NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a non-smoker (cigarettes). I hate the smell of it, I hate when my hair and clothes smell like it, I hate hotel rooms that smell like it and I hate it on someone's breath. That said, I am against all of the public smoking bans in the US and elsewhere. Why? Because the study that the smoking bans are based on show NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE that second-handsmoking increases the risk of lung cancer to those exposed to it. Let me repeat that - NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE! Hard to believe when it seems that the government never seems to admit this little known fact. Penn & Teller do a brilliant show on Showtime called Bullshit and here is where you can find the clip of their show on second-hand smoke - http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs
Click on the "is second-hand smoke hazardous" box
While I love to go to a bar in NYC and not come home smelling like a tobacco factory - I am appalled that the gov't would take away our rights based on a study that is essentially a sham. Where is the public outcry? Why don't the newspapers report this? Be careful folks - take away one of our rights and all others become weaker as a result. Smokers are an easy target right now. Are you and your activities the next easy target? How do my fellow NSers fell about this?

EDIT:Please check post #101 for more pertinent information

We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.Bollox.

So breathing in smoke filled with toxins doesn't harm your health? It is harmful for the smoker to inhale it (I hope you're not debating THAT) but when the smoke exhales the smoke is somehow purified and others who breath it aren't affected? Breathing in the fumes from other peoples cancer sticks makes me queasy also but I cannot see how one can say your health is not affected.

I read somewhere that 70% or so of all studies showing that tobacco does no harm, less harm, etc. are done by people who have connections to Big Tobacco.

So breathing in smoke filled with toxins doesn't harm your health? It is harmful for the smoker to inhale it (I hope you're not debating THAT) but when the smoke exhales the smoke is somehow purified and others who breath it aren't affected? Breathing in the fumes from other peoples cancer sticks makes me queasy also but I cannot see how one can say your health is not affected.
You also forget that while most of the smoke the smoker inhales go through a filter, much of the secondhand smoke doesn't. Making it even worse for people who work in smoker-filled public places.

Bollox.

Sorry - I didn't realize that...

Breathing in the fumes of smoke does absolutely no harm?

Utter rubbish. As an asthma sufferer, I can tell you that second-hand smoke does plenty of harm, and I've never so much as touched a cigarette.

im not a big fan of smoking. i support mandatory seperation of smoking/nonsmoking areas in restaurants and bars. i think banning smoking in the workplace (as long as smoking lounges/areas are allowed) is a good idea. as well as banning smoking in government offices.

i think that the banning of all smoking in bars and restaurants is stupid. i think that smoking areas should be mandatory in all airports. i think that there should be made some provision for smoking on long airplane flights (it cuts down on air rage)

You also forget that while most of the smoke the smoker inhales go through a filter, much of the secondhand smoke doesn't. Making it even worse for people who work in smoker-filled public places.

In that case it is double filtered - once through the initial filter and again in the person's lungs.

What rights? The right to smoke in public breaks others rights to breath clean air, so really, they're just giving those people their normal rights back. Next time you make a debate, don't read studies done by big tabacco companies.

Breathing in the fumes of smoke does absolutely no harm?

Utter rubbish. As an asthma sufferer, I can tell you that second-hand smoke does plenty of harm, and I've never so much as touched a cigarette.

I am not condoning smoking - I am arguing against taking away our rights unjustly.
The study in question had nothing to do with athsma sufferers - it was a cancer study.

So breathing in smoke filled with toxins doesn't harm your health? It is harmful for the smoker to inhale it (I hope you're not debating THAT) but when the smoke exhales the smoke is somehow purified and others who breath it aren't affected? Breathing in the fumes from other peoples cancer sticks makes me queasy also but I cannot see how one can say your health is not affected.
what isnt harmful is sitting down to eat in a restaurant where someone is smoking in the next room. its just not going to hurt you.

whats not going to hurt you is spending one hour a week in a smoky bar. unless you have a pre-existing breathing problem of course.

what is not going to hurt you is walking past a man who is smoking on a park bench.

living in a small house with a heavy smoker may affect your health. small amounts of exposure here and there wont.

Of course second hand smoke is a sham, as is global warming

*recieves brown envelope from a man in a black suit*
<.<
>.>

How about somebody post a study either way so that I can see for myself, without having to work for it or watch a video.

What are you talking about? there have been tons of studies that show it harms our lungs. The fact that people who aren't used to cigarettes cough if they inhale cigarette smoke shows that. Its pretty much impossible that people would only be harmed by the smoke if they were smoking the cigarrete. The smoker is breathing in the smoke as is the person close to him that is not, just at a different rate. Same smoke, same effects.

Also, what rights? The right to smoke in public breaks others rights to breath clean air, so really, they're just giving those people their normal rights back.

No doubt it affects the smoker - the study I am arguing about is a second hand smoke study. Peope hate smoking (i\I do) and smokers (usually fun people) so much that many of you will not even consider that the study has no statitical significance. Any posters this quick did not even watch the clip. This is why it is so easy for the gov't to spread disinformation about a topic that is unpopular to begin with.

what isnt harmful is sitting down to eat in a restaurant where someone is smoking in the next room. its just not going to hurt you.

whats not going to hurt you is spending one hour a week in a smoky bar. unless you have a pre-existing breathing problem of course.

what is not going to hurt you is walking past a man who is smoking on a park bench.

living in a small house with a heavy smoker may affect your health. small amounts of exposure here and there wont.

So you're saying that smoke is only harmful if you're smoking or have a breathing problem?That's such bull.
The fact that you don't smoke does not alter in any way the nature of the smoke coming from a cigarette.
Therefore if smoking is harmful it stands to reason that second hand smoke is also.
Thus we can assume you are a moron or in the employ of a tobacco company.

I'm from the UK. Clip no workee.

what isnt harmful is sitting down to eat in a restaurant where someone is smoking in the next room. its just not going to hurt you.

whats not going to hurt you is spending one hour a week in a smoky bar. unless you have a pre-existing breathing problem of course.

what is not going to hurt you is walking past a man who is smoking on a park bench.

living in a small house with a heavy smoker may affect your health. small amounts of exposure here and there wont.

The latter two I can agree with though on the last I'd say WILL affect your health, no room for qualifiers here. The restaurant though can have a tendency not to have any serious divsion between smoking and non-smoking sections sometimes just one side of the room is smoking and the other side non-smoking.

Many people spend more than an hour at a time in a bar anyway.

Well, let's look at how they compiled the data for second hand smoke being bad: they went to hospitals, talked to doctors about patients with respiratory problems and asked them if their patients had ever been exposed to second hand smoke. Duh! All of them! Therefore, second hand smoke is bad.

I am not condoning smoking - I am arguing against taking away our rights unjustly.
The study in question had nothing to do with athsma sufferers - it was a cancer study.
You'll have to post the study so I/we can tear it apart. I don't buy what you're saying for one second. You're either being deliberately misinformed, or you (or P&T) misunderstand something.

There are plenty of studies showing that secondhand smoke is extremely harmful to people's health. More so than the smoke we smokers fill out lungs with (on average anyway, I don't smoke filter cigerettes, but I'm a destinct minority).

We smokers aren't gonna have our rights taken from us. Non-smokers will just have their rights upheld. Your personal liberty stops when you put others in danger, or otherwise harm them - and that's what we smokers do.

I have nothing against outlawing smoking in public space, though I DO mind if such a ban extends to outdoors areas. The only public spaces I smoke are pubs & streetcorners. I have enough respect for my fellow beings not to make them smoke my fags unless they ask.

I am appalled that the gov't would take away our rights based on a study that is essentially a sham. Where is the public outcry? Why don't the newspapers report this?The simplest explanation would be because there is in fact lots of studies that show that second hand smoking is indeed harmful. For instance, I read about a recent study that showed quite clearly that the health of restaurant personel in Sweden had ameliorated since smoking was banned.
Of course, you can always use statistics to prove a point. Tobacco companies can fund studies that come to the conclusion that smoking isn't a hazardous factor in developing lung cancer and stuff. However, studies performed by people who don't accept donations from companies or political organisations (many universities don't accept such donations) are IMO more trustworthy. And I believe they most often show that smoking, be it second-hand or not, kills you ;)

Btw the link you posted - http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs - seems to be accessible only to internet users within the US...

Well, let's look at how they compiled the data for second hand smoke being bad: they went to hospitals, talked to doctors about patients with respiratory problems and asked them if their patients had ever been exposed to second hand smoke. Duh! All of them! Therefore, second hand smoke is bad.

As I have already stated:
Cigarette smoke=Harmful.
That smoke is the same whether you are smoking the cigarette or not.
Therefore second hand smoking=harmful.

Of course second hand smoke is a sham, as is global warming

*recieves brown envelope from a man in a suit*
<.<
>.>

:) Very good. Should have been a black suit.

As I have already stated:
Cigarette smoke=Harmful.
That smoke is the same whether you are smoking the cigarette or not.
Therefore second hand smoking=harmful.

Brilliant - you should be in charge of cancer research

The simplest explanation would be because there is in fact lots of studies that show that second hand smoking is indeed harmful. For instance, I read about a recent study that showed quite clearly that the health of restaurant personel in Sweden had ameliorated since smoking was banned.
Of course, you can always use statistics to prove a point. Tobacco companies can fund studies that come to the conclusion that smoking isn't a hazardous factor in developing lung cancer and stuff. However, studies performed by people who don't accept donations from companies or political organisations (many universities don't accept such donations) are IMO more trustworthy. And I believe they most often show that smoking, be it second-hand or not, kills you ;)

Agreed but this study was one used by the US Supreme Court - not a tobacco sponsored study

In that case it is double filtered - once through the initial filter and again in the person's lungs.
Yeah, it's not like any smoke comes off the lit end of the cigarette. :rolleyes:

Brilliant - you should be in charge of cancer research

I am.

:) Very good. Should have been a black suit.
You're right.
Edited.

Agreed but this study was one used by the US Supreme Court - not a tobacco sponsored study

So...


You going to link the study....or just throw it in our faces without saying what/where it is?

So...


You going to link the study....or just throw it in our faces without saying what/where it is?

http://blog.outer-court.com/files/google-cartoon-04.gif

Sorry, but...utter load of crap. Secondhand smoke is not only damaging but can KILL. I have every right to not be scared away from having a social life along with everyone else who either hates the smell(yes) or has a bad respitory(sp?) reacton to it(yes.) In some ways, up until the ban here in NYC, the smokers dominated if you really hated smoke, which meant oopting out of most bars. In the end, these bans will have nothing but good effects for health, the economy(ask the mayor or city council here...bars and other places are being attended MORE because they're smoke free), and the smokers for whom the ban helps them in their attempt to quit due to not only the inconvienence of going outside to bare the elements just for a smoke but, as recent studies suggest, an intriguing connection between lower time spent among smokers and higher ability to quit.

The smoke from tobacco products is harmful, and it is still tobacco smoke when it exits the lungs of the user. Even if light exposure to secondhand smoke has no noticeable effect on your health, it is still harm*ful*. What are the effects of light exposure to secondhand smoke over very long periods of time - years, decades, your whole life? I imagine that there is *some* cumulative effect.

Brilliant - you should be in charge of cancer research

And cancer is the only measure of harm caused by second-hand smoke?

That Bullshit show should do an episode on themselves. Second-hand smoke deaths are a reality. They're nothing to mess with.

This is a true story:

My aunts all smoke except one. She always hung around my other aunts, therefore she breathed in their smoke. 1 year later, she was diagnosed with Lung Cancer. She died 2 years later.

You also forget that while most of the smoke the smoker inhales go through a filter, much of the secondhand smoke doesn't. Making it even worse for people who work in smoker-filled public places.
You do realize that the supposed benifits of filters have been totally debunked, right? There is only a very minimal difference between them; they'll give you health problems and/or death all the same.

Second hand smoke does no harm? I was under the impression it did more harm. The scientific reason being that second hand smoke is more likely to be from a slow burn source (when the smoker isn't inhaling). Slower burning means smaller smoke particles which are more easily absorbed into the lungs and also have a higher surface area. Therefore smaller smoke particles are more dangerous.

Smoke particles are either not hazardous or they are. They either harm no one or harm everyone. They are not selective in who they cause damge to.

I'm from the UK. Clip no workee.

Yeah - sorry

My aunts all smoke except one. She always hung around my other aunts, therefore she breathed in their smoke. 1 year later, she was diagnosed with Lung Cancer.1 year later than what? She only hung around the aunts for 1 year? If so, you can't really blame their smoking - it usually takes longer than that for smoking to give you lung cancer.

http://blog.outer-court.com/files/google-cartoon-04.gif

Well....of course, if I knew which one he meant. I know he said about the Supreme Court, but there must be a fair few of those. Plus US Court Cases confuse me....too many words in the titles...

Who cares we're all going to die anyway, give it up, your lungs aren't that important and neither are mine, nor are your kids lungs. I say make smoking mandatory, this planet is overpopulated and our lengthy life spans need some shortening.

So...


You going to link the study....or just throw it in our faces without saying what/where it is?

I will try to later - I have to run for now - I should have realized the clip wouldn't work for those outside the US. Sorry about that.

That said, I am against all of the public smoking bans in the US and elsewhere. Why? Because the study that the smoking bans are based on show NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE that second-handsmoking increases the risk of lung cancer to those exposed to it. Let me repeat that - NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE!


Irrelevant.

In order to be a free individual, I must own my body, and I must control my body. I, and only I, decide what goes into it. When smokers intentionally blow their putrid exhaust into the public atmosphere, they pollute that atmosphere and cause me to breathe in substances that I do not wish to have enter my body. When that puff of smoke hits me in the face, I have become the victim of assault and trespass. As such, I am justified in seeking the assistance of government to reestablish my sovereignty over my property, my body.

If smokers wish to smoke on their own private property, or on the private property of another consenting party, then so be it. I cannot and will not interfere. However, as soon as they go into the public square, their behavior must consider the equal rights of all the other sovereign individuals around them.

I would prefer that individuals govern their own behavior and refrain from violating the rights of others voluntarily. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that such individuals are extremely rare.

I should be back around 12:00 PM EST - I will try and find it then - if I do - are there any qualified statisticians out there to evaluate it?

Smoke particles are either not hazardous or they are. They either harm no one or harm everyone. They are not selective in who they cause damge to.

People should just always admit that breathing that crap in is going to hurt you. Smoke of any kind is harmful which is why your lungs rebel against breathing it in. I guess smoke from a fire is not harmful or air pollution will do your health just fine.

Who cares we're all going to die anyway, give it up, your lungs aren't that important and neither are mine, nor are your kids lungs. I say make smoking mandatory, this planet is overpopulated and our lengthy life spans need some shortening.

.................
I know, lets stop all medical research and shut down all hospitals and kill all the doctors,nurses and people with even the slightest bit of first aid traing or human decency.
Then lets give all the people left alive swords and lock them up in an arena,and pump it full of cigarette smoke
And then lets commit suicide.

I just remembered one of the reasons why second-hand smoke is more harmful than first-hand. The smoker's lungs filter out the nicotene. Nicotene, while also a toxin, reduces the ability of the brain to absorb toxins. That's why smoking takes more than a handful of years to kill you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

It think it's probably relating to this - an old WHO study showing 'weak evidence' between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

Here's a little quote from wiki which I think sums it up very well.In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded its evaluation of the carcinogenic risks associated with involuntary smoking, with second-hand smoke also being classified as carcinogenic to humans.[12] An earlier WHO epidemiology study also found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS" [13]. The fact that the evidence was described as "weak" has been interpreted by the tobacco industry and its supporters as evidence that the ETS-lung cancer link has been "disproven". More precisely, the "weakness" of the evidence stems from the fact that the risk of ETS for individuals is small relative to the very high risk of actually smoking, making it more difficult to quantify through epidemiology. In addition to epidemiology, moreover, several other types of scientific evidence (including animal experiments, chemical constituent analysis of ETS, and human metabolic studies) support the WHO and EPA conclusions.

I just remembered one of the reasons why second-hand smoke is more harmful than first-hand. The smoker's lungs filter out the nicotene. Nicotene, while also a toxin, reduces the ability of the brain to absorb toxins. That's why smoking takes more than a handful of years to kill you. Hm, that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than first-hand sounds pretty much like a myth. Personally I doubt it's true.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

It think it's probably relating to this - an old WHO study showing 'weak evidence' between second hand smoke and lung cancer.Funny, I read about a WHO study in 1992 that showed a clear connection between lung cancer and second-hand smoking.
In any case, the WHO is strongly against both first and second-hand smoking :)

Irrelevant.

In order to be a free individual, I must own my body, and I must control my body. I, and only I, decide what goes into it. When smokers intentionally blow their putrid exhaust into the public atmosphere, they pollute that atmosphere and cause me to breathe in substances that I do not wish to have enter my body. When that puff of smoke hits me in the face, I have become the victim of assault and trespass. As such, I am justified in seeking the assistance of government to reestablish my sovereignty over my property, my body.

If smokers wish to smoke on their own private property, or on the private property of another consenting party, then so be it. I cannot and will not interfere. However, as soon as they go into the public square, their behavior must consider the equal rights of all the other sovereign individuals around them.

I would prefer that individuals govern their own behavior and refrain from violating the rights of others voluntarily. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that such individuals are extremely rare.

The trick here is deciding where your rights begin and everyone else's end. I don't own a car and ride electric trains to and from work. Is it within my rights to say that because I don't want to breathe in exhaust fumes, people should not drive cars around me? Probably not, considering that most of the stuff I consume comes from people driving cars and trucks to get it to where it needs to be.

Same thing can be said for smoking. If one so wants people to stop smoking, I would say that one deny themselves the services that comes from cigarette tax revenues: education and health care being the two biggies.

So go out there and tell them that you want no part of money that kills millions of people all around the world. With any luck, with no health care, you will soon die of something other than lung disease.

I am a non-smoker (cigarettes). I hate the smell of it, I hate when my hair and clothes smell like it, I hate hotel rooms that smell like it and I hate it on someone's breath. That said, I am against all of the public smoking bans in the US and elsewhere. Why? Because the study that the smoking bans are based on show NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE that second-handsmoking increases the risk of lung cancer to those exposed to it. Let me repeat that - NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE! Hard to believe when it seems that the government never seems to admit this little known fact. Penn & Teller do a brilliant show on Showtime called Bullshit and here is where you can find the clip of their show on second-hand smoke - http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs
Click on the "is second-hand smoke hazardous" box
While I love to go to a bar in NYC and not come home smelling like a tobacco factory - I am appalled that the gov't would take away our rights based on a study that is essentially a sham. Where is the public outcry? Why don't the newspapers report this? Be careful folks - take away one of our rights and all others become weaker as a result. Smokers are an easy target right now. Are you and your activities the next easy target? How do my fellow NSers fell about this?

BULLSHIT

Do you seriously believe that smoking only harms the person who's smoking and does nothing whatsoever to anyone standing next to them? Did you just come down in the last shower or what?

I have severe respiratory problems, which means that because of the actions of smokers my freedom is curtailed. I cannot go into a pub where there's smoking. Most restaurants, even if they have segregated smoking/nonsmoking areas, are also out of my purview because generally that segregation is totally inadequate. If I am exposed to such an environment for any length of time I can have a major asthma attack that lasts for hours in the acute stage and leaves me feeling distinctly below par for several days afterwards.

And yet you think I should just wander blithely into a pub and happily breathe in the toxic fumes because a couple of comedians think that they should be able to smoke wherever they bloody well feel like? Yeah, right...

Personally, I'd like to take every single smoker in the world and put them up against a wall and shoot them. However, I'll settle for them not smoking in pubs, restaurants, or frankly any building that's not their own homes.

So you're saying that smoke is only harmful if you're smoking or have a breathing problem?That's such bull.
The fact that you don't smoke does not alter in any way the nature of the smoke coming from a cigarette.
Therefore if smoking is harmful it stands to reason that second hand smoke is also.
Thus we can assume you are a moron or in the employ of a tobacco company.
no im saying that its harmful to sit next to the asshole at work who smokes all day long and sits so close that the smoke from the end of the cigarette goes right up your nose

its not harmful to walk past the smoking area every day on your way to work.

People should just always admit that breathing that crap in is going to hurt you. Smoke of any kind is harmful which is why your lungs rebel against breathing it in. I guess smoke from a fire is not harmful or air pollution will do your health just fine.I was being sarcastic there, trying to prove my point by showing the ridculousness of the other side of the arguement. And you're agreeing with me, right? :confused:

But yeah, air pollution... isn't that pretty muchs single handedly to blame for the dramatic increase in asthma?

The latter two I can agree with though on the last I'd say WILL affect your health, no room for qualifiers here. The restaurant though can have a tendency not to have any serious divsion between smoking and non-smoking sections sometimes just one side of the room is smoking and the other side non-smoking.

Many people spend more than an hour at a time in a bar anyway.
yes but if you are spending so much time in a bar that the second hand smoke is going to seriously affect in years to come, you have way more problems than second hand smoke

although there should be non smoking areas in all bars and restaurants with adequate ventilation to keep the smoke drift to a minimum.

I work at a bar. I don't smoke. But if I work more than three nights in a row, I am very hoarse the following few days and get a terrible sore throat. The owner of the bar doesn't smoke either. But from all the smoke in the place, his voice is permanantly hoarse, and his doctor often tells him to stop smoking.

Hell, I was maxing my PFT before starting this job, and now can barely finish a mile and a half.

So don't try to tell me second hand smoke isn't harmful.

Bollox.

Actually, it's called Bullshit.

You'll probably find a UK version. I believe Penn and Teller had a comedy series on Channel 4 a few years ago, didn't they? They've probably got Penn and Teller's Bullshit too.

That said, their show has a bit of it's own bullshit too. Sure there's quite a bit of bunk on the side of any topic you care to point at, but as often as not, that show makes one-sided mountains out of mole-hills.

Take their PETA episode. Yup, there's a bunch of wack-jobs that are invovled with PETA. Their ideal vision isn't mine. But they do a lot of good work, and most of what they do is for a good cause. From their PETA segment one would think that the whole organizatoin was nothing but radical naturalist terrorists bent on conquering the world and turning it into a vegetarian nudist colony.

.................
I know, lets stop all medical research and shut down all hospitals and kill all the doctors,nurses and people with even the slightest bit of first aid traing or human decency.
Then lets give all the people left alive swords and lock them up in an arena,and pump it full of cigarette smoke
And then lets commit suicide.

Sounds like a plan >).:sniper:

Is it within my rights to say that because I don't want to breathe in exhaust fumes, people should not drive cars around me?


Society could require that people keep their vehicles in proper working order so as to minimize exhaust. It could also demand (though government regulation, or, preferably, market forces) that car companies develop new technologies designed to reduce or eliminate pollution.

I didn't say that people should stop smoking, nor should we expect people to stop driving cars. We should expect, and demand, that individuals will modify their behavior in order to respect the equal rights of other individuals around them.


Same thing can be said for smoking. If one so wants people to stop smoking, I would say that one deny themselves the services that comes from cigarette tax revenues: education and health care being the two biggies.

So go out there and tell them that you want no part of money that kills millions of people all around the world. With any luck, with no health care, you will soon die of something other than lung disease.

Cigarette tax revenue is the only possible source of funding for health care and education? I'm detecting a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dicotomy). Try again. :)

And besides that, I don't recall saying that people should stop smoking. I'm not against individuals freely choosing to smoke. What I am against is people assaulting me with their fumes.

I work at a bar. I don't smoke. But if I work more than three nights in a row, I am very hoarse the following few days and get a terrible sore throat. The owner of the bar doesn't smoke either. But from all the smoke in the place, his voice is permanantly hoarse, and his doctor often tells him to stop smoking.

Hell, I was maxing my PFT before starting this job, and now can barely finish a mile and a half.

So don't try to tell me second hand smoke isn't harmful.

My parents own a couple of rental properties. Whenever a tenant leaves I go and clean the place out with them. Once an apartment was vacated by a long-time smoker who vacated quite a bit more than the apartment. I thought that the place had been painted that rather tastless shade of yellow that old women with failing vision tent to think is a nice complement to clown makup and blue hair.

After we took down some of the wall hangings we saw that the wall was actually painted off-white. It was merely stained off-brown by years of cigarette smoke. If it can do that to the walls, what the hell do Penn and Teller think it isn't doing to lungs?

My aunt died from tobacco-related lung cancer. She had never smoked a cigarette in her life. However, she spent most of her life living with a person who happened to be chain smoker.

Second hand smoke is harmless? My ass it's harmless.

Also, second hand smoke causes a weird allergic reaction with me, where my throat gets inflamed and I can hardly breath. And no, I do not have asthma.

Same thing can be said for smoking. If one so wants people to stop smoking, I would say that one deny themselves the services that comes from cigarette tax revenues: education and health care being the two biggies.

So go out there and tell them that you want no part of money that kills millions of people all around the world. With any luck, with no health care, you will soon die of something other than lung disease.

That's on par with saying that if you don't like crime then you shouldn't support the businesses that owe their existence to it, such as prison manufacture, law enforcement, and security guards.

Cigarette companies use our infrastructure, and are (or should be) obliged to pay their fair share like any business, and if they account for a larger need for healthcare services then they ought to pay a higher share of the support for it. A more appropriate version of your car analogy would be that because you don't drive a car, you should not expect to get paid for your hospital bill when someone else hits you with one.

Hm, that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than first-hand sounds pretty much like a myth. Personally I doubt it's true.

Funny, I read about a WHO study in 1992 that showed a clear connection between lung cancer and second-hand smoking.
In any case, the WHO is strongly against both first and second-hand smoking :)


One of CHEJ’s projects is to pressure corporations to stop using PVC -- a plastic made with the politically incorrect element chlorine -- that has a wide variety of uses ranging from soft plastic toys to construction materials. The anti-PVC campaign is at least two-decades old and is part of the anti-chlorine campaign led by Greenpeace.

Um, wasn't the big stink over PVC the fact that when you burn it you get dioxin? The "politically incorrect chemical Chlorine line" sounded like a lot of bullshit since table salt is made with chlorine.

We should expect, and demand, that individuals will modify their behavior in order to respect the equal rights of other individuals around them.
That's rather vague, isn't it? It always concerns me when people start talking about rights anyway. All rights are a license to make others unhappy. It bothers me when people are more concerned with making others unhappy rather than figuring out ways to get along with other people.


So either education and health care are funded by cigarette tax revenues, or they are not funded at all? That would be a false dilemma. Try again.
I don't recall saying that. It seems that you have sidestepped the original statement and made it into something else that would be easier to argue against. That would be a straw man argument. Try again.:p

I will say that much like it's impossible to selectively breathe smoke-free air, it's not possible to selectively use services that are cigarette-tax free. The choice would be to use them, contamination and all, or not use them. Care to come up with another option?

yes but if you are spending so much time in a bar that the second hand smoke is going to seriously affect in years to come, you have way more problems than second hand smoke

although there should be non smoking areas in all bars and restaurants with adequate ventilation to keep the smoke drift to a minimum.

Really? Spending a lot of time in a bar means you have "way more problems than second hand smoke"? What if you work there genius. The laws aren't made for you and me dispite what everyone on this forum seems to think. Gaeltach was the only one I saw who brought up the employees. They have to sit in the smoke constantly maybe for their whole lives. Even if you seal a room off for smokers the workers still have to work in there don't they? Or should smokers serve their own food and drinks? Saturate a room with cigarette smoke and then sit in it for 8 hours or more five or six days a week for a number of years. If you honestly believe that won't hurt your health you've clearly been smoking something other than cigarettes.

Um, wasn't the big stink over PVC the fact that when you burn it you get dioxin? The "politically incorrect chemical Chlorine line" sounded like a lot of bullshit since table salt is made with chlorine.Chlorine isn't PC? OMG, you evil sons of bitches and your digesting your food with its ions!

ehee... c.c Maturity rating -10 points.

My aunt died from tobacco-related lung cancer. She had never smoked a cigarette in her life. However, she spent most of her life living with a person who happened to be chain smoker.

Second hand smoke is harmless? My ass it's harmless.

Also, second hand smoke causes a weird allergic reaction with me, where my throat gets inflamed and I can hardly breath. And no, I do not have asthma.

You might have smoke induced asthma. I don't have any breathing problems at all most of the time, but whenever I'm around a smoker I find myself taking great huge breaths and feeling like I just ran up 8 flights of stairs. And I feel that before I can even smell the stink of the cigarettes. Oddly enough I have no problem around marijuana smokers.

What people just in general refer to as Asthma is an allergic reaction to pervasive pollutants. Chemicals that our bodies have no evolutionary defense to. You probably have the same thing, but are only responsive to cigarettes. And it might not even be tobacco. There are dozens (I think about 2 dozen, but still, dozens) of toxic chemicals in cigarettes, any one of which might be the cause of your problems (and probably why I have no problem with marijuana smoke).

Hm, that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than first-hand sounds pretty much like a myth. Personally I doubt it's true.

Funny, I read about a WHO study in 1992 that showed a clear connection between lung cancer and second-hand smoking.
In any case, the WHO is strongly against both first and second-hand smoking :)

The WHO study was not released to the public because the study didn't support their "facts". The reasoning was that the tobacco companies could use the information which of course would be politically incorrect.

The other study/policy that was released in 1992 was the one by the EPA which was struck down when District Court Judge William L. Osteen found reason to nullify the EPA's report that claimed second-hand smoke to be a Class A human carcinogen and cause of lung cancer. He found that the EPA knowingly, willfully and aggressively put out false and misleading information. Keep Judge Osteen's finding in mind the next time an environmental scientist tells you that the relationship between the regulations and the environmental goal is "well documented."

For further information you can always consult the May 1998 BMJ (British Medical Journal) which published a the results of a 39 year study on second hand smoke. Of course a real scientific study would not be welcomed by the brain washed minions here.

no im saying that its harmful to sit next to the asshole at work who smokes all day long and sits so close that the smoke from the end of the cigarette goes right up your nose

its not harmful to walk past the smoking area every day on your way to work.

It is though.
Not as much admitedly, but if you work there for years and walk the same way every day..........

Um, wasn't the big stink over PVC the fact that when you burn it you get dioxin? The "politically incorrect chemical Chlorine line" sounded like a lot of bullshit since table salt is made with chlorine.
Lol! It's both fun and sad when people are so ignorant. The fact that chlorine can be used as a war gas doesn't mean it cannot be harmless when you use it for other purposes. Or just want to put salt on your steak :p

It bothers me when people are more concerned with making others unhappy rather than figuring out ways to get along with other people.


I feel the same way, actually. :D


I don't recall saying that. It seems that you have sidestepped the original statement and made it into something else that would be easier to argue against. That would be a straw man argument. Try again.:p


Your statement seemed to imply that I either accept the behavior of smokers and continue to benifit from cigarette tax revenues, or reject the behavior of smokers and thus reject the benifit of cigarette tax revenues. Since there isn't anything necessarily requiring that health care and education be funded by cigarette tax revenues, it is entirely possible for me to reject the behavior of smokers and continue to benifit from education and health care, either funded privately or by another mode of tax revenue.


The choice would be to use them, contamination and all, or not use them. Care to come up with another option?

Again, a false dilemma. See above. Edit: At any rate, the tax revenue issue is irrevelant as I do not recall demanding the elimination of smoking entirely.

Really? Spending a lot of time in a bar means you have "way more problems than second hand smoke"? What if you work there genius. The laws aren't made for you and me dispite what everyone on this forum seems to think. Gaeltach was the only one I saw who brought up the employees. They have to sit in the smoke constantly maybe for their whole lives. Even if you seal a room off for smokers the workers still have to work in there don't they? Or should smokers serve their own food and drinks? Saturate a room with cigarette smoke and then sit in it for 8 hours or more five or six days a week for a number of years. If you honestly believe that won't hurt your health you've clearly been smoking something other than cigarettes.
i didnt realize that we have slave bartenders and waitresses these days.

i think that there is a middle ground between having the room fill with smoke and banning smoking altogether. there is such a thing as ventilation.

It is though.
Not as much admitedly, but if you work there for years and walk the same way every day..........
now that is a study you are going to have to link to for it to be believable.

how are you going to control for the much worse problem of air pollution?

I feel the same way, actually. :D

So you really want to come up with a solution that we can both agree on instead of just tearing apart eachother's arguments? Well, it's not exactly NS that way, but I'll give it a shot.

How about for indoor areas, they set up devices to measure air quality and businesses that exceed certain levels of air quality have to either make changes necessary to get the air quality within acceptable limits or face fines? That way, people can be assured of breathing clean air.

Personally, I think people react to second hand smoke the way they react to natural gas: since they can smell it and it's unpleasant, there must be a danger present.

i didnt realize that we have slave bartenders and waitresses these days.

i think that there is a middle ground between having the room fill with smoke and banning smoking altogether. there is such a thing as ventilation.
Yes. I chose to work at a bar, however there is such a thing as common courtesy. I always make sure to thank the smokers from out of town who go outside to smoke. It's just polite. If you want to smoke, that's your choice, but in my opinion, when your actions bring harm to those around you, that shouldn't be socially acceptable.

Irrelevant.

In order to be a free individual, I must own my body, and I must control my body. I, and only I, decide what goes into it. When smokers intentionally blow their putrid exhaust into the public atmosphere, they pollute that atmosphere and cause me to breathe in substances that I do not wish to have enter my body. When that puff of smoke hits me in the face, I have become the victim of assault and trespass. As such, I am justified in seeking the assistance of government to reestablish my sovereignty over my property, my body.

Okay, and what about all the nuclear radiation and fallout that same government put into the atmosphere during the nuclear testing these past few decades? I guess you don't care so much about that particular assault and trespass. What about it when you anti-smokers pile into your gasoline burning cars and fill up the atmosphere with putrid exhaust? Oh no, that's perfectly alright...


If smokers wish to smoke on their own private property, or on the private property of another consenting party, then so be it. I cannot and will not interfere. However, as soon as they go into the public square, their behavior must consider the equal rights of all the other sovereign individuals around them.

What sovereign individuals? You just advocated taking away the right of ANYONE to smoke ANYWHERE in 'public' at ANY TIME no matter WHAT the circumstances. If you care for individual sovereignty, you sure do have a funny and inconsistent way of going about pursuing it. Like, I notice you don't have a stern lecture about people who drive automobiles, wear perfume, or use products that come from anything but totally green industry. You certainly don't call them victimizing, murdering, baby-killing assholes like you do with cigarette smokers.

But cigarette smokers are the minority, so you actually DONT believe they have any sovereignty.

I would prefer that individuals govern their own behavior and refrain from violating the rights of others voluntarily. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that such individuals are extremely rare.

Does it? *I* would prefer that individuals govern their own behavior and try asking me politely to smoke elsewhere if it bothers them. In 8 years of smoking that has NEVER EVER HAPPENED. I guess everyone who might be bothered is too busy at home ranting online about how they were assaulted and trespassed 200 times today on the street. Too bad for them. If you anti-smokers can't even have the decency (or the balls) to treat me like a "sovereign individual" why should I do the same for you?

When you people finally outlaw cigarette smoking, the only thing you'll do is make me a criminal when I enjoy my smoke. As a criminal I'll have no obligation to do anything you ask of me.

So I'll be sure and smoke, heavily, and blow it all in your whiny face while you hold your nose and yell "help! police! save me! take time from pursuing rapists and thieves and murderers, there's a CIGARETTE SMOKER and he WONT GO AWAY even though I NEVER ASKED HIM TO!"

BULLSHIT

Do you seriously believe that smoking only harms the person who's smoking and does nothing whatsoever to anyone standing next to them? Did you just come down in the last shower or what?

I have severe respiratory problems, which means that because of the actions of smokers my freedom is curtailed. I cannot go into a pub where there's smoking. Most restaurants, even if they have segregated smoking/nonsmoking areas, are also out of my purview because generally that segregation is totally inadequate. If I am exposed to such an environment for any length of time I can have a major asthma attack that lasts for hours in the acute stage and leaves me feeling distinctly below par for several days afterwards.

And yet you think I should just wander blithely into a pub and happily breathe in the toxic fumes because a couple of comedians think that they should be able to smoke wherever they bloody well feel like? Yeah, right...

Personally, I'd like to take every single smoker in the world and put them up against a wall and shoot them. However, I'll settle for them not smoking in pubs, restaurants, or frankly any building that's not their own homes.

Sorry that you have severe respiratory problems and that you can't be around smoke. Shooting all smokers is definitely the way to go - why didn't I think of that. I have a severe allergy to peanuts and I want to take every child who is having a peanut butter sandwich and execute them - that makes as much sense. Maybe the bans are a good thing and maybe if there was a referendum and we all voted for the ban, I'd be cool with it - but when the gov't takes an initiative and takes rights away on BS - sorry I get a little angry. I hate cigarette smoke but there is more to the issue than that.

Well, I might as well start shitting on peoples' lawns, eh?

I'm waiting for the University which I attend to ban smoking on campus...and not because I don't like the smell (which I don't) or because I'm worried about second-hand smoke (my dad has smoked all my life, so if smoke's gonna effect me, it already has).

Why, then, do I want to ban smokers from smoking on campus? Because they're too fucking lazy to find an appropriate place to dispose of their cigarette butts. Butts are trash too, and they still make the campus look like shit. I'm tired of seeing them everywhere I walk on campus.

My aunt died from tobacco-related lung cancer. She had never smoked a cigarette in her life. However, she spent most of her life living with a person who happened to be chain smoker.

Second hand smoke is harmless? My ass it's harmless.

Also, second hand smoke causes a weird allergic reaction with me, where my throat gets inflamed and I can hardly breath. And no, I do not have asthma.

I am truly sorry for your aunt. My friend is fighting lung cancer at the moment and he does not smoke and is not around smoke. She may not have had lung cancer as a result of secondhand smoke or she may have - I don't know and it is sad either way.

I never said it was harmless - I said that he gov't took an inconclusive study and twisted the results to take away basic rights.

You are likely allergic to the SHIT that they put into cigarettes - I can't say it enough - I am not for cigarettes I hate them and they are a waste of money and human life. It is a rights issue.

I'm waiting for the University which I attend to ban smoking on campus...and not because I don't like the smell (which I don't) or because I'm worried about second-hand smoke (my dad has smoked all my life, so if smoke's gonna effect me, it already has).

Why, then, do I want to ban smokers from smoking on campus? Because they're too fucking lazy to find an appropriate place to dispose of their cigarette butts. Butts are trash too, and they still make the campus look like shit. I'm tired of seeing them everywhere I walk on campus.

I hate that too - my own friends, after I tell them not to do it, still flick their goddamn butts on my lawn. There is so much I hate about smoking but take one freedom away on a lie - more are certain to follow.

I can't find the study yet and I have to go to bed. I found quite a few sites to support my position but I will not post them because I don't feel they are legitimate souces of information. I will keep searching and will link the study if I can find it. It will likely do little good anyway as most probably don't know what a standard deviation is (not a superiority complex - I just took a statistics class is all) and most of you seem to have your mind made up already regardless of what evidence is out there. Again - not a superiority complex - I was all for the bans when they came up - just like I was all for the invasion of Iraq when I thought there were WMDs.

I've just skimmed through this thread, and I've noticed a lot of people saying various things to the effect of: "these studies were done by 'Big Tobacco'. I don't trust them." Have any of you done research to support that assumption? Seems like whenever a study comes up that dashes your views, you immediately say, "oh, it's entirely irrelevant because the researchers are associated with xyz." That's simply rubbish. Part of the point of the story was that the original 1993 study was done by people who fudged research. So perhaps the opposing point of view, that secondhand smoke is not very unhealthy at all, is the more correct.

Sorry, but...utter load of crap. Secondhand smoke is not only damaging but can KILL. I have every right to not be scared away from having a social life along with everyone else who either hates the smell(yes) or has a bad respitory(sp?) reacton to it(yes.) In some ways, up until the ban here in NYC, the smokers dominated if you really hated smoke, which meant oopting out of most bars. In the end, these bans will have nothing but good effects for health, the economy(ask the mayor or city council here...bars and other places are being attended MORE because they're smoke free), and the smokers for whom the ban helps them in their attempt to quit due to not only the inconvienence of going outside to bare the elements just for a smoke but, as recent studies suggest, an intriguing connection between lower time spent among smokers and higher ability to quit.

Second hand smoking can kill huh? Why don't you go find a single instance where a Doctor has written down 'second hand smoke' as cause of death. It'll be right up there with Car fumes and that horrible stuff that comes out of your neighbors gas-powered lawn mower.

That is the level upon which second hand smoke affects your lives. You breath in more toxins walking down the road next to cars every day then you will breath in toxins from second hand smoke (baring extreme situations of living with a 5 pack a day father and a 6 pack a day mother who smoked 12 packs a day while you were pregnant).

I'm waiting for the University which I attend to ban smoking on campus...and not because I don't like the smell (which I don't) or because I'm worried about second-hand smoke (my dad has smoked all my life, so if smoke's gonna effect me, it already has).

Why, then, do I want to ban smokers from smoking on campus? Because they're too fucking lazy to find an appropriate place to dispose of their cigarette butts. Butts are trash too, and they still make the campus look like shit. I'm tired of seeing them everywhere I walk on campus.

Look around your campus some more. You'll find plenty of candy wrappers, empty chip bags and chewing gum littering the ground. I suppose we should ban all of those to appease your sense of cleanliness? First lovely thing I did when my campus banned cigarettes (the damned fools) was bust out a very nice Arturo Fuente Double Chateau Fuente cigar and puff my way across campus, stick it in a aluminum cigar holder during class and then puff it again across campus after class was over. I really quite enjoyed that cigar, though the burn was rather uneven and I couldn't exactly enjoy a good drink with it while on campus.

I’m quite sure some poor person is going to die of lung cancer in their 50s because of my actions. :rolleyes:

2nd hand smoke is still dangerous. No one wants to be breathing in smoke all day long. Humans weren't designed for that.

We don't have to violate the rights to smokers, but smoking areas must be well designed to smoke from smokers does not get trapped or recycled around and around again.

One thing I do hate is cigarette butts being left everywhere by smokers especially right next to a bin a few CM away.

2nd hand smoke is still dangerous. No one wants to be breathing in smoke all day long. Humans weren't designed for that.

Try not to step outside anywhere where there are cars. It may not be to your taste. Nevermind that whether smoking is banned in public or you will hardly be smoking it in 'all day' or anything even close to that.

We don't have to violate the rights to smokers, but smoking areas must be well designed to smoke from smokers does not get trapped or recycled around and around again.

One thing I do hate is cigarette butts being left everywhere by smokers especially right next to a bin a few CM away.

Agreed with both points, however cigarette butts being left everywhere has little to do with 'smokers' so much as all humans in general. Most people are inconsiderate asses who leave their trash around on the ground. It follows then that most smokers are the same. Hence we see cigarette butts on the ground.. along with all sorts of other kinds of trash. Banning smoking to get rid of a small part of the general litter of humanity is simply being an ass and targeting an unpopular minority.

i didnt realize that we have slave bartenders and waitresses these days.

i think that there is a middle ground between having the room fill with smoke and banning smoking altogether. there is such a thing as ventilation.

How many regular bars that you know of have top-notch expensive ventilation systems?

What the fuck are you talking about slave bartenders? It is called making a living. We don't have slave bartenders and waitresses we have normal people working in environments they have no control over in order to make a living. Get a normal blue collar job and go bitch to your boss that the ventilation system isn't up to par. We'll see how long you stay employed.

How many regular bars that you know of have top-notch expensive ventilation systems?

What the fuck are you talking about slave bartenders? It is called making a living. We don't have slave bartenders and waitresses we have normal people working in environments they have no control over in order to make a living. Get a normal blue collar job and go bitch to your boss that the ventilation system isn't up to par. We'll see how long you stay employed.

Get a different job.

As someone in the medical field I can tell you that it has been proven time and time again, beyond reasonable doubt that second hand smoke is harmful. You might as well sit back and argue the world is flat or that the sun orbits around the earth.

Bleh, I think I managed to get halfway through p.5 before I felt I had to respond.

I'm no fan of Pen & Teller. I've seen a couple of their shows (including the PETA one), and they're full of it. My Bollox comment was to that effect.
I have not seen this particular atrocity.

Cigarette filters doesn't work? Right.. Filters work, and they even work quite well. The problem is that the producers of filter cigarettes have gone to great lenghts to make filter cigarette more poisonous than filterless ones - to the point where filter cigarette are now far more lethal than most filterless ones. Trust the nice corporations to kill you.

Non-smokers rights extends to forbidding me to smoke outdoors? You have got to be shitting me! What about your cars, your co2 breath & your damn farts? Let's outlaw you instead. It solves some similar, and far more signoficant problems, namely the ones I just mentioned. And no, I don't own a car. Judging by the self-rightious attitude, I wager you own 2 SUVs, right?
Off you go to buy some rope then. Good riddance.


Passive smoking is more poisonous than direct smoking. Because the fumes passive smokers breathe - for the most part - haven't been through one or more filters (for example, my lungs). That doesn't mean that passive smoking is more dangerous than being a smoker. Far from it. It just means the fumes they're inhaling are - on average - more poisonous than the ones I'm inhaling.
But I get everything the passive smoker does, and a hell of a lot more, so of course I'm much worse off.

Now for some numbers, so we can gain some perspective on this. Note that all this information are from British, Danish & Swedish medical research, stretching from 2002 to 2005.

Non-smokers are on average subjected to between 1% & 3% of the poisonous fumes that smokers subject themselves to. Keep in mind though, that 48% of the non-smokers aren't subjected to passive smoking at all. 34% of the non-smokers suffer passive smoking at work, at home or during school hours.

There is a konsistant connection between passive smoking, and what we regard as smoking related illnesses, primarily lung cancer. Statistics show that non-smoking women married to smokers has a 20% higher chance of developing lung cancer. Non-smoking men married to a smoker has a 30% higher chance of developing lung cancer. The likelyhood of these high-risk passive smokers developing smoke related coronaries is increased by a similar 25-35%.

Passive smoking likewise increases respiratory problems, both in children and adults. And while allergics have a greater chance of developing astma & similar problems, being a healthy non-allergic adult doesn't mean you won't get astma if your coworkers or your partner smoke.
Children from 0-12 have a significantly increased amount of sick days.

There haven't been done any real medical research on passive smoking in smoke-heavy environments, like pubs and such, but there is every reason to suspect they're even worse off than people with smoking spouses.

Now a bit about me: I smoke 30-35 fags a day. I hand roll them - because I don't like the chemically enhanced cardboard they put in filter cigs these days.
I probably won't quit smoking. I've tried a few times, but it just doesn't seem I'm able. Especially since I come completely unhinged when I don't get my fags.

I consider myself fairly nice about my smoking though. I don't smoke in other people's houses unless they do it themselves. I never smoke around children, and would ask others not to (they never do though, my mates aren't completely braindead). And I don't smoke in public, unless I'm in a pub where smoking is allowed. I certainly don't hope they ban smoking down the local pub, but I won't complain if it happens.

I will smoke as much as I want if I'm outside. If that is a problem for nonsmokers, then it's because they're insanely impolite & don't respect my personal space. Most likely they'll get a punch in the nose before they ever notice the fumes.

And yes, I am a burden on the public healthcare system. And yes, I am killing myself slowly. My only syggestion is to raise the price of fags & stop worrying about my mortality. It's my life & my money.

Edit: The numbers & such in this post are gleaned from various government-funded medical studies. The tobacco industry haven't had a hand in them in any way.

As someone in the medical field I can tell you that it has been proven time and time again, beyond reasonable doubt that second hand smoke is harmful. You might as well sit back and argue the world is flat or that the sun orbits around the earth.

And your position in the Medical field? A lot of Doctors look at those same studies and note how they use improper statistical methods. Note that all those people sharing 2nd hand smoke also share inhaling tons of pollutants as they walk down the street that our wonderful society produces.

And your position in the Medical field? A lot of Doctors look at those same studies and note how they use improper statistical methods. Note that all those people sharing 2nd hand smoke also share inhaling tons of pollutants as they walk down the street that our wonderful society produces.
That's why the clever buggers thought of something called 'control-groups'. Go figure.

That's why the clever buggers thought of something called 'control-groups'. Go figure.

I hardly need a lecture in statistics thanks. Go read the studies for yourselves and then crack open your statistics book and start counting the flaws in the method used.

And your position in the Medical field? A lot of Doctors look at those same studies and note how they use improper statistical methods. Note that all those people sharing 2nd hand smoke also share inhaling tons of pollutants as they walk down the street that our wonderful society produces.

My position is irrelevant. Like The Similized world said, there is such a thing as a "Control Group", this means that people who are exposed to second hand smoke are compared to people exposed to the exact same environmental factors.

I have never met a Doctor who has dismissed the effects of second hand smoke, and I have had some experience in the field of Population Health, and have never seen an article in the NZMJ to indicate otherwise. Any Doctor's who propagated such a view would be flying in the face of the weight of medical evidence and probably be in violation of the particular oath they take in their country of origin (hypocratic or other).

My position is irrelevant. Like The Similized world said, there is such a thing as a "Control Group", this means that people who are exposed to second hand smoke are compared to people exposed to the exact same environmental factors.

But you'll find that such a study has not been conducted often enough that they get the press (or perhaps its just because its the kind of conclusion that sells), and when they have they do one of those studies with a proper control group and proper methods they end up shownig that second hand smoke was a statistical insignifcant factor thanks.

I have never met a Doctor who has dismissed the effects of second hand smoke, and I have had some experience in the field of Population Health, and have never seen an article in the NZMJ to indicate otherwise. Any Doctor's who propagated such a view would be flying in the face of the weight of medical evidence and probably be in violation of the particular oath they take in their country of origin (hypocratic or other).

:yawn: And are you dismissive of the affects of the exhaust of cars? Because that happens to be a larger factor. Also, you need to meet more doctors. Or at least consult with some who have managed to not allow the biases to sway their opinion (or perhaps have allowed their bias to sway their opinion depending on your perspective on the matter).

As I’ve noted before already, it is the quantity of the exposure that will matter. Walking past a smoker in a wide open park doesn’t bother you enough to matter in the least. Spending all of your time in a smokers bar on the other hand would not be the most advisable thing in the world.

As I’ve noted before already, it is the quantity of the exposure that will matter. Walking past a smoker in a wide open park doesn’t bother you enough to matter in the least. Spending all of your time in a smokers bar on the other hand would not be the most advisable thing in the world.Exactly. Which is why outlawing smoking in outdoors public spaces is rediculous. It's just a ban for the sake of a ban.

That said, there is tons of research about this Blauschild. I really don't enjoy reading it, but if you want, I can litterally drown you in it. And not US tobacco company research either.

The best sum-op (and a very up-to-date) I've seen so far - which of course contains full source referencing, is sadly in Danish. I can read it, but I'm not too sure about you?
I know it's publicised in English as well (which is how I knew what to look for), but I can't find it. - It's in Swedish too, if that helps.

Claiming that passive smoking is insignificant is as wrong as can be. New (and ongoing) studies show that there's various threshold values involved. For example, an average active smoker is only ~25% more likely to develop IHD than an average passive smoker. A very, very small difference considering the passive smoker will only be exposed to somewhere around 3% of what the active smoker is exposed to.

Anyway, I've been awake too long to do a real technical post right now (and it would take half a day to do it), so you'll have to either take my word for it, or hunt for material yourself. I can of course tell you what to look for.

Edit: No offence Blau, but would you stop the :Yawn: thing? I know it wasn't aimed at me, but it still made me want to break your jaw 5 places.

In Swden, a country of 9,000,000 inhabitants, 50 people die every year because of second-hand smoke. I don't know how many simply get sick, but as you can see I do know that an amount of people equal to two school classes get killed every year in Sweden alone because of this. If one wanted to put it in a really biased way, one could say "Imagine poison gas being released in a normal school, killing everyone who isn't home sick. That's merciful compared with second-hand smoking." Of course, that's heavily biased, playing on emotions as much as facts.

Exactly. Which is why outlawing smoking in outdoors public spaces is rediculous. It's just a ban for the sake of a ban.

That said, there is tons of research about this Blauschild. I really don't enjoy reading it, but if you want, I can litterally drown you in it. And not US tobacco company research either.

The best sum-op (and a very up-to-date) I've seen so far - which of course contains full source referencing, is sadly in Danish. I can read it, but I'm not too sure about you?
I know it's publicised in English as well (which is how I knew what to look for), but I can't find it. - It's in Swedish too, if that helps.

Claiming that passive smoking is insignificant is as wrong as can be. New (and ongoing) studies show that there's various threshold values involved. For example, an average active smoker is only ~25% more likely to develop IHD than an average passive smoker. A very, very small difference considering the passive smoker will only be exposed to somewhere around 3% of what the active smoker is exposed to.

Anyway, I've been awake too long to do a real technical post right now (and it would take half a day to do it), so you'll have to either take my word for it, or hunt for material yourself. I can of course tell you what to look for.

:shrug: fair enough. Though Those percentages tend not to mean much when not releated to an absolute value. IE the 'normal' person's chance of getting IHD.

Edit: No offence Blau, but would you stop the :Yawn: thing? I know it wasn't aimed at me, but it still made me want to break your jaw 5 places.

No

In Swden, a country of 9,000,000 inhabitants, 50 people die every year because of second-hand smoke. I don't know how many simply get sick, but as you can see I do know that an amount of people equal to two school classes get killed every year in Sweden alone because of this. If one wanted to put it in a really biased way, one could say "Imagine poison gas being released in a normal school, killing everyone who isn't home sick. That's merciful compared with second-hand smoking." Of course, that's heavily biased, playing on emotions as much as facts.

For the love of god can you please show me 50 death certificates that say 'cause of death: Second Hand Smoke' I'd frame them and hang them on my wall.

:shrug: fair enough. Though Those percentages tend not to mean much when not releated to an absolute value. IE the 'normal' person's chance of getting IHD.Go search the web or your local library for Doll & Peto, 1994 & later. Or search Medline.

It's slightly difficult to sum up an answer for you, as a lot of different things influence it, but..
An smoking 15-25 fags a day increases the chance of developing IHD by 200-400%. This has been observed in several EU nations.NoAlright then. I won't communicate with you any further.

Alright then. I won't communicate with you any further.
Did you expect him to say anything but no after you said you wanted to break his jaw in 5 places? Good debate though. I hope you do keep up the communication.

Get a different job.

Smoke somewhere else.

See, I can make snide remarks too.

For the love of god can you please show me 50 death certificates that say 'cause of death: Second Hand Smoke' I'd frame them and hang them on my wall.

I could be totally and completely wrong, but if a guy was pushed off a twenty-floor building by a jilted wife or something of the like, they don't put "pushed off of building by wife" the put "blunt force trauma" or "fall". In the case of second hand smoke usually its "complications due to emphysema," or "pulmonary edema" or "cancer" etc.

that being said, I am a smoker (about a pack a day of Pall Malls filterd). *ducks behind a desk waiting for all the non-smokin NSers to start the barrage of insults, studies, and general "you suck"* I know the dangers of smoking, you would be idiotic at this day in age not to, so please do not preach to me how bad it is. And yes, there is harm in second-hand smoke. Duh. I agree that there should be a smoking/non-smoking section and everything else suggested in this thread. Isn't that the best compromise that does not infringe on anyones rights?


Here is a point my husband made when our city was talking about a ban on all smoking. There is no smoker lobby. We smokers, while we care, aren't "organized" to argue and fight. Imagine the shit that would hit the fan if the smokers got together to start a lobby on the cigarette tax, smoking-bans and the whatnot.

Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t! has an episode on this. Check out the clip at:

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs

The EPA was shredded for their faulty research and cherry-picking data manipulation.

Sorry it took me so long but it took a long time to compile this info.

1992 – the EPA comes out with a bombshell – an estimated 3,000 deaths each year are attributable to second hand smoke. This is the study that starts it all. 1993 - Bans and limits on public smoking start to come into effect.

After much searching I managed to dig up the study and a link to the glorious 525 page document can be found here http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835. Good luck going through it but some of you demanded it - here it is.

Personally, I’ll bypass that and take Federal District Judge William Olsen sum it up for me

1998 – Federal District Judge William Osteen lambasts the 1993 EPA study. Among his criticisms:

“EPA’s procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law”

“EPA cherry picked its data”

“EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure to ensure a preordained outcome”

You can read the 92 page court document or follow this link, http://www.tobaccocontrol.neu.edu/tcu/tcu03.1/Features/epa_nutshell.htm,
for a less time consuming read.

An interesting PBS link is here http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/smoking_7-21.html.

Check it out and maybe realize that even science can be influenced by politics.

How about somebody post a study either way so that I can see for myself, without having to work for it or watch a video.

If you think watching the 2 minute video is work - read the study

I am a non-smoker (cigarettes). I hate the smell of it, I hate when my hair and clothes smell like it, I hate hotel rooms that smell like it and I hate it on someone's breath. That said, I am against all of the public smoking bans in the US and elsewhere. Why? Because the study that the smoking bans are based on show NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE that second-handsmoking increases the risk of lung cancer to those exposed to it. Let me repeat that - NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE! Hard to believe when it seems that the government never seems to admit this little known fact. Penn & Teller do a brilliant show on Showtime called Bullshit and here is where you can find the clip of their show on second-hand smoke - http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs
Click on the "is second-hand smoke hazardous" box
While I love to go to a bar in NYC and not come home smelling like a tobacco factory - I am appalled that the gov't would take away our rights based on a study that is essentially a sham. Where is the public outcry? Why don't the newspapers report this? Be careful folks - take away one of our rights and all others become weaker as a result. Smokers are an easy target right now. Are you and your activities the next easy target? How do my fellow NSers fell about this?


So because a couple of comedian/magicians say something is bullshit then it is indisputable truth?

I can tell you from first hand experience that second-hand smoke does affet health... and not just over logn term but right away!

I used to be a smoker and after many years of tryign to quit I finally did and got my health back up to par. Since I have quit I have been to many bars and casinos and had to breath in these toxic fumes.Every single frikken time I have spent a prolonged amount of time in this type of atmosphere I have come away with a sore throat and often times have caught a cold. Coincidence? I think not. I have been smomke free for years now, so i can say that it is a certainty that second hand smoke harms your health.

So because a couple of comedian/magicians say something is bullshit then it is indisputable truth?

I can tell you from first hand experience that second-hand smoke does affet health... and not just over logn term but right away!

I used to be a smoker and after many years of tryign to quit I finally did and got my health back up to par. Since I have quit I have been to many bars and casinos and had to breath in these toxic fumes.Every single frikken time I have spent a prolonged amount of time in this type of atmosphere I have come away with a sore throat and often times have caught a cold. Coincidence? I think not. I have been smomke free for years now, so i can say that it is a certainty that second hand smoke harms your health.

So second hand smoke causes colds also? WOW another bombshell. I am not going off the word of two magicians - they just brought it to my attention - read two posts up and enjoy (I think it is post 101).

So second hand smoke causes colds also? WOW another bombshell. I am not going off the word of two magicians - they just brought it to my attention - read two posts up and enjoy (I think it is post 101).

no the toxins weaken the immune system as evidenced by my actual experience.


are you saying that the chemicals in cigarettes aren't toxic? And I thought my brain processes were hindered by my current drunkenness

no the toxins weaken the immune system as evidenced by my actual experience.


are you saying that the chemicals in cigarettes aren't toxic? And I thought my brain processes were hindered by my current drunkenness

Never said that. Please reference the clip attached at the beginning of the post and the other info I posted in # 101. I am too tired to rehash it at the moment. If you are outside the US - don't bother with the clip - it doesn't work.

also I didn't mention that it leaves my eyes burning when I come out of a smoke filled club or casino

plus it makes me stink and makes my woman not want to kiss me - tell me that isn't detrimental to my something or other :p

Never said that. Please reference the clip attached at the beginning of the post and the other info I posted in # 101. I am too tired to rehash it at the moment. If you are outside the US - don't bother with the clip - it doesn't work.

so you acknowledge that there are toxins in cigarette smoke - you do know that toxins are detrimental to yoru health right?

also I didn't mention that it leaves my eyes burning when I come out of a smoke filled club or casino

plus it makes me stink and makes my woman not want to kiss me - tell me that isn't detrimental to my something or other :p

I have to concur with both of those. I honestly hate cigarette smoke but that's not my point. I just don't like to be lied to and forfeit my rights as a result is all - and I don't smoke so it is a right I will never use.

On that note I am off to bed.

Thet banned smoking in bars and nightclubs here in Sweden a year ago. ALL the bartenders and waiters said they were very grateful and that they didn't need to put on nicotine patches anymore. Smoking SHOULD be banned in public, I think. Even if it didn't cause cancer to others(which it may well do), there's still astmathics, people with weak lungs, and people who don't want to come home every night from work with dry eyes and a cigarette addiction!

so you acknowledge that there are toxins in cigarette smoke - you do know that toxins are detrimental to yoru health right?

Questionable: My mom did about 2-3 cartons a week! :eek: She eventually stopped. However, for the length of time my sister and I were exposed; should'nt we be dead or at least have major health issues?

Come to think of it; she even smoked when she carried me.....

Questionable: My mom did about 2-3 cartons a week! :eek: She eventually stopped. However, for the length of time my sister and I were exposed; should'nt we be dead or at least have major health issues?

Come to think of it; she even smoked when she carried me.....

What is questionable? that there are toxins in cigarette smoke???? :confused:

Or is it questionable that toxins are bad for your health?

Also, some people have more resilient immune systems than others (especially younger people 25 years and down). My great grandfather smoked pipe tobacco since he was like 11 years old and lived to almost a hundred... and he died of lonliness because his wife had died a week earlier.

There is no denying that I am adversely affected from second hand smoke unless you aren't around and refuse to accept what I say as truth.

Questionable: My mom did about 2-3 cartons a week! :eek: She eventually stopped. However, for the length of time my sister and I were exposed; should'nt we be dead or at least have major health issues?Dead? Far from it. However, you & your sister most likely had quite a few more sick days than you would've had otherwise.

Are any of you allergic? Do any of you have astma? Do any of you still suffer more sick days than your peers?

All three things are massively more likely among children of chainsmokers, especially when she smoked during pregnancy.Come to think of it; she even smoked when she carried me.....Well.. Either she was ignorant - which if you're around 30+ is likely - or she really didn't like you very much. Even I could quit smoking if the alternative might cause my child a cronic illness.

http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/content.asp?ID=109

http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13

http://www.newstarget.com/005529.html

damn people dont feed the trolls

maybe everyone mad about second hand smoke should just start smoking, cause at least that way you have a filter.

"According to the American Cancer Society, more than 3,000 Americans die yearly from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke."

This is a quote from neo danube's first link. Sounds familiar? It doesn't? Oh that's right it shouldnt because none of you actually bothered to read the infomation supporting my claim (post 101). No doubt this statistic is taken from the 1992 (released in 93) EPA study that was shot down in a federal district court. The EPA released the results of their study before the data was completely collected! They had an agenda and manipulated the data to suit their needs.

This study is the basis of our smoking bans and our rights are taken away based on bullshit!!!!!!!! Politics is mixing with science and that is dangerous. That is my point. Regardless of your opinion on smoking - does no one find this disturbing?

"According to the American Cancer Society, more than 3,000 Americans die yearly from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke."

This is a quote from neo danube's first link. Sounds familiar? It doesn't? Oh that's right it shouldnt because none of you actually bothered to read the infomation supporting my claim (post 101). No doubt this statistic is taken from the 1992 (released in 93) EPA study that was shot down in a federal district court. The EPA released the results of their study before the data was completely collected! They had an agenda and manipulated the data to suit their needs.

This study is the basis of our smoking bans and our rights are taken away based on bullshit!!!!!!!! Politics is mixing with science and that is dangerous. That is my point. Regardless of your opinion on smoking - does no one find this disturbing?
I can't link to any of this, because I have no idea where it might be publicly accessible online. You will, however, be able to either find or order it via most public libraries, and university or medical libraries almost certainly have them on hand.

So, go look for Law 1997, Thun 1999, He 1999, NCI publication No. 99-4645, Smith 2000. These all examine the effects of passive smoking, and a couple contain deathcount calculations. And if you think any of them are fallacious, then I should very, very much like to see you prove it.

Other than that, you're right about the EPA study from '93.

I can't link to any of this, because I have no idea where it might be publicly accessible online.

Trust me - it is very hard to find.

Trust me - it is very hard to find.Not really. Just pay a visit to your library. Half the point of having libraries is to enable laypeople to get a hold of things like this.

Not really. Just pay a visit to your library. Half the point of having libraries is to enable laypeople to get a hold of things like this.

I meant on the net.

Thet banned smoking in bars and nightclubs here in Sweden a year ago. ALL the bartenders and waiters said they were very grateful and that they didn't need to put on nicotine patches anymore. Smoking SHOULD be banned in public, I think. Even if it didn't cause cancer to others(which it may well do), there's still astmathics, people with weak lungs, and people who don't want to come home every night from work with dry eyes and a cigarette addiction!

It's too bad that in Sweden, there is no opportunity for someone to change their jobs ever. Otherwise, that bit about how awful it is that they work where cigarette smoking is prevalent would be irrelevant since it hinges on their fault, not the fault of others.

And a cigarette addiction? You really think you can get addicted to cigarettes just by being around them? Ugh. You don't even get addicted to cigarettes when you SMOKE them, so this crap about second hand addiction is just that - crap.

So breathing in smoke filled with toxins doesn't harm your health? It is harmful for the smoker to inhale it (I hope you're not debating THAT) but when the smoke exhales the smoke is somehow purified and others who breath it aren't affected? Breathing in the fumes from other peoples cancer sticks makes me queasy also but I cannot see how one can say your health is not affected.

Hazard to inhaled agents is defined by several factors:
1. Ability to transport into the body - there are optimal particulate sizes for this.
2. Concentration in free air.
3. Duration of exposure.

What matters is not that you breathed in second-hand smoke, but how much and for how long and how deep. The concept of a zero-tolerance risk is not scientifically accepted amongst toxicologists - even the world's most potent poisons have a threshold limit below which exposure is defined as safe.

A good example is oxygen. You can blind newborn babies with a brief exposure to 50% oxygen. It can be toxic at certain atmospheric percentages and pressures. But at normal ranges, the risk is zero from oxygen.

I meant on the net.Oh. Well that unfortunately seems to be true. Unless you have access to medical research databases, but very few do. I'm honestly quite surprised by that. I would've thought much of the current research was publicised online.It's too bad that in Sweden, there is no opportunity for someone to change their jobs ever. Otherwise, that bit about how awful it is that they work where cigarette smoking is prevalent would be irrelevant since it hinges on their fault, not the fault of others.Yes. How bloody awful that people are hired to do a job & then complain that they're poisoned while doing it. The pure NERVE of some people. Whiney Swedish wankers, all.And a cigarette addiction? You really think you can get addicted to cigarettes just by being around them? Ugh. You don't even get addicted to cigarettes when you SMOKE them, so this crap about second hand addiction is just that - crap.Well... That's a question of difinition. Fags do influence people's moods in a major way. Pretty much all active smokers suffer psychological adiction. I must admit, though, that I've never heard of passive adiction before. I suppose it explains the attitude of some bouncers though...

Hazard to inhaled agents is defined by several factors:
1. Ability to transport into the body - there are optimal particulate sizes for this.
2. Concentration in free air.
3. Duration of exposure.

What matters is not that you breathed in second-hand smoke, but how much and for how long and how deep. The concept of a zero-tolerance risk is not scientifically accepted amongst toxicologists - even the world's most potent poisons have a threshold limit below which exposure is defined as safe.

A good example is oxygen. You can blind newborn babies with a brief exposure to 50% oxygen. It can be toxic at certain atmospheric percentages and pressures. But at normal ranges, the risk is zero from oxygen.

True enough. But 0% oxygen is even MORE dangerous. The same cannot be said for second-hand smoke. So a less-is-better approach seems a lot mor reasonable. *nod*

Yes. How bloody awful that people are hired to do a job & then complain that they're poisoned while doing it. The pure NERVE of some people. Whiney Swedish wankers, all.

I know! Especially when they never complain about how on the road or bus TO work they are poisoned! by automobile emissions, you see. But that kind of poison is OK...

Look... it's a bar. If you can't handle what bars tend to have - like drunk people, loud music and smoking - you shouldn't work there. It's like someone who goes to work at a bar and then complains about the loud music. They knew what it was like before they went to work there.


Well... That's a question of difinition. Fags do influence people's moods in a major way. Pretty much all active smokers suffer psychological adiction.

I maintain that "psychological addiction" is a politically correct euphemism for "I like to smoke but I don't want to admit it." Since it's not PC to want to smoke, when your friends and family come up to you about how you're a baby-killing cancer-spewing cigarette smoker, you're forced to hide the fact that you just plain like it since your enjoyment is no longer of any concern to them. Hence, "Oh, I'm trying to quit." No you aren't, but they forced it out through social influence. Then, if you're "trying" to quit but haven't... it must be because of addiction! But cigarettes aren't very physically addictive if at all. So... they invented the term psychological addiction.

True enough. But 0% oxygen is even MORE dangerous. The same cannot be said for second-hand smoke. So a less-is-better approach seems a lot mor reasonable. *nod*
The question is "how much less?"

Offices, for example, should probably be smoke-free, as it isn't required as part of their business to accomodate smokers. Hotels for the same reason - not so much health, as the idea that the majority of people don't smoke, and don't want to sleep in a room that smells like smoke.

Restaraunts and bars should be able to make up their own mind. If people don't want to smell smoke, they can stop patronizing places that cater to smokers and vice versa. Cigar bars would therefore be unaffected, and most other bars I bet would be non-smoking. If the number of people who go out and patronize bars regulars are majority non-smokers who hate smelling smoke, the bars will go non-smoking. Let the market decide.

I know! Especially when they never complain about how on the road or bus TO work they are poisoned! by automobile emissions, you see. But that kind of poison is OK...

Look... it's a bar. If you can't handle what bars tend to have - like drunk people, loud music and smoking - you shouldn't work there. It's like someone who goes to work at a bar and then complains about the loud music. They knew what it was like before they went to work there.You fight the fights you can win. Current society can't function without transportation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be devoting ourselves in a major way to solve that problem.

And you're presenting a strawman. Loud music, drunks and whatnot, doesn't poison you. This is comparable to asbestas workers. If they complained about that, surely they should shut down the plants completely, after all, heavy machinery is involved, and people do sometimes get mauled by such things...

That's completely irellevant. People performing their job properly shouldn't risk cronic illnesses & a long & painful death as a result. I assume you agree?I maintain that "psychological addiction" is a politically correct euphemism for "I like to smoke but I don't want to admit it." Since it's not PC to want to smoke, when your friends and family come up to you about how you're a baby-killing cancer-spewing cigarette smoker, you're forced to hide the fact that you just plain like it since your enjoyment is no longer of any concern to them. Hence, "Oh, I'm trying to quit." No you aren't, but they forced it out through social influence. Then, if you're "trying" to quit but haven't... it must be because of addiction! But cigarettes aren't very physically addictive if at all. So... they invented the term psychological addiction.I'm a smoker. I smoke more than most. And I've given up on giving up. I've tried multiple times, and the two times I really did commit to quitting, my sorroundings ended up begging me to start again. Because I become somewhat of a violent psycho when I don't smoke.

But it's perfectly possible for me to respect others. I don't smoke around people who mind, unless I'm home. I wouldn't dream of smoking around children. I know a guy who suffers from astma & since I'm not pure evil in a human skin, I wouldn't want that for others. It's extremely expensive, and it really doesn't look like it's very much fun either.

I will maintain that I am adicted to fags. And I will maintain that psychological adictions are quite real. Ever seen someone adicted to coke? I have. Hell, I was. And it was a major pain to quit. And I'm more more adicted to fags than I ever was to coke.

Physical adiction is surely hell, but a psychological adiction is no cakewalk either. Ask anyone who's ever been adicted to anything. It becomes part of your personality, part of who you are, and part of your daily routine. It's no easy task to alter your own personality.

Many ex-smokers substitute their habit with a nicotine-product adiction. That kind of behaviour makes absolutely no sense if you only consider the physical adiction to nicotine, because it takes between a couple of days and 2-3 weeks to get over that, and the physical effects are minor. The most extreme physical effect is a slight impact on one's ability to concentrate.

Thet banned smoking in bars and nightclubs here in Sweden a year ago. ALL the bartenders and waiters said they were very grateful and that they didn't need to put on nicotine patches anymore. Smoking SHOULD be banned in public, I think. Even if it didn't cause cancer to others(which it may well do), there's still astmathics, people with weak lungs, and people who don't want to come home every night from work with dry eyes and a cigarette addiction!

Yeah, a while back the state of Delaware banned all indoor smoking in public buildings. It hasn't stopped people smoking at all, since they've just set up "smoking areas" more than 20 feet from the entrance, as the law requires. They've got their little sheltered semi-enclosed areas, and their little smoking cliques, and extra time off work to go smoke. And the rest of us can go into a restaurant without having to worry about stopping breathing. Or go to work without billows of smoke coming from the next cube over. The bars and restaurants complained at first that it would cut thier business by people going to other states. Only now the other states are passing these laws too. I'm not sure they're good laws, but I sure enjoy them.

The question is "how much less?"

Offices, for example, should probably be smoke-free, as it isn't required as part of their business to accomodate smokers. Hotels for the same reason - not so much health, as the idea that the majority of people don't smoke, and don't want to sleep in a room that smells like smoke.

Restaraunts and bars should be able to make up their own mind. If people don't want to smell smoke, they can stop patronizing places that cater to smokers and vice versa. Cigar bars would therefore be unaffected, and most other bars I bet would be non-smoking. If the number of people who go out and patronize bars regulars are majority non-smokers who hate smelling smoke, the bars will go non-smoking. Let the market decide.

What about the employees? Do they have a basic right to a smoke-free workplace, or should they be required to find work elsewhere?

What about the employees? Do they have a basic right to a smoke-free workplace, or should they be required to find work elsewhere?
If it's a cigar bar, they should know that the place is full of smoke.

I'm not sure that other types of restaurants and bars can justify calling themselves a smoking establishment.

If it's a cigar bar, they should know that the place is full of smoke.

I'm not sure that other types of restaurants and bars can justify calling themselves a smoking establishment.

I work part-time in a casino as a blackjack dealer and let me tell you, few experiences prepare you for having six people each less than five feet from you blowing citarette smoke in your direction simultaneously.

This isn't a cigar bar but the bottom line is that this casino will NOT ban smoking unless it is forced to and as an employee(one of thousands), I have no other recourse but to tolerate it or quit.

I work part-time in a casino as a blackjack dealer and let me tell you, few experiences prepare you for having six people each less than five feet from you blowing citarette smoke in your direction simultaneously.

This isn't a cigar bar but the bottom line is that this casino will NOT ban smoking unless it is forced to and as an employee(one of thousands), I have no other recourse but to tolerate it or quit.

Maybe we should have different kinds of restaurant and bar licensing definitions.

It's probably easy to come up with a bar or restaurant that has a smoking room (with separate air).

Too bad you can't chew when dealing. That way, when the smoker says, "hit me", you can spit on his chips.

"According to the American Cancer Society, more than 3,000 Americans die yearly from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke."

This is a quote from neo danube's first link. Sounds familiar? It doesn't? Oh that's right it shouldnt because none of you actually bothered to read the infomation supporting my claim (post 101). No doubt this statistic is taken from the 1992 (released in 93) EPA study that was shot down in a federal district court. The EPA released the results of their study before the data was completely collected! They had an agenda and manipulated the data to suit their needs.

This study is the basis of our smoking bans and our rights are taken away based on bullshit!!!!!!!! Politics is mixing with science and that is dangerous. That is my point. Regardless of your opinion on smoking - does no one find this disturbing?

Ah... The question is, should I believe a show called "Bullshit", that in different ways each time I've seen it lives up to it's name? Listen to arguements mainly built upon the discrediting of parts of a report dating from 1992-1993? Or perhaps trust other reports, like the ones mentioned on the WHO-website? (http://www.who.int/en/)

There is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to SHS. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women and 30% in men who live with a smoker (2). Similarly, it has been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer (3).

2. Hackshaw AK, Law MR, Wald NJ. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. British Medical Journal 1997, 315: 980–8.

3. Fontham et al. JAMA 1994; 271(22): 1752–1959.

You fight the fights you can win. Current society can't function without transportation. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be devoting ourselves in a major way to solve that problem.

But "we", as in people who are so vehemently against smoking, do NOT. They don't call anyone who drives a car, a murderer. They don't call me taking the (diesel) bus to work, me committing assault and trespass. But such rhetoric is what the smokers get.

And you're presenting a strawman. Loud music, drunks and whatnot, doesn't poison you.

No, loud music just damages your eardrums, drunks just harass you.

It isn't a strawman.


That's completely irellevant. People performing their job properly shouldn't risk cronic illnesses & a long & painful death as a result. I assume you agree?

Of course I agree. But unfortunately, people performing their job properly, or improperly, or even not working, "risk chronic illnesses" and a long and painful death anyway. Not everyone seems to realize this.


But it's perfectly possible for me to respect others. I don't smoke around people who mind, unless I'm home. I wouldn't dream of smoking around children. I know a guy who suffers from astma & since I'm not pure evil in a human skin, I wouldn't want that for others. It's extremely expensive, and it really doesn't look like it's very much fun either.

Nice for you; I do the same. But no one has ever told me they minded me smoking. Ever. Am I just so intimidating that people are afraid to ask? Or maybe no one can handle personal communication to solve conflicts and instead find it easier to lobby anti-smoking political campaigns about the evil, rude smokers that don't go away when you don't ask them to.


I will maintain that I am adicted to fags. And I will maintain that psychological adictions are quite real. Ever seen someone adicted to coke? I have. Hell, I was. And it was a major pain to quit. And I'm more more adicted to fags than I ever was to coke.

Cocaine causes physical dependency, so does coca-cola if thats what you meant. Cigarettes don't. I know because I myself was a smoker.


Physical adiction is surely hell, but a psychological adiction is no cakewalk either. Ask anyone who's ever been adicted to anything. It becomes part of your personality, part of who you are, and part of your daily routine. It's no easy task to alter your own personality.

Here's my take. If it's part of your personality, it's not an addiction. It's just you. You like to smoke. Admit that and stop blaming it on some bullshit "condition" which forces you, biophysically, to shell out your quid for a pack of cigarettes AND makes you pull them out of the pack AND makes you light AND inhale.

My view is not very popular in an era where people actually believe in "workaholics" or "addiction to shopping" or basically "addiction" to anything that ever exists. Yes, we *all* now have it just as bad as cocaine addicts. Next time I see a guy hooked on crack I'll tell him, "I know exactly how you feel. I'm addicted to ONLINE!" He will surely have lots of sympathy for me.

I meant on the net.
try

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=second+hand+smoke&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en

i dont know if youll find that study, but youll find plenty of others.

You also forget that while most of the smoke the smoker inhales go through a filter, much of the secondhand smoke doesn't. Making it even worse for people who work in smoker-filled public places.

Um, you can only be exposed to second hand smoke where the smoker exhales, meaning it's already gone through the filter and most of the chemicals have already been taken in by the smoker.

I dislike when people complain about second hand smoke. "You know I'm smoking half of your cigarette."

Well good, then you owe me 3.50.

Um, you can only be exposed to second hand smoke where the smoker exhales, meaning it's already gone through the filter and most of the chemicals have already been taken in by the smoker.

I dislike when people complain about second hand smoke. "You know I'm smoking half of your cigarette."

Well good, then you owe me 3.50.Depends on just how you define second-hand smoke. Undoubtedly some would claim that by your definition, active smokers are second-hand smokers, since most smoke filter cigs.

Regardless, the danger isn't so much the smoke I exhale, it's the smoke rising from my fags - the same I pay to inhale.

If people claim they smoke half your fag, curb them. It's the best response to twats. Like I've previously written here, passive smokers are not usually subjected to more than 1-3% of what an active smoker is subjected to.

If you are a smoker, and have a significant other, you might want to give up smoking, or at least explain the risks involved to your partner though, since people in long/lifetime relationships with smokers tent to be more sickly, develop cancer, IHD and a range of other nasty things, just like the smoker. In other words, your partner will have a significantly increased chance of suffering a long, messy & early death.