NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to see how many people believe the dangers of second-hand smoke, and how that relates to their smoking or not.

Definitely poisonous. Why would it not be?

Definitely poisonous. Why would it not be?

Some people believe that it can't actually harm others, and that there's no definitive proof of this.

it's poisonous, but i don't think it's as bad as everybody says...

second hand smoke's cheaper though. it'll usually cost only the price of a beer or two.

When a smoker exhales, what it is in that I wonder? What is it about smoking that causes cancer?

Now if we can answer the second question first, and then find out wether or not it is passed out with the breath or held in the lungs, throat, and mouth, then I guess will know.

i imagine that the lungs would not absorb all of the crap and chemicals that a smoker inhales and a certain amount of this would indeed be breathed out into the air.

I just want to see how many people believe the dangers of second-hand smoke, and how that relates to their smoking or not.


As a smoker who only started a few years ago (I'm 27) I'd say this whole "Ban everything" culture is just a politician's dream. The truth is that millions and millions more people die from the effects of pollution each year than smoking.

...not to mention the murder which results in the 3rd World from the economic policies of 1st World nations.

It's all BS - if we're so concerned about public health we should get rid of cars.

Oh but that would damage our wallets, so let's just use a smokescreen (pun intended) of banning smoking in public.

Freedom to smoke, freedom to drink, freedom to burp in public and talk in cinemas.

Enough of this Nanny State crap.

As a smoker who only started a few years ago (I'm 27) I'd say this whole "Ban everything" culture is just a politician's dream. The truth is that millions and millions more people die from the effects of pollution each year than smoking.

...not to mention the murder which results in the 3rd World from the economic policies of 1st World nations.

It's all BS - if we're so concerned about public health we should get rid of cars.

Oh but that would damage our wallets, so let's just use a smokescreen (pun intended) of banning smoking in public.

Freedom to smoke, freedom to drink, freedom to burp in public and talk in cinemas.

Enough of this Nanny State crap.


I agree, there certianly does seem to be a whole lot of shit about what a free thinking individual can and cannot do with his freewill?

I agree, there certianly does seem to be a whole lot of shit about what a free thinking individual can and cannot do with his freewill?

As long as he isn't infringing on the freedoms of another individual, then he can do whatever he wants. However, smoking in a public place IS infringing, which is why public smoking is banned. Smoking all together is not banned.

It's all BS - if we're so concerned about public health we should get rid of cars.

Cars actually serve a useful purpose. They are a faster mode of transportation.

What are cigarettes? All they are is crap, and they serve to destroy one's health. I really don't see a purpose to them, but maybe I'm just unenlightened.

I know second hand smoke is dangerous. For a start its dangerous for those who have asthma, which acocunts for a large part of the population. Long term exposure also harms anyone else. So yeah, its bad.

As long as he isn't infringing on the freedoms of another individual, then he can do whatever he wants. However, smoking in a public place IS infringing, which is why public smoking is banned. Smoking all together is not banned.


No I don't understand that? It is like saying a man who leaves the toilet seat up is infringing on the womans right to have it down. The woman can close the seat, the non smoker can walk away.

When you walk into a resturant, they ask you smokeing or non smoking, in a lot of pubs, there are area's for both. Places like on the bus, or train, then yes you have a point, on the street though waiting for a bus.

I say a man smoking at the bus stop ther other week, and this woman was standing about two feet behind him, giving him dirty looks all the while flapping a book to get rid of the smike, why didn't she not just stand two fee behind him, and move away from him instead?

I see no reason(apart from nanny state reasons) why smoking need be banned in public.

I don't agree about danger of passive smoking. Oh well, yes it is dangerous, but it is as dangerous as cars, breathing (the polluted city air), alcohol, drugs, junk food, etc.

Nothing special, just part of life.

Cars actually serve a useful purpose. They are a faster mode of transportation.

What are cigarettes? All they are is crap, and they serve to destroy one's health. I really don't see a purpose to them, but maybe I'm just unenlightened.

Heh now do you ay the same about beer, or icecream, or bacon ummm bacon? People smoke for basicaly two reason, one they are addicted, and two they are addicted. We are all addicted to something, some things are good for us, and some are bad but that is not the point the point is freedom of choice.

You are free to not smoke, or smoke as you want. I don't like racist people so do you know what I do? Don't go anywhere near them.

Smoking is dangerous. Smokers are 27 times more likely to get lung cancer than non smokers. They are 1.4 times more likely to have heart disease. (Since heart disease is more common it actually kills more smokers than lung cancer.)

Second hand smoke is bad, although not quite as bad as first hand smoke because the smoker's lungs have cleaned some of the toxins out of it. However, somne people such as asthmatics are especially sensitive to it.

Now if smokers want to get together in smokers' bars with signs at the front warning people, that's fine with me. But those places aren't going to get my business. Personally I would prefer to be exposed to as little second hand smoke as possible the same way I would want to be exposed to as little of any other form of pollution as possible.

I suppose one could put a tax on cigarettes and argue that the benefit to society is worth a bit of second hand smoke, but I think the onus should be on smokers to ensure they don't harm others with their habits, even if they don't care about harming themselves.

Being a non-smoker, and having worked in bars/clubs for many years, the effects of second hand smoke are actually real.

Regular throat infections, breathing problems and also beginnings of eye irritations all affected me. This was due to the smoke, nothing else.

Despite people saying its all BS... the 'smoke is filtered twice' blah blah blah, the dangerous part is actually the lit cigarette. The smoke wafting from that end is not filtered at all, and is the most noticable for causing staff health problems.

Smokers can smoke all the want, just not if it affects those around them. Move outside where it can disperse in the air naturally and it no longer is contained in a small confined area that is painful to walk through.

After 2+ years of a ban of smoking in places of work, I have yet to meet a customer (non-smoker or smoker) that disagrees with the ban. All have been in favour for it.

One year ago, smoking was banned in restaurants and bars in Sweden. Lots feared decreased business and other negative effects, but it has been only positive. The personell is healthier with less sick days (from long days in second-hand smoke), business is fine, with increases in some places, and the customers are generally happy about it.

Second-hand smoke, and smoke in general, is unpleasant and unhealthy IMO, and should preferably be avoided.

It almost certainly does cause harm, but what remains really to be quantified is the amount of harm it causes. Studies that show a link between passive smoking and cancer are rather spurious "sampling" trials of the kind that show living next to a power pylon can give you cancer, even though this would require almost everything we know about biology and physics to be rewritten. I think it is quite possible that "passive smoking" could be relatively undamaging, only causing, say, one attributable case of cancer in a few million people. Equally it's possible that higher figures shown by some studies are correct. We really don't know. Whichever way it comes out, however, I don't see how it can be used as a justification from banning private individuals like publicans from allowing smoking on their own private property which people enter only of their own free will.

Cars actually serve a useful purpose. They are a faster mode of transportation.

What are cigarettes? All they are is crap, and they serve to destroy one's health. I really don't see a purpose to them, but maybe I'm just unenlightened.


According to that theory humour, love, alcohol, tennis and picking your nose serve no purpose.

The way certain idiots talk loudly about inane crap in bars often (I could argue) infringes upon my right not to go home wanting to kill people...but I put up with this 'mentally damaging punishment'.

We're actually living with a culture of death...not life. The whole Gym-branded, benchpress 250, polish yer teeth, live longer fad is more about longevity and not quality of existence.

I'd be much happier to ban marketing than to ban smoking.

Do you realise how exceptionally rare it is to contract lung cancer from secondary smoke? It's infinitessimally small a figure.

It's all BS, my friend, and you've fallen for it.

it would be in the public's favour to ban George W Bush and Tony Blair. Their breathing negatively affects the lives of millions of people across the world.

And they're smoke-free....the fuckers.

DJSM

Do you realise how exceptionally rare it is to contract lung cancer from secondary smoke? It's infinitessimally small a figure.

I don't know why people focus on the 'cancer' argument so much- maybe its just scaremongering.

I developed asthma because of working in smoky conditions- I have no history of it, neither does my family. I blamed this on the smoke.

I have sinced stopped working in clubs/bars. My asthma has miraculously vanished.

It's all BS - if we're so concerned about public health we should get rid of cars.

Greetings

In my country aprox. 450 people dies every year in the traffic, deaths tolls related to smoking is aprox. 15000 a year. This is a proven fact so the "get rid of cars" idea doesn´t seem to work.

BTW. If you came today with a new product, featuring the same caracteristics as cigerates, it would never be aproved for sale.

Being a non-smoker, and having worked in bars/clubs for many years, the effects of second hand smoke are actually real.

Regular throat infections, breathing problems and also beginnings of eye irritations all affected me. This was due to the smoke, nothing else.

Despite people saying its all BS... the 'smoke is filtered twice' blah blah blah, the dangerous part is actually the lit cigarette. The smoke wafting from that end is not filtered at all, and is the most noticable for causing staff health problems.

Smokers can smoke all the want, just not if it affects those around them. Move outside where it can disperse in the air naturally and it no longer is contained in a small confined area that is painful to walk through.

After 2+ years of a ban of smoking in places of work, I have yet to meet a customer (non-smoker or smoker) that disagrees with the ban. All have been in favour for it.



that's fine....I'm not disagreeing with that at all. But provide areas where smokers can light up instead of BANNING people from bars!! What amuses me about it all is the 'non-smoker' who suddenly starts pinching my cigarettes when he's had a few drinks. If you've been to Paris...can you imagine a Parisian bistro without smoke in the air?

Fortunately the French understand Liberty because they are obsessed by it. They'll never ban smoking in public regardless of what the rest of Europe does. They understand that to go into the public arena means to go into a space where citizens are entitled to do as they wish within the law, and that to limit that law increasingly is another form of tyranny by the state.

There isn't a single one of my friends who has ever complained about my smoking around them. Occasionally if the smoke is heading their way I'll move seats in the pub without being asked to.

Reduce car emissions - thats the way to tackle respiratory illnesses in non-smokers.

David.

It's hardly a matter of opinion, there's medical evidence that it second-hand smoke is dangerous. A friend of mine owns a bar and she works on the counter for three hours on Fridays and Saturdays; she worked there during her pregnancy and when her son was born the doctor asked her if she or her husband smoked (no to both), because her placenta showed clear evidence of cigarrete smoke.

I don't know why people focus on the 'cancer' argument so much- maybe its just scaremongering.

I developed asthma because of working in smoky conditions- I have no history of it, neither does my family. I blamed this on the smoke.

I have sinced stopped working in clubs/bars. My asthma has miraculously vanished.
You see? If you want to work in a smoke-free environment, get a job in a smoke-free environment. There is no need for you to infringe on others' rights to work in smoke-y environments, to enter smoke-y environments or to run smoke-y environments, nor would I argue that you have that right.

You see? If you want to work in a smoke-free environment, get a job in a smoke-free environment. There is no need for you to infringe on others' rights to work in smoke-y environments, to enter smoke-y environments or to run smoke-y environments, nor would I argue that you have that right.

You're logic is twisted.

It was my own fault I developed respiratory problems.

That is like saying it is the victim's fault they got mugged.

The woman's fault she got raped.

The boy's fault he was abused.

No, the onus lies not on the 'victim' but on the perpetrator. You want to smoke? Fine. Do it outside. Finish up, and you can come back in.

30,000 people a year have stopped smoking because of this.

When you walk into a resturant, they ask you smokeing or non smoking, in a lot of pubs, there are area's for both.

Except sometimes they build the bathroom across the smoking section, so that I have to make a mad dash across, covering my mouth, and I still end up coughing for several minutes when I get to the bathroom.
Yes, I believe that second-hand smoke is dangerous. And I do try to move away from smokers as quickly as possible. But by the time I get away I'm already coughing.

Whichever way it comes out, however, I don't see how it can be used as a justification from banning private individuals like publicans from allowing smoking on their own private property which people enter only of their own free will.

<Reductio absurdium> Why can't I build hidden pit traps on my own private property which people enter only of their own free will? Indeed, why can't I pee in the beer? I mean, people drink it of their own free will.</Reductio Absurdium>

Greetings

In my country aprox. 450 people dies every year in the traffic, deaths tolls related to smoking is aprox. 15000 a year. This is a proven fact so the "get rid of cars" idea doesn´t seem to work.

BTW. If you came today with a new product, featuring the same caracteristics as cigerates, it would never be aproved for sale.

Two things, only 450 people a year, man what country(tiny island) do you live in? Now how about getting us them figures for second hand smoke vs poluution from cars deaths?

You're logic is twisted.

It was my own fault I developed respiratory problems.
Yes it is, because you chose to work in what you knew would be a smoke-filled environment. People don't choose to be mugged, raped or abused. Whilst I would agree to smoking bans in government-owned buildings, and perhaps even general workplaces, banning smoking in pubs and restaurants is a fundamental breach of property rights. It's up to the land owner to decide what he wants to allow on his land, not your right to decide for him. Ultimately, you do not have an absolute right to enter or work in a pub, unless you own it. Stop pretending that you do.

Two things, only 450 people a year, man what country(tiny island) do you live in?
Whats wrong with that exactly?

Its less then 400 where I live.

Now how about getting us them figures for second hand smoke vs poluution from cars deaths?

I think the onus should be on smokers to demonstrate that it doesn't do harm. And even if it does do no harm, if non smokers don't like it that's good enough reason not to expose them to it. Showing you a nude picture of Margret Thatcher may not do you any physical harm, but it's not something you want to put up with when you're eating in a restaurant.

You're logic is twisted.

It was my own fault I developed respiratory problems.

That is like saying it is the victim's fault they got mugged.

The woman's fault she got raped.

The boy's fault he was abused.

No, the onus lies not on the 'victim' but on the perpetrator. You want to smoke? Fine. Do it outside. Finish up, and you can come back in.

30,000 people a year have stopped smoking because of this.

No but it is your fault if you stayed in a smokey enviroment.

As for the rest these are all as we know aviodable with just some common sense rules that we are all taught as youngsters.

Don't want to get mugged, don't walk down that alley with your gold watch flashing splashingyour cash.


Woman in bars, stick together and watch your, and each others drinks.

Barmen, worried about that sudden chest pain, get a new job.

No but it is your fault if you stayed in a smokey enviroment.

As for the rest these are all as we know aviodable with just some common sense rules that we are all taught as youngsters.

Don't want to get mugged, don't walk down that alley with your gold watch flashing splashingyour cash.


Woman in bars, stick together and watch your, and each others drinks.

Barmen, worried about that sudden chest pain, get a new job.

You are actually saying it is the victim's fault?!

I thank Jebus our morals and ethics are poles apart.

Except sometimes they build the bathroom across the smoking section, so that I have to make a mad dash across, covering my mouth, and I still end up coughing for several minutes when I get to the bathroom.
Yes, I believe that second-hand smoke is dangerous. And I do try to move away from smokers as quickly as possible. But by the time I get away I'm already coughing.


Then choose a differant place to drink, I'm sure that you could find a non smoking pub. If you really don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke, then you can do that.

Some people believe that it can't actually harm others, and that there's no definitive proof of this.

ALL smoke is poisonous. Including cigarette smoke. Why would it be poisonous to the smoker, but not someone who breathes in second-hand?

You are actually saying it is the victim's fault?!

I thank Jebus our morals and ethics are poles apart.
You aren't a "victim" if you enter into the situation of your own free choice. It's like going paintballing and then calling the police when someone shoots you.

Then choose a differant place to drink, I'm sure that you could find a non smoking pub. If you really don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke, then you can do that.

Sorry. It's the responsibility of the smoker. If I walk into a pub swinging a flail around wildly, and you get hit, is it your fault, or mine?

You aren't a "victim" if you enter into the situation of your own free choice. It's like going paintballing and then calling the police when someone shoots you.

NON-VICTIM: Arrrh! You shot me you bastard! That was a real gun!

TRUE VICTIM: You agreed to go paintballing, it's your own fault.

You aren't a "victim" if you enter into the situation of your own free choice. It's like going paintballing and then calling the police when someone shoots you.

Yeah! And police officers who get shot on duty shouldn't have got involved!

I'm not going to discount the stories of people who have never smoked, but worked in enclosed smoking environments. If they can get higher rates of cancer from second hand smoke, alone, then that's all I need to hear.
Besides which, cigarette smoke is disgusting. I would refuse to eat anywhere that allowed smoking, simply because it ruins my appetite.
And to anyone who says crap like, "Second hand smoke isn't that bad! X kills more people than second hand smoke!"
So Hitler wasn't that bad, because Stalin killed more people?
That's your logic.
Killing any number of people isn't good.
Kill yourself in your own space.

Whats wrong with that exactly?

Its less then 400 where I live.


Nothing wrong with it at, I want to know where he lives. What 400 deaths through smoking a year, in the country that you live in?

I think the onus should be on smokers to demonstrate that it doesn't do harm. And even if it does do no harm, if non smokers don't like it that's good enough reason not to expose them to it. Showing you a nude picture of Margret Thatcher may not do you any physical harm, but it's not something you want to put up with when you're eating in a restaurant.


I am not arguing that it does not do any harm, of course it does. I argue two things, the amount of harm can somebody tell me? and the fact that you don't have to breath in in second hand smoke, you always have the choice to just walk away.

I'm a chronic asthmatic, and yes I suffer because of car fumes but I suffer ten times worse if I inhale cigarette smoke, I get the whole freedom and rights jig but surely smokers could give a damn about people who like me can't deal with their second-hand smoke !

I am not arguing that it does not do any harm, of course it does. I argue two things, the amount of harm can somebody tell me? and the fact that you don't have to breath in in second hand smoke, you always have the choice to just walk away.
I can't just walk away as it's all around me unless you're suggesting I should let smokers drive me out of the country!

You are actually saying it is the victim's fault?!

I thank Jebus our morals and ethics are poles apart.


Nope thems your words then is, re-read mine.

What I am saying is that we can all do things to minamilise being a victim, or harm coming to us.

In the case of being mugged, I gave an example, in the case of date rape I gave an example and in the case of barmen breathing in second hand smoke I also gave an example.

So do you disagree? Do you think then that we have no control over whats happens in our lives?

I am not arguing that it does not do any harm, of course it does. I argue two things, the amount of harm can somebody tell me? and the fact that you don't have to breath in in second hand smoke, you always have the choice to just walk away.

You don't have a choice sometimes, because damn smokers will congregate anywhere, including busy areas where people have to go through to get to where they're going.
I was extremely happy when they set up specific areas for smoking on campus, because walking through clouds of cigarette smoke to get anywhere was ridiculous.

I'm a chronic asthmatic, and yes I suffer because of car fumes but I suffer ten times worse if I inhale cigarette smoke, I get the whole freedom and rights jig but surely smokers could give a damn about people who like me can't deal with their second-hand smoke !

My sister's the same way. I can sympathize with that.
There are some smokers who won't complain, and realize that second hand smoke is bad for others, and then there's the jerks who only think about themselves, and not the effect they're having on the lives of others.

But you'll find people like that in any group.
Smokers are just more noticeable, because they surround themselves in the cancer clouds which are hard to ignore.

Freedom to smoke, freedom to drink, freedom to burp in public and talk in cinemas.

Enough of this Nanny State crap.
i generally strongly agree with you, but i have to admit that i support pogroms for anyone who talks during movies. :mad: :mad:

Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking (http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518)


Second hand smoke myth up in flames. (http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224)

Castrensis

Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking (http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518)


Second hand smoke myth up in flames. (http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224)

Castrensis
Nice unbiased source there.

My personal experience trumps "Smokers Club".

Heh now do you ay the same about beer, or icecream, or bacon ummm bacon? People smoke for basicaly two reason, one they are addicted, and two they are addicted. We are all addicted to something, some things are good for us, and some are bad but that is not the point the point is freedom of choice.

You are free to not smoke, or smoke as you want. I don't like racist people so do you know what I do? Don't go anywhere near them.Yes, but your addiction is hurting someone else through second hand smoke. It's not the same as say beer.

I just want to see how many people believe the dangers of second-hand smoke, and how that relates to their smoking or not.
I believe that any person who lives in a major city should rank "secondhand smoke" pretty low on their list of concerns...the polution you breathe every day is far more dangerous to your health.

Myself, I have long since resigned myself to the fact that my lungs are suffering because of my love of cities.

Yes, but your addiction is hurting someone else through second hand smoke. It's not the same as say beer.
The fact that my fellow citizens choose to drive cars is hurting my health significantly more than any of their smoking. Why should I resent smoking but not car-driving?

You want the opinions of second hand smoke? :confused:

Who owns the air in a room? You? Me? Smokers? Non smokers? The property owner? The fact is that as much as it can be said to belong to anyone it belongs to everyone. I don't think one should pollute a common resource without the consent of all the people in the room. It's not that non-smokers have the right to walk away, it's that they have the right not to have a common resource polluted without their consent.

I don't agree about danger of passive smoking. Oh well, yes it is dangerous, but it is as dangerous as cars, breathing (the polluted city air), alcohol, drugs, junk food, etc.

Nothing special, just part of life.

Leave your car running in the pub often do you?

Who owns the air in a room? You? Me? Smokers? Non smokers? The property owner?

Of the above, I'd say the property owner has the most claim, as long as patrons are free to leave whenever they choose.


The fact is that as much as it can be said to belong to anyone it belongs to everyone. I don't think one should pollute a common resource without the consent of all the people in the room. It's not that non-smokers have the right to walk away, it's that they have the right not to have a common resource polluted without their consent.
On the other hand, why should the desires of non-smokers be regarded as more important that the desires of smokers? Clearly, the smokers do desire for the "common resource" to be "poluted." If the "resource" belongs to everybody equally, then why should we automatically rule that one group gets its way while the other does not?

Leave your car running in the pub often do you?
Cars polute an entire city. If you wish to go out of doors in the city, you WILL encounter car polution. On the other hand, if you don't want to encounter cigarette smoke in a pub, you can choose not to go to the pub. You can choose to go to a pub that doesn't allow smoking. You can choose to sit in the non-smoking section of pubs that do allow it.

Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I would vastly prefer that we encourage people to give up cars instead of smoking. Other people smoking does me very little harm; other people driving is, statistically, far more likely to kill me.

The fact that my fellow citizens choose to drive cars is hurting my health significantly more than any of their smoking. Why should I resent smoking but not car-driving?
Cars actually do something useful that counter-effects there negative effect on the environment. Smoking does not.

Cars actually do something useful that counter-effects there negative effect on the environment. Smoking does not.
I don't think the benefits of cars outweigh the damaging effects they cause. I also don't think the benefits of smoking outweight the costs, but I think the costs (to me, as a non-smoker) are much smaller than the costs of driving cars (to me, a non-driver).

Two things, only 450 people a year, man what country(tiny island) do you live in? Now how about getting us them figures for second hand smoke vs poluution from cars deaths?


Greetings

Denmark, and yes it´s a tiny country

From: www.denmark.dk

Denmark is a monarchy and a modern democracy - Copenhagen is the capital

Denmark lies between 54° and 58° of latitude north and 8° and 15° of longitude east. In addition to Denmark itself, the kingdom also includes the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

Denmark consists of the peninsula of Jutland and c. 406 islands, of which c. 78 are inhabited (2003). Of these, the largest and most densely populated are Zealand on which the capital of Copenhagen is situated, Funen and the north Jutland island.

Denmark has approximately 5,4 million inhabitants - this amounts to roughly 1,4 % of the total EU population.

________________________________


And for the second hand smoking fact the danish healt ministery estimates the tolls to be between 47 and 75 deaths each year. Tobacco as one, stand for aprox. 1 out of 4 deaths in Denmark each year.

For the car polution facts i have not been able to find a site in English, but the air-polution ( cars, ovens, industri, etc. etc. ) here in Denmark is estimated to be aprox. 3400 each year. The number are from the danish astma-site, I dont think they would underestimate that figure.


Look at this site: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Or this EU-report claiming that aprox. 79.000 people die each year in the EU from second han smoking:
http://www.ehnheart.org/files/lift%20smokescreen-102852A.pdf

Or this: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

Or this: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

Or this: http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html

Or this: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39858

Ignoring this as BS, doesn´t work

The fact that my fellow citizens choose to drive cars is hurting my health significantly more than any of their smoking. Why should I resent smoking but not car-driving?

How is driving hurting your health?

Nice unbiased source there.

My personal experience trumps "Smokers Club".

Fortunately post-enlightenment thought relies on science and not anecdotal evidence.

Castrensis

How is driving hurting your health?
The polution caused by automobiles is a significantly more pressing health concern than smoking, for individuals who do not smoke.

I don't think the benefits of cars outweigh the damaging effects they cause. I also don't think the benefits of smoking outweight the costs, but I think the costs (to me, as a non-smoker) are much smaller than the costs of driving cars (to me, a non-driver).

Greetings

Sorry, it´s the other way around. Smoking causes far more deaths

Please look at this EU link: http://www.ehnheart.org/content/ItemPublication.asp?docid=6196&level0=1455&level1=1609

Of the above, I'd say the property owner has the most claim, as long as patrons are free to leave whenever they choose.

So if a property owner told you to stop breathing on her property you'd do it? What if you couldn't get out before you collapsed? You could be the first martyr to air property rights. What if you brought a plastic bag full of air from home? Could you breath that or does it become the property owner's air?

On the other hand, why should the desires of non-smokers be regarded as more important that the desires of smokers? Clearly, the smokers do desire for the "common resource" to be "poluted." If the "resource" belongs to everybody equally, then why should we automatically rule that one group gets its way while the other does not?

Before you go any further, perhaps you should outline a workable system for air rights? Perhaps everyone in the room could be given one vote. Everytime someone wants to light up they have to find two people to nominate them and then they can call a vote. Jebus! Wouldn't it be easier to just go outside? Or go to some smoker's club with warning signs out the front and staff who have signed waivers and are paid extra to compenstate them for health risks?

Thankfully smoking will probably die out entirely from the public scene, since the way it changes peoples' appearance results in a situation that, putting it lightly, is unattractive. Not to mention the smell.

I would also suggest a survey of Just the Facts (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html).

Particularly The Facts on the 1992 EPA Study (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html) that started this useless meddling in citizen's lives.

Also, the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on second hand smoke.

Castrensis

The polution caused by automobiles is a significantly more pressing health concern than smoking, for individuals who do not smoke.

...

Where do you live? In a big city, entirely surrounded by a steel dome with no ventilation?

So if a property owner told you to stop breathing on her property you'd do it? What if you couldn't get out before you collapsed? You could be the first martyr to air property rights. What if you brought a plastic bag full of air from home? Could you breath that or does it become the property owner's air?

I would say that the property owner would, obviously, be required to post notification of their requirements regarding their space. If the owner posted a "no breathing" sign, I would be free to choose either to hold my breath or to go elsewhere. Much as how they post "no smoking" signs, and a smoker can then choose to either extinguish their cigarette or go elsewhere.


Before you go any further, perhaps you should outline a workable system for air rights? Perhaps everyone in the room could be given one vote. Everytime someone wants to light up they have to find two people to nominate them and then they can call a vote. Jebus! Wouldn't it be easier to just go outside?

Indeed. That was precisely my point; trying to argue from "common resources" is problematic, and thus should not be used as the foundation for somebody's argument. This doesn't mean there are no good arguments against banning smoking, it just means that the "shared resource" argument happens to be a poor one.


Or go to some smoker's club with warning signs out the front and staff who have signed waivers and are paid extra to compenstate them for health risks?
Many cities have instituted bans on smoking that no establishment is free to violate. I happen to find that problematic. I think the owner of a store or bar or whatever should be free to choose if they want to allow smoking or not. Nobody is required to go to their store or establishment, and people who wish to avoid smoking environments could simply choose to go elsewhere. Employees who do not want to work in a pub that allows smoking could go bartend elsewhere. There is no shortage of pubs where I live, so I don't see why this would be a problem.

To me, this is actually kind of comparable to noise in pubs. Loud music can be seriously and permanently damaging to one's ears, yet some pubs play very loud music all night long. I choose not to go to pubs that do this, because I find that kind of environment both unhealthy and unpleasent. Instead, I go to pubs where the music is quieter (or non-existent). I don't insist that all pubs everywhere be required to turn down their music. I don't see why certain non-smokers feel that all businesses should be required to accomodate their personal comfort.

...

Where do you live? In a big city, entirely surrounded by a steel dome with no ventilation?
Polution is a serious problem in most major cities today. The presence of a steel dome is not required.

I wasn't aware that there were people today who didn't know about the dangers of air polution. Honestly, I'm not trying to be a git, I'm just surprised...I thought it was common knowledge that air polution has been directly linked to an increase in lung cancer and other respiratory ailments.

So if a property owner told you to stop breathing on her property you'd do it? What if you couldn't get out before you collapsed? You could be the first martyr to air property rights. What if you brought a plastic bag full of air from home? Could you breath that or does it become the property owner's air?
There's a difference between "Let's not violate property rights" and "let's make people into slaves the moment they step onto another's property." A property owner can ban people from doing things on their land, but they can only do this by asking you to leave.

There's a difference between "Let's not violate property rights" and "let's make people into slaves the moment they step onto another's property." A property owner can ban people from doing things on their land, but they can only do this by asking you to leave.
Exactly. Some establishments have a "no eating or drinking" policy, but this doesn't mean they can force all patrons to starve to death on their property. My understanding is that they cannot even take your food away from you if you do bring food onto their property; they can force you to leave, but they aren't supposed to take away your property.

Kill the fags!

[it would be funnier if i was a gay smoker]

I just want to see how many people believe the dangers of second-hand smoke, and how that relates to their smoking or not.


I'm a smoker.

Inside it's harmful, outside it's not.

Kill the fags!

[it would be funnier if i was a gay smoker]

Never too late to start.

I would say that the property owner would, obviously, be required to post notification of their requirements regarding their space. If the owner posted a "no breathing" sign, I would be free to choose either to hold my breath or to go elsewhere. Much as how they post "no smoking" signs, and a smoker can then choose to either extinguish their cigarette or go elsewhere.

Personally I wouldn't allow no breathing signs to be legally enforcable. I don't want a civil suit against me for violating a "No Breathing" sign, but that's just me. Will people be able to put up "No Absorbing Light" signs? I mean the light belongs to the property owner, doesn't it?

Indeed. That was precisely my point; trying to argue from "common resources" is problematic, and thus should not be used as the foundation for somebody's argument. This doesn't mean there are no good arguments against banning smoking, it just means that the "shared resource" argument happens to be a poor one.

I don't see why it's a poor arguement. It's put in practice everyday here. Police prohibit cars that give off too much smoke from roads, noisy motorcyclists are ticketed, cities with too much pollution ban certain types of trucks, people get charged with disturbing the peace for making too much noise. And just because we put up with some pollution and some noise doesn't weaken the arguement. We accept pollution below a certain level. Now if someone wants to make a smokers' club, I don't care but in general, your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins, and your right to smoke stops where your smoke enters my lungs.

The Common Resource argument works.

A right is simply a restriction on how you affect others. You take it on to yourself in hopes that others will take it on to themselves. Rights given by society are those restrictions that society as a whole has decided each member will adhere to.

A right is stronger the more natural it is. The less that adhering to a restriction requires you to do, the more likely it is that society as a whole will obey it, and thus the more effective and stronger that restrictions is.

Smoking requires an act of volition that changes the common resource. Not-smoking does not. Leaving the area of a smoker requires an act of volition. Standing still does not.

Therefore, the smoker's right to smoke and use the common resource in their favored fashion is trumped by the right of the non-smoker to use the common resource in their favored fashion, as their use requires less volitional activity.

However, applying this further, we can also see that non-smokers have no right to enter into the known area of a smoker and demand use of that resource. Their entering requires an act of volition to attempt to bring their environment into another's. Where the area is unknown, however, the right of the non-smoker to use the expected environment trumps.

Or in other words, so long as the smoker is making use of designated smoking areas, they are within their rights, and non-smokers entering that area do so at their own risk. Where the area is not designated as a smoking area, however, the right of the non-smoker to breathe clean air takes precedence.

Personally I wouldn't allow no breathing signs to be legally enforcable. I don't want a civil suit against me for violating a "No Breathing" sign, but that's just me. Will people be able to put up "No Absorbing Light" signs? I mean the light belongs to the property owner, doesn't it?

Sure. When you're in somebody else's house, you abide their rules or you leave. I think some people's rules are stupid, or even dangerous, and if the rules bother me enough then I will leave. I will not, however, try to insist that they change their house rules to accomodate my feelings.


I don't see why it's a poor arguement. It's put in practice everyday here. Police prohibit cars that give off too much smoke from roads, noisy motorcyclists are ticketed, cities with too much pollution ban certain types of trucks, people get charged with disturbing the peace for making too much noise. And just because we put up with some pollution and some noise doesn't weaken the arguement. We accept pollution below a certain level. Now if someone wants to make a smokers' club, I don't care but in general, your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins, and your right to smoke stops where your smoke enters my lungs.
The difference is that those laws are in effect for PUBLIC areas. You can drive as fast as you like in your own driveway. You can smoke as much as you like in your own home, and I think you should be able to allow (or disallow) smoking as much as you like in your own store or restaurant.

I quite agree with the idea that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. However, to me it appears that (when it comes to smoking) you support banning the swinging of all fists in all places, lest they connect with somebody's nose. If I'm swinging my fist on my property, and you leap in front of it of your own free will, I don't think it's reasonable to blame me for your injury.

Similarly, if you choose to go into an establishment that allows smoking, I don't think it's reasonable of you to bitch about the second-hand smoke. Just like it's not reasonable of me to bitch about the noise level if I choose to go to a pub that plays extremely loud music. Well, okay, it would be fine for either of us to BITCH about it, but it wouldn't be reasonable for us to insist that the businesses tailor themselves to our particular comfort level. Particularly not when there are plenty of alternative options for both of us.

The Common Resource argument works.
No it doesnt, because pubs and restaurants are not "common resources", they're private property. That's why I'd agree to a smoking ban in government buildings, but not pubs Etc.

No it doesnt, because pubs and restaurants are not "common resources", they're private property. That's why I'd agree to a smoking ban in government buildings, but not pubs Etc.
That's pretty much all I'm saying, too, though I'm uncomfortable at the idea of banning smoking in public outdoor places. I believe that if you are going to restrict individual rights you must first provide evidence that doing so is really necessary, and I don't know that there has been any solid evidence that second-hand smoke is a risk factor in open, outdoor areas. Of course, if there were such evidence then I would view it as the same as indoor areas.

Also, I realized that I may not have made it clear that I personally dislike second-hand smoke. I don't allow smoking in my own home, nor do I choose to sit in the smoking section or visit establishments that allow smoking. I even get irritated sometimes when I'm outside and a smoker lights up while they're upwind of me. However, I don't think my personal preferences are sufficient, in and of themselves, to justify total bans of second-hand smoke.

I'm a smoker.

Inside it's harmful, outside it's not.


Greetings

If you really believe that, i have got a few things cheep for sale.

1) The Eiffel tower, really cheep - no rust

2) The Golden Gate Bridge, also cheap and only one owner - never used much

3) The Sphinx, nose is missing but the rest is in pretty good shape


All of the above mentioned is, off course, yours for a fairly good price and all legitimed salesobjects

Yes, but your addiction is hurting someone else through second hand smoke. It's not the same as say beer.


Shit man of course it is. There are all types of hurt, you don't think being a drunk abusive husband is painfull to the wife? Somebody who drinks and drives, and kills somebody is not being hurtfull?

Everything we do everything as individuals and as a group, or groups, has a detrimental effect to something , somebody, somewhere. Just living means we are killing things.

I'm not sure that second hand smoke is more dangerous to your health than living in a city with all of it's pollutants. Or perhaps it is just about as dangerous as crossing the road. Does anybody know the figures for say not getting your children the 'triple jab' vs smoking around them?

Agian, I'll say if you don't want to be around second hand smoke, then don't, just walk away, or don't go near smokers, or drink in no smoking pubs, or whatever, your choice, as it is a smokers choice to smoke.

Then choose a differant place to drink, I'm sure that you could find a non smoking pub. If you really don't want to be subjected to second hand smoke, then you can do that.

I don't drink, thank you. And there is a smoking ban in my state, so I only have to deal with it when I enter restaurants and pass by people who are smoking outside. But when I go out of state and to a restaurant where they allow smoking in all restaurants...well, maybe I should just stay out of all public places and become a recluse if I don't want to be my lungs to be bombarded with smoke, right?

But when I go out of state and to a restaurant where they allow smoking in all restaurants...well, maybe I should just stay out of all public places and become a recluse if I don't want to be my lungs to be bombarded with smoke, right?

Wait, so if you can't go into a restaraunt, the only alternative is to "stay out of all public places and become a recluse?"

:rolleyes:

Life must be very full of disappointment for you.

I am an asthmatic and SHS is reaaly bad for me.

Non-smoker, and I definitely find second hand smoke to be dangerous. Of course, the last thing I'd call for is a ban on smoking in public places. That's absolutely ludicrous.

Shit man of course it is. There are all types of hurt, you don't think being a drunk abusive husband is painfull to the wife? Somebody who drinks and drives, and kills somebody is not being hurtfull?

Of course those things are hurtful, which is why they're illegal. The consumption of alcohol in and of itself is not illegal, but a person can be arrested for doing so while driving a car. In much the same way, it would be patently ridiculous to ban all smoking everywhere, but a reasonable argument can be made for banning it where it presents a definite risk to others. You have the right to make stupid health decisions for yourself, but you don't have the right to make them for anyone else; you have the right to get drunk or to smoke six packs a day, but you don't have the right to drive around town drunk or to force anyone to smoke your cigarettes with you.

The Common Resource argument works.
<snip>


Only if SHS actually causes harm, which it does not (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html). Asthmatics, &c, have a preexisting condition that is irritated by smoke, air temperature, strong scents, &c. We don't legislate who can and cannot wear perfumery because it is distasteful to others' perception, just as we don't legislate clothing choices because it offends our delicate sensibilities.

If you have a condition that is irritated by smoke, avoid it. If you don't like heavy perfume avoid teenage boys and old women whose noses have become too accustomed to their signature scent.

Castrensis

Only if SHS actually causes harm, which it does not (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html). Asthmatics, &c, have a preexisting condition that is irritated by smoke, air temperature, strong scents, &c. We don't legislate who can and cannot wear perfumery because it is distasteful to others' perception, just as we don't legislate clothing choices because it offends our delicate sensibilities.

If you have a condition that is irritated by smoke, avoid it. If you don't like heavy perfume avoid teenage boys and old women whose noses have become too accustomed to their signature scent.

Castrensis

I didn't have a pre-existing condition. No one in my family did either (not on my mother or father's side).

Shockingly, when I stopped working in clubs, my asthma went away.

Again, you can shove your "Smokers Club" 'facts'.
My personal experience and my own body tells me passive smoking does damage.

You can't control all of your surroundings... That screaming baby and the kid throwing the tantrum at coffeeshop bothers me much much more than the guy with the cigarette.

I didn't have a pre-existing condition. No one in my family did either (not on my mother or father's side).

Shockingly, when I stopped working in clubs, my asthma went away.

Again, you can shove your "Smokers Club" 'facts'.
My personal experience and my own body tells me passive smoking does damage.

I would think that it would be fair to have places that cater to smokers, and places that do not.

The market would soon see which ones went out of business. After all, a lot of businesses went through a lot of trouble on their own to implement no smoking policies - maybe the problem was well on the way to solving itself.

I didn't have a pre-existing condition. No one in my family did either (not on my mother or father's side).

Shockingly, when I stopped working in clubs, my asthma went away.

Rather, your mild asthma was no longer exacerbated by the cigarette smoke.

A preexisting condition is not necessarily a hereditary condition, simply an illness/disease process that is present prior to the ETS exposure (in this context).

Again, you can shove your "Smokers Club" 'facts'.
My personal experience and my own body tells me passive smoking does damage.

You make a common mistake, you have confused correlation with causation. The site I forwarded you to was not the "Smokers' Club" website because after I read your ad hominem argument against the name of the website I posted Dave Hitt's excellent site on SHS. I would encourage you to read Epidemiology I & II to better understand how to interpret the studies.

Jason Armfield RN

You can't control all of your surroundings... That screaming baby and the kid throwing the tantrum at coffeeshop bothers me much much more than the guy with the cigarette.

There's a pretty distinct difference between being bothered and being made ill. No one has a right not to be annoyed; if this were just a question of "bother" then it would be a much simpler issue. The fact is, inhaling cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health, and it's really not particularly fair for anyone to make the decision whether or not to do so for anyone but themselves. Listening to a screaming baby may annoy the heck out of you, but it's highly unlikely to give you an allergic reaction, bring on an asthma attack, or give you cancer.

There's a pretty distinct difference between being bothered and being made ill. No one has a right not to be annoyed; if this were just a question of "bother" then it would be a much simpler issue. The fact is, inhaling cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health, and it's really not particularly fair for anyone to make the decision whether or not to do so for anyone but themselves. Listening to a screaming baby may annoy the heck out of you, but it's highly unlikely to give you an allergic reaction, bring on an asthma attack, or give you cancer.

It's bad for my nerves.

It's bad for my nerves.

Crying babies cause neural damage? How?


...ohhhh, you were speaking figuratively. In other words, you were repeating that you find crying babies irritating, while in no way contradicting my statement that there is a significant difference between "irritating" and "distinctly and demonstrably hazardous to one's health." Gotcha.

Crying babies cause neural damage? How?


...ohhhh, you were speaking figuratively. In other words, you were repeating that you find crying babies irritating, while in no way contradicting my statement that there is a significant difference between "irritating" and "distinctly and demonstrably hazardous to one's health." Gotcha.

I'll bet you anything there is a study out there somewhere that shows irritating noises are bad for ones health.

Crying babies cause neural damage? How?


...ohhhh, you were speaking figuratively. In other words, you were repeating that you find crying babies irritating,

Of course, being irritated constantly by crying babies (or any other factor) can have significant psychological effects on a person. Such effects can not only include psychological disorder, but the physiological stress resulting from them can open the way to lowered biological immunity to diseases, and increase the risk of death by such things as heart disease or stroke.

while in no way contradicting my statement that there is a significant difference between "irritating" and "distinctly and demonstrably hazardous to one's health." Gotcha.

I've never seen a demonstration where a human got cancer after being exposed to no other cancer-causing sources other than cigarette smoke. Particularly, cigarette smoke not within your living environment but rather at occasional places you like to go to. (I have however, seen many people who have been exposed to cigarette smoke and yet have no health problems.)

I'll bet you anything there is a study out there somewhere that shows irritating noises are bad for ones health.

Well, then, find it. :) You show me a study that indicates that crying babies create a demonstrable health risk for strangers in their vicinity, and I'll take your argument seriously. In the meantime, I'll continue to believe that banning smoking in enclosed public spaces makes more sense than banning babies.

I'll bet you anything there is a study out there somewhere that shows irritating noises are bad for ones health.

Sure thing...we've known for a long time that excessive noise in hospitals lengthens stays, slows recovery and alters wound healing.

A nice article here. (http://news.monstersandcritics.com/lifestyle/consumerhealth/article_1171239.php/Caregiving_Ah!_A_quieter_hospital)

Castrensis

Note: Go to PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed) and search for "health effects noise".

Of course, being irritated constantly by crying babies (or any other factor) can have significant psychological effects on a person. Such effects can not only include psychological disorder, but the physiological stress resulting from them can open the way to lowered biological immunity to diseases, and increase the risk of death by such things as heart disease or stroke.

...And, this study was conducted by? Maybe...Babies are sort of important and harder to control than smoking?

I've never seen a demonstration where a human got cancer after being exposed to no other cancer-causing sources other than cigarette smoke. Particularly, cigarette smoke not within your living environment but rather at occasional places you like to go to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

Things in cigarettes, and cigarette smoke, have been classified as carcinogens. Proportionally more smokers have cancer than non-smokers.

(I have however, seen many people who have been exposed to cigarette smoke and yet have no health problems.)

I've seen people exposed to cigarette smoke that do have health problems. Yay anecdotes!

I am a nonsmoker. We should ban all smoking , period!! Smoking is bad thats it no arguement , for the smoker & for every one around the dirty little jerk.We should ban all things that are bad for people , that way we wouldn't have to worry about any of it , except on how to help educate them on how to quite what ever nasty habbit they have.Smoking , violent non educational movies, fatty foods , beer , & harder drinks, anything involving the exploitation of women or men (porn), things that are bad for the enviroment , . . . . I could go on but this is about smoking so I simply have to say ban all smoking , for your sake , for my sake for every ones sake. can you as a smoker in good concious keep smoking , knowing that you are killing us all?

A few things [that I always point out when this issue comes up] before I go to work:

--"Truth" , the WHO, the ACS and a number of institutions do in fact cite secondhand smoke as a health hazard. The main source of this information has been and continues to be an early '90s EPA report that was thrown out by a federal court for cherry picking its data. Despite having been discredited by an American court, these organizations all stand by the bogus study.

--Secondhand smoke likely carries the potential for health risks [i]in certain individuals; i.e. people with asthma or other respiratory conditions. The idea that its a health hazard of catastrophic proportions [as anti-smoking legislators would have you believe] is more than likely erroneous.

--If you accept the numbers in the discredited EPA study, your chances of contracting lung cancer as a non smoker not exposed to ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke] is about 1:100,000. For a non-smoker who is exposed to ETS, the odds climb to 1:80,000, which the EPA claimed was a "20% greater chance." The difference in odds seems large, but 1:100,000 would result in about ten cases per million and 1:80,000 would result in about 12.5 cases per million. The real difference [and bear in mind this is using numbers from a bogus, discredited study] is statistically irrelevant.

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's ok to light up a Black & Mild and blow it into some random sucker's face, but I do not think the numbers are there to warrant any legislation on the issue and even if they were, meddling of this variety [i.e. attempting to dictate our habits] is not a healthy one in any government. People should be expected to maintain basic smoking etiquitte, but to suggest that they not be allowed to smoke in any bar or restaurant [if the owner doesn't complain about it] is ridiculous. The chances of getting cancer as a result of someone else's habits and preferences are a lot lower than most other things we accept in life [i.e. getting hit by a car or falling in a punji trap].

Well, then, find it. :) You show me a study that indicates that crying babies create a demonstrable health risk for strangers in their vicinity, and I'll take your argument seriously. In the meantime, I'll continue to believe that banning smoking in enclosed public spaces makes more sense than banning babies.

Well. It's common sense. Crying babies can reach the same decibels as a rock-concert, which damages your hearing...

And this is kind of interesting...Though I find it stupid:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6660294

No one has a right not to be annoyed;
So you're just fine if your neighbors set up their sound system to play 24 hours of Leonard Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" at 130 decibels outside your bedroom window then?

No physical harm will come to you or your property. And they just happen to really like that song. If you don't like it, perhaps you should move, yes?

So you're just fine if your neighbors set up their sound system to play 24 hours of Leonard Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" at 130 decibels outside your bedroom window then?

No physical harm will come to you or your property. And they just happen to really like that song. If you don't like it, perhaps you should move, yes?

If there isn't study where it's been proven that Leonard Nimoy is a health-hazard he's probably fine with it.

Smoking is bad thats it no arguement

It's bad for the person certainly. However, it is good for the country.

(Tobacco taxation amounts to £10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is £1.7 billion (http://www.ash.org.uk/html/smuggling/html/whytax99.html))


We should ban all things that are bad for people

Well lets see. Tobacco, alcohol and petrol are all very bad for people. Yet the amount they contribute to the economy is huge.

If you want these things to be banned then you have put forward ideas to raise revenues from other places.

Smoking , violent non educational movies, fatty foods , beer , & harder drinks, anything involving the exploitation of women or men (porn), things that are bad for the enviroment

How about whining moralisers. Personally I find they are bad for the whining moralisers themselves, as well as others who are around them who become exposed to second hand moralising which can lead to "overheating" (amoung other things)

can you as a smoker in good concious keep smoking

Quite on the contrary. In this country smokers save many lives.

...And, this study was conducted by?

Wait, you need a study to confirm which? That pretty much anything can become an important psychological factor? That stress can be caused by psychological factors? That stress is a factor in heart disease and various other diseases and disorders?

Maybe...Babies are sort of important and harder to control than smoking?

It's not important that they be allowed in restaraunts.

But maybe... maybe freedom is sort of important too?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

Things in cigarettes, and cigarette smoke, have been classified as carcinogens. Proportionally more smokers have cancer than non-smokers.


Oh, so it causes cancer, because it's been classified as something that causes cancer?

Seems sort of like circular reasoning. Or an appeal to authority fallacy. Not sure which. Then there's that strawman about smokers getting cancer vs non-smokers. That's not even what this thread topic is about, let alone what I was talking about!

I've seen people exposed to cigarette smoke that do have health problems. Yay anecdotes!

My point with this anecdote was that cigarette smoke is not as dangerous and lethal as people like to make out. So many times, people make the analogy of guns to the head, of punching someone else; comparisons to violently assaulting people. People really are hypochondriacs about it and I'm not sure if it's from morbid fear, or a need to demonize smokers in the same way as "pro-choice" becomes "babykiller."

Of course, being irritated constantly by crying babies (or any other factor) can have significant psychological effects on a person. Such effects can not only include psychological disorder, but the physiological stress resulting from them can open the way to lowered biological immunity to diseases, and increase the risk of death by such things as heart disease or stroke.

Indeed, being irritated constantly can cause a great deal of stress. I'm afraid I wasn't aware that we were talking about a crying baby that not only never paused to eat or sleep, but followed you around constantly. Such a baby could certainly be reasonably seen to be a health risk. However, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that sometimes hearing crying babies could constitute the sort of psychological torture you've described.

I've never seen a demonstration where a human got cancer after being exposed to no other cancer-causing sources other than cigarette smoke. Particularly, cigarette smoke not within your living environment but rather at occasional places you like to go to. (I have however, seen many people who have been exposed to cigarette smoke and yet have no health problems.)

It would be very hard to expose a human to no carcinogens but cigarette smoke, since, among other things, that would involve locking them in a dark cave for their entire lives. I can't imagine why such a study has not been done. That said, when the cigarette manufacturers themselves have acknowledged the link between smoking and cancer, it's immensely foolish for anyone to argue that cigarette smoke is not carcinogenic. Obviously, the risks increase with the amount of carcinogen you put in your body; someone who smokes several packs a day is certainly more likely to get cancer than someone who inhales secondhand smoke at the bar where they work in the evenings, but it's hard to deny that both face at least some risk. That said, if you actually look at what I posted, you'll note that I addressed health issues other than cancer as well, which you have carefully ignored.

In all honesty, I'm undecided as to whether banning smoking in all enclosed public spaces is reasonable or not, but I get frustrated when I see people claiming that secondhand smoke poses no risks or that it's an issue about people's taste in odors rather than people's right to control their own well-being.

So you're just fine if your neighbors set up their sound system to play 24 hours of Leonard Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" at 130 decibels outside your bedroom window then?

No physical harm will come to you or your property. And they just happen to really like that song. If you don't like it, perhaps you should move, yes?

Actually, I'd probably think it was very funny, at least for a while. Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins! He's only three feet tall! Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins! Greatest little hobbit of them all!

But I will amend my statement slightly. No one has the right not to be annoyed by things that occur off their own property, and which violate no laws. Fair? :)

Actually, I'd probably think it was very funny, at least for a while. Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins! He's only three feet tall! Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins! Greatest little hobbit of them all!

But I will amend my statement slightly. No one has the right not to be annoyed by things that occur off their own property, and which violate no laws. Fair? :)

Technically, you've just stated that you've no right to be annoyed by public smoking.

If there isn't study where it's been proven that Leonard Nimoy is a health-hazard he's probably fine with it.

Goody! I'm both having words put in my mouth for me, and spontaneously changing gender, all in one sentence. Isn't the internet fun?

Goody! I'm both having words put in my mouth for me, and spontaneously changing gender, all in one sentence. Isn't the internet fun?

You're a transexual ventriloquists dummy?

Smokers are saving lives?!?!?! OMG !! What will smokers say next!!! Yes it is all well & good that we raise money from the taxes on these Items . But if we really wanted to fix it we could , by banning all the things I mentioned , we could get tax revenue from raising taxes, more on the rich of course , since they have more money. It is not that hard people , why cant people be smarter about things , our country could be so much better , if people just did what was right.

When you walk into a resturant, they ask you smokeing or non smoking, in a lot of pubs, there are area's for both. Places like on the bus, or train, then yes you have a point, on the street though waiting for a bus.
...
I see no reason(apart from nanny state reasons) why smoking need be banned in public.

What about the health of the employees of those "public places"? Oh, they're second-class citizens and don't have the right to want to breathe clean air...

(I discredit the argument "Go get a job in a non-smoking restaurant" then. Smoking has been banned in pretty much every other workplace. There is no reason that restaurant workers should be treated any differently than hospital, mall, or office employees based solely on the fact that they chose to work in a restaurant.)

You want to smoke? Fine. Do it outside. Finish up, and you can come back in.

30,000 people a year have stopped smoking because of this.

What the hell do you know about why I quit smoking, it certainly didn't have anything to do with the BS you're spewing.

If the amount of smoke one breaths in from occasional SHS were actually enough to do serious damage, then the amount breathed in by heavy smokers would be lethal, 100% of the time.

I don't understand how anyone can justify a law that bans smoking in a bar where the owner, the staff, and 90% of the customers smoke. Yet, such a law passed here, and my co-workers frequent many such bars. Luckily, passing a law and enforcing it are two different things. The bars had to put up no smoking signs, and remove their ashtrays, but the law can't make them chase customers off for ignoring the signs.:D :p

Technically, you've just stated that you've no right to be annoyed by public smoking.

Indeed! If anyone were proposing banning smoking simply because it is annoying, I'd consider that to be ridiculous. Of course, no one is doing so, so that's hardly relevant, is it?

Indeed! If anyone were proposing banning smoking simply because it is annoying, I'd consider that to be ridiculous. Of course, no one is doing so, so that's hardly relevant, is it?

Studies have shown that we are slowly evolving to have no sense of smell because of shampoo, soap and perfume...Should we ban those in public as well?

Of course noone should be allowed to ruin their health in a bar. We should force bars to be soothing odourless, calm places with panpipe music, white robes and smoothies.

Smokers are saving lives?!?!?! OMG !! What will smokers say next!!!

Why do you assume I'm a smoker?

why cant people be smarter about things

Err, yeah...


, our country could be so much better , if people just did what was right.

No that sounds ominous

Studies have shown that we are slowly evolving to have no sense of smell because of shampoo, soap and perfume...Should we ban those in public as well?

Of course noone should be allowed to ruin their health in a bar. We should force bars to be soothing odourless, calm places with panpipe music, white robes and smoothies.

WangWee, have you read anything I've posted? You seem to be attacking arguments that I not only haven't made, but which I have, in fact, directly contradicted. Maybe you should go back and reread a bit.

WangWee, have you read anything I've posted? You seem to be attacking arguments that I not only haven't made, but which I have, in fact, directly contradicted. Maybe you should go back and reread a bit.

I'm not attacking arguements you haven't made...I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line on whats acceptable in public. There is just so much shit in the air. Cigarette smoke is the least of my worries.

Indeed, being irritated constantly can cause a great deal of stress. I'm afraid I wasn't aware that we were talking about a crying baby that not only never paused to eat or sleep, but followed you around constantly.

Oh, I guess we were talking about that in the same way we were talking about a cigarette smoker that similarly follows you around constantly.


That said, when the cigarette manufacturers themselves have acknowledged the link between smoking and cancer, it's immensely foolish for anyone to argue that cigarette smoke is not carcinogenic. Obviously, the risks increase with the amount of carcinogen you put in your body; someone who smokes several packs a day is certainly more likely to get cancer than someone who inhales secondhand smoke at the bar where they work in the evenings, but it's hard to deny that both face at least some risk.

Well, sure. A daily risk of growing a cancer that I would venture to say is less than 1% in both cases. But going from an extreme and saying that someone who raises my risk from (for example) 0.04% to 0.05% is a murderer, who is doing the equivalent of punching me in the face or otherwise 'assaulting' me?

Now, I'm a risk taker, so maybe I just have less problems with smokers since to me they are just one of many risks in life that I, and everyone else, accepts as a matter of course.

In all honesty, I'm undecided as to whether banning smoking in all enclosed public spaces is reasonable or not, but I get frustrated when I see people claiming that secondhand smoke poses no risks or that it's an issue about people's taste in odors rather than people's right to control their own well-being.

But it is an issue of that. Most nonsmokers don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Most people form opinions based on what they like versus what they dislike. Most anti-smokers are themselves nonsmokers. And many (though of course not all) complaints about smoking involves the icky icky smell. Just read this thread, I'm sure they're here - always are. So yes, "they smell bad" is a factor - probably a primary factor for a good number of people.

of course second hand smoke is dangerous, it's unfiltered. apart from that it's really annoying cuz it sticks in your hair and on your clothes. i'm a smoker and i work in a nightclub. apart from the mild inconvenience of having to go down a couple of flights of stairs to have a smoke i think it's a good thing that we've banned smoking in clubs and stuff here cuz it's now a much more pleasant environment to work in and my clothes don't stink so much after a night at work. i actually prefer to smoke outside cuz you're less likely to get it in your eyes then and that smarts. unless it's pissing it down.

Oh, I guess we were talking about that in the same way we were talking about a cigarette smoker that similarly follows you around constantly.

Hardly. A few minutes of smoke inhalation can cause health problems; a few minutes of a baby crying cannot reasonably constitute psychological torture, which is what you were arguing.

Well, sure. A daily risk of growing a cancer that I would venture to say is less than 1% in both cases. But going from an extreme and saying that someone who raises my risk from (for example) 0.04% to 0.05% is a murderer, who is doing the equivalent of punching me in the face or otherwise 'assaulting' me?

Now, I'm a risk taker, so maybe I just have less problems with smokers since to me they are just one of many risks in life that I, and everyone else, accepts as a matter of course.

How nice, another reference to an "assault" comparison I never made, along with a ridiculous "murder" comparison. Strawmen are fun, aren't they?

As far as the "risk" goes, you keep addressing lung cancer and lung cancer alone, while ignoring the other health problems connected with smoking. Even if it were proven tomorrow that the risks of contracting cancer from secondhand smoke were negligible, it would still cause a fair number of highly unpleasant respiratory problems.

But it is an issue of that. Most nonsmokers don't like the smell of cigarette smoke. Most people form opinions based on what they like versus what they dislike. Most anti-smokers are themselves nonsmokers. And many (though of course not all) complaints about smoking involves the icky icky smell. Just read this thread, I'm sure they're here - always are. So yes, "they smell bad" is a factor - probably a primary factor for a good number of people.

I'm sure there exist people who consider "they smell bad" to be a good reason to ban smoking in public - the world is full of idiots, and some of them are bound to take that position. However, the actual rationale behind smoking bans is the health issues, since otherwise those laws would also contain clauses about how regularly people had to shower, what sorts of fertilizer they could use in their gardens, what brands of perfume one could and could not buy, and so on.

You people who say smoking doesnt hurt anything or any bullshit like that should put a gun to your head and blow your head clean off. your going to die anyways from smoking, its just gonna be a long painful cancerous death that will make you spend thousands of dollars to try to get better. You people are slowly killing yourself and everyone around you. you are destroying everyone elses body that has to breathe in that garbage that you are so fond of. i think you people should do us all a favor and remove yourself from the world. Your going to die anyways, every cig you light up takes years off your life and the lives of people around you when you do that. I think we should ban smoking all together. put people in jail for smoking.


Smoking = Death


:mp5:

You guys do realize that most damage from second hand smoking is done in the home?

Therefore it would make more sense to have a private-smoking ban instead of a public one.

I honestly see no point to smoking. All it does is ruin your lungs, and give you wrinkles. People say that they want to be free to smoke but what they don't see is that is exactly what the cigarette companies want you to do. They want money, so they make cigatettes adictive. They have only become puppets on the strings of these companies. Yes I think people should be free to smoke if they would like, however it should not interfere with other peoples rights.
Smoking does usually infringe on other peoples rights especially when inside. Many people have breathing problems which are complicatd by smoke, and most non-smokers dislike the smell. Even inside when there are smoking sections it does not help, the smoke travels all over the building and everyone is subject to the bad smell, and secondhand smoke. Basically smoking is gross, and even though people should have the right to do it, I don't think it is a good thing.

I'm not attacking arguements you haven't made...I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line on whats acceptable in public. There is just so much shit in the air. Cigarette smoke is the least of my worries.

Actually, yes, in fact, you are. You suggested that I'd argued that "no one should be allowed to ruin their health," which is entirely the opposite of my statements to the effect that everyone should be allowed to ruin their own health. You further suggested that I was in favor of banning the use of more things which do not present serious health risks, despite the fact that I've been more than clear on my attitudes regarding the banning of anything if it does not cause demonstrable harm to others or violate the law. You topped this all off with the implication that I was anti-alcohol, which was extremely silly, since I'd explicitly used alcohol as an example of something which could not, in and of itself, reasonably be banned, but which laws could ban using in a way that was potentially very harmful to others, i.e. while driving.

You're more than welcome to continue this debate, but I don't like strawmen. If you can't be bothered to read what I've actually said thus far, here's a very short version: (a) There is an important difference between an annoyance and a health risk. (b) Everyone has the right to endanger their own health. (c) No one has the right to endanger someone else's health. (d) For this reason, bans on smoking in enclosed public spaces at least merit consideration. (e) As far as my own opinion goes, I am undecided, as both sides of the argument have valid points.

But I will amend my statement slightly. No one has the right not to be annoyed by things that occur off their own property, and which violate no laws. Fair? :)

Doesn't change anything. After all, it's not against the law to put strobe-lights on your lawn and cameras on your roof that both just happen to aim inside your neighbours bedroom windows, now is it? If your neighbours don't like it, it's up to them to go to the expense of purchasing curtains or erecting a fence, correct?

This is all just a further application of your right to swing your fist ends at my nose -- it's not "your right to swing your fist ends where you stop swinging, and if I don't want to get hit it's up to me to get out of the way." The rights of the person performing a deliberate action end where they conflict with the rights of another who is not.

Doesn't change anything. After all, it's not against the law to put strobe-lights on your lawn and cameras on your roof that both just happen to aim inside your neighbours bedroom windows, now is it? If your neighbours don't like it, it's up to them to go to the expense of purchasing curtains or erecting a fence, correct?

This is all just a further application of your right to swing your fist ends at my nose -- it's not "your right to swing your fist ends where you stop swinging, and if I don't want to get hit it's up to me to get out of the way." The rights of the person performing a deliberate action end where they conflict with the rights of another who is not.

I think, by and large, we are actually in agreement. (I'm not well versed on what constitutes a disturbance of the peace or an infringement upon privacy rights, so I'm not entirely certain of the legality either way of pointing strobe lights and cameras at someone's bedroom window. I rather suspect neighbors who did so could legally be charged with something under Peeping Tom laws, just as neighbors who played loud music, Leonard Nimoy or no, extremely loudly for 24 hours straight could be charged with disturbing the peace.)

My statement regarding annoyance was not "it's okay to be extremely annoying," but "behaviors should not be banned in public spaces if the only problem with them is that they are annoying to someone." One does not have the right to demand that ugly people never go out in public because he dislikes looking at ugly people, or that people not laugh because he finds the sound of laughter irritating. He does have the right to demand that people not hit him or force him to ingest foreign substances. Make sense? :)

Second hand smoke is bad for me, as I have chronic asthma. Which is why my father smokes when I'm not around, and never in my home. In NYC, there is a no smoking ban in bars or resturants, so thats not a problem for me anymore. The ban has really helped my life personally, because the best coolest, biggest, sports bar/resturant near my house used to be full of smoke, even the nonsmoking section, and I couldn't go in. Now I can go in and out with no worry about a sudden asthma attack.

However, I wish that things never had to get drastic enough for a smoking ban. I would think that people (including my father) had enough common sense to not smoke and destroy their lungs.

Wait, so if you can't go into a restaraunt, the only alternative is to "stay out of all public places and become a recluse?"

:rolleyes:

Life must be very full of disappointment for you.

No. I was pretty much kidding. I meant that everywhere outside people smoke, too, and so I have trouble breathing wherever anyone is smoking (especially at theme parks.)

Although I'll probably end up as a complete recluse anyway:rolleyes:

What the hell do you know about why I quit smoking, it certainly didn't have anything to do with the BS you're spewing.
I'm not American. I wasn't referring to anything about the US. I am talking about my own country when the ban on smoking in places of work was introduced.


If the amount of smoke one breaths in from occasional SHS were actually enough to do serious damage, then the amount breathed in by heavy smokers would be lethal, 100% of the time.
Not really no. You see the smokers actually have the benefit of a filter (in the cigarette itself). Non smokers don't. The worst part of the smoke is not that coming from the smokers lungs, but the lit end of the cigarette. This is not filtered at all and it extremely toxious.

I don't understand how anyone can justify a law that bans smoking in a bar where the owner, the staff, and 90% of the customers smoke.

What does that matter? Now they don't smoke and business hasn't collapsed. Not all staff smoke, I didn't and 5/8 people I worked with didn't either.

Yet, such a law passed here, and my co-workers frequent many such bars. Luckily, passing a law and enforcing it are two different things.
You're right. Which results in people being reminded about the ban, and 99/100 times I have reminded people, they apologised profusely and lit up outside instead.

The bars had to put up no smoking signs, and remove their ashtrays, but the law can't make them chase customers off for ignoring the signs.:D :p
Oh yes, that law could make me 'chase' them off. And also report them to the police for a hefty fine.

But more importantly, it made me not serve them.
You'll find that 'reminds' them far more quickly.

The "go to a non-smoking establishment" idea has several problems.

(1) It supposes that smokers and non-smokers are two separate communities who do not mix. They do mix and so, they will tend to congregate in places that allow smoking as that is where the smoking element will want to go. Non-smokers will go there, not because they want to specifically be in a smokey atmosphere but because that is where their friends are likely to be.

(2) There are no non-smoking pubs to go to. Again, not because non-smokers prefer smokey atmospheres, but because people on a night out etc, will tend follow the path of least resistance and that will require them to go where the smoker will be allowed to satisfy their craving. Coupled with (1) above, any non-smoking establishment would be on a sticky wicket economically. It is a situation where the market cannot provide a solution (or at least not untill smokers make up much less of the population). I realise the idea that the market cannot provide a solution is heresy nowadays but it does not make it any less true.

(3) Because of the non-existence of non-smoking pubs, bar staff do not have the option to work in a non-smokey atmosphere. They could work in other jobs but for many of them bar work is the only option for family, social or educational reasons.

(4) It raises the right to smoke wherever and whenever over the right of non-smokers to be non-smokers. Not only is the right to be a non-smoker being taken from you every time some-one lights up nearby, you are also having your freedom of movement, association and employment taken from you as well (if you use the "go to a non-smoking establishment" argument). How can one single right to pollute the atmosphere round about you (and of those around you) outweigh the loss of so many rights of non-smokers? Whose freedom is being infringed the most?

The only way to ensure the rights of non-smokers are respected is to ban smoking in public places as has been implemented in Scotland and Ireland.

The argument that "there is so much else that is bad for us so why pick on this" is ridiculous. It's like saying "robbery is bad but why pass a law on that when there are murderers out there".

And finally, the annoyance factor is not irrelevant. It's not the smoke per se or the fact that smokers smell of ashtrays. It's the fact that the smoke sticks to non-smokers hair, skin and clothes. That is unacceptable. If some-one wandered into a pub and started spraying folk with a putrid but clear liquid, I suspect many smokers would be severly pissed off.

The "go to a non-smoking establishment" idea has several problems.

(1) It supposes that smokers and non-smokers are two separate communities who do not mix. They do mix and so, they will tend to congregate in places that allow smoking as that is where the smoking element will want to go. Non-smokers will go there, not because they want to specifically be in a smokey atmosphere but because that is where their friends are likely to be.

(2) There are no non-smoking pubs to go to. Again, not because non-smokers prefer smokey atmospheres, but because people on a night out etc, will tend follow the path of least resistance and that will require them to go where the smoker will be allowed to satisfy their craving. Coupled with (1) above, any non-smoking establishment would be on a sticky wicket economically. It is a situation where the market cannot provide a solution (or at least not untill smokers make up much less of the population). I realise the idea that the market cannot provide a solution is heresy nowadays but it does not make it any less true.

(3) Because of the non-existence of non-smoking pubs, bar staff do not have the option to work in a non-smokey atmosphere. They could work in other jobs but for many of them bar work is the only option for family, social or educational reasons.

(4) It raises the right to smoke wherever and whenever over the right of non-smokers to be non-smokers. Not only is the right to be a non-smoker being taken from you every time some-one lights up nearby, you are also having your freedom of movement, association and employment taken from you as well (if you use the "go to a non-smoking establishment" argument). How can one single right to pollute the atmosphere round about you (and of those around you) outweigh the loss of so many rights of non-smokers? Whose freedom is being infringed the most?

The only way to ensure the rights of non-smokers are respected is to ban smoking in public places as has been implemented in Scotland and Ireland.

The argument that "there is so much else that is bad for us so why pick on this" is ridiculous. It's like saying "robbery is bad but why pass a law on that when there are murderers out there".

And finally, the annoyance factor is not irrelevant. It's not the smoke per se or the fact that smokers smell of ashtrays. It's the fact that the smoke sticks to non-smokers hair, skin and clothes. That is unacceptable. If some-one wandered into a pub and started spraying folk with a putrid but clear liquid, I suspect many smokers would be severly pissed off.


Greetings

I broadly agree with you as it seems respectfully smokers are in minor.

respectfully smokers as in not smoking indoor, amongst other people

I sometimes see cars where the parents smoke in the front seats while the kid(s) are choking in the rear seats, thats really unthoughtfull

Rather, your mild asthma was no longer exacerbated by the cigarette smoke.

A preexisting condition is not necessarily a hereditary condition, simply an illness/disease process that is present prior to the ETS exposure (in this context).



You make a common mistake, you have confused correlation with causation. The site I forwarded you to was not the "Smokers' Club" website because after I read your ad hominem argument against the name of the website I posted Dave Hitt's excellent site on SHS. I would encourage you to read Epidemiology I & II to better understand how to interpret the studies.

Jason Armfield RN


Greetings

Ever tried to read other arguments/websites than "Dave Hitt's excellent site on SHS" ?

I posted some EU studies on SHS that stated aprox. 79.000 deaths a year in the EU, each year, caused by SHS

Are those studies so be wawed as BS?

And BTW you refer to his asthma-condition as you were his doctor, are you?

Greetings

Ever tried to read other arguments/websites than "Dave Hitt's excellent site on SHS" ?

It would be a bit silly if I did not, no?

I posted some EU studies on SHS that stated aprox. 79.000 deaths a year in the EU, each year, caused by SHS

Are those studies so be wawed as BS?

The links you provided were not to any actual studies but lay information...this gives no idea as to their methodology or results, simply impressive figures.

I'm open to the possibility that it may cause health problems but I have not reviewed any study that has appropriately studied the phenomenon other than the WHO study. I suggest Dave Hitt's site because it teaches the reader how to critically analyze the studies these "facts" and figures are derived from. I think the reader gains much more by understanding what they are reading, particularly the source material rather than another's interpretation of the data.

By all means, prove me wrong.


And BTW you refer to his asthma-condition as you were his doctor, are you?

I neither claimed to be a doctor nor made a diagnosis. Rather, I presented a likely explanation based upon my limited knowledge of his health history.

Asthma is a reversible condition and, generally speaking, in mild cases if triggers are avoided then exacerbations are rare. This is common knowledge and can be verified by anyone with a computer.

Castrensis

An excellent site debunking junk science: American Council on Science and Health (http://www.acsh.org/)

A search for "second hand smoke" brings up some informative articles supremely understandable.

The "go to a non-smoking establishment" idea has several problems.

(1) It supposes that smokers and non-smokers are two separate communities who do not mix. They do mix and so, they will tend to congregate in places that allow smoking as that is where the smoking element will want to go. Non-smokers will go there, not because they want to specifically be in a smokey atmosphere but because that is where their friends are likely to be.

Sure, much like how I sometimes will go to the club with my mates, even though I don't especially like the club scene. What's the problem?


(2) There are no non-smoking pubs to go to. Again, not because non-smokers prefer smokey atmospheres, but because people on a night out etc, will tend follow the path of least resistance and that will require them to go where the smoker will be allowed to satisfy their craving. Coupled with (1) above, any non-smoking establishment would be on a sticky wicket economically. It is a situation where the market cannot provide a solution (or at least not untill smokers make up much less of the population). I realise the idea that the market cannot provide a solution is heresy nowadays but it does not make it any less true.

I don't get this reasoning. If nobody likes smoking in pubs, and if they're really this bothered by the smoking, then if ONE PUB opens up as a non-smoking venue it will get a flood of business. It happened in my town. The place made so much damn money that the other pubs moved smokers into upstairs lounges, or started phasing out smoking altogether. If people dislike smoking enough, then they'll act on it.

If, on the other hand, it's not a big enough deal for people to take their business away from smoking-friendly pubs, then clearly it's not a big enough deal to pass laws about.


(3) Because of the non-existence of non-smoking pubs, bar staff do not have the option to work in a non-smokey atmosphere. They could work in other jobs but for many of them bar work is the only option for family, social or educational reasons.
Forgive me, but I have very little sympathy for a person who went to bartending school under the assumption that they would always be able to find a smoke-free work environment. That's like going to school to become a mechanic and then bitching that your workplace is too noisy.


(4) It raises the right to smoke wherever and whenever over the right of non-smokers to be non-smokers.

No, it simply states that a private business has the right to permit or prohibit certain acts, like eating or drinking or smoking, if they want. Non-smokers never lose the right to be non-smokers, because they are free to leave at any time.


Not only is the right to be a non-smoker being taken from you every time some-one lights up nearby,

Like how somebody else driving a car forces me to be a car-driver?


you are also having your freedom of movement, association and employment taken from you as well (if you use the "go to a non-smoking establishment" argument). How can one single right to pollute the atmosphere round about you (and of those around you) outweigh the loss of so many rights of non-smokers? Whose freedom is being infringed the most?

So if somebody decides to allow a given activity on their own private property, and you don't happen to like that activity, this then constitutes a violation of your rights?


The argument that "there is so much else that is bad for us so why pick on this" is ridiculous. It's like saying "robbery is bad but why pass a law on that when there are murderers out there".

No, it's like saying, "You don't get to take away other people's freedoms just because you feel like it."


And finally, the annoyance factor is not irrelevant. It's not the smoke per se or the fact that smokers smell of ashtrays. It's the fact that the smoke sticks to non-smokers hair, skin and clothes. That is unacceptable. If some-one wandered into a pub and started spraying folk with a putrid but clear liquid, I suspect many smokers would be severly pissed off.
If you choose to walk into a pub where people are smoking, and you choose to stay there long enough for your clothes to start to stink, then you need to grow up and take responsibility for the fact that you made the damn choice. It's like how if you walk out onto a paintball range, and you stand very still while people splatter you with paint for an hour, you don't then get to run home crying about how horrible it is that people play paintball because they get your nice clothes all messy.

There's a pretty distinct difference between being bothered and being made ill. No one has a right not to be annoyed; if this were just a question of "bother" then it would be a much simpler issue. The fact is, inhaling cigarette smoke is hazardous to your health, and it's really not particularly fair for anyone to make the decision whether or not to do so for anyone but themselves. Listening to a screaming baby may annoy the heck out of you, but it's highly unlikely to give you an allergic reaction, bring on an asthma attack, or give you cancer.
But that's the whole point: nobody is FORCING non-smokers to go to smoking-friendly places. Nobody is making the decision for you; you are making the decision for yourself.

If I choose to go to a rock concert, I accept the fact that music is going to be played at levels that are potentially damaging to my ears. It kind of sucks, and personally I would prefer if they would turn it the fuck down so I wouldn't have to wear earplugs like a tool, but I'm not so full of myself that I think my preference trumps other peoples'. It sucks that I can only go to concerts every once in a while, because you've got to let your ears recover before you subject them to more super-high volumes, but I make the adult decision to balance my fun with my health. It's really not that hard.

Originally posted by Bottle
Snip
Sorry, i can't agree with you. In Scotland, pubs are the major social gathering place. If you don't go to a pub of a weekend (or just to watch the footy etc) then you pretty much don't have a social life outside peoples homes. If pubs allow smoking it effectively excludes non-smokers unless they accept the hazards (however small), the discomfort and the loss of the right to be a non-smoker. Their only other choice is to stay home. Their freedom of movement, and association is effectively compromised.

A pub tried to go non-smoking a year or so ago in Elgin and went bust for the very reasons I outlined in my humoungous post earlier.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to go into any great detail right now as I'm at work and don't have the time but suffice to say I believe non-smokers have the right to be non-smokers and should not have to plan their lives round smokers who think their rights outweigh those of non-smokers. Etc ;) .

Sorry, i can't agree with you. In Scotland, pubs are the major social gathering place. If you don't go to a pub of a weekend (or just to watch the footy etc) then you pretty much don't have a social life outside peoples homes. If pubs allow smoking it effectively excludes non-smokers unless they accept the hazards (however small), the discomfort and the loss of the right to be a non-smoker. Their only other choice is to stay home. Their freedom of movement, and association is effectively compromised.

Where I live, clubs are the major social gathering place. Which sucks for me, because I think club music is downright evil. By playing music that I can't stand, and playing it loud enough to damage my hearing, they are (according to you) violating my right to freedom fo movement and association. So I guess club music must now be banned, eh?

Are all pubs required to allow smoking in Scotland, or do the pub owners choose whether or not they will allow it?


A pub tried to go non-smoking a year or so ago in Elgin and went bust for the very reasons I outlined in my humoungous post earlier.

Well, then clearly nobody shares your hatred of smoking. If they were that bothered by it, they would have gone to the pub that was smoke-free. But, aparently, their dislike of smoking was not strong enough to make them want to change their behavior.


Blah, blah, blah. I'm not going to go into any great detail right now as I'm at work and don't have the time but suffice to say I believe non-smokers have the right to be non-smokers and should not have to plan their lives round smokers who think their rights outweigh those of non-smokers. Etc ;) .
I don't think smokers should have to plan their lives around non-smokers who think their rights outweigh those of smokers, either. I happen to think NEITHER group should have the right to force the others to follow their behavior pattern. If you don't like smoking, don't go to a place where they allow smoking. Smokers, return the courtesy and don't smoke in non-smoking venues. There, now was that so difficult?

But that's the whole point: nobody is FORCING non-smokers to go to smoking-friendly places. Nobody is making the decision for you; you are making the decision for yourself.


Oh, I understand that. If non-smokers were literally forced to sit in enclosed spaces with smokers, I'd consider the issue to be a great deal simpler, and could unreservedly support smoking bans. However, there are a great many places where your options are either to inhale someone's smoke or never to go to a restaurant or bar at all. That's kind of a rotten position to put non-smokers in, and an even more rotten position to put non-smokers who can't find jobs other than waiting tables in.

The latter, to me, is the real issue. People don't really have a right to eat at restaurants, but most people do consider employees to have a right to work in conditions that are not hazardous to their health. Admittedly, those employees made the decision for themselves to work at a restaurant, but when a person's choices are working at a restaurant or being unemployed (which is certainly the case for many people), it's hardly a decision made of that person's own free will.

Isn't the whole issue tyranny of the majority?

Smokers have the right to blow smoke in my face and affect my health because there are more of them? That's in effect what you are saying.

The government not allowing smoking in public places is not a ban on smoking. It's a restriction about where smoking is allowed. Smoking is still legal, but not in all places. Smoking bans on public places do not force people to become non-smokers. They may still smoke, just not in X,Y,Z. Allowing people to smoke in public does, however, infringe on the rights of non-smokers. They, in effect, become smokers every time they enter a place which allows smoking. It taints your hair and clothing nearly immediately and breathing smoke-filled air is harmful even for short periods of time. Even the length of time it would take for someone to determine "Oh, they allow smoking here. I'm going to leave."

No secretary in a lawyers' office is expected to take having smoke blown in her face, so no bartender ought to be expected to, either. Every other public place is already smoke-free. Either restaurants should be smoke free, too, or all of those places are also in the wrong and smoking should be reinstated.

I, for one, believe that the right of the person who is not engaging in a harmful activity trumps the right of the person who is. So, when at odds, the nonsmoker wins.

The latter, to me, is the real issue. People don't really have a right to eat at restaurants, but most people do consider employees to have a right to work in conditions that are not hazardous to their health. Admittedly, those employees made the decision for themselves to work at a restaurant, but when a person's choices are working at a restaurant or being unemployed (which is certainly the case for many people), it's hardly a decision made of that person's own free will.

Well said. And, people seem to view restaurant employees as second-class citizens who work there only because they can do nothing else. While this is true for many servers, it is not true for the entire staff. It actually requires a decent amount of skill to be a chef. (Not a kitchen manager, a chef.) Many have Associates and Bachelors degrees, and their skills are specialized. Just being able to cook a meal at home doesn't make one able to be a chef. Managers often have Bachelors and Masters degrees and are able to support families on their salaries.

As long as we are willing to subject restaurant employees to health risks that we wouldn't expect employees of any other industry to be subjected to, we are in effect calling them second-class citizens. There isn't supposed to be such a thing in the US, is there?

Oh, I understand that. If non-smokers were literally forced to sit in enclosed spaces with smokers, I'd consider the issue to be a great deal simpler, and could unreservedly support smoking bans. However, there are a great many places where your options are either to inhale someone's smoke or never to go to a restaurant or bar at all. That's kind of a rotten position to put non-smokers in, and an even more rotten position to put non-smokers who can't find jobs other than waiting tables in.

And it's equally rotten for somebody who smokes to live in one of the growing number of cities where all indoor smoking is banned. For them, it's not a matter of having to give up one restaurant or one pub, it's a matter of not being able to go to ANY restaurant or pub.

I don't see why one group is more important than the other. It's a rotten reality that when you live around large groups of other humans you often will not get your way. I had to give up my favorite pub a few years back because they converted into a really lame sports bar that became a frat-boy clubhouse. A perfectly awesome pub was ruined for me, and it seriously sucked, but sometimes that happens. You find a new pub.


The latter, to me, is the real issue. People don't really have a right to eat at restaurants, but most people do consider employees to have a right to work in conditions that are not hazardous to their health.

There are plenty of industries and jobs where employees face much more serious health risks than second-hand smoke. Why should smoking be the one special case?


Admittedly, those employees made the decision for themselves to work at a restaurant, but when a person's choices are working at a restaurant or being unemployed (which is certainly the case for many people), it's hardly a decision made of that person's own free will.
What if I'm in a position of having to choose between working in a very loud club and being unemployed? Does that mean I get to insist that all clubs play their music at the level that I prefer?

In my country, nobody has the right to have a job. If you choose to prioritize your dislike of smoking above getting a job, that is your choice to make, just like when I was a bartender I would choose not to work in extremely loud bars. Yes, this meant I had to take a job that was further from my home, and yes, I would rather have gotten to work at a pub closer to me, but that pub played really loud music and I decided I couldn't take that. Sometimes, as a grown up, you have to accept that things won't always turn out the way you would prefer.

And it's equally rotten for somebody who smokes to live in one of the growing number of cities where all indoor smoking is banned. For them, it's not a matter of having to give up one restaurant or one pub, it's a matter of not being able to go to ANY restaurant or pub.
<snip>

There are plenty of industries and jobs where employees face much more serious health risks than second-hand smoke. Why should smoking be the one special case?

<snip>


It's not the same. Smokers can go outside to smoke. They can still smoke in their homes, in their cars. They still have the right to smoke.

As for the other, health risks that are inherent to the job are unavoidable. Smoke is not inherent to the job of bartending, ergo, the bartender shouldn't have to endure it. Employees in other fields are protected from it, so why should restaurant employees not be?

I think 2nd hand smoke is actually good. It helps build up and strengthen one's lungs for when one starts smoking.

This is one of those "I really don't know" issues.

My mom was a major chain smoker for years. She did a carton or two a week and smoked in front of my sister and me.

Hearing the "fear" talk, we should be dying of cancer by now.

All three of us are still alive and well.

Lucky I guess......

It's not the same. Smokers can go outside to smoke. They can still smoke in their homes, in their cars. They still have the right to smoke.

As for the other, health risks that are inherent to the job are unavoidable. Smoke is not inherent to the job of bartending, ergo, the bartender shouldn't have to endure it. Employees in other fields are protected from it, so why should restaurant employees not be?

Even outside is under attack so it's only a matter of time before you can only smoke in your car or home.

Bar tenders need protecting? Meh. Smoking in bars has gone on for hundreds of years. Saying they shouldn't have to be around it is like arguing that you shouldn't have be around violence when you join the police force or the army.....

And it's equally rotten for somebody who smokes to live in one of the growing number of cities where all indoor smoking is banned. For them, it's not a matter of having to give up one restaurant or one pub, it's a matter of not being able to go to ANY restaurant or pub.

Untrue. I have never heard of a bar or restaurant that bans its patrons from stepping outside for a few minutes and then returning to their seat.

I don't see why one group is more important than the other. It's a rotten reality that when you live around large groups of other humans you often will not get your way. I had to give up my favorite pub a few years back because they converted into a really lame sports bar that became a frat-boy clubhouse. A perfectly awesome pub was ruined for me, and it seriously sucked, but sometimes that happens. You find a new pub.

Indeed. However, as I already mentioned, there are many places where non-smoking bars/restaurants simply do not exist.

There are plenty of industries and jobs where employees face much more serious health risks than second-hand smoke. Why should smoking be the one special case?

I don't believe smoking has ever been considered a special case; it certainly hasn't been by me. It's unreasonable to demand that anyone work in unsafe conditions if those conditions can possibly be avoided.


If you choose to prioritize your dislike of smoking above getting a job, that is your choice to make, just like when I was a bartender I would choose not to work in extremely loud bars.

(Boldface mine.) I spent a great many posts explaining the distinction between "things one doesn't like" and "things which are hazardous to one's health," but I'll state again that if this were just a question of dislike, the smoking bans would be unreasonable. And as I've already said, I agree that technically employees choose to work in conditions which are unhealthy, but when the only options they can choose from are endangering their health and letting their family starve, it's not exactly a free choice.

Originally Posted by Bottle
Well, then clearly nobody shares your hatred of smoking. If they were that bothered by it, they would have gone to the pub that was smoke-free. But, aparently, their dislike of smoking was not strong enough to make them want to change their behavior.
In good old UK parliamentary parlance, I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave earlier ...

Originally Posted by Llanarc
(1) It supposes that smokers and non-smokers are two separate communities who do not mix. They do mix and so, they will tend to congregate in places that allow smoking as that is where the smoking element will want to go. Non-smokers will go there, not because they want to specifically be in a smokey atmosphere but because that is where their friends are likely to be.
(2) There are no non-smoking pubs to go to. Again, not because non-smokers prefer smokey atmospheres, but because people on a night out etc, will tend follow the path of least resistance and that will require them to go where the smoker will be allowed to satisfy their craving. Coupled with (1) above, any non-smoking establishment would be on a sticky wicket economically. It is a situation where the market cannot provide a solution (or at least not untill smokers make up much less of the population). I realise the idea that the market cannot provide a solution is heresy nowadays but it does not make it any less true.

The fact is the restriction on smoking in public places is a popular move. It had widespread support before it was implemented. Since it has been implemented, opposition has all but melted away as people realised all the scare stories were pish. Smokers can still smoke in most places but there is a relatively small restriction. Just as there is for all harmfull activities.

BTW, if we were to allow smoking in all recreational venues such as pubs, cinemas, clubs, stadiums, restaurants etc, just where do you envision non-smokers going (if we allow the premise that smokers and non-smokers are socially distinct groups)? They would be effectively housebound.

Also, your car arguments don't work too well as cars have many restrictions placed on where and when you can use them. Their emissions are also being increasingly regulated and within a few years may well be down to zero (ish) if we believe the manufacturers hype.

Goddamn...I'm tempted to start smoking again just to avoid becoming one of these whiny-ass non-smokers.....

Got news for you people....Non-smokers die everyday. :upyours:

No. I was pretty much kidding. I meant that everywhere outside people smoke, too, and so I have trouble breathing wherever anyone is smoking (especially at theme parks.)

Although I'll probably end up as a complete recluse anyway:rolleyes:

Ah, I know what you mean. But for me it's the complete opposite - I gotta become a complete recluse because anti-smokers are becoming a vast majority and wherever I go I get harassed by them at any opportunity.

But interestingly, I have trouble breathing at theme parks too.

i think this second hand smoke thing is a load of BS. This just expalains the modern day hysteria of people(especially liberals unfortunately) regarding certain issues. I agree smoking is not good for oneself however, but for one i have to be against banning it in restaurants and pubs especially( its the owner's decision remember- property rights!!) plus smoking in bars has gone ever since their invention. i also think it should be brought back in other places such as trains and planes(long- distance) so to make the journeys more pleasureful for all .


Did anyone read this british article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2214806,00.html

It says we have indeed be conned please be free spirited and think. Your all clever people here i know- maybe some true antis.

if you want to find out more on SHS go to:

http://www.thebigdebate.org/


So trostia dont feel like a recluse.

And whoever said im tempted to restart cos i dont want to be a whiny ass nonsmoker who can blame you. Best to be a non-whiny ass one and thats possible!!!!

Years ago we did a cognitive dissonance test on smokers and non-smokers on this issue. Smokers rated the dangers of smoking about as high as non-smokers but were dismissive of the dangers of passive smoking.

Not really surprising. It is vastly more comfortable to think that while you have every right to harm yourself, other people are unaffected than to assume that you are causing harm.

A simple psychological explanation for a phenomenon that doesn't even ask about the science. Which would generally confirm that passive smoking is indeed harmful.

Quandary, that must be the enstrom/kabat study your thinking of:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/21/nsmok21.xml

heres the full study:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint_abr/326/7398/1057.pdf

thats the biggest study ever done on second hand smoke!!

And Quandary that is science- real science you should do your own research and not believe pseudo- scientific statistics. I dont consider myself in any way wrong on this particular issue either. Cos from wat it looks like im actually quoting links. I was always tought to back up evidence before giving an opinion lets see you do it. itll go on for ages if i want to explain the real story but you dont seem interested so i wont.

And no i dont see myself as harming no one but myself- im no murderer, i cant accept being considered one are we clear!! That is a serious accusation- try it in court and youll lose.

Quandary, that must be the enstrom/kabat study your thinking of:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/21/nsmok21.xml

heres the full study:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint_abr/326/7398/1057.pdf

thats the biggest study ever done on second hand smoke!!

The one I meant, we carried out ourselves. It was far smaller, essentially about psychology, not smoking. It concerned attitudes. Which many here are demonstrating.

I am a smoker, hard-core ( I guess you could say) in that I smoke roughly a pack a day. My husband smokes, as does our other two roomates. My Dad smoked around me while I was growing up. SHS smoke does have some adverse affect on people, of course, you have to be living under a rock not to know that the smoke is bad for you. As is car emissions and smog.

The whole smoking ban does walk a very fine line between the rights of two individual groups. My thoughts on this, though. I can see the bans in places such as work (Ok, I work in a chemistry lab, so its a no brainer there), or at least, giving smokers a place to smoke. For example, my husband's workplace has a seperate smoking room, you know full well what you are getting into if you head into there to take a break.

As for resturaunts and bars, why is it a matter for the government to decide what is best for a private business owner. I do not understand the reasoning. In a simliar vain, the government should then mandate that people can only be served one alcoholic drink a day, since more than that would do damage to your liver, and so on. I understand that the non-smokers will say, but the guy drinking beer will not kill me, SHS will, but let's look at this logically, I would say approximately 90% of the patrons at the three bars that I have worked at consumed at least two or three drinks still got into their cars and drove home.

The outside ban, to me, is utterly ridiculous. Maybe you (non-smokers in general, or those advocating a ban outside) have encountered smokers who have blown smoke downwind of you, etc. We are not all like that, some of us smokers are respectful, smoke away from doors, not blow our smoke in people's faces, etc. Let us have the outside, at least, since it seems every other spot iss being taken away.

Finally, please, do not treat us like we are retarded scum of the earth. I started smoking when I was 19 (about 7 years ago). I know it is horribly rotten for me (duh, you have to be living under a rock not to know this) the anti-smoking vilgiantes I see walking around do NOT need to remind me of this every time I light up outside, this WILL NOT stop me from smoking. You telling me it is bad for me will not make me suddenly throw down my cigarette and praise your name that you have saved me from my untimely, slow and painful death. Please, do not treat me like an idiot, please do not look down on me because I am addicted to something that is not healthy. We all have our vices, mine happens to be smoking. I still enjoy it, I still will continue to enjoy it, in fact, I am sitting at home enjoying a smoke and a beer right now, and I will be addicted to it until I decide not to be. All we ask is for a little respect, just as you are demanding.

Thank you/ rant over.

I will be addicted to it until I decide not to be.

"I can quit anytime"? Missing the point of the word "addicted" maybe? Feh.

"I can quit anytime"? Missing the point of the word "addicted" maybe? Feh.

First of all, the poster did not say "I can quit anytime." So that's a strawman.

As for the "point" of the word "addicted," yes I know what your point is - anyone who is "addicted" is biased and therefore no argument they can possibly make can hold water, since for them it's "the chemical speaking" and not a rational human being.

It's a tired, tired point.

Or maybe your point was that addiction is something that cannot be overcome. Missing the point of 'reality' perhaps.

"I can quit anytime"? Missing the point of the word "addicted" maybe? Feh.

I love this response.

I am addicted, it would be completely idiotic to say otherwise. Never said that I wasn't, and never said that quitting would be easy. See the thing is, though, people can quite smoking. People have and will continue everyday to quit smoking. Kinda like alcoholics who quit drinking.

So, when I say, when we say, we can quit anytime, once its in your head to quit, all it takes is will power. I, do not wish to quit. I still enjoy smoking (and yes, I know, I enjoy it since I am addicted and the Big Bad tobacco companies put things in my cigs to make me want them more). My reasons for smoking, and my eventual reasons for quitting will get me past the addiction.

First of all, the poster did not say "I can quit anytime." So that's a strawman.

As for the "point" of the word "addicted," yes I know what your point is - anyone who is "addicted" is biased and therefore no argument they can possibly make can hold water, since for them it's "the chemical speaking" and not a rational human being.

It's a tired, tired point.

Or maybe your point was that addiction is something that cannot be overcome. Missing the point of 'reality' perhaps.

Thank you....

Well, such a sentiment deserves more than a "I can quit when I feel like it" statment.

Penn and Teller have already shown that secound hand smoke is bullshit, which I'm sure another geralite already pointed out, but just in case, I did too.

Statement (partially) retracted.

I can't fathom why we have 12 pages to argue over scientifically proven fact.
Yep, and the science shows that there has never been a study of second-hand smoke done that conclusively proved it was harmful.

Yep, and the science shows that there has never been a study of second-hand smoke done that conclusively proved it was harmful.

"Conclusively." You're arguing semantics.

Nevertheless, I retract my statement... partially. Scientific research (other than ones funded by cigarette companies) has routinely indicated that there is a link, albeit tenuous, between second-hand smoke and increased risks for diseases, both in humans and in animals. They do, however, indicate, that the threat is far less than people hype about.

Just from empirical examination, you can tell that there is a substantial difference between smoking and inhaling second-hand smoke. On the other hand, it's also fairly obvious that you're inhaling the remnants of an inhalable substance that has negative long-term health effects.

"Conclusively." You're arguing semantics.

Nevertheless, I retract my statement... partially. Scientific research (other than ones funded by cigarette companies) has routinely indicated that there is a link, albeit tenuous, between second-hand smoke and increased risks for diseases, both in humans and in animals. They do, however, indicate, that the threat is far less than people hype about.

Just from empirical examination, you can tell that there is a substantial difference between smoking and inhaling second-hand smoke. On the other hand, it's also fairly obvious that you're inhaling the remnants of an inhalable substance that has negative long-term health effects.
Yes, and to me and many others this isn't sufficient to ban a practice in a private establishment when those that don't want to be around smoke are perfectly capable of going elsewhere.
Personally, I have a very sensitive nose that reacts very harshly to any smoke whether it's barbeque, tobacco or anything else. I avoid places where I am likely to encounter these irritants, but I don’t feel that I am entitled to government protection of my petty comfort.

Yes, and to me and many others this isn't sufficient to ban a practice in a private establishment when those that don't want to be around smoke are perfectly capable of going elsewhere.
Personally, I have a very sensitive nose that reacts very harshly to any smoke whether it's barbeque, tobacco or anything else. I avoid places where I am likely to encounter these irritants, but I don’t feel that I am entitled to government protection of my petty comfort.

Fair enough. On the other hand, barbeque isn't an extremely strong carcinogenic.
Also, there's the fact that they're private establishments.

Yup thats right they are private establishments. We need to explain antismokers that they dont have to patronise these establishments. The science used to "justify" smoking bans however is indeed cod science. Plus most passive smoking(its minute harm) occurs in the home anyway, some 95%. So a smoking ban kind of takes the piss. As for Calabasas, well i can with pleasure avoid that place and spend my money anywhere else. Undelia, you do have common sense- you dont in fact need government protection from irritants. Just like i perdsonally dont like the smell of mayonnaise- but what- do i feel the necessity to be protected from the government from it??- er no.

The whole smoking ban does walk a very fine line between the rights of two individual groups. My thoughts on this, though. I can see the bans in places such as work (Ok, I work in a chemistry lab, so its a no brainer there), or at least, giving smokers a place to smoke. For example, my husband's workplace has a seperate smoking room, you know full well what you are getting into if you head into there to take a break.

As for resturaunts and bars, why is it a matter for the government to decide what is best for a private business owner. I do not understand the reasoning.


Don't people work in restaurants and bars?

Originally Posted by Madame Curie
The outside ban, to me, is utterly ridiculous.
Fair enough, but for enclosed places it is sensible. When a place opens for business it becomes a public thoroughfare. It will often be the only place that offers a particular service. Why should non-smokers then be faced with the option of either being denied that service or having their right to be a non-smoker denied to them.

For me, this is a no-brainer. Smoking is unique among the vices (for want of a better word) in that it alone forces all those around them to partake of it whether they want to or not. Saying non-smokers can just walk away is a poor argument as it brings into play the right to freedom of movement. Why should it always be up to the non-smoker to alter their lives and make compromises? The restrictions introduced in Scotland and Ireland only ban smoking in enclosed public spaces. If smokers are so addicted to their weed that they cannot buy a tin of beans or a beer without lighting up then they have a problem and why should the rest of us have to suffer as a result of that problem?

Plus most passive smoking(its minute harm) occurs in the home anyway, some 95%.
This (http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/06/13/smoking-rates.html) released yesterday begs to differ: "homes remained the second most common place to be exposed to second-hand smoke for most Canadians, after public places". Considering that in many parts of Canada smoking in indoor public places is banned, it stands to reason that exposure in public would be even higher in places where it is allowed.

No people dont have to work in them, if they find the exposure irritating they should perhaps seek work elsewhere(i never understood the "rights concept")!! The poor "innocent" bar workers exposed to SHS have absolutely no sympathy from me, they "chose" to work in a smoky environment. if there is no other work for them tough s*** starve or work in such a place, life is not easy.

No one has to suffer shs is as ive said cod science. Im sick and tired of hearing nonsmokers rights BS- most nonsmokers i know accept its the right of the owner to decide his/her policy- fair enough make true public places such as buses and shops smokefree i have no problem. Nonsmokers are NOT forced to visit smoky places are we clear- do you understand English.

Plus where did you get your info MR coral islands- ASH- not a surprise.

Plus where did you get your info MR coral islands
Maybe if you look at the source that I clearly posted, you will figure it out...

P.S.: Recognising that you are new and I have not introduced myself to you, I have updated my signature with my name (Rather than just my initials).

do you understand English.

I do understand English; English Lit was one of my minors in college, but I'm not sure what it is you're "speaking." :p

For me, this is a no-brainer. Smoking is unique among the vices (for want of a better word) in that it alone forces all those around them to partake of it whether they want to or not.

Oh, like karaoke, or fat women in bike shorts, or skinny unbathed socialist wannabes who smell like the bottom of a skip, or old guys who can't stop farting.

Cool i saw the link. Wow you must have found it very interesting ,it was too tedious for me to read..

What i am saying is u dont seem to understand what freedom of choice means.
it just seems to me anti-smokers are narrow minded people who lack flexibility to reason. they, like others such as the road-safety pro-speed limit fanatics are simply too taken by their so called moral highgrounds. the problem here is not smoking or passive smoking it is political correctness which has gone mad on all issues. thats wat i mean by moral highgrounds- i am no racist but its absurd i cannot even say that there should be limits on immigration. i get considered a racist. Passive smoking is just one over-exaggerated claim by narrow minded single issue pressure groups.

Quote: "Oh, like karaoke, or fat women in bike shorts, or skinny unbathed socialist wannabes who smell like the bottom of a skip, or old guys who can't stop farting."

Yup we both understand wats going on. Passive smoking is about as unique an issue as they are..

Originally Posted by Deep Kimchi
Oh, like karaoke, or fat women in bike shorts, or skinny unbathed socialist wannabes who smell like the bottom of a skip, or old guys who can't stop farting.
If there is karaoke in a pub .... I don't have to sing.
If there is a fat woman in bike shorts .... I don't have to be a fat woman in bike shorts (the argument is as ludicrous as the answer).
If there is a skinny unbathed socialist (or of any political persuasion) .... I am not compelled to be likewise.
If a smoker lights up though .... I am a smoker too, whether I want to be or not.
(I ignored the farting bit as that is obviously a natural bodily function which cannot be helped and clearly not part of this discussion.)

Why should smoking be exempt from control when driving, gambling, alcohol sales, pornography etc are? Why is smoking a special case? At least the others can be enjoyed by the user without anyone else being involved. Smoking alone actually forces others to smoke whether they want to or not.

If there is karaoke in a pub .... I don't have to sing.

You do have to listen to it however.

Of course, you don't have to be in a pub.


If there is a fat woman in bike shorts .... I don't have to be a fat woman in bike shorts (the argument is as ludicrous as the answer).

On the other hand you do have to look at her if she crosses your view. See previous arguments on psychology and stress. ;)


If a smoker lights up though .... I am a smoker too, whether I want to be or not.

Hmm, nope. See, if that were true, many smokers wouldn't smoke. Instead, we'd just hang around a smoker.

You may think you're smoking because you're in the proximity of someone who is, in much the same way lame people think they're cool if they're around someone who is cool. But it's not true, for you or them.

Of course... as with the karaoke in the pub, you don't have to be around a smoker in the first place.


Why should smoking be exempt from control when driving, gambling, alcohol sales, pornography etc are? Why is smoking a special case? At least the others can be enjoyed by the user without anyone else being involved.

Ha! Yeah, there's no one involved in gambling except someone who gambles? That's a naive view. And you're not talking about control. You're talking about banning. Incidentally, gambling IS illegalized - that is to say, it's a black market industry, not that it's been banished anywhere it's illegal. In fact, criminalized gambling just makes things worse - it empowers criminals.

So maybe the question is not, "Hey we're banning lots of things, so let's ban smokers too!", but rather, "Why the fuck are we banning so many things in the first place, and why does X being banned mean Y has to, as well?"

As for your same old bit about "forcing others to smoke," well, I'd say when a drunk driver drives, he forces a risk on other people that is greater than the risk gathered from hanging out with a cigarette smoker. You're not going to fucking drop dead from smelling some smoke. On the other hand, a drunk a driver can (and does every year) just up and kill people, directly, because of his vice.

So frankly, your 'control' doesn't seem to be too effective anyway; no more than Prohibition was.

There is no proof second hand smoke can kill. People can get lung cancer from just breathing in bad air. People in the second hand smoke commercials haven't died. They're all fucking actors.

Originally Posted by Trostia
Hmm, nope. See, if that were true, many smokers wouldn't smoke. Instead, we'd just hang around a smoker.
Are you seriously arguing that someone in the vicinity of a smoker is not inhaling all the poisons being exhaled by the smoker and emanating from the end of the lit cigarette (unfiltered) :rolleyes: . Do people have some sort of filter system I'm not aware of :eek: . I think you're talking rubbish there ;) .

Originally Posted by Trostia
Of course... as with the karaoke in the pub, you don't have to be around a smoker in the first place.
Yes that old chestnut. The non-smoker should just remain a recluse and allow smokers to pollute the atmosphere where they like in peace. After all, the rights of the smoker far outweigh the rights of the non-smoker. Sorry, that's pish too ;) . The smoker could just smoke in the privacy of their own home or in the open air where the poisons can dissipate. but that appears too much to ask :rolleyes: .

Originally Posted by Trostia
Ha! Yeah, there's no one involved in gambling except someone who gambles? That's a naive view. And you're not talking about control. You're talking about banning. Incidentally, gambling IS illegalized
So much wrong here it's funny :) . If someone wants to put on a bet then that's their business. No-one is forcing me to do the same. And in most places it is legal (including here) but controlled to prevent a black market as you call it.

And for the umpteenth time in this thread, I am not proposing a ban on smoking, just a slight restriction on where it is done :headbang: .

Originally Posted by Trostia
So maybe the question is not, "Hey we're banning lots of things, so let's ban smokers too!", but rather, "Why the fuck are we banning so many things in the first place, and why does X being banned mean Y has to, as well?"
That would be a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact nobody is banning anything here, just restricting it. I basically put that argument in because others had used the argument that smoking was being picked on while other things were not. I wanted to point out that was not the case.

Originally Posted by Trostia
As for your same old bit about "forcing others to smoke," well, I'd say when a drunk driver drives, he forces a risk on other people that is greater than the risk gathered from hanging out with a cigarette smoker. You're not going to fucking drop dead from smelling some smoke. On the other hand, a drunk a driver can (and does every year) just up and kill people, directly, because of his vice.
The drunk driver has, of their own volition, gotten drunk and then committed a crime. Because of this he/she will (hopefully) be punished as there are restrictions on alcohol use. However, he/she has not forced anyone else to do the same. It does not even equate as an argument except to back up the view that there needs to be restrictions on some substances for the public safety.

As for the second part of the quoted statement, you might not drop dead from inhaling (not smelling) cigarette smoke in the short term but that is different in the long term. If tobacco smoke is highly carcinogenic for smokers then it is highly carcinogenic for non-smokers. It may be a relatively small chance but that is no consolation for the thousands of poor buggers who contract terminal cancer or heart disease as a result of SHS. It also causes health problems in the short term in the respiratory system. Especially for those who are ashmatic or sensitive. As an example, on a night out, a friends girlfriend had smoke inadvertantly blown in her face. She immediately passed out, vomited and I had to stick my fingers in her mouth to haul out the vomit before she choked to death. Anecdotal but it proves the point.

Originally Posted by Trostia
So frankly, your 'control' doesn't seem to be too effective anyway; no more than Prohibition was.
Don't know where this statement came from. The restriction on smoking in public places has been very successful where ever it has been implemented. Smokers are still able to smoke in the vast majority of the country while non-smokers have their right to not inhale others tobacco smoke respected. No problem ;) .

Are you seriously arguing that someone in the vicinity of a smoker is not inhaling all the poisons being exhaled by the smoker and emanating from the end of the lit cigarette (unfiltered) :rolleyes: . Do people have some sort of filter system I'm not aware of :eek: . I think you're talking rubbish there ;) .

Oh really? So if you "are" smoking just by being around smokers, then on questionnaires or applications do you mark "yes" when asked, "do you smoke?"

If you don't, I think it is your statements equating nonsmoking in the vicinity of smokers with smoking are rubbish. ;)

Yes that old chestnut. The non-smoker should just remain a recluse

Ah that old strawman. That if you can't go to a bar or pub where they allow smoking, you're a "recluse." Fucking drama queen strawman!

and allow smokers to pollute the atmosphere where they like in peace. After all, the rights of the smoker far outweigh the rights of the non-smoker.

Right, but I guess the rights of the nonsmoker outweight the rights of the business owner, and of course the smoker?

As for polluting the atmosphere, I trust you don't ever do that yourself, directly or indirectly, because otherwise it might be irrelevant hypocrisy.

The smoker could just smoke in the privacy of their own home or in the open air where the poisons can dissipate. but that appears too much to ask :rolleyes: .


You could let a business owner decide if they want to allow smoking on their premises or not. But that appears too much to ask.


That would be a valid argument if it wasn't for the fact nobody is banning anything here, just restricting it.

Restrictions are a stepping stone towards banning outright and you know it. At least, those who push for anti-tobacco legislation have themselves expressed this goal and method.

I basically put that argument in because others had used the argument that smoking was being picked on while other things were not. I wanted to point out that was not the case.


It is in the sense that socially, no one considers you a murderer if you drink, but they do if you smoke.

The drunk driver has, of their own volition, gotten drunk and then committed a crime. Because of this he/she will (hopefully) be punished as there are restrictions on alcohol use. However, he/she has not forced anyone else to do the same.

No, he's just crashed into their car and killed them!

That's acceptable to you, and his car merely polluting the air you breathe is also acceptable.

But due to the fact that 20 years of living with a heavy smoker increases your risk of getting lung cancer, it's unacceptable to be in the same space with a cigarette smoker ever and they are "killing" you if you are?


As for the second part of the quoted statement, you might not drop dead from inhaling (not smelling) cigarette smoke in the short term but that is different in the long term.

Yeah. Like, living with someone for 20 years, and they smoke. Inside. In your living space.

I'm not sure how that applies to allowing smokers in bars. No one forces you to go to a bar, and if you're going to a bar for long enough to get lung cancer there, maybe you've got other problems that you should think on!


Don't know where this statement came from. The restriction on smoking in public places has been very successful where ever it has been implemented.

And the restriction on drunk driving has too. We don't have drunk drivers anymore. ;)

Smokers are still able to smoke in the vast majority of the country while non-smokers have their right to not inhale others tobacco smoke respected. No problem ;) .

Not sure where you get the idea that there is a "right to not inhale tobacco smoke." If you have that right though, why don't I have the "right not to inhale exhaust fumes just because you want to drive your own car?"

Originally Posted by Trostia
If you don't, I think it is your statements equating nonsmoking in the vicinity of smokers with smoking are rubbish.
Rubbish :rolleyes: .

Originally Posted by Trostia
Ah that old strawman. That if you can't go to a bar or pub where they allow smoking, you're a "recluse." Fucking drama queen strawman!
Like the term Strawman do you. It seems to be the in word right now ;) . Back to the discussion, it's as much a valid argument as the "you can always walk away" nonsense. Smokers can just not smoke in certain places. It's all subjective.

No need for the abuse by the way. I've noticed pro-smoking folk tend to resort to it ;) .

Originally Posted by Trostia
As for polluting the atmosphere, I trust you don't ever do that yourself, directly or indirectly, because otherwise it might be irrelevant hypocrisy.
Is this the "untill we can get everything right we shouldn't address any problems" argument again. This is something that can be done and doesn't preclude solving other problems later. Hypocrisy doesn't come into it.

Originally Posted by Trostia
Restrictions are a stepping stone towards banning outright and you know it.
No they are not. As you have said, outright bans don't work. Most people realise this, which makes an outright ban extremely unlikely. That is why alcohol is tightly controlled but not banned (prohibition proving the futility of a ban).

Originally Posted by Trostia
No, he's just crashed into their car and killed them!

That's acceptable to you, and his car merely polluting the air you breathe is also acceptable.
That is rubbish. If you can't raise your game above this sort of ranting then don't bother. Where did I say it was acceptable? And I don't believe car fumes are acceptable either but luckily the industry is doing something about it and cars may be pumping out little more than water fairly soon.

Originally Posted by Trostia
And the restriction on drunk driving has too. We don't have drunk drivers anymore.
Now you're just rambling. What has this got to do with anything?

Getting back to my point. The restrictions on smoking in Scotland has been very successful as people realised it was actually not much of an imposition. Even smokers enjoy the clear atmosphere in pubs now.

Originally Posted by Trostia
Not sure where you get the idea that there is a "right to not inhale tobacco smoke."
Are you saying I have no say in what other people effectively force into my body? Damn, I have a lot less freedom than I thought. Maybe a law will be passed to give me that kind of freedom ..... oh wait ..... they just did ..... hooray for the law restricting smoking in public places ..... it's given me more freedom?

i think this second hand smoke thing is a load of BS. This just expalains the modern day hysteria of people(especially liberals unfortunately) regarding certain issues. I agree smoking is not good for oneself however, but for one i have to be against banning it in restaurants and pubs especially( its the owner's decision remember- property rights!!) plus smoking in bars has gone ever since their invention. i also think it should be brought back in other places such as trains and planes(long- distance) so to make the journeys more pleasureful for all .

~Snip~
Oh yes, let's put smoking in an enclosed area where non-smokers are FORCED to enhale the toxic substances. Pleasureable for all? Not for me, the asthmatic.

EDIT: As for the 'walk away' comments, smokers don't HAVE to smoke. However, they can still stay in the pubs if they don't. Either way, smokers get into pubs. In this situation, non-smokers cannot. There's a problem there.

I think people's empirical judgement is being twisted by their addictions.
Either that, or you you've been using lady cigs. :D

Given that I've been both ends of a cig, I can safely say that while there is a substantial difference, there is still enough in the fumes to hurt you after repeated exposure.

If there is karaoke in a pub .... I don't have to sing.
If there is a fat woman in bike shorts .... I don't have to be a fat woman in bike shorts (the argument is as ludicrous as the answer).
If there is a skinny unbathed socialist (or of any political persuasion) .... I am not compelled to be likewise.
If a smoker lights up though .... I am a smoker too, whether I want to be or not.
(I ignored the farting bit as that is obviously a natural bodily function which cannot be helped and clearly not part of this discussion.)

Why should smoking be exempt from control when driving, gambling, alcohol sales, pornography etc are? Why is smoking a special case? At least the others can be enjoyed by the user without anyone else being involved. Smoking alone actually forces others to smoke whether they want to or not.

If we're both in a bar in Virginia, I can have my pistol on my hip in the open. But you don't have to carry one.

The bar owner can't throw me out or refuse service for wearing the pistol. But he can make me stop smoking.

There are even legal conditions under which I could draw and fire (at a truly lethal threat - in order to be legal). You might object to the quantity of lead in the air.

If we're both in a bar in Virginia, I can have my pistol on my hip in the open. But you don't have to carry one.

The bar owner can't throw me out or refuse service for wearing the pistol. But he can make me stop smoking.

There are even legal conditions under which I could draw and fire (at a truly lethal threat - in order to be legal). You might object to the quantity of lead in the air.

Keyword: conditions.

Also, it's not like you're shooting people randomly with a .22. I'm aware that that's a gross hyperbole, but any person with a lung or heart condition can tell you that it's still close enough to the truth to argue.

thing is nonsmokers do not have to get into smoke-filled pubs- dont you understand supply and demand- the reason theres no smokrefree bars is for that reason. oriadeth- please Take some economics lessons please before you make your opinion ok. If there were demand for nonsmoking pubs thered be more. Same reason why most restaurants only allow smoking in the bar awy from dining areas.

Theres only a few people here who lack the brains for it thatnk god.

Theres only a few people here who lack the brains for it thatnk god.

You mean the 76+% here who disagree with you?
You mean the vast majority of scientists who disagree with you?
You mean the majority of government officials who disagree with you?

Yeah, thank the gods.

My last post it is clear was far too complex to reply too , so I will make it easy. Smoking is deadly & is killing us all , so it must be banned. End of story. If you smokers think you should have the right to kill me & every one else around you , you are all no better that the " terrorists" that you claim to be fighting against. Smokers are stupid , so if you must smoke please have kindness & move to a more suitable country like China, since they will be poluting our world more than the U.S in about 5 years anyway.

Smoking is deadly

Right.

& is killing us all

Wrong.

Smokers are stupid

Generalization. All generalizations are false.

If you smokers think you should have the right to kill me & every one else around you

First to post what kind of logical fallacy this is gets a present.

when I see the incredible claims of death caused by second hand smoke, I have to conclude that about three breaths of third hand smoke would kill instantly at a range of 30 meters.

Originally Posted by Deep Kimchi
If we're both in a bar in Virginia, I can have my pistol on my hip in the open. But you don't have to carry one.

The bar owner can't throw me out or refuse service for wearing the pistol. But he can make me stop smoking.

There are even legal conditions under which I could draw and fire (at a truly lethal threat - in order to be legal). You might object to the quantity of lead in the air.
What exactly is the point being made here? Are you agreeing with my point of view?

You are right, you wearing a pistol does not compel me to wear one nor does it pose any threat to me so long as you don't discharge it at me. However, light up a cigarette and you effectively (though obviously not as immediately lethally) discharge it my direction.

The chances of the smoke causing me problems are fairly high whether it is just discomfort or actual respiratory problems. The chances of it killing me are relatively small, but I would not be consoled by a smoker telling me in the oncology ward that it's okay as I'm statistically insignificant. Even that relatively small number of people still runs into the thousands. Thousands who wouldn't need to die early and horribly with just a slight restriction on where tobacco products can be used.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
thing is nonsmokers do not have to get into smoke-filled pubs- dont you understand supply and demand- the reason theres no smokrefree bars is for that reason. oriadeth- please Take some economics lessons please before you make your opinion ok. If there were demand for nonsmoking pubs thered be more.
You are of the opinion that people do not go to a bar for social reasons or to drink alcohol but solely because they can inhale tobacco smoke? Non-sense! Smokers and non-smokers are not socially distinct groups .... they mix .... but that does not imply the non-smokers enjoy smoke filled pubs. I refer you to an answer I gave earlier ...
Originally Posted by Llanarc
The "go to a non-smoking establishment" idea has several problems.

(1) It supposes that smokers and non-smokers are two separate communities who do not mix. They do mix and so, they will tend to congregate in places that allow smoking as that is where the smoking element will want to go. Non-smokers will go there, not because they want to specifically be in a smokey atmosphere but because that is where their friends are likely to be.

(2) There are no non-smoking pubs to go to. Again, not because non-smokers prefer smokey atmospheres, but because people on a night out etc, will tend follow the path of least resistance and that will require them to go where the smoker will be allowed to satisfy their craving. Coupled with (1) above, any non-smoking establishment would be on a sticky wicket economically. It is a situation where the market cannot provide a solution (or at least not untill smokers make up much less of the population). I realise the idea that the market cannot provide a solution is heresy nowadays but it does not make it any less true.

I'm a non-smoker, and, regardless of whether or not it's safe, passive smoking is something I don't enjoy.

It makes me cough everytime :(

No Llanarc you obviously dont understand my point of view- the concept of freedom of choice. Nobody has to go to a smoke-filled bar one can go to a smoking or nonsmoking one. Why not let it be the owner's decision. Yes of course one goes there to socialise. People dont go to inhale/exhale theyr not crazy(as you are not understanding freedom of choice). Dont you understand the concept of freedom from snitch lines- they remind me of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia- not a democracy. To me democracy and smoking bans are incompatible. So what if people disagree with me cos i dont care im not a self-righteous anti-smoker who believes anyone who disagrees with me is a front for the tobacco industry(no I dont believe in your Mc Carthyism)- do your own research ANR claims even restaurant organisations to be of this case.

And if there are no nonsmoking pubs tough luck life is not a bole of cherries. The world is not perfect- it was made so it would not be.

No Saipea most scientists other than those affiliated agree with me on freedom of choice. Government officials unfortunately are intrusing too much into private lives(unfortunately it is the liberals) in the UK though it was the tories- conservatives) who voted against the ban. Bars and restaurants are private establishments so it is none of the government's business to tell them what to do.

I am sorry for the asmatics- go to no smoking or ventilated places. If thats a problem then why not wear an oxygen mask for f*** sake- cos i think this fear of smoke is all in one's brain.

i look forward to be challanged.

And why is it that we smokers and tolerant nonsmokers believe that there should be smokefree places as well as smokerfriendly ones and the antis dont. Do you like uniformity. Perhaps we should all wear the same clothes then. I have a friend who wants to introduce uniforms for universities so might as well for life. What im always saying is antismoking people generally lack elasticity of the brain(they are missing a part) which is the reason they dont value freedom of choice. The fact so many people dont see the smokescreen that the smoking ban and bans on other stuff like alcohol and fatty foods is in fact the gradual removal of freedom of choice is scary- i can see now why Hitler had so many supporters.

PS nobody says you have to breathe it in- plus an air quality standard which i support will solve the case- indoor air will be smokfree just not without the smokers and research shows its possible.

here is the proof of top quality ventilation at work:

http://www.buildingtalk.com/news/hon/hon119.html

See smokefree with smokers POSSIBLE. Nothing is impossible.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
No Llanarc you obviously dont understand my point of view- the concept of freedom of choice.
I also like freedom of choice. Unfortunately smokers negate my choice every time they light up next to me. Is my freedom of choice not as important as a smokers? But of course, this is all subjective.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
Yes of course one goes there to socialise. People dont go to inhale/exhale theyr not crazy
Exactly! No-one is there to smoke. They may be there for a work night out, meeting a friend, on a date, watching the footy, to get hammered, they're hungry, a reunion, etc etc etc. All reasons that will prevent someone from just leaving because a smoker feels the need to satisfy their addiction. This is why the "no-one is making people go to a smoky pub" argument is bogus. Peoples lives will bring them into these places unless they decide to severly restrict their socializing .... and why should they have to.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
Dont you understand the concept of freedom from snitch lines- they remind me of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia- not a democracy. To me democracy and smoking bans are incompatible.
I don' think you understand Democracy. Democracy allows for debate and sometimes the debate doesn't go your way. Increasingly it is going the way of the non-smokers whereas before it went the other way. It may even start running that way again, it depends on the strength of the arguments.The idea that non-smokers should just sit down and shut up is more remiscent of the tyrranies you mention than democracy.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
And if there are no nonsmoking pubs tough luck life is not a bole of cherries.
Agreed, life is not always a bowl of cherries. But democracy allows me to strive towards making my life as pleasant and risk free as possible. If you don't like living in a political system which allows all points of view to be expressed and acted on then you should either move to a more tyrranical state that happens to represent your views (currently), or use the democratic system to achieve your goals.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
I am sorry for the asmatics- go to no smoking or ventilated places. If thats a problem then why not wear an oxygen mask for f*** sake- cos i think this fear of smoke is all in one's brain.
Your argument goes all over the place here. Earlier you say there are no non-smoking pubs then you tell people who are adversely affected by smoke to go to them. You then state that the problems they suffer are all in their heads but tell them to wear respiratory gear (which if you thought about it you would realise is a ridiculous thing to say). Smoking does affect non-smokers health adversely. You can stick your head in the sand all you want but that simple fact will not change.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
And why is it that we smokers and tolerant nonsmokers believe that there should be smokefree places as well as smokerfriendly ones and the antis dont. Do you like uniformity. Perhaps we should all wear the same clothes then. I have a friend who wants to introduce uniforms for universities so might as well for life. What im always saying is antismoking people generally lack elasticity of the brain(they are missing a part) which is the reason they dont value freedom of choice. The fact so many people dont see the smokescreen that the smoking ban and bans on other stuff like alcohol and fatty foods is in fact the gradual removal of freedom of choice is scary- i can see now why Hitler had so many supporters.
Now you're just ranting.

To allow smoking everywhere is an extreme end of the debate. To ban it everywhere is the other extreme. you seem to be just short of the smoking extreme while I am in the middle. I believe smoking should be allowed in the home and everywhere outdoors. That is the vast majority of places. You believe non-smokers should only have sections of places that the smoke is apparently intelligent enough to avoid. Both of us are showing some elasticity, it is just that I've stretched a little more.

You're also going down the ridiculous "first smoking, then the world" line. Bollocks! This debate is about democracy and choice. What you are arguing for is the suppression of debate and choice to maintain what you want. That is the tyrranical view.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
here is the proof of top quality ventilation at work:
So an air conditioning firm proudly proclaims it's products are wonderful :p . There's a huge surprise. If you read the article you'll see they actually need to arrange people so as non-smokers don't get a constant breeze of tobacco flying past them.

I hope ventilation works because I work with keytones, acetone. and lots of nasty chemicals for printing, why do you say ventilation does not work. I do smoke -but I live near the A14 and it has one of the worst rates of death and injuries from driving, now that is a risk I would not take. I love my job and have been a flexographic printer for over 25 years- I also worked when I was pregnant, my children are grown up and are fine. Sounds like I should tell my friends at work they have been put at more risk if this ventilation malarky is not good

I wonder which is worse for the average person's lungs:

Breathing bad city air (like Mexico City's)

or

Being in a bar that has its doors closed, breathing in second-hand smoke

There's just too much scientific evidence supporting the danger in inhaling second-hand smoke to discount it.

what you mean like the weapons of mass destruction- did they find them yet

I am not a smoker, but my friend's dad is. Everytime I hang over at his house, I am subject to some type of smoke inhalatation. I can't just not go over to his house, that would be rude and harmful to our friendship. His mom already quit because when I came over she saw how it was hurting me, and she cared to quit. I am really torn between a rock in a hard place. I strongly don't want to end our relationship, is second-hand smoke going to have to be the price for our friendship?

As a smoker who only started a few years ago (I'm 27) I'd say this whole "Ban everything" culture is just a politician's dream. The truth is that millions and millions more people die from the effects of pollution each year than smoking.

...not to mention the murder which results in the 3rd World from the economic policies of 1st World nations.

It's all BS - if we're so concerned about public health we should get rid of cars.

Oh but that would damage our wallets, so let's just use a smokescreen (pun intended) of banning smoking in public.

Freedom to smoke, freedom to drink, freedom to burp in public and talk in cinemas.

Enough of this Nanny State crap.

too true.

Mexico city's air is equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigs a day, so I would definitely say it's worse than being in a bar.

Of course Llanarc your freedom of choice is the same currently for all- either put up with the smoke or go to places that are voluntarily smoke-free(you see im very happy for places to go smokefree). We dont neglect your freedom of choice now do we. Not much to ask. Some places simply want to accomodate smokers and if you think properly that is not unreasonable is it. your removing their freedom of choice by obliging them to put up one little piece of paper which id personally use as toilet paper.
yes i know people dont go there to smoke but they do like to enjoy a smoke to relax. people go to bars to be relaxed not worry about whether one silk cut ultra lite being smoked by another person causing cancer or a heart attack, theres more chance of an engine dropping off a 747 then that happening- what do we do ban 747s?? man you are overreacting.

Snitch lines informing the governemnt is something i simply cannot tolerate for something that has been going on perfectly for years. No only the government's debate seems to be going your way- that of extremism. i respect your views and that is why i believe there should be nonsmoking venues. If your bothered about smoke in a place just have a petition signed and give it to the places' management and ask to up the fans or even ban us all together and i have no problem just expressing my views. Smoking policy is the management/owner's decision not the government or unelected "charity's".


No im not telling people sensitive to go to them. in fact i retract from my previous statement of oxygen masks i just flipped out sorry.

No i think you antis rant actually- why cant the owners decide i defend their rite.


yes so you now dont trust the ventilation industry either. I swear you seem to belong to some antismoking organisation- just say so. perhaps you need to take some physics lessons about removal of particles.


Ashtraylia welcome to the debate- thanks for keeping me company. I do hope the ventilation works for you. Your right, i agree with you, its exactly like the weapons of mass destruction- have they found yet- er no.

Exactly Llanarc try going to Mexico City. Like smoking 2 packs a day. So why rant about bars.

here is what anti tobacco is really about:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/personal-insults-and-attac_114965365049823423.html

The chances of the smoke causing me problems are fairly high whether it is just discomfort or actual respiratory problems. The chances of it killing me are relatively small, but I would not be consoled by a smoker telling me in the oncology ward that it's okay as I'm statistically insignificant. Even that relatively small number of people still runs into the thousands. Thousands who wouldn't need to die early and horribly with just a slight restriction on where tobacco products can be used

The unfortunate thing with statistics is that although we're encouraged to think of the numbers that are generated in real life terms we're not actually talking about thousands of bodies piling up. Instead we're talking about a mathematically derived relative risk (RR).

Now, of course we see these numbers and say "OH MY GOD...STOP THE SMOKING NOW!" (frantic pointing at a printout). However everything carries risk, that's simply the nature of life in this amazing world. So we're left with the obvious question - What level of projected mathematical risk corroborates with real-life risk? If we simply ran around banning everything that carried risk you wouldn't have the option to drink your cup of coffee in the morning, your toddy before bed or operate that beautiful piece of machinery in the garage. So it's been determined that a RR of <2.0 is statistically insignificant, meaning that the risk is so low that...well, there really isn't a risk. Preferably to declare something a legitimate risk to human welfare the RR >=3.0.

This is a terrible summary of the information available here (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html) in the Epidemiology 101 section.

Castrensis

Just in case you guys haven't posted this yet, I figured we could use a totally non-biased source(See the irony when you click on the link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke

Excellent site- HOOR was about to post it myself. here is another-

http://www.cigarenvy.com/2006/05/30/second-hand-smoke-craziness-part-two/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

What level of projected mathematical risk corroborates with real-life risk? If we simply ran around banning everything that carried risk you wouldn't have the option to drink your cup of coffee in the morning,

But, see, I'm not saying you don't have the right to drink your morning coffee (smoke your cigarette) I'm saying that I shouldn't be forced to share it with you. If I'm an employee of any venue that allows smoking, well, I share your cigarette with you. It might be 80/20 or 90/10, but I'm sharing, and not by choice.

But, see, I'm not saying you don't have the right to drink your morning coffee (smoke your cigarette) I'm saying that I shouldn't be forced to share it with you. If I'm an employee of any venue that allows smoking, well, I share your cigarette with you. It might be 80/20 or 90/10, but I'm sharing, and not by choice.

The purpose was not to present a precise parallel to cigarette smoking, but rather to identify another common practice, much more widespread than smoking, that carries some risk. This was not for my benefit, but to help the reader better understand the difference between RR and real risk.

As I've said a number of times before, please actually read the studies you're trying to bolster your arguments with and understand what those numbers really mean.

Castrensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke
Short Term Effects
Some non-smokers are able to stay in a room with smokers for quite some time and notice little or no effects. For others, however, just a few minutes or an hour of exposure can make them feel quite ill. Persons with asthma can experience attacks brought on by proximity to smoke.

Tobacco smoke is an allergen, and allergy sufferers can experience stuffy, runny noses, watery eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, and all the other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure. Some people with no known allergies and without asthma may cough in smoke-filled rooms, get headaches, feel nauseous, feel sleepy, and experience other ill effects. Many former smokers, and those who are trying to quit do not like to be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings. Some people simply do not like the odor, which clings to hair and clothing.

Many of these short-term effects terminate after the exposure ends. Repeated exposure, however, is believed to cause more serious long-term effects.

From the link given by Sheni.
This alone should be enough to convince people that compelling others to inhale and become wreathed in their tobacco smoke is not ethical.

I've been avoiding links so far as there are so many that back all viewpoints on this subject that they are effectively meaningless. This should be debated on the logical strength of arguments, not on who can produce the most links to sites that back their view.

I can't help feeling we're just going over the same old ground now. So this will probably be my last post on this thread.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
Of course Llanarc your freedom of choice is the same currently for all- either put up with the smoke or go to places that are voluntarily smoke-free(you see im very happy for places to go smokefree). We dont neglect your freedom of choice now do we. Not much to ask. Some places simply want to accomodate smokers and if you think properly that is not unreasonable is it. your removing their freedom of choice by obliging them to put up one little piece of paper which id personally use as toilet paper.
yes i know people dont go there to smoke but they do like to enjoy a smoke to relax. people go to bars to be relaxed not worry about whether one silk cut ultra lite being smoked by another person causing cancer or a heart attack, theres more chance of an engine dropping off a 747 then that happening- what do we do ban 747s?? man you are overreacting.
I find it hard to follow your posts sometimes. I don't know whether your just rushing them down or English isn't you first language but it does make it difficult for me to fully understand your points.

I've already made my points on freedom of choice to you. You obviously don't agree. But I will reiterate them here as you seem to just constantly reiterate yours without even acknowledging there may be other points of view. Freedom of choice is subjective. You think restricting where tobacco products can be used is taking your freedom away. I disagree as I believe it is a compromise that allows the non-smokers choice to be respected. You can still smoke in the vast majority of places. It is a small restriction.

The idea that non-smokers have the option to just leave the premises is bogus. It reduces people to solitary individuals whose only motive in a given situation is to smoke or not smoke. It ignores the plethora of other pressures and motives which have led that individual to that place. It implies that smokers and non-smokers are distinct social groupings that don't mix. They are not; they do. But the cravings of the smokers in the group will almost always win out on any decision on where to go to socialise. So the non-smoker will either have to suffer the poisons in their lungs and smell on their clothes or severly curtail their social lives. This also explains why non-smoking establishments will always be unlikely when smoking is allowed in other establishments. Not because people love poisonous environments, but because the smoking element in any social grouping will not frequent it and therefore the non-smokers will have to avoid it too if they want to be with their friends. That is why it has to be a level playing field. Either it is allowed in all establishments or none.

The long term risks of SHS may be small but they are real. As I've said before, no victim of SHS in an oncology ward will be in any way consoled by a smoker telling them they are statistically in a relatively small grouping. The short term problems of SHS are not small. Looking at this logically, if inhaling tobacco smoke is highly dangerous to smokers health (and I hope no-one will dispute that), then non-smokers are also being put at risk by it. However small you personally consider that risk, it is there. Poisons are poisons who-ever is inhaling them. The "747" argument you use is rubbish I'm afraid.

The risk thing is one of the most disengenuous(sp?) aspects of the pro-smoking argument. They always pick out something else and ask "why aren't you complaining about that then?". Again it reduces people to one dimensional creatures who can only concentrate on one thing at a time. Just because there is another problem in the world doesn't mean we should just ignore all the rest. You can tackle more than one at a time. Just because Mexico city has a pollution problem doesn't mean Scotland should think again about the restrictions on smoking imposed there. There is no real correlation. What should be being asked is "what can we do to make cities more pollution free?". Restricting smoking is one thing that can be done.

When it comes to personal habits. Drinking alcohol, coffee, gambling etc are all things that the individual chooses to do to themselves without compelling others around them to partake. Smoking is the only one that forces all in the vicinity to partake whether they want to or not. That is the true estriction on the freedom of choice. Here is a quote from another thread which is very pertinent. It's an oldie but a goodie ....
Originally Posted by West Beefington
You have a vice that happens to produce a byproduct, smoke. You seem to feel that you have the right for the smoke from your cigarettes to pollute my environment, get into my clothes and hair, and ensure that when I leave an establishment such as a restaurant that I stink like cigarette smoke.

See, the thing is I have a vice to. I have been known to drink every now and then. My vice also has a byproduct, urine. Yet, you don't see me insisting that I have the right to pollute your environment, piss all over you so that it gets in your clothes and hair, and ensure that when you leave a restaurant you smell like my piss.

I'll tell you what, as soon as you start to fight for my right to urinate on you, I'll fight for your right to smoke around me.
The ironic thing being that urine is sterile and is therefore less harmful than tobacco smoke.

Got to get to work now.

People share their strong perfumes with me and aftershave all the time and I have a major problem with them. So will asthmatics. But you just cannot go around and ban everything because no-one will have any tolerance where do you stop. Aids surely is a bigger killer and they seem to promote Gays on TV- now I do not have a problem with gay people. It just makes no sense-now the facts are there without all the propaganda. I have read somewhere someone smoking can cause heart attacks in non-smokers within 30 minutes-well that has to be just the craziest article I have read, there would be no-one left alive.

Originally Posted by Ashtraylia
People share their strong perfumes with me and aftershave all the time and I have a major problem with them. So will asthmatics. But you just cannot go around and ban everything because no-one will have any tolerance where do you stop.
I can sympathise with that. It is, however, rare to be in the company of someone who is wearing that much perfume. Since the prime reason for wearing perfume or aftershave is to make you more attractive, the negative response from people should soon teach the person drenched in scent the error of there ways. Tobacco smoke is pervasive throughout society though and it is far more harmful than scent.

I agree you cannot go around banning everything but then no-one is advocating that. Not even where tobacco is concerned. I am only arguing that a small restriction on where it can be used is introduced.

Originally Posted by Ashtraylia
I have read somewhere someone smoking can cause heart attacks in non-smokers within 30 minutes-well that has to be just the craziest article I have read, there would be no-one left alive.
This is the usual over reaction to a particular incident. I think the key word in your statement is "can". It is extremely unlikely to cause such a reaction but it may happen if the individual is particularly vulnerable at that time. As is the case for most of the harm caused by SHS. But just because fatal harm is relatively rare, it does not mean we should ignore that harm. Short term harm is not rare and neither is the damage done to clothing and individuals from both smoke and the cigarette itself (ie clinging smell and burns from an accidental touch).

I have been into google and looked at the dangers of milk-water-asbestos-pesticides on our food-diesal-radon-cat litter stuff- and I was horrified as you do not see much about this on the TV-I believe in everything in moderation. But no-one would do anything. Or eat or drink if we were all paranoid-wish I had not read it all though it is scarey. And I can see overweight people not wanting to go out soon because they are next on the list. I find all this scaremongering -bird flu epidemic- war on other Countries ect. It is so depressing and I think that is not good for anyone.
I am not overweight and I have friends who are but I do not see them as fat.
But I feel guilty when I buy a jar of jam for a treat now-it is going to get awful. I really am begining to hate my Country. I love the laid back approach of Countries abroad. Many Countries are quite chilled out, we are just made to feel guilty about everything we do. It is soooooo stressful

Doesn't it depend on the kind of second-hand smoke? I mean, how many people would object to a roomfull of people smoking fattys?

Doesn't it depend on the kind of second-hand smoke? I mean, how many people would object to a roomfull of people smoking fattys?

The prohibitionists?

Exactly, ventilation does get rid of smoke, submarines use them for goodness sake, and to ban something because of a smell is over the top, when people become obsessed with health like they seem to have done- cuddly people cost a lot of money for the NHS- so what will they shove the tax on to pay it. My friend does not feel comfortable sitting in restaurants now because she feels people are talking about her. And horribly enough they probably are - all I am trying to say is tolerance of others is a must (well as long as it is not illegal) it is a very slippery slope. Surely if you own a buisness and you are told how to run it-because that is what is happening in some Countries, and your buisness goes under because you have conformed to your Goverments wishes-then they should be compensated at the very least. My boss says soon we will be wearing moonsuits to print in.

yup Ashtraylia you got it smack on everything should be done in moderation. The Anglo-Saxon world is really becoming too paranoid this SHS scare is only the beginning.

Llanarc problem is i get too bored trying to read your posts thats why i rush my answers. could you please write shorter sentences. long lecturing dosent do the job for me- it puts me to sleep. yes wow just because it can dosent mean it should, does it.
I dont think you bother to read anything that conflicts your views do you.
So im going to do the same until you shorten yours. No im afraid the 747 is exactly the same risk- in an oncology ward youll see very few if any people in there due to SHS. Check Dave Hicks link.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

the unbiased truth:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/truth.html

No your wrong what about when people get glassed on the head their innocent. Will you allow that in your idealistic utopian "smokefree zero risk world"?????????????????????????? Oh yes im afraid people dont get heart attacks from brief exposures in well- ventilated nightclubs. And oh yeah before i forget importantly this level-playing field bullocks is starting to anger me- typical ASH-vocabulary. i think theyve taken over the word. Banning smoking is bad for business I agree and yeah the problem is life will not go your way. Where i live(not telling you) there is no government-mandated ban yet many restaurants went smokefree voluntarily- why??- Supply and Demand- something incompatible with your over-zealous thinking me amigo Llanarc. pubs true not the case- things for this simply dont go the antismokers way- you dont accept defeat. I accept it if a place voluntarily introduces a smokefree policy not mandated by government decree. Thats where i stand- not something unreasonable in a free country. for you it seems this is impossible in your narrow mind am I right.

Anyway i have to go Llanarc, auf wiedersien. read the links please.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid2.html

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html



here is a list of businesses gone broke by smoking bans/level playing fields:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

What sort of a level playing field is it- 2 pubs next to each other one has a beer garden and can accomodate smokers the other does not?? A little use of the brain could help.

What my agenda in common with the author( scroll to bottom of the page) is compared with the antis:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/agendas.html

Ashtraylia sorry missed your last post- took me too long to write. So true if a submarine can use one why cant a pub or even an aircraft. Tolerance is very important for others. There are very few things i dont tolerate most of all intolerants. it does not look like a good slope no.

Calitistia, you have a cheek calling my posts longwinded and then advising me to go to a link that not only bored the pants off me but took ages to read :p . I'm afraid I can't be held responsible for your attention span :rolleyes: (btw how can the length of my posts affect the speed you write hours later ;) ).

As for the link itself, it's hardly unbiased. For one thing, it rubbishes the EPA report but lauds the WHO report even though they give virtually the same result (0.03 RR of a difference):headbang: . It uses the results of the EPA report to prove the authors points but how can he use these results for his own ends when he has rubbished how they were achieved :headbang: .

As for the result of the WHO report, if I read the site authors treatise on statistics right, it states SHS may be responsible for up to a 44% increase in expected cancer deaths :( . Granted it states it is probably only a 16% increase but the margin of error allows for the higher figure. Those 16 extra deaths over and above the expected per 100 cancer cases may be insignificant to the site author but that is no comfort to those who are suffering.

In any case, the site makes no mention of the short term health effects of SHS or the affect it has on peoples clothes, hair etc. Perhaps because that is more obvious and he realises it does his rather biased argument no good.

As I said before, I have not been using links because you can find as many as you want to back up whatever point of view you want on this issue so they are effectively meaningless. If you look at the bottom of the Epid 101 section of your link, the inexhaustive list of factors the site author would like included would make any study incomprehensible if not utterly meaningless.

Finally, you'll need to calm down a bit. The tone and content of your posts give the impression of someone having a right old rant to themselves. Your head could explode long before the ciggies get you :) . You have me pidgeonholed as some intolrant buzzkill. However, I've already stated that I've no problem with people abusing themselves in any way they like, including smoking, so long as I'm not forced to participate. That to me is the epitome of tolerance. It is those who would force their activities down other peoples throats (literally in the case of smoking) who are intolerant.

Originally Posted by Ashtraylia
Exactly, ventilation does get rid of smoke, submarines use them for goodness sake,
Untill they invent a ventilation system that teleports smoke from the smokers lungs and cigarette end to the ventilators then the smoke will still circulate. Even Carlitistia's link to a firm who make these things admitted that their tame chef had to keep one of his restaurants smoke free till very late as all it was doing was creating a stream of smoke. Submarines? I thought you were not allowed to smoke on submarines as the risk of fire is pretty serious shit on a submarine ;) . I may be wrong.

buona sera mio amico cretino Llanarc,

im replying late cos today ive been a busier man then you obviously- you know the world cup and stuff its a busy time. plus i had to fix my remote controller. you clearly dont seem to care about the world cup- well too much to think about a whiff of shs giving you a heartattack. As ive said im too busy to read your posts. Of course the unbiased studies make no relevance cos one cant legislate to save someone the 50cents laundary money. No the studies were not funded by tobacco companies.

no im afraid your wrong the only reason their meaningless is lack of funds- cos theyre not paid either by tobacco or pharmaceutical money. thanks the cigarettes are calming me down-perhaps since you get so emotional you need to have a few tokes yourself- dont want to blow your head do you.

In fact my cigarettes are saving your life- have a think why. its about your behaviour.

And please dont be so rude to my friend Ashtraylia she is simply backing up the truth- ventilation works on submarines. Dunno how much your friends at ASH wasted trying to cover it up. Your getting ludicrous now- when i mentionned the oxygen mask i was only reducing myself to an anti-style of maturity. Im sorry to say by reading your posts you sound like a 2 year old- thats how much sense you make. Your repeating yourself- lack of vocabulary?? i think so.

Carlitistia, your posts are getting more and more rididulous the more you write. The hostility, the wild assumptions, etc.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
buona sera mio amico cretino Llanarc
Personal attack. The last resort of one who is losing an argument ;) .

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
you clearly dont seem to care about the world cup- well too much to think about a whiff of shs giving you a heartattack
A wild assumption. Actually, I'm intensely interested in the world cup and organise my day around it. I can post and watch TV at the same time though. Cheap shot at the effects of SHS on non-smokers does hint at an attitude that doesn't care about others.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
As ive said im too busy to read your posts.
So you are making ill informed replies. Doesn't give them much credibility then.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
Of course the unbiased studies make no relevance cos one cant legislate to save someone the 50cents laundary money. No the studies were not funded by tobacco companies.
Cannot make sense of this one.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
In fact my cigarettes are saving your life- have a think why. its about your behaviour.
This is either more gobbledygook or a personal threat :eek: . Yet another resort of someone who has lost the argument ;) .

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
And please dont be so rude to my friend Ashtraylia she is simply backing up the truth- ventilation works on submarines. Dunno how much your friends at ASH wasted trying to cover it up.
I wasn't rude to her. I merely made a point. I even used a smilie to lighten the mood. I had heard that submarines did not allow smoking because of the risk of fire. Also they aren't too keen on someone going cold turkey on a long voyage if they run out of ciggies. Close quarters and all that. If you read the post you would also have seen I admitted I may be wrong. BTW, I don't know anybody from ASH nor have I ever accessed anything about them anywhere.

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
Your getting ludicrous now- when I mentionned the oxygen mask i was only reducing myself to an anti-style of maturity. Im sorry to say by reading your posts you sound like a 2 year old- thats how much sense you make.
Immature people make up simplistic answers to complex issues then intersperse their arguments with abuse and wild assumptions. I'm afraid you have met all those criteria :( . I, on the other hand, have tried to put across the complex nature of the issue and why I have come to the conclusions I have in as clear a fashion as I can. That is why my posts have been relatively lengthy (though still only a few seconds worth of reading :rolleyes: ). Your lack of an attention span, hostility and puerile arguments would indicate you should look in the mirror if you want to see immaturity ;) . Though I would prefer to think it's just your style of writing that's giving an incorrect impression :) .

Originally Posted by Carlitistia
Your repeating yourself- lack of vocabulary?? i think so.
You're right, I have been. But have you ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black ;) ? I kept having to repeat myself as you didn't seem to remember what I had said before. You tell me now it was because you haven't actually read what I said :rolleyes: .

In keeping with that last point, the circular nature of the argument lately has lead me to believe it is pointless continuing the dialogue further. So go on .... have a free shot. I wont even bother to reply. I wonder if you'll be mature about it or resort to abuse and wild assumptions again :rolleyes: .

Hi Llanarc, my posts are maybe getting a bit rediculous, ok so lets mature up. The fact is you have not brought any evidence of your own whatsoever- no links- so i havent lost the argument. Its all bluff- as most antismokers when talking about passive smoking. Bluff often does work with the ignorant however. Im sure it could be the case for the US getting a man on the moon. That could all be a con-trick too for all we know. Im sure you know the second hand smoke is simply a nuiscance. In fact can you name two or three people who died due to ETS exposure. Im challenging you.

Ok is that better- your posts i can now read. Ok heres this quote from Wayne@ http://www.thebigdebate.org/ :


How could anyone ever tell if there was any harm done from passive smoking, as each and every one of us is breathing in toxic fumes all the time, take a look up in the air when the sun is shinning right, there are millions of particles floating about, and millions of particles floating about that you cant see, which are very toxic.

Did you see the latest David Attenborough program, as it showed cars and homes produce lots of toxic fumes, that goes into tones, you antis get rid of your cars and homes, and I will my cigarettes, as the average family of four, produces about “40 TONES”, have to repeat that “40 TONES” of toxic fumes each year from the petrol, diesel, electricity, gas and so forth, diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens, but do we complain about that, damn right we do not, and a person who smokers 20 per day, the toxic fumes produced , is less than a ounce, so please what do you say about that, please get your facts right before you debate on the internet.

Why not smoking you may ask, Because UK Government statistics from 1970 to 2006 show smoking is in decline worldwide. in 1970, 45% of the UK smoked, now in 2006, only 25% smoke, that is means the total smokers in the UK in the last 36 years has nearly halved, HOWEVER cancer is on the rise, Between 1971 and 2003, the age-standardised incidence of cancer increased by around 17 per cent in males and 40 per cent in females.

So you have not got to be Einstein, to work out something else is causing the cancer, and as from statistics its not tobacco.

The Irish Tobacco Control figures show a natural decline in smoking also, BUT “SINCE” the ban in Ireland, the natural decline has ended, and the number of smokers has increased.

See below,
www.otc.ie/chart.asp?image=fig_1.1.jpg

So basically smoking bans increase the rate of smoking and................ im sure you read the above. Basically it says many things are carcinogens and one is almost always breathing in toxic air.

So you think one should legislate against something which could make one's clothes dirty?? Get a life Llanarc.

And no the studies were not funded by Philip Morris or whoever else- dave hitt said smoking itself is harmful to the smoker- hes saying the truth.

I looked at poll. praise god, allah, or whomever, for the most important fact shown:

Most voters, DID NOT, smoke.

YES! good! breath easy.

any smoker who does not think suicide is a good thing is exhibiting double standards.

second hand smoke is dangerous to others. but i dont mind walking past smokers on streets, thats not going to kill me. being in a room with 50 smokers tho, that will SERIOUSLY harm you.

Doesn't it depend on the kind of second-hand smoke? I mean, how many people would object to a roomfull of people smoking fattys?

sorry this is what I mean it is the Welsh site, please do not say it will not happen elsewhere. Now smokers reportly give Mr Brown over 10 billion and supposedly we get blamed for every illness they say cost 1.something billion?
will the overweight be charged by the pound as they give Mr brown nothing.
and alcohol is taxed to the hilt too. funny it does not say anything about aids,drug users, criminals who would all get there stuff for free and they give Gordon Brown zilch. That is where I am coming from. So large people who think this blanket ban is great for a legal product, Hmm you are next on the hit list. When you are made to feel like an outcast who will want to defend you. That is what I mean by a slippery slope. Lots of smokers who give up put on weight, so you'll be dammed if you do and dammed if you don't

A survey found that 32% of people believe smokers, heavy drinkers, overeaters and the idle should receive lower priority for medical treatment than those who try to live healthily.

The Irish Tobacco Control figures show a natural decline in smoking also, BUT “SINCE” the ban in Ireland, the natural decline has ended, and the number of smokers has increased.

See below,
www.otc.ie/chart.asp?image=fig_1.1.jpg

So basically smoking bans increase the rate of smoking and................ im sure you read the above. Basically it says many things are carcinogens and one is almost always breathing in toxic air.


That link shows an overall decline, not an increase. It deosn't matter whether or not the ban was in place or not. The ban in Ireland was a workplace ban- not an all out ban, therefore you are drawing your conclusions falsely.

Mexico city's air is equivalent to smoking 2 packs of cigs a day, so I would definitely say it's worse than being in a bar.

So it is in Oxfordshire-London and many more. Shame they do not put warnings on polluted places like this before you enter-so fragile people know what they are walking into- like one of the posters have said smoking was on the decrease although I think it has now been made more appealing than ever-like drugs are banned and Countries are rife with them-they are not advertised either-yet cancer is on the rise, so how do they make that out.

just found on smokers inc site
"Life insurance companies are considering increased premiums for overweight clients because so many are dying prematurely from heart disease and cancer. Cancer Research UK has warned that obesity will soon cause more cancers than smoking."



Llanarc
You may not have a problem with perfumes,or deodrants, but I would have thought asthmatics do-plug in air freshners ect ect.
Not offended by the subs, because I believe I am right and you are wrong

Ashtraylia said:
So it is in Oxfordshire-London and many more. Shame they do not put warnings on polluted places like this before you enter-so fragile people know what they are walking into- like one of the posters have said smoking was on the decrease although I think it has now been made more appealing than ever-like drugs are banned and Countries are rife with them-they are not advertised either-yet cancer is on the rise, so how do they make that out.


Ashtraylia is right how is it possible that cancer is on the rise whilst smoking is on decrease. Also they should put warnings on polluted places.

Somewhere between dangerous and a load of BS.

Llanarc me and Ashtraylia miss you please come back!!!!:) :) Ashtraylia loves you:) and you know it you dont know what your missing, cmon post again!!!!

Passive smoking is theft, and I want my smoke back.:)