NationStates Jolt Archive

Looks like more fuel to feed the fire of workplace and restaurant smoking prohibitions. I for one am glad. I don't think it's too much to ask someone to smoke otudoors. It was always a great way to be social with others when we had to smoke outdoors when clubbing in Hollywood, plus it made being indoors pleasant.

Hopefully this will convince some parents not to smoke around their kids. Of course the parents would have to actually care about the kids I spoze.

Surgeon general warns of secondhand smoke (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/involuntary_smoking_1;_ylt=ApVArky8o4qLDYAwNfqPzq2Q1EMF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

"There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," he said. The report "eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace."

Among other findings:

_Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilation systems don't eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.

_There is good evidence that comprehensive smoking bans, like those in New York City and Boston, don't economically hurt the hospitality industry.

_Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but discourage active smoking by employees.

_Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease. Don't ever smoke around a sick relative, Carmona advised

_Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent.

_There isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive. California earlier this year cited that link in becoming the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant.

_On the plus side, blood measurements of a nicotine byproduct show that exposure to secondhand smoke has decreased. Levels dropped by 75 percent in adults and 68 percent in children between the early 1990s and 2002. However, not only has children's exposure declined less rapidly, but levels of that byproduct among children are more than twice as high as in nonsmoking adults.

I admit I am ignorant in the aspects of smoking.

However, is there really a threat by it?

My mom was a carton a week smoker till I was 7. I was around many smokers growing up and I like a good smoky pub/bar. ;)

My sister and I have no perceived side affects.

Is not general smog a factor?

I remember one study I saw on TV. They showed the mice in a plastic box and they pumped smoke into it. That kind of setting we would all die from it.

Is there a "neutral" source of info on it?

Is there a "neutral" source of info on it?
Yes. Your nose. *nod*

Yes. Your nose. *nod*

Are you suggesting I am a brown noser? :mad:

:p

Until I opened it, I thought this thread would be a discussion on different ways to cook fish... And what the fish themselves were doing to combat being smoked over a fire.

I admit I am ignorant in the aspects of smoking.

However, is there really a threat by it?

My mom was a carton a week smoker till I was 7. I was around many smokers growing up and I like a good smoky pub/bar. ;)

My sister and I have no perceived side affects.

Is not general smog a factor?

I remember one study I saw on TV. They showed the mice in a plastic box and they pumped smoke into it. That kind of setting we would all die from it.

Is there a "neutral" source of info on it?

I believe the article said that they used several of the most reliable studies they could find to come to the conclusion. I didn't see links to the studies though. I'll tyr to find the report they were talking about... maybe that links to teh studies.

It's just another way that we can demonize smokers. If you don't want to sit next to a smoker, don't sit next to them, but don't stop them from enjoying their cigarette. "Don't put your morality on someone else."

Here is the full report:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

It's just another way that we can demonize smokers. If you don't want to sit next to a smoker, don't sit next to them, but don't stop them from enjoying their cigarette. "Don't put your morality on someone else."

I say if you want to smoke in a public place... go outside and dont make me have to get up just because you sat down near me and lit one up.

Multiple studies have found that your smoke is harmful to me (and first-hand experience proves it). Until the opposite is true, I would like to see it prohibited in restaurants.

It's just another way that we can demonize smokers. If you don't want to sit next to a smoker, don't sit next to them, but don't stop them from enjoying their cigarette. "Don't put your morality on someone else."

The report deals in facts. Just as it is illegal to shoot someone, it is illegal to poison them with your smoke. You should be able to do it at home, and outside, if not on a public sidewalk, but you should not be able to do it where you will harm someone else. Feel free to kill yourself, but you may not kill me.

Are you suggesting I am a brown noser? :mad:

:p

That wasn't my intent. My intent was to suggest that with only a few exceptions, most things that smell bad do so for a good reason; because they're toxic. So if you don't like the way something smells, trust your nose.

But now that you mention it... ;)

The report deals in facts. Just as it is illegal to shoot someone, it is illegal to poison them with your smoke. You should be able to do it at home, and outside, if not on a public sidewalk, but you should not be able to do it where you will harm someone else. Feel free to kill yourself, but you may not kill me.

The point I'm making, is that let individual restaurant, etc. owners decide. In general they will prefer the non-smoker, but if they want to have a smoking restaurant, or a combined smoking/non-smoking, then you are always free to refuse to do business with them. By your very refusal to do business with them, you will create unmet demand for new non-smoking restaurants, and other owners will gladly comply. My only point is that, let the smokers be, and let your self be. It's the best compromise.

Here is the full report:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Thanks!

Hmpf. Yet more reading to my ever growing stack of stuff to read! ;)

The point I'm making, is that let individual restaurant, etc. owners decide. In general they will prefer the non-smoker, but if they want to have a smoking restaurant, or a combined smoking/non-smoking, then you are always free to refuse to do business with them. By your very refusal to do business with them, you will create unmet demand for new non-smoking restaurants, and other owners will gladly comply. My only point is that, let the smokers be, and let your self be. It's the best compromise.

I'm fine with that, as long as the smoking/non-smoking status of a restraunt is announced so that no one goes there expecting there to not be smoke. For asthmatics like myself one little whiff can ruin your whole day. Restraunts with smoking in them will have to not be attached to other buildings which could be polluted by their smoke (so no smoking sections in a mall), and be addequately ventilated away from public sidewalks.

The point I'm making, is that let individual restaurant, etc. owners decide. In general they will prefer the non-smoker, but if they want to have a smoking restaurant, or a combined smoking/non-smoking, then you are always free to refuse to do business with them. By your very refusal to do business with them, you will create unmet demand for new non-smoking restaurants, and other owners will gladly comply. My only point is that, let the smokers be, and let your self be. It's the best compromise.

And the toxic hazard to the employess is what? An occucational risk? Are there any OSHA handbooks on secondhand smoke? :p

I'm fine with that, as long as the smoking/non-smoking status of a restraunt is announced so that no one goes there expecting there to not be smoke. For asthmatics like myself one little whiff can ruin your whole day. Restraunts with smoking in them will have to not be attached to other buildings which could be polluted by their smoke (so no smoking sections in a mall), and be addequately ventilated away from public sidewalks.

Well, to extend this same argument. Why not let individual landlords decide whether their complexes/malls will be smoking or non-smoking. The same logic would apply, a non-smoking restaurant that's next to a smoking something-or-other would lose your business, creating demand for a non-smoking mall. Then, an entrepreneur, realizing that there is a demand for a 100% non-smoking mall, will create one and require ALL businesses inside the mall to be non-smoking. The reason they will do this is that they will want to gain your patronage because of the motivation to get your business and the money that comes along with it.

Well, to extend this same argument. Why not let individual landlords decide whether their complexes/malls will be smoking or non-smoking. The same logic would apply, a non-smoking restaurant that's next to a smoking something-or-other would lose your business, creating demand for a non-smoking mall. Then, an entrepreneur, realizing that there is a demand for a 100% non-smoking mall, will create one and require ALL businesses inside the mall to be non-smoking. The reason they will do this is that they will want to gain your patronage because of the motivation to get your business and the money that comes along with it.

Given the financial difficulty of opening a mall, I would have to dissagree with that. It would become impractical to have non-smoking malls, and they wouldn't occur.

You have a fish in charge of your healthcare system?

Only in America...

Given the financial difficulty of opening a mall, I would have to dissagree with that. It would become impractical to have non-smoking malls, and they wouldn't occur.

It's really not that hard.

In some industries you can make a "barrier-to-entry" argument, though I'm dubious even if someone makes a case of barrier-to-entry....however, in terms of restaurants, retail shops, and rental space, I don't think anyone can seriously make a case that those markets are anything but extremely competitive.

Plus, even if there was only 1 mall in all of 100 miles, that mall still wants to maximize the contentment of its customers because they don't want people to feel uncomfortable in the mall and decrease the possibility of customer spending.

It's really not that hard.

In some industries you can make a "barrier-to-entry" argument, though I'm dubious even if someone makes a case of barrier-to-entry....however, in terms of restaurants, retail shops, and rental space, I don't think anyone can seriously make a case that those markets are anything but extremely competitive.

Plus, even if there was only 1 mall in all of 100 miles, that mall still wants to maximize the contentment of its customers because they don't want people to feel uncomfortable in the mall and decrease the possibility of customer spending.

The problem with opening a mall is not only it's price (which is significant), but finding the space. Malls are large and have to be in fairly highly populated region. Hence, most malls have to purchase expensive land (since land is at a premium). There is a fairly significant barier to entery into the market, although market forces would probably force most malls to go "non-smoking". The problem is that we could get a period of almost anarchic smoking regulation before market forces acted, which would create a period of worsening health.

The problem with opening a mall is not only it's price (which is significant), but finding the space. Malls are large and have to be in fairly highly populated region. Hence, most malls have to purchase expensive land (since land is at a premium). There is a fairly significant barier to entery into the market, although market forces would probably force most malls to go "non-smoking". The problem is that we could get a period of almost anarchic smoking regulation before market forces acted, which would create a period of worsening health.

The only reason it would take "anarchic" market forces so much time is that I'm not convinced everyone would jump on board with your arguments in the first place. I just don't see where you have the right to tell some other property owner how to run their business. Does someone else tell you how to decorate your dorm/apartment?

The only reason it would take "anarchic" market forces so much time is that I'm not convinced everyone would jump on board with your arguments in the first place. I just don't see where you have the right to tell some other property owner how to run their business. Does someone else tell you how to decorate your dorm/apartment?

Do we allow property owners to choose to allow people to shoot other people on their property? It is basically anarchic in nature.

Do we allow property owners to choose to allow people to shoot other people on their property? It is basically anarchic in nature.

That's true. Ban smoking for all.

yeah but smoking makes you cool.

yeah but smoking makes you cool.

Bring back Joe Camel.

Smoking kills people? NO IT DOESNT!!! :eek:

/sarcasm

Smoking kills people? NO IT DOESNT!!! :eek:

/sarcasm

I'm not convinced it kills people that badly.

Is smoking a right or a privelege?

I admit I am ignorant in the aspects of smoking.

However, is there really a threat by it?

My mom was a carton a week smoker till I was 7. I was around many smokers growing up and I like a good smoky pub/bar. ;)

My sister and I have no perceived side affects.

Is not general smog a factor?

I remember one study I saw on TV. They showed the mice in a plastic box and they pumped smoke into it. That kind of setting we would all die from it.

Is there a "neutral" source of info on it?

Wait wait. You draw your evidence from the fact that you and your sister aren't dying of lung cancer (a sample size of two, unless I'm mistaken) and cast doubt on the Surgeon General of the United States' neutrality? Somehow, I don't think the Surgeon General "has it in" for the smokers and is skewing the results.

Basically, I subscribe to the "do whatever you like, so long as you don't hurt anyone else without their consent" doctrine. This is proof that smoking falls firmly into the "hurting others" category, and hence should be illegal to expose unwilling people (i.e. those in public places) to the risk.

I for one, didn't need to be told by the surgeon general that smoke is bad to breath in. I know can't frigging stand visiting my chainsmoking in-laws, simply because I feel an asthma attack comming on every time I enter their clam baked house.

It's a pretty good excuse to get out of visiting all together, actually :D

I don't think that municipalities or states should ban smoking in restaraunts, instead leaving that decision to the individual business owners.

If the Sturgeon General bans smoking, he'll set up a roaring black market business for the Codfather.

If the Sturgeon General bans smoking, he'll set up a roaring black market business for the Codfather.
Creative Pun of the Day!