection you're trying to make.

You need not expose yourself. Your choice. I refuted that, with my own exp. I was not given a choice, I was lied to, for the bottom line.

I've seen two.

Who's lying about second hand smoke in the work place? WHat work places still allow it outside of bars and a handful of restaurants in a few states where it hasn't been illgalized yet?

As far as small business go, I agree with those saying it should be a choice. If the information is avaliable (and it is) about second hand smoke and you choose to be employed in one of a very few number of occupations where exposure is still common, that's on you.

except that a crying baby or a fart aren't going to kill you.

Waiting in outdoor lines, walking to class when it's crowded.

I'm forced to breath second hand smoke all the time.

I really have a hard time understanding how delicate one must be to be bothered by smoke in an outdoor environment. Surely, even if in line, you can move yourself in such a manner as to be unaffected by most of the smoke? Its been awhile since I was at college but I'm pretty sure that even in the mornings when most people are going/coming from class I was able to avoid most smokers by shifting a few feet in any given direction.

I happen to suffer from severe allergies. There are more of us than you'd think.

but what do you want the outcome to be? As another poster in this thread pointed out, this isn't about you, it's about the rest of us.

I'm fairly good friends with a federal judge who has very strong allergies to most cologne/perfume. She has a sign posted outsider her courtoom asking people not to wear those things in her court. However, she is a descent enough person to understand that for whatever reason, some people want to wear scents and that she doesn't have the right to demand that everyone stop doing it because she may react to it.

Same with people with severe peanut allergies. I had a guy ask me to stop eating peanuts at a open roofed ballpark with a seating capacity of 75,000 because peanut dust might blow on him. Tough shit. For me, this is a scenario in which he does not have the right to ask 75,000 people not to do something so he can enjoy the ballgame. I can't imagine the amount of arogence it takes to know you have an serious allergy to something and go expose yourself to it anyway, while demanding that everyone else stop doing it so you don't have to worry about it.

I'm sorry you suffer from severe allergies. I have a severe alergy to ceder pollen. Do you think it's okay for me to call my home owners association and demand that everyone in my neighborhood cut down their ceder trees, or would it be more prudent for me to just avoid walking near the houses where I know there are ceder trees during pollen season?

No offense, but you are being offensive.


Your comparisons are absolutely ridiculous. The guy with the peanut allergy can avoid most situations where exposure is highly likely. I cannot just avoid going on campus. I have to go to class.


I never said that we should ban smoking outright. I'm just trying to present another side of the argument. You know, the side that you don't give a shit about.

However, I don't believe that you are incapable of avoiding smoke on campus. To say I don't give a shit about the rights of people with allergies is false. I understand that it sucks but inevitably in these arguments it seems to me that it's all about what other people can do to make your life easier.

I don't think it's acceptable for you to ask other people to not smoke in a well ventillated outdoor enviornment simpley because you happen to be present. I've been on a major university campus. I know what morning rush is like. I still managed to get through several years of it without having to fight may way through clouds of smoke all the time. If your allergies are so severe that any amount of exposure causes you distress then my comparisons are quite apt.

Don't be absurd. I'm trying to attend college. Do you not see the stupidity in your comparison?

First off, it's never unacceptable to ask someone to not smoke around you. Second, a ban isn't asking someone to stop. It's telling them to stop.

I regularly cover a good 2 miles just walking between a few classes. Around noon, when there are literally thousands of people congregating around the center of campus I can barely get through the crowd. We are packed in like sardines.

It's kind of hard to avoid someone smoking a cig if I'm swimming through an ocean of people.

On another occasion, I was waiting in line for a special lecture and a couple people behind me were chain smoking. Over the course of an hour of waiting in line, I cannot remember a single moment that I wasn't breathing in 2nd hand smoke.


My allergies are bad enough to where breathing in 2nd hand smoke for a few moments causes me to feel like crap for the next several hours.

Luckily society as a whole has rejected what you want.

smoking and non-smoking sections

In one of them, the smoking section was in the front so anyone wanting to get to the non-smoking area had to actually walk through the smoking section. Granted, not exactly a ten mile hike, but still far enough for the stink to stick to hair and clothing.

In another, the smoking and non-smoking sections were separated by an open wall. Smoke from the smoking section drifted over the wall into the rest of the place. I don't know about the first restaurant, but in the second one, the entire establishment is now totally smoke free, as are just about all restaurants in the area.

I certainly would. Really, why would you go there in the first place when I'm betting there are quite a variety of non-smoking establishments in your area?

Are there still states that allow smoking in restaurants? D.C. has banned all smoking in dining establishments. I believe Maryland has as well. Virginia is in the process of doing so although they're going to allow some excpetions if the ownership is willing to install expensive vent equipment.

Seriously, even the nearest McDonalds is 20 miles away. I'm quite rural.

In any event, we did stop going to this particular restaurant when it was going on. Now there are anti smoking laws in place and the air in this and other establishments is much better.

This from someone who smoked for 17 years. Places with poor circulation and lots of smoking are especially noxious.

Is what it boils down to...

/ex-smoker for 7 years.

I just recall your posts about how hyperbolic language is sooooo bad to use toward bigots, funny you do not apply that in other areas. Selective enforcement.

Or do we think we don't have a choice as to where to drink?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Otherwise, they would have been dragged into them and made to suffer the evils of second hand smoke.

I know a bunch of people who were grabbed by the government and dragged into a bar and forced to drink around evil smokers, while their friends chose to drink at a non-smoking bar.

Choice - it sucks and should be limited (your body, our choice).

If smokers are allowed to start lighting up in bars then the bar staff will be inhaling that stuff for their entire shift.

And while Democrats are supposed to care about workers' rights, this is where Democrats who smoke suddenly start sounding like repukes. Let them get another job..... plenty of jobs out there..... etc. etc.

Did someone force them to work at a private bar?

It is not like it is a HUGE employer there - no one makes anyone go to a local bar. They can drink at home. You can work elsewhere.

A hospital, grocery store, etc that towns NEED to survive? Sure - ban it there.

NO ONE needs to go to or work at a bar, that is PURE choice.

Your body, Your choice - unless of course it is a choice you don't like.

Tell me - who MAKES anyone go to a bar or restaurant or work there? You want and believe choice over your body is something important? Then back that up.

Your body, your choice. Why should others remove such choices from you and others?

Right. This country has full employment. Anyone can pretty much get a job wherever they like. Employers should not be required to maintain a clean workplace free of toxic pollutants, because NO ONE *needs* to work there. They can just get a job somewhere else. No problem. Plenty of jobs out there.

great, thanks for discriminating against those who would like a job where they can make more than $8/hour. Because working in a bar or wait tables, someone who is good at what they do can make way more than $8/hour.

Oh and the 4 years I worked in the restaurant industry at least a dozen pregnant women during that time period. Nice of you to say a giant FUCK YOU to a job that could make way more than minimum wage. You're pregnant? Well nice working with you but we have to fire you now because we have selfish pricks who insist they have a right to pollute the air. I'm sure you'll somehow manage making ends meet with your pay being cut in more than half so you can work at Wal-mart.

:grr:

BTW, most of those gals who were pregnant - they worked thru 8 months, some of them adding in as many hours feasible because they needed the extra cash. As long as the woman was healthy there was no reason for them to quit their job.

Bartending and Waiting tables can provide a better income than minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart or Fast Food restaurants. The indoor bans never had anything to do with other guests but with the patrons that work there. And please don't tell me "Oh well get a job elsewhere" because in this economy sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I worked in a bar for 4 years while I went back to school because it was the one job that could provide enough money to cover my bills and rent while in school. And I paid for it with my lungs - they were in horrible shape after working there for 4 years but honestly, at the time I thought smoking ban was something crazy they did in California.

when this issue comes up.

Imagine a chemical plant whose workers were constantly exposed to small amounts of possibly toxic chemicals. If the president of the company argued that it didn't matter because it is the WORKERS' bodies, THEIR CHOICE to work there, and nobody was MAKING them work there, I imagine the reaction on DU would be quite hostile. But this is the exact argument that many DUers make when it comes to smoking in bars.

And couldn't others open bars that banned smoking?

Once more - not talking about big companies, focusing on small businesses here - local ones.

Why are so many against choice by owners and patrons?

Because the tobacco industry wants you to continue with your talking points so people keep smoking and they make their profits.

Ban it at hositals/grocery stores/etc. I am ok with that.

We are talking about small companies owned by one person and people choosing to go there - not forced to go there because there is no other grocery store in town, etc and so on.

No one NEEDS to go to a bar. The WANT to and choose to.

I am so thankful others want to control their bodies though and save them from sinning against their god.

Fundies - not just for the RW anymore.

Please, don't EVER let me see you bitch about the banking or healthcare industry since it seems you'll do the job for Tobacco industry.

And as I've said before - it isn't about the patrons, it's about the employees and don't you DARE talk about choice - because working in a restaurant or bar pays a hell of alot better than a minimum wage job at Wal-mart.

And seriously, if you're that committed to destroying your lungs why not get an e-cigarette? The people who I know who use them swear by it since it gives them the smoke they want to do in public places but doesn't affect anyone else around them.

You choose to work in a place that allows smoking. You choose to go have a drink in a place that allows it.

Vote with your feet - no one is forcing you to work at a bar or go there - NO ONE. Those who CHOOSE to be around like minded folks should be allowed to do so.

You don't like them having a choice.

YOUR body, your choice. Again we are not talking about large companies, manufacturing, hospitals, etc. No one needs to go to or work at a bar, they choose to.

What is it about choice you don't like?

Nice progressive values

:sarcasm:

I don't care that you smoke - smoke until your lungs bleed raw for all I care.

But you have absolutely no right whatsover to make others inhale YOUR CHOICE. And that includes public places where there is a possibly that people working there would prefer to not smell or inhale your choice.

And what is really moronic about this argument is that you DO have a choice with a product that will give you the nicotine you crave AND allow you to smoke indoors - perhaps you should consider an e-cigarette.

But as long as others have to inhale what you put out there then deal with it. You have no right to infringe on MY CHOICE with the choices that you have made.

Please, continue with the rhetoric fed to you by the Tobacco Industry. And enjoy the product that has help to elect dozens of the vilest republicans elected. But please, stop trying to sell that "My choice" crap to the rest of us. If you want to smoke in a private place where others say "Hey I don't mind" - that's your choice. But in public places you have no right to infringe your choice on the rest of us.

I guess the economy is pretty good where you are, with all this choice that people seem to have about where to work. In most of the country, however, jobs are pretty scarce and there is not as much choice as you seem to think.

I like how smokers say a big "FUCK YOU" to someone wanting a job that could make it feasible to pay the bills and support their families.

:eyes:

RL

mankind has even survived to this point, what with all the smoking that has been going on all this time.

Casting aside the risk to (first-hand) smokers, which is considerable:

The risk of dying prematurely from lung cancer is 1.1% in males and 0.8% in females, and. When the CDC and other organisations cite a 30% increase in risk, they are referring to a percentage of the existing risk.

The 20-30% risk (25% average) increase is from repeated exposure to SHS in confined spaces. a 25% increase of a 1.1% risk means that actual risk increases to 1.375%. In other words:

- There is a 30% increase in the percentage representing the risk of catching lung cancer. This is almost universally misunderstood to mean "add 30% to your risk" rather than "increase your risk by a factor of 1.3"
- You are actually 0.275% more likely to get lung cancer from recurring exposure to SHS in indoor environments over a moderate period of time if you are male and 0.2% if you're female.

Of course the former figure is much sexier to anyone campaigning to reduce smoking. But the fact that the majority of people citing the figure as well as hearing it don't draw such fine distinctions, makes the use of the former, rather than the latter figure, a dishonest exercise IMO. And in most major cities, the risks associated with smoking in uncrowded outdoor public spaces are dwarfed by the risks that attend other forms of pollution. A car travelling 20km without a catalytic converter generates many thousands of cigarettes worth of pollution.

There's a case to be made for prohibiting all indoors smoking based on a .275% increase in risk of premature death, but its a weaker case than many think exists. Any ethical arguments must be consistent with the evaluation of other behaviour that risks harming others, such as drinking and all other forms of environmental pollution - personal hygiene, garbage disposal, barbeques, fireplaces, car use, very loud noise, recurring aggression - believe it or not, stress kills brain cells et al.

Yet an cursory examination of the material put out by cancer foundations, anti-smoking campaigns, the CDC and countless other groups reveals no such consideration. None. Without such consideration, how can any consistent ethical standard be claimed? What is "too much risk to allow"? 1%? .5%? 0.00005%? On what do we base this? Apparently nothing other than the how much the majority of people dislike something. But thats not an consistent ethical standard, its an arbitrary one. And 0.275% is a very small increase in risk.

And saying that exposing others to an 0.275% increase in risk of a disease that overwhelmingly affects people later in life is "DICTATING that I have NO right TO BREATHE" is hysteria, pure and simple. Jesus Christ, you'd think smokers were waving a loaded gun every time they lit up a smoke on a public plaza, which, by the numbers is about as far as you can get from reality.

Adopting the same standard, people who cycle or take public transport to work have grounds to burn at the stake selfish bastards who drive alone to work. How many of you despicable single-driver scum are joining in the chorus of condemnation on this thread?

Your stats convince me I'm immortal.

I'll consider myself PWNT.

Not.

and it's one thing that smokers just don't get. Working in a bar for 4 years I was never worried about dying from the 2nd hand smoke but it did have a nasty smokers hack from years of inhaling it. But I haven't worked in a bar in decades and the hack has gone away. But I still don't like being around it because IT SMELLS SOMETHING FIERCELY AWFUL. That's why I'm glad for public indoor smoking bans. And smokers just don't get that because their sense of smell is non-existant when it comes to that horrible smell (which I guess explains why women then pour perfume on them after they smoke - they just can't tell how horrid it is).

And honestly there are options, better options that allow smokers to continue their habit AND 'smoke' indoors without bothering others and that's the e-cigarette. Plus the e-cigarette eliminates all those other toxins that the tobacco industry packs into their smokes.

But seriously - it is the smell!

thats all I ask for. Thats the truth. Its the smell. SHS arguments are an attempt to gussy up the distaste for the smell with a veneer of medical authority. But by the numbers they strike me as both absurd and dishonest. Now I'm waiting for us to ban other smelly people from public places based on the increased risks their wilful lack of hygiene causes to others around them.

I wasn't making an argument, just stating an opinion. If you wanted a clear, consistent argument for a position, see my previous post. I await a response from you that isn't contentless sarcasm. Do you even know the risk factors associated with loud noises, poor hygiene, driving et al? Do you have any basis of comparison? Any way of demonstrating that behaviour causing an 0.275% increase in lifetime risk of premature death to others, is unacceptable by some consistent moral standard that applies to anything with a similar risk factor attached? Do you even vaguely understand formal logic, and how it relates to ethical reasoning?