What is your attitude to smoking?

[Yersinia]

Finally an anti-smoking campaign was launched by the EU here are some examples-> To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. or To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Those gross pictures shown in the former link are going to be printed on cigarette boxes.
This led to a smoking ban in public places in many European countries! Nevertheless, Germany has a big tobacco lobby and that's why it was difficult to impose a smoking ban. But fortunately, since 1st September 2007 Germany is smoke-free after all! I htink this was the right time as a smoke-free life style is the new emerging trend in countries like UK, France, Germany, Italy etc. I support this trend as I have a right to be protected from harmful factors endangering my health. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
How is your country tackling smoking? How is your attitude to the whole smoking problem. Let's discuss! *yay*

[orange]

Its my air and it should be clean! If you have to smoke, smoke in someone else's air!

[qwerty]

ok so the thing that gets me about this subject is where is it appropriate to smoke.

I'm quiet happy if a person tells me that they do not like it when I smoke around them and generally I'll actively not light up in public places, I will smoke away from people. But when I go to the effort to segregate myself from people who don't like it and then people come to me and start complaining that is when I get annoyed.

Take the Australian no-smoking inside pubs(100% of all internal areas are smoke free) laws that came into effect in June. The place I work at has built outdoor terraces for the smokers in areas that were previously unused, I mean unused - no-one would go out there at all (trust me I work the camera system now and I had to check for people trying to climb through the windows all night). A month after the new laws came in there were radio polls and tv reports about clubs such as the one I work at cheating the system and the new laws and anti-smoking groups were up in arms. All this because anti-smokers forced the smokers outside and then when the smokers went outside the non-smokers followed.
It's also havoc for the business and for me as if smokers are forced to physically walk out of the club then we have to monitor them for safety concerns.

At the end of the day smokers tried to do the responsible thing while keeping their choice to smoke and they've been burnt for it.

I'm not trying to say smoking is a good thing or promote it in anyway but I think it's wrong that people force their views on others completely. It's like racism and segregation except that being a smoker is medically bad for you.

[orange]

Take the Australian no-smoking inside pubs(100% of all internal areas are smoke free) laws that came into effect in June. The place I work at has built outdoor terraces for the smokers in areas that were previously unused, I mean unused - no-one would go out there at all (trust me I work the camera system now and I had to check for people trying to climb through the windows all night). A month after the new laws came in there were radio polls and tv reports about clubs such as the one I work at cheating the system and the new laws and anti-smoking groups were up in arms. All this because anti-smokers forced the smokers outside and then when the smokers went outside the non-smokers followed.
It's also havoc for the business and for me as if smokers are forced to physically walk out of the club then we have to monitor them for safety concerns.

At the end of the day smokers tried to do the responsible thing while keeping their choice to smoke and they've been burnt for it.

That happens a lot and it isn't right! if non-smokers go into a designated smoking area so that they can complain about smoke they should be ...well ummmm... delt with. I don't like smoke and prefer to stay away from it so I do when I can. But I dont cry about it if I pass a smoker when I'm walking to class. If a smoker wont go away if they know I don't like the smoking or when they stand smoking in public areas clearly marked for no-smoking that makes me mad but I don't say anything because it would literally do no good (smokers that I'm around aren't as nice as you qwerty, mostly the 'I'm better than everyone' type).

My previous post is my thoughts on it, not what I practice.

[thegnat]

I'm the exact same way orange - along with your previous post as thoughts.

So I did vote for my thoughts (My right to fresh air!) and what I practice (I don't mind passive smoking (as long as I can get away from the smoke!))

I'm strongly against smoking as someone who smoked in my family got lung cancer.

It's not healthy for the smokers or people around them. But it is the smoker's choice.

[Paul V]

Its my air and it should be clean! If you have to smoke, smoke in someone else's air!

Precisely. If you want to ruin your health, go ahead and do it, just don't drag me along with you.

[radioactivez0r]

I don't understand smoking, but I understand that people, even close friends whom I consider intelligent, do it. That said, as long as I'm not in an area where the smoke is confined and I have to deal with it, I generally don't care much.

I do get aggravated walking into and out of my building at work through the back because that's the designated "smoke area" and I basically have to walk through 5 feet of clouds. That's gross.

[rwyatt365]

I'm an ex-smoker (though not rabidly so) so I sympathize with those that do smoke - at least the ones that make some kind of effort not to irritate non-smokers. So if they can keep it to themselves and not affect others, then smoke away!

[TruorTupnm]

I don't smoke and have never really considered trying because I am not a large fan of the smell. I also despise the scents of most coffees and perfumes and things, which I have been told makes me weird, but oh well. When somebody smokes around me, I move out of the way of its drift if it is not inconvenient for me. If I'm not moving, oh well, I'll deal with it and won't make a large deal. If it's someone I know, I'll exaggerate a large deal but won't move away or anything. Mayhaps move around to be away from its drift, but that doesn't always work. I'll regularly chide them for smoking and point out many of the problems that they already know about, but we both know that I don't actually care. They can have their fun.

[cielo market]

Smoking?.....
*pauses*
..."eew."

[The Rose]

I smoked for a few years a long time ago. I can't stand the smell of it now. I avoid breathing it.

I am very grateful for the US policy that bans smoking in most public places.

[OneBadMother]

I don't mind if other people smoke, as long as not around me. Some people, like my grandpa, have been smoking since they were fourteen and don't care to stop now, and I don't feel like impeding on his choice. If it's a friend or a significant other I will think differently, and have to wrestle between my belief in free choice and independence for others and knowing that it's not good for them to continue.

[AllAboutSoul]

Currently I'm a smoker who'd like/trying to quit. Who's with me? Who'll cheer me on?

That's pathetic.

Ignore.

[INTJohn]

I smoked for 18 years and quit the day my daughter was born - haven't touched one since. I'm living proof of the adage "There's nothing worse than a reformed smoker".......as I absolutely detest it.

If someone blows smoke my way, I have no problem spitting in their food or drink and have done it a couple times.

INTJohn

[stasis]

For the sake of clarity, I'm a non-smoker.

I think that the argument to have smoking banned in public places while automobiles are not banned in public places is rather like asking a person not to light a match in the middle of a blazing forest fire because, you know, fire burns stuff. It's one of those pop-political issues that politicians use as electoral currency. A fad.

[rocksteady]

For the sake of clarity, I'm a non-smoker.

I think that the argument to have smoking banned in public places while automobiles are not banned in public places is rather like asking a person not to light a match in the middle of a blazing forest fire, because, you know, fire burns stuff. It's one of those pop-political issues that politicians use as electoral currency. A fad.

this is how I feel as well. I think social stigma is enough, and each business should be allowed to decide it's own policy. This is just another place the government doesn't really belong.

[Myrak]

I don't smoke and never want to. I've had to deal with it my entire life since a family member smokes, and the smell makes me physically sick.

I don't like going around banning everything, but I do treasure my fresh air.

[Drayakir]

A smoker and proud of it.

Although I understand when people used to ask me not to smoke where it could bother them, but if people tell me not to do it on the street, because the wind blows smoke at them- then I tell them to die in a fire. It's everyone's air, and since I don't drive, I'm sure I'm not adding that much to pollution.

It's my body- I kill it how I want to. = )

[Winden]

I could probably live with the fact that it clogs your lungs with tar, and I suppose I could also tolerate the 4€ expense for a single packet of cigarettes.

What kept me from becoming addicted was the awful, persistent smell it left on my fingers. I really hated it, and I hated the fact it would refuse to be washed away by water and soap.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with smoking, but a non-smoker's right to clean air comes before a smoker's right to light up in closed public places such as restaurants, trains or hospitals. Though I have to admit, I do miss the good old days when you could walk into any pub in Italy and be greeted by a thick cloud of yellowish malodorous miasma. I always thought it gave the atmosphere an artsy touch of decadence.

[Antares]

There's a law to no smoking indoors in Hong Kong. In the end, I suffocate whenever I go outside. It's like a pollution wasteland, especially on the streets. I have nothing against smoking if it affects only yourself. After all, others shouldn't pay for your decisions. Achieving that would be near-impossible, so I'm against smoking in general and its better for everyone if no one smokes but I'm not for 'banning' anything because 1. I have no right to 2. It really doesn't concern me if I grab one mouthful of smoke along the way. I support anyone who's trying to quit and I must applaude the reformers for their strength of will. Quitting an addiction is sometimes the hardest thing to do. ;)

[MichaelH]

I'm uncomfortable with the smoking ban in principle. I was mildly against the smoking ban when it was put into place in California.

In practice, though, it's been 100% positive effects since being enacted. It's great being able to buy groceries that don't smell like cigarettes. I go out to eat more because I don't have to put up with the stinky, sticky fog drifting over from the smoking section. (A "non-smoking" section in a restaurant is so unsuccessful a concept as to be funny.) And somehow, smokers have still managed to smoke in designated areas and their own homes. I'm not comfortable with abridging people's freedoms, and I don't want to manufacture a "right" to clean air, but in my opinion the public benefit of the smoking ban outweighs the inconvenience to individual smokers.

[Hdier]

I think that the world would be a better place if smokers were all put on the same landmass, and anyone who didn't mind ciggaretes could live with them if they wanted.

[Lucid]

What I think is interesting about the smoking debate and the 2nd hand smoke hysteria is this:

Up until about 10 or 15 years ago, most people smoked. Smoking was allowed in office buildings, movie theaters, elevators, airplanes, etc. There was no non-smoking section. Just smoking. Pregnant women smoked. people smoked in cars with children, in homes with children. My own mother has smoked my entire life and never stepped outside to do it. When I was a kid, people didn't step outside to smoke. I do not have cancer or emphezema (sp?).

Is smoking around children a good idea? Probably not. Is smoking while you're pregnant good for the baby? No. Is smoking bad for you and others? Yeah, I think it probably is and these are all good reasons not to smoke, not to smoke while you're around children, not to smoke indoors, etc.

But, for several hundred years, people have been smoking whenever and where ever they pleased and most people were pretty much ok. That's not to say that we should keep on doing things that are bad for us just because we always have, just that people should really calm down about it. I understand that it smells bad and can be unpleasant, but second hand smoke is very unlikely to kill you in small amounts.

[prometheus]

Where I use to live long before any smoking laws were passed one bar decided to go non-smoking. It was their right to do as they chose with their property. They got a lot of business, and all the pantiwaste could go out to the bar and not have to whine, and all the smokers could do what they had always done, and not have to listen to the whining. The free market solved this problem there, and could it could work everywhere. We don't need any more laws controlling us. The only time you need government intervention is when a minority wants to control a majority, the market will dictates otherwise.

[banzai]

I don't like it, but I don't like a lot of things about public places that I have no control over (such as noise pollution) so I just deal with it.

[Epicurus]

Actually I think tobacco smells good, and yes I am willing to increase my risks of having to blow my head of because I would get uncurable cancer. I don't smoke a lot at all and not planning on, but I care more about life than I do about death so it doesn't matter if I statistically have much higher chance of any disease or shorter life when you can enjoy the time and life.

I also agree with prometheus.

[tadatanome]

Its my air and it should be clean! If you have to smoke, smoke in someone else's air!

Let's follow this logic. Do you drive a car? I have to breathe the air, and live under the ozone hole that your motor vehicle helps to create.

[Booko]

Now that smoking in public places has been banned in my state, there are now public places I can safely go. huzzah!

I absolutely recognize the right of others to smoke if it pleases them to do so.

I do not, however, cede my right to appear in public without fear of triggering a debilitating migraine that will last for days and is not affected by any pain medication available. That's what one whiff will get me.

The thing is, organic cigarettes never do that and pipe tobacco doesn't either.

Makes you wonder what toxic crap is in cigarettes.

Well, actually I don't have to wonder about some of them -- I could give you a list if anyone's interested.

I don't do well with artificial perfumes, some cleaning products, or soy candles. Glade plug ins will take me out.

For those of you who never considered what airborne particles/chemicals might do to those around you, check this out:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The article may question its existence, but it's a very real phenomenon associated with several chronic conditions, from asthma and allergies to CFS.

[Epicurus]

Let's follow this logic. Do you drive a car? I have to breathe the air, and live under the ozone hole that your motor vehicle helps to create.Fat people also produce more ''dangerous'' gases that will cause the earth to melt because of global warming. We have to ban everything and tell people what they should do to not get cancer etc. Freedom causes death! We must ban it!

Actually I could do with a public ban, but I don't like that because it will only feed that other side of lunatics that wants regulations on everything, or the political correctness and see the idiots march on in the rows.

[DeepPurple]

I chose the first and last options. I have never seen a pregnant woman smoke and even if I did, I wouldn't walk up to a complete stranger and try to tell them whats what.

[Danisty]

ok so the thing that gets me about this subject is where is it appropriate to smoke.

I'm quiet happy if a person tells me that they do not like it when I smoke around them and generally I'll actively not light up in public places, I will smoke away from people. But when I go to the effort to segregate myself from people who don't like it and then people come to me and start complaining that is when I get annoyed.

Take the Australian no-smoking inside pubs(100% of all internal areas are smoke free) laws that came into effect in June. The place I work at has built outdoor terraces for the smokers in areas that were previously unused, I mean unused - no-one would go out there at all (trust me I work the camera system now and I had to check for people trying to climb through the windows all night). A month after the new laws came in there were radio polls and tv reports about clubs such as the one I work at cheating the system and the new laws and anti-smoking groups were up in arms. All this because anti-smokers forced the smokers outside and then when the smokers went outside the non-smokers followed.
It's also havoc for the business and for me as if smokers are forced to physically walk out of the club then we have to monitor them for safety concerns.

At the end of the day smokers tried to do the responsible thing while keeping their choice to smoke and they've been burnt for it.

I'm not trying to say smoking is a good thing or promote it in anyway but I think it's wrong that people force their views on others completely. It's like racism and segregation except that being a smoker is medically bad for you.I agree. If there is a designated place, I am always more than happy to go there to smoke, but if you don't smoke and you don't like it, don't frelling follow me!

this is how I feel as well. I think social stigma is enough, and each business should be allowed to decide it's own policy. This is just another place the government doesn't really belong.I don't necessarily think all public places should allow smoking, but surely restaurants and bars should be able to choose which clientèle they cater to.

Oh, and I didn't vote because the poll is biased. There is no option for "I smoke and I respect others when they ask me not to smoke around them."

[Booko]

I agree. If there is a designated place, I am always more than happy to go there to smoke, but if you don't smoke and you don't like it, don't frelling follow me!

Yeah, back when you could smoke in restaurants sometimes there would be a non-smoker complaining because someone lit up *in the smoking section*. Seriously, at the Waffle House you get to pick your own seat -- why'd you sit next to a smoking table then??

I don't necessarily think all public places should allow smoking, but surely restaurants and bars should be able to choose which clientèle they cater to.


The result of that was there were darned few places I could walk into. With the current ban, everyone can go into a bar or restaurant.

I will say this though -- I think more could be done to provide smoking areas, and especially at airports, where it's no issue for those of us who'd get sick and surely no expense for the airport.

Considering how long people can be stuck in airports, it only makes sense to provide some sort of accomodation for smokers.

Oh, and I didn't vote because the poll is biased. There is no option for "I smoke and I respect others when they ask me not to smoke around them."

Now that you mention it, yeah, that option should be there.

My mom smokes, but she's respectful of others and will ask first. Everyone but me, anyway, but the one time I ended up in the ER she kinda got the message and now she doesn't.

[Danisty]

The result of that was there were darned few places I could walk into. With the current ban, everyone can go into a bar or restaurant.You can hardly call the outcome fair either though. And personally, I can't drink a beer unless I can smoke. That's the only time I enjoy beer. And we actually did have restaurants in Savannah that were non-smoking before the ban was put into affect. There needs to be some wiggle-room. There has to be a way to make it so restaurants can choose, but not so that all restaurants would want to.

[Booko]

You can hardly call the outcome fair either though. And personally, I can't drink a beer unless I can smoke. That's the only time I enjoy beer. And we actually did have restaurants in Savannah that were non-smoking before the ban was put into affect. There needs to be some wiggle-room. There has to be a way to make it so restaurants can choose, but not so that all restaurants would want to.

See, I can't drink a beer without Mexican food. Go figure.

If you gave the restaurants the option to put in place effective air filters, they still wouldn't do it, because it's too expensive.

We had restaurants here in Atlanta that were non-smoking too. All national cookie-cutter restaurants I'd rather die than eat in. Gordon Ramsey would use the F word liberally if forced to eat any of that pablum.

I'd think bars could have an easier time of it, and really wouldn't have had a problem if they left bars a choice. If I really wanted a drink in a non-smoking place, I'd just go to a restaurant. For clubs, there were some good coffee houses here already.

They probably would've had to go smoke-free just for fear of liability suits from waitstaff, though. You know how that works around here.

[Danisty]

See, I can't drink a beer without Mexican food. Go figure.

If you gave the restaurants the option to put in place effective air filters, they still wouldn't do it, because it's too expensive.

We had restaurants here in Atlanta that were non-smoking too. All national cookie-cutter restaurants I'd rather die than eat in. Gordon Ramsey would use the F word liberally if forced to eat any of that pablum.

I'd think bars could have an easier time of it, and really wouldn't have had a problem if they left bars a choice. If I really wanted a drink in a non-smoking place, I'd just go to a restaurant. For clubs, there were some good coffee houses here already.

They probably would've had to go smoke-free just for fear of liability suits from waitstaff, though. You know how that works around here.Wow, we had a lot of locally owned restaurants that were non-smoking...some of them very good. By the way, I like Gordon Ramsey. He reminds me a lot of me.

[niffer]

The only thing I like about it is that I must admit it is a part of many different cultures, historically and looks almost artistic.

Otherwise, I say no to it. Smoking is not behaviour that is proactive in our environment.

[Booko]

Wow, we had a lot of locally owned restaurants that were non-smoking...some of them very good. By the way, I like Gordon Ramsey. He reminds me a lot of me.

I can't think of a single non-smoking restaurant that wasn't something like ApplechiliO'CharleyBennigans. Gag me.

I was safer off in a a Waffle House. I knew what times the contractors came in and I knew where the safer seats were. I waited to go until 10am and was usually fine. They tend to have decent ventilation there too.

I like Gordon Ramsey as well. I admire his aim for perfection and he seems to be fairminded and encouraging when that's called for, which makes his abuse tolerable.

And he certainly knows something about menu planning.

I haven't worked in the restaurant business, but I've done lots of large scale catering. It's a little different in some ways, but you still have to deal with issues like presentation and timing and efficient service.

Nothing bothers me more than a badly thought out buffet, where it's set up to encourage people to clog the area and make it harder to move people through comfortably.

I always give a lot of thought to space planning when I do any catering like that.

Of course, I do that in landscapes too. No surprise really.

[PortInStorm]

Actually I think tobacco smells good, and yes I am willing to increase my risks of having to blow my head of because I would get uncurable cancer. I don't smoke a lot at all and not planning on, but I care more about life than I do about death so it doesn't matter if I statistically have much higher chance of any disease or shorter life when you can enjoy the time and life.

I also agree with prometheus.
Couple things here:
- I understand that you might not care about dying earlier, but the quality of life will be worsened. Excuse me from the boredom of listing all the side effects (during life). And blowing your head off isn't fun for all the others around you. I know- my uncle blew his head off after his second bout with lung cancer (he refused to stop smoking after his first round and a huge chunk of one of his lungs cut out). He used a shotgun in the upstairs bedroom while his wife was home and his dog in the room. She endured months of PTSD after going upstairs to find his shattered skull and brains all over the room and her now-deafened dog. About a year before, a grandfather drowned in his own lungs basically, and this year a friend lost two babies she desperately wanted.
- My only thing against the free-market argument is that employees are sometimes forced by financial need to work wherever they can. And if some employers have a smoking environment, they're forced to compromise their health just to put food on the table.





2ndtimestudent added to this post, 1167 minutes and 32 seconds later...

As a sadistic twist of fate, my neighbour's wife just died this am of lung cancer from smoking. He said she was in tremendous pain. *sigh*

[Lucid]

As a sadistic twist of fate, my neighbour's wife just died this am of lung cancer from smoking. He said she was in tremendous pain. *sigh*

It sounds like you've had some negative personal experiences involving smoking. I'm sorry to hear about your uncle and your neighbor's wife.

But your argument about workers risking their health just to put food on the table in smoking restaurants doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the variety of jobs that are dangerous both in a clear and present way and also in a long-term health effects way. No one is lobbying against police or asbestos removers or glaziers or miners or charcoal manufacturers in order to spare their health. It seems that this "protect the waiters and waitresses of America from secondhand smoke!" argument is something of a false pretense.

In addition, while smoking does reduce the length and quality of one's life, it's not the only thing which can do so. And while I'm absolutely certain that any kind of cancer is an unpleasant way to go, I can think of much worse ways. The fact that so many people in our society die of disease towards the end of their lives in a hospital bed with doctors is an incredible advance. 200 years ago many did not have that luxury.

Just for the record, I don't smoke. But I don't get hysterical about it either. That's the only thing I have against the argument of the anti smoking people. It seems they are making a mountain out of a molehill and trampling on other people's freedoms in the process.

[Hdier]

While I somewhat agree with you, Lucid, I want to point out a few things:

1. Law enforcers keep innocents safe, and are trained to deal with armed criminals.

2. Who says that there shouldn't be people protesting against miners! I will probably will, though for different reasons.

3. You don't become addicted to getting shot or getting buried in an avalanche. You can, however, become addicted to second hand smoke, which is also easier to justify doing.

[Lucid]

While I somewhat agree with you, Lucid, I want to point out a few things:

1. Law enforcers keep innocents safe, and are trained to deal with armed criminals.

2. Who says that there shouldn't be people protesting against miners! I will probably will, though for different reasons.

3. You don't become addicted to getting shot or getting buried in an avalanche. You can, however, become addicted to second hand smoke, which is also easier to justify doing.

I've never in my life heard of anyone becoming addicted to second hand smoke. Can you list some sources for this?

You misunderstand. Not protesting against miners because of the environment, but because they have a dangerous job. And as for the police, no matter how much training they get, it's still a dangerous job. As far as dangerous jobs go, working as a server in a smoking establishment is pretty low on the list.
The reason people are against smoking is because it's unpleasant for people who don't smoke to be around it. The health issues and "it's a dangerous workplace!" arguments are merely red herrings, since there are MUCH more dangerous work places. Is anyone saying, "don't eat crab because those poor crab fishermen have the highest injury/death rate of any profession"? Nope.
In fact, more people die in car accidents than of cancer. Who's lobbying against cars because driving causes more deaths than anything else?

[PortInStorm]

Thanks.... I agree that there are other dangerous occupations and other horrible ways to die, but I disagree with the type of argument that reduces to the lowest common denominator ie. if we don't do anything about something just as bad, why do anything? Think of all the good that would have been left undone. A century or so ago: "Poverty can be just as bad as slavery, and people aren't up in arms about that, so why do anthing about slavery?" Kids die from SIDS etc, so why put them in car seats only to die another way? Other things cause birth defects in babies, so why try to stop mothers from drinking excessively while they're pregnant?

Just because people die in other dangerous workplaces doesn't mean that we can't save them from getting disease in this particular one (a smoking one), or shouldn't try. Additionally, waiting on tables is one of the first jobs people get when they're down and out, one of the only jobs you can get without experience - unlike a policing job. Other entry-level jobs that are dangerous should also be addressed- mining etc. A person can take the "What's the use" attitude and not try to do any good since bad always happens, or they can try to prevent any harm they can, regardless if people are injured or die other ways.

And people aren't lobbying against cars because we've worked to make them safer.

[Lucid]

Thanks.... I agree that there are other dangerous occupations and other horrible ways to die, but I disagree with the type of argument that reduces to the lowest common denominator ie. if we don't do anything about something just as bad, why do anything? Think of all the good that would have been left undone. A century or so ago: "Poverty can be just as bad as slavery, and people aren't up in arms about that, so why do anthing about slavery?" Kids die from SIDS etc, so why put them in car seats only to die another way? Other things cause birth defects in babies, so why try to stop mothers from drinking excessively while they're pregnant?

Just because people die in other dangerous workplaces doesn't mean that we can't save them from getting disease in this particular one (a smoking one), or shouldn't try. Additionally, waiting on tables is one of the first jobs people get when they're down and out, one of the only jobs you can get without experience - unlike a policing job. Other entry-level jobs that are dangerous should also be addressed- mining etc. A person can take the "What's the use" attitude and not try to do any good since bad always happens, or they can try to prevent any harm they can, regardless if people are injured or die other ways.

And people aren't lobbying against cars because we've worked to make them safer.

Yes, I see what you mean, but you misunderstand my argument.

I worry about legislating about these things. Where does it go from prohibiting cigarettes in bars for the workers health to prohibiting crabs to protect fishermen? Especially when crab fishing is so much more dangerous than second hand smoke.

And yes, we have worked to make cars safer. And they're still the leading cause of death in the US.

I'm not making a "what's the use," argument. I'm saying that if you apply these certain standards for these reasons to one situation, you should have to apply those same standards for the same reasons to all applicable situations. And that just because something is dangerous, doesn't mean we can or should legislate against it.

Alcohol does much more harm than cigarettes, but there are very few prohibitionists around it seems. Why should cigarettes be the exceptions to all these rules?

Another interesting thing is this: In Colorado we voted in the 2004 elections on whether to implement a state wide smoking ban. The voters turned the proposal down. In 2006, without a second vote, a smoking ban was legislated anyway, against the wishes of the voters. However, the casinos have an exemption because if people have to step outside to smoke they'll stop gambling. And then the casinos, who have a lot of money and political pull, lose money. Isn't that interesting? If it's so dangerous, why can the rich and powerful opt out of it?

Just because people die in other dangerous workplaces doesn't mean that we can't save them from getting disease in this particular one (a smoking one), or shouldn't try.

So you're saying that we should outlaw asbestos removal? Working on an oil rig? That's another job lots of people get when they are down and out. We all take a certain amount of risk with jobs. And when compared with the dangers of the jobs I just listed, being worried about second hand smoke seems kind of silly, doesn't it?

[Hdier]

I've never in my life heard of anyone becoming addicted to second hand smoke. Can you list some sources for this?

You misunderstand. Not protesting against miners because of the environment, but because they have a dangerous job. And as for the police, no matter how much training they get, it's still a dangerous job. As far as dangerous jobs go, working as a server in a smoking establishment is pretty low on the list.
The reason people are against smoking is because it's unpleasant for people who don't smoke to be around it. The health issues and "it's a dangerous workplace!" arguments are merely red herrings, since there are MUCH more dangerous work places. Is anyone saying, "don't eat crab because those poor crab fishermen have the highest injury/death rate of any profession"? Nope.
In fact, more people die in car accidents than of cancer. Who's lobbying against cars because driving causes more deaths than anything else?

I'm sorry, my point was that you can become addicted to tabbacco through second hand smoke, not that you would be addicted to second hand smoking itself.

However, those jobs do something productive. Smoking doesn't do anything productive, therefore it shouldn't be an occupational hazzard.



PS: I don't necessarilly believe in this argument, I am playing Devils Advocate.

[Lucid]

I'm sorry, my point was that you can become addicted to tabbacco through second hand smoke, not that you would be addicted to second hand smoking itself.

Yes, I knew what your argument was. I've never known anyone to become addicted to smoking through second hand smoke. Nor have I heard anything about this phenomenon. I imagine it's possible, but that you would have to be exposed to an inordinate amount of 2nd hand smoke. Certainly more than one would be exposed to by working at or frequenting establishments where smoking is allowed.


However, those jobs do something productive. Smoking doesn't do anything productive, therefore it shouldn't be an occupational hazzard.

The argument could be made that smoking is productive in that it is relaxing and enjoyable. But for the sake of argument I'll agree with you. Smoking, itself, does nothing productive. Asbestos, itself does nothing productive. Removing asbestos is productive. In the same way that working as a waiter or bartender in a place that allows smoking is productive. 2ndtimestudent was making the argument that working in an environment where smoking is allowed is hazardous. Quite frankly, very few studies have shown this to be the case, and the studies that have shown it prove only that second hand smoke can increase your chances of getting lung cancer by about 2% if you live most of your life with someone who smokes. Not working for a few years in a bar. Not walking through a cloud of it on the street.

I'm trying to point out that there are many jobs that require a certain amount of health hazard risks, but that nobody is throwing a hissy fit about. This, among other things, leads me to believe that the possible health hazard to workers in places that allow smoking is really just poorly thought-out justification for why a portion of the population has legislated that another portion of the population can't do something that is irritating and foul smelling to the former portion of the population. And that would be like vegetarians (many of whom are disgusted by meat) having legislation passed that would prohibit people from eating meat or showing meat being cooked or consumed in public or on TV.

For the record: I am not a smoker.

[Hdier]

I was merely speaking hypothetically/theoretically, I do not have any actual proof other than a few people in my family hanging around other people in my family being around other smokers and, I assume, inhaling the smoke, starting to enjoy it, and starting to smoke which was in not part hindered by the fact that their family is doing it.

OK, I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to explain this, but I won't back down on an argument just because one step is wearisome:

I'm not sure what Asbestos is, exactly, so I'll use Gold. When we extract Gold, we improve our economy and allow us to become more powerful. Extracting the tar and junk that they put in cigarettes does not help, except psychologically, of which their are better ways to deal with. In fact, it damages your body (the country that is extracting the Gold) rather than helping it. It is not productive, extracting Gold is. (I love all of those analogies!)

We need to take one thing at a time. Did America allow all of the groups to vote at one time? No! Working our way up, from waiters/waitresses to the harder stuff like miners is arguably a good, sound, strategy. (Not one that I'd pursue, though, because, as you've pointed out, the miners need saving more than the servers do)

Why did you feel it necessary to tell us you don't smoke? Just curious.

[Lucid]

I was merely speaking hypothetically/theoretically, I do not have any actual proof other than a few people in my family hanging around other people in my family being around other smokers and, I assume, inhaling the smoke, starting to enjoy it, and starting to smoke which was in not part hindered by the fact that their family is doing it.

OK, I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to explain this, but I won't back down on an argument just because one step is wearisome:

I'm not sure what Asbestos is, exactly, so I'll use Gold. When we extract Gold, we improve our economy and allow us to become more powerful. Extracting the tar and junk that they put in cigarettes does not help, except psychologically, of which their are better ways to deal with. In fact, it damages your body (the country that is extracting the Gold) rather than helping it. It is not productive, extracting Gold is. (I love all of those analogies!)

We need to take one thing at a time. Did America allow all of the groups to vote at one time? No! Working our way up, from waiters/waitresses to the harder stuff like miners is arguably a good, sound, strategy. (Not one that I'd pursue, though, because, as you've pointed out, the miners need saving more than the servers do)

Why did you feel it necessary to tell us you don't smoke? Just curious.


Hdier:

Asbestos is a toxic substance that was originally installed in buildings in the mid part of the 20th century in order to make them resistant to fire. Since then, it was discovered that asbestos was extremely bad for your health, so most people who own buildings that have asbestos in them have people come to remove the asbestos, which is a job that is very dangerous to one's person health.
Your argument about gold stimulating the economy could also apply to tobacco and to cigarettes. For one thing, cigarettes are taxed at an exorbitant rate, so the public makes a lot of money from smokers. Also, tobacco was the first (and is still a large) cash crop in the US.
Also, yes, while there are possibly other ways to deal with the psychological things that cigarettes help with it doesn't change the fact that smoking can, in fact be productive... certainly as productive as drinking. And no one's trying to outlaw that in bars and resturaunts.

We need to take one thing at a time. Did America allow all of the groups to vote at one time? No! Working our way up, from waiters/waitresses to the harder stuff like miners is arguably a good, sound, strategy

The entire state of colorado voted at one time. I have no idea what you're talking about, having the miners vote and the waiters and waitresses vote. Presumably, members of both groups voted.
Actually, before the ban was instituted, many waiters and waitresses complained that the ban would reduce their tips. As I understand it, it has.

I was merely speaking hypothetically/theoretically, I do not have any actual proof other than a few people in my family hanging around other people in my family being around other smokers and, I assume, inhaling the smoke, starting to enjoy it, and starting to smoke which was in not part hindered by the fact that their family is doing it.

I appreciate your willingness to admit your ignorance and to admit when you're wrong about something. It's something that I think many INTJ's (including, possibly, myself) could learn to do better. But in this case, it seems like you're not very knowledgeable about the side of the argument you have chosen to support.

[Hdier]

Hdier:

Asbestos is a toxic substance that was originally installed in buildings in the mid part of the 20th century in order to make them resistant to fire. Since then, it was discovered that asbestos was extremely bad for your health, so most people who own buildings that have asbestos in them have people come to remove the asbestos, which is a job that is very dangerous to one's person health.

Thanks!

Your argument about gold stimulating the economy could also apply to tobacco and to cigarettes. For one thing, cigarettes are taxed at an exorbitant rate, so the public makes a lot of money from smokers. Also, tobacco was the first (and is still a large) cash crop in the US.

The problem is that that would be kin to saying that if America bought drugs such as Pot from other countries, it would help the worlds economy. I was talking in a smaller scale, and I though that you were to. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Also, yes, while there are possibly other ways to deal with the psychological things that cigarettes help with it doesn't change the fact that smoking can, in fact be productive... certainly as productive as drinking. And no one's trying to outlaw that in bars and resturaunts.

However, I am not saying that cigarettes should be banned, simply that they shouldn't smoke where it will damage others. Also, see my 'one step at a time' argument.

The entire state of colorado voted at one time. I have no idea what you're talking about, having the miners vote and the waiters and waitresses vote. Presumably, members of both groups voted.
Actually, before the ban was instituted, many waiters and waitresses complained that the ban would reduce their tips. As I understand it, it has.

Sorry, what I meant was that minors, as in minority groups, were slowly inducted into suffrage, and I was comparing Health Hazards to that.

I appreciate your willingness to admit your ignorance and to admit when you're wrong about something. It's something that I think many INTJ's (including, possibly, myself) could learn to do better. But in this case, it seems like you're not very knowledgeable about the side of the argument you have chosen to support.

Maybe the reason that INTJ's don't admit that they are ignorant because most people will tend to say 'well, you're ignorant about that so you're ignorant about all that other stuff'.

Also, I am not really supporting it, I am playing Devils Advocate (as I mentioned earlier), simply because I like to debate and it will help me get a deeper understanding of a topic I am currently undecided about.

[Lucid]

The problem is that that would be kin to saying that if America bought drugs such as Pot from other countries, it would help the worlds economy. I was talking in a smaller scale, and I though that you were to. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

For one thing, if America bought drugs from other countries it might stimulate our economy. But not as much as tobacco does and has, since a huge amount of it is grown domestically.

However, I am not saying that cigarettes should be banned, simply that they shouldn't smoke where it will damage others. Also, see my 'one step at a time' argument.

The problem with your "one step at a time" argument is that many of the professions that require people to come into contact with hazardous materials or dangerous conditions are necessary for society.
You're saying that people shouldn't smoke where it can damage others.
1. The amount of physical damage being or working in a bar with a bunch of second hand smoke is negligible. Unless you mean that it smells bad and is irritating and unpleasant.
2. Driving, in addition to causing many deaths because of accidents, emits chemicals that are damaging both to humans and to the environment. It's not illegal to drive where the chemicals might be harmful to others.


Sorry, what I meant was that minors, as in minority groups, were slowly inducted into suffrage, and I was comparing Health Hazards to that.

Sorry, generally when people say "minors" in my experience, it means people under the age of 18. My bad.
The thing about health hazards, though, is that they are everywhere and we must all deal with them to a certain extent. Singling out one of the minor ones (second hand smoke) is ridiculous.
If we outlaw the jobs that are dangerous not only do we lose the benefits from those industry (such as crabs, lumber, policing, a lack of asbestos, oil and countless others), but we put lots of people out of a job as well.


Maybe the reason that INTJ's don't admit that they are ignorant because most people will tend to say 'well, you're ignorant about that so you're ignorant about all that other stuff'.

I'm only pointing it out here because I think you may wish to learn more before you argue.

Also, I am not really supporting it, I am playing Devils Advocate (as I mentioned earlier), simply because I like to debate and it will help me get a deeper understanding of a topic I am currently undecided about.

That's cool. If that's the case I'm happy to discuss it with you.

[PortInStorm]

Yes, I see what you mean, but you misunderstand my argument.

I worry about legislating about these things. Where does it go from prohibiting cigarettes in bars for the workers health to prohibiting crabs to protect fishermen? Especially when crab fishing is so much more dangerous than second hand smoke.

And yes, we have worked to make cars safer. And they're still the leading cause of death in the US.

I'm not making a "what's the use," argument. I'm saying that if you apply these certain standards for these reasons to one situation, you should have to apply those same standards for the same reasons to all applicable situations. And that just because something is dangerous, doesn't mean we can or should legislate against it.

Alcohol does much more harm than cigarettes, but there are very few prohibitionists around it seems. Why should cigarettes be the exceptions to all these rules?

Another interesting thing is this: In Colorado we voted in the 2004 elections on whether to implement a state wide smoking ban. The voters turned the proposal down. In 2006, without a second vote, a smoking ban was legislated anyway, against the wishes of the voters. However, the casinos have an exemption because if people have to step outside to smoke they'll stop gambling. And then the casinos, who have a lot of money and political pull, lose money. Isn't that interesting? If it's so dangerous, why can the rich and powerful opt out of it?



So you're saying that we should outlaw asbestos removal? Working on an oil rig? That's another job lots of people get when they are down and out. We all take a certain amount of risk with jobs. And when compared with the dangers of the jobs I just listed, being worried about second hand smoke seems kind of silly, doesn't it?
No, I think I understood your argument- "what's the use" was my second point, the "lowest common denominator" (ie. if other things can kill employees, why try to stop anything that kills employees?) was my first. But I agree that you need a very important reason to tell people what they can and can't do- we just disagree whether second-hand smoking is dangerous enough to do that. I think you're saying it's not dangerous compared to things like crab fishing, and I'm saying danger should not be assessed by comparing to other danger. If we did that, we'd outlaw all safety/health measures because something else will always be more deadly. Same thing with alcohol and cigarettes (although there are differences because there's no safe limit of cigarette smoke, and some kind of alcohol can have health benefits and are safe at low levels). Why not work to make alcohol safer (and remember that there are lots of restrictions on alcohol- only in certain establishments, not in public, etc.) rather than remain at the unsafe status quo because cigarettes on a normal day can match the damage of the worst violent drunk (ie. death for both).

Outlawing something is not the only way, I agree with you. If you could come up with something that kept employees from inhaling the cigarette smoke in their workplace (much the same way that asbestos employees get masks, suits, I assume), it would be an alternative to outlawing smoking indoors. Just as oil rigs have measures to protect their workers, just as crab fisherman SHOULD also have safety measures as well. Why is it that when something is harming people in the workplace, our first impulse is not to protect them, but to make sure it remains as risky as other dangerous occupations (LCD)? Why not systematically work on making them all safer- raising the bar for all workplaces, instead of lowering it to the worst?

I also have a problem with the "driving is the worst killer" thing since it's also one of the most common activities. Who is to say the death rate is due to dangerousness and not to frequency? But it's also a good example of not outlawing, but mitigating the danger. Again, it's impossible to look at the death rate and say the safety measures didn't work because the number of people with cars, the increased amount of driving, the injury severity etc is not accounted for. If as many people smoked, or inhaled 2ndhand smoke for 8 hours a day every day, I bet the death rate would be as high as car accidents, but there's no way to know.

As for putting in a law against people's votes, aren't we glad we did that in slavery? And re: casinos getting exemption, that is not reflection on safety but on the power of corruption.

re: 2nd hand smoke is dangerous

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

an excerpt:
Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.
Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.

And if you consider that you spend less time with your spouse than you do at a typical workplace (even if one doesn't work, the other usually does).. say a few hours in the morning and a few at night, minus the sleeping hours you don't smoke... and that an employee is inhaling at least 4 or 5x the toxins of one smoker for the majority of the day, you're talking serious damage.

[Hdier]

For one thing, if America bought drugs from other countries it might stimulate our economy. But not as much as tobacco does and has, since a huge amount of it is grown domestically.

Hmmm...I see your point. However, it has been shown that drugs would damage American citizens. Therefore, while it would help our economy at first, the shortening of life spans would hurt us.

The problem with your "one step at a time" argument is that many of the professions that require people to come into contact with hazardous materials or dangerous conditions are necessary for society.
You're saying that people shouldn't smoke where it can damage others.
1. The amount of physical damage being or working in a bar with a bunch of second hand smoke is negligible. Unless you mean that it smells bad and is irritating and unpleasant.
2. Driving, in addition to causing many deaths because of accidents, emits chemicals that are damaging both to humans and to the environment. It's not illegal to drive where the chemicals might be harmful to others.

Maybe I should approach this from a different angle...If we stop the smoking in restraunts, technically causing work to become safer, then we will have experience in doing this. Therefore, we can figure out how to compensate for the lack of a human workforce there, and not have to worry as much about how we're going to go about getting people to leave that job.

Sorry, generally when people say "minors" in my experience, it means people under the age of 18. My bad.
The thing about health hazards, though, is that they are everywhere and we must all deal with them to a certain extent. Singling out one of the minor ones (second hand smoke) is ridiculous.
If we outlaw the jobs that are dangerous not only do we lose the benefits from those industry (such as crabs, lumber, policing, a lack of asbestos, oil and countless others), but we put lots of people out of a job as well.

Which is why we can't just cut off those ones now, we need to figure out how to compensate for the loss.

I'm only pointing it out here because I think you may wish to learn more before you argue.

Possibly, but I'm not sure what info I'll need, so I'll equip myself when I need to.

[Lucid]

First I replied to your post with a bunch of statistics and the like (both about 2ndhand smoke and about alcohol related deaths), but I think that the amount in which I had them would bog things down. So I'm trying to streamline the argument here.

It seems like we agree that there may be other, better ways to solve the issue of 2ndhand smoke without legislation. I think you're right about our disagreement being essentially over how harmful 2ndhand smoke is and what's fair for workers.

First, you argue that workers might have to find employment in an establishment that allows smoking because they can't find other jobs and that this is the only problem with the free market argument.
Ok. So you're saying that they'll have to wait tables and breath in second hand smoke for a decade or more because they can't find other work? I'm sorry, but this just isn't likely. Part of the point I was making about dangerous jobs is that people know that many of these occupations are dangerous, but they do them anyway. They have the right to make that decision. If a person doesn't mind working in a smoking establishment (and there are plenty who don't. Most notably people who smoke themselves), then they can work in a non-smoking environment. If they find that the only job they can get is in a place that allows smoking, I'm sure they'll be able to find other employment. Either at another business, or in another industry.

I think that's the most important flaw to your argument.

Now, here's some (much abbreviated) information about second hand smoke.

First, I will say that it's been shown there is a correlation between a lot of exposure to secondhand smoke and certain health problems.
However, this is how the data breaks down:

Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%. So where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
In 1993, the EPA released a report claiming that up to 3,000 deaths a year were caused by second hand smoke. This is the source that everyone refers to when they quote this statistic because it is the only primary source that makes this claim.
That report says that there is a 25% higher risk of dying of lung cancer from being regularly exposed to passive smoke.

This means:

For those regularly exposed to ETS, the death rate from lung cancer is 1 in 80,000. For those not exposed, it is 1 in 100,000. Looked at another way: For every million people exposed to ETS, there will be 12.5 deaths from lung cancer; for every million people not exposed to ETS, there will be 10 deaths due to lung cancer.


The difference is 2.5% For people who are exposed to it regularly over several years or even decades. Now, originally, it was being argued that that 2.5% was statistically insignificant. I think that's been disproven, but it's still pretty small. And working for a few months, or even a year or two (and probably even longer than that), in a restaurant that allows smoking isn't going to kill you, or even seriously damage your health.


Now, to address some of your other points. I don't think these points (or my responses) are as relevant to the central issue on which it seems we disagree (the amount of harm done to people who work in smoking environments and whether those workers who choose to work in such environments nullify the free market argument), so I've tacked them down here on the end.

Same thing with alcohol and cigarettes (although there are differences because there's no safe limit of cigarette smoke, and some kind of alcohol can have health benefits and are safe at low levels). Why not work to make alcohol safer (and remember that there are lots of restrictions on alcohol- only in certain establishments, not in public, etc.) rather than remain at the unsafe status quo because cigarettes on a normal day can match the damage of the worst violent drunk (ie. death for both).

There are lots of restrictions on alcohol. There were also plenty of restrictions on cigarettes.
Secondhand smoke, on a normal day, cannot match the damage of the worst violent drunk.
Here are some interesting facts about drunk driving (just drunk driving, not any of the other ways that alcohol can kill you, notably alcohol poisoning, liver disease, not to mention what alcohol can do to destroy a family or an individual's life). These are taken from this website (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
"Alcohol-related fatalities remained at 41 percent of total highway deaths."
"The 16,694 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2004 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes."

I also have a problem with the "driving is the worst killer" thing since it's also one of the most common activities. Who is to say the death rate is due to dangerousness and not to frequency? But it's also a good example of not outlawing, but mitigating the danger. Again, it's impossible to look at the death rate and say the safety measures didn't work because the number of people with cars, the increased amount of driving, the injury severity etc is not accounted for. If as many people smoked, or inhaled 2ndhand smoke for 8 hours a day every day, I bet the death rate would be as high as car accidents, but there's no way to know.

Most people smoke much more than they drive. If you consider that the average commuter drives 15 to 30 minutes to work each way, you only spend about an hour in the car every day. And it still causes more deaths. And this is arguing from deaths of people who actively smoke, not deaths of people exposed to second hand smoke (which seems to be about 2.5% more).

As for putting in a law against people's votes, aren't we glad we did that in slavery?

Comparing legislation to abolish slavery against popular vote to legislation to ban smoking against popular vote is, to say the least, a stretch.
This is a logical fallacy known as "Guilt by Association." It basically draws some kind of connection between your opponent's point, and some kind of tabboo. Senator McCarthy was famous for using this type of argument. A good example I'm taking from my skepticism podcast (Yay podcasts :)) is Tom Cruise expressing support for the Scientology view that psychiatry is a Nazi science, and therefore wrong. He's saying that because the Nazis practiced some psychiatry, all psychiatry must be bad. A similar argument might be made about brushing one's teeth. Because Hitler brushed his teeth, all tooth brushing must be bad. Obviously, that's an exaggeration, but I hope it servs to illustrate my point.
You're essentially saying that because the government acted to abolish slavery against popular opinion they should have the right to make other legislation even after it's lost in the polls. And you're somehow drawing a connection between second hand smoke and slavery. I fail to see how the two are similar.
Are you sure you want to make this argument? If that's the case, why do we vote? By your logic, we should just let the government make all our decisions for us.

If you could come up with something that kept employees from inhaling the cigarette smoke in their workplace (much the same way that asbestos employees get masks, suits, I assume), it would be an alternative to outlawing smoking indoors.

Before the smoking ban all restaurants and bars had to install ventilation systems in their smoking sections to make sure the air was clean.

I'm saying danger should not be assessed by comparing to other danger. If we did that, we'd outlaw all safety/health measures because something else will always be more deadly.

Exactly. You seem to be saying that we should make exceptions to rules based on arbitrary criteria or what's popular at the time.
I'm saying that if you outlaw something for one reason, you have to outlaw everything that might apply. An example of this was in Colorado several years ago there was a bill proposing to make it illegal for people to drive while talking on cellphones. But because they can't outlaw that specifically, the bill had to propose outlawing driving while doing anything which might be deemed a distraction. Unfortunately, this is broad enough to include listening to the radio, talking to a passenger, etc. The bill failed.
Basically, I'm saying that while I agree that people shouldn't have to be around cigarette smoke if they don't want to be, there are better ways of doing this than passing legislation based on what basically amounts to prejudice and popular hysteria.

[Epicurus]

Couple things here:
- I understand that you might not care about dying earlier, but the quality of life will be worsened. Excuse me from the boredom of listing all the side effects (during life). And blowing your head off isn't fun for all the others around you. I know- my uncle blew his head off after his second bout with lung cancer (he refused to stop smoking after his first round and a huge chunk of one of his lungs cut out). He used a shotgun in the upstairs bedroom while his wife was home and his dog in the room. She endured months of PTSD after going upstairs to find his shattered skull and brains all over the room and her now-deafened dog. About a year before, a grandfather drowned in his own lungs basically, and this year a friend lost two babies she desperately wanted.
- My only thing against the free-market argument is that employees are sometimes forced by financial need to work wherever they can. And if some employers have a smoking environment, they're forced to compromise their health just to put food on the table.Statistically it does yes. Tough I can bet my life I wont get cancer, COPD (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) or any heart disease. :rolleyes: A heart attack would be a relatively nice way to die aswell.

No sane person should care about other peoples emotional weakness. They should be very happy that the person didn't hesitate when pulling the trigger, and not care about that or that the person got a uncurable leathal disease or anything of that nature, because it does not help.

Aswell I don't think people understand the meaning of life. A lot of people if you watch the TV, they say that ''oh that should be banned I am forced to do this and that, we are induced to this and that''. No they are just supid, they just think they are as people think they must have and do that, and then when they have and done all of that they can die a misserable life without having anything of real worth to look back on. Except people living in the third world perhaps, and obvious things wich are completely wrong according to (uncommon) common sence and hopefully the law. People act as a herd, wich implies weakness if you can not control it and act out of reason instead from out of the herd. My view on people is that they can't handle to much of a government control or basically anything else that violates freedom, I am the only one capable of that and wich I trust. I think its much more fair for ''my side'' to use Nazi Germany etc. as poor arguments than someone claiming that I am like a poor jew who is gasing myself to death (not saying anyone here did, but the same kinds of arguments always persists). Anyone who smokes does it of free will (or atleat to start with, or flock behaviour), enforcing someone not to smoke is in fact not free. Knowledge and common sense is in fact better than any legeslation when it comes to minor things as drugs. Then when people are being teached knowledge instead of fiction about drugs etc., let the police handle the crimes let them do their work as best as should be done and not handle the drugs instead of real crimes (even if caused by drugs). I believe the only way to a as near perfect as possible-society is through personal enlightment and knowledge about the most important things wich will effect your life in one way or another (wich government doesn't do very well or legislation). I don't believe ignorance is affordable to buy off some very few extra deaths caused by tobacco or anyother drug. Not untill I've seen a government that isn't made up of any weak people who only obeys personal profit or stupidity.

As to the more solid arguments Lucid has already put up lots of those.

[PortInStorm]

a) no, wasn't saying 2nd hand smoke was as bad as slavery (guilt by association). Basically I was saying that it sometimes takes an override to correct an injustice that would make for an economic hit. That's why our Canadian judges can rule something as unconstitutional, if it's unfair, regardless of what Parliament says. Like same-sex marriage that judges allowed. I think it's unfair to allow an unsafe work environment if it doesn't need to be unsafe. You and I simply disagree that a person can just pick another job anytime they like. Period. We also simply disagree that if you ban one thing you have to ban them all. Because we opened up to same-sex marriage does not mean that we allow polygamy, or marriage at any age, or marriage between animals and men.

b) I put it badly- I meant that total time driving is more than total time smoking, given the far greater number of people driving than smoking at this point.

c) I haven't read the EPA study, but that's one report, and I'd need more precise information to interpret their stats to make sure you're doing it right. Medical journals and metaanalyses provide a wide array of supportive and more cross-cultural evidence:
Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. By: Stayner, Leslie, Bena, James, Sasco, Annie J., Smith, Randall, Steenland, Kyle, Kreuzer, Michaela, Straif, Kurt, American Journal of Public Health, 00900036, Mar2007, Vol. 97, Issue 3.
Methods. We performed a meta-analysis in 2003 of data from 22 studies from multiple locations worldwide of workplace environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer risk. Estimates of relative risk from these studies were analyzed by fitting the data to fixed and mixed effects models. Analyses of highly exposed workers and of the relationship between duration of exposure and lung cancer were also performed.
Results. The meta-analysis indicated a 24% increase in lung cancer risk (relative risk [RR]=1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18, 1.29) among workers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. A 2-fold increased risk (RR=2.01; 95% CI=1.33, 2.60) was observed for workers classified as being highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. A strong relationship was observed between lung cancer and duration of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
Conclusions. The findings from this investigation provide the strongest evidence to date that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.

The Impact of Clean Indoor Air Exemptions and Preemption Policies on the Prevalence of a Tobacco-Specific Lung Carcinogen Among Nonsmoking Bar and Restaurant Workers. By: Stark, Michael J., Rohde, Kristen, Maher, Julie E., Pizacani, Barbara A., Dent, Clyde W., Bard, Ronda, Carmella, Steven G., Benoit, Adam R., Thomson, Nicole M., Hecht, Stephen S., American Journal of Public Health, 00900036, Aug2007, Vol. 97, Issue 8We found that workplace exposure to secondhand smoke was highly associated with elevated levels of urinary NNAL, a biomarker for the potent tobacco-specific lung carcinogen NNK. Whereas more than 3 out of 4 exposed workers had a detectable level of NNAL, fewer than half of the unexposed workers had a detectable level. Exposed workers also had higher levels of NNAL, and their levels increased by about 6% for every hour they worked in an establishment where smoking was allowed.
Food service workers have more exposure to indoor secondhand smoke than workers in any other occupation and suffer serious health consequences because of this disparity. Further, this disparity is greatest among young women. In addition to the broader risks associated with secondhand smoke exposure, these women have increased risk of breast cancer and perinatal complications such as low birthweight, sudden infant death syndrome, and preterm delivery.Our study's participants had relatively low incomes, as is the case with food service workers nationally, and more than one third lacked health insurance. This vulnerable population suffers a health disparity that could be reduced by elimination of clean indoor air exemptions and preemption.

d) though ventilation is better, still not good enough...
Legislation reduces exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in New Zealand bars by about 90%. By: Fernando, Dinusha; Fowles, Jefferson; Woodward, Alistair; Christophersen, Annemarie; Dickson, Stuart; Hosking, Matthew; Berezowski, Richard; Lea, Rod A.. Tobacco Control, Aug2007, Vol. 16 Issue 4, p235-238,
"However, even venues that were judged to be "seemingly smoke free" with "good ventilation" produced discernable levels of SHS exposure. "

[Lucid]

We also simply disagree that if you ban one thing you have to ban them all. Because we opened up to same-sex marriage does not mean that we allow polygamy, or marriage at any age, or marriage between animals and men.

I'm sorry, are you trying to tell me that gay marriage (between two consenting adults who love each other) is on par with pedophilia or bestiality??
With respect, I think that something may have gone awry with your logic.
I'd say that if you legalize gay marriage (and it should be legal), there's no reason that polygamy should be illegal too (providing it is also between consenting adults). Marriage to an animal or a child shouldn't be legal because an animal or a child does not possess the reasoning capabilities needed to understand what marriage is or to consent.

You're saying that we should allow some things or ban some things, but not other things that might fall under the same category and have the same effects(for example, gay marriage and straight marriage... or second hand smoke and drinking or driving)???
Not only is that illogical, but it's a proposition fraught with bias and subjectivity. :thumbsdown:


The findings from this investigation provide the strongest evidence to date that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.

Yes... I'm not arguing that second hand smoke will not cause health problems. What I am arguing is how bad it is for you.

I haven't read the EPA study, but that's one report

Actually, the EPA study is the only study that comes back with the scary statistics quoted most often. All other reports are based on the study by the EPA, including the medical journals you're pulling from.

and I'd need more precise information to interpret their stats to make sure you're doing it right.

I'm sorry, I should have said. I'm certainly not the one doing the math involved. The results I quoted in my post are from the World Health Organization. The results are somewhat similar to the results you've posted. I think that if you broke your results down you might come to a similar number to the 110 vs. 112 number I mentioned, maybe slightly higher, but not by much.

"However, even venues that were judged to be "seemingly smoke free" with "good ventilation" produced discernable levels of SHS exposure. "

You seem to be making the argument that any discernible level of second hand smoke is going to cause cancer in anyone exposed to it for a short period of time.

You and I simply disagree that a person can just pick another job anytime they like.

Well, you're kind of misstating my point here. I'm not saying that someone can leave a work environment anytime they like. What I am saying is that if the second hand smoke is an issue for them, they can probably find a new job within a reasonable amount of time so that their health will not be much more adversely affected by secondhand smoke than it is by pollutants in the air outside that we breath every day.
If you're telling me that most people can't find new jobs within a few months or a year... well... I'd like to see some kind of evidence to back that up.

[B]Basically I was saying that it sometimes takes an override to correct an injustice that would make for an economic hit.

With respect, I think saying that people might sometimes have to be exposed to a second hand smoke is an injustice is a gross misuse of the word. And I think it is symptomatic of the hysteria about second hand smoke.

What the legislation does is takes the choice away from business owners, patrons, and staff. To me, that's the injustice. If I own a building and run a bar out of it, it's my property and my business and it's a private establishment. Just like I can deny service to people, I should also be able to state whether or not smoking is allowed on the premises. Just like at my private residence. If people choose to work for me, knowing that they will be exposed to second hand smoke, that is their choice (and also mine) and they are responsible for it.

I think it's unfair to allow an unsafe work environment if it doesn't need to be unsafe.

But I don't think that working in an environment with secondhand smoke for several months is more damaging to your health than, say, a night or two of heavy drinking.

I doubt any amount of arguing or proof or statistics from me is going to change your mind. And that's ok, you're entitled to your beliefs. All I ask is that you don't try to force them on the rest of us. :)

[karen]

I smoked from the age 13 and have recently given it up. When I smoked, I was considerate of others and when there was someone nearby I would ask if they minded me smoking and if I got a 'no' I waited until later. Other smokers however, can be less considerate. I think a ban on smoking outdoors is just cruel. Right now in Utah they are trying to ban smoking in your car which is equally harsh. I am glad though that it is banned in most buildings.

[Danisty]

I smoked from the age 13 and have recently given it up. When I smoked, I was considerate of others and when there was someone nearby I would ask if they minded me smoking and if I got a 'no' I waited until later. Other smokers however, can be less considerate. I think a ban on smoking outdoors is just cruel. Right now in Utah they are trying to ban smoking in your car which is equally harsh. I am glad though that it is banned in most buildings.In your car? For what reason?

[xhaan]

In your car? For what reason?

Probably because it gets them that much closer to banning it totally.

[freidrich]

i don't smoke cause i don't see any point in it.

and it makes me cough