another smoking ban

[instpasr]

Well, non-smokers needed a reason to ban smoking, since "I don't like it" doesn't really suffice in the USA (or at least, it didn't used to.) So the myth of "deadly" second hand smoke was cooked up by the political left, and here we are twenty five years later.

Folks, if you do a little research, there's no evidence to suggest that walking past a smoker is more dangerous than walking past a farter. Before you start gagging, coughing and screaming "OMG the poison!", perhaps you should re-examine the evidence. You may be surprised how duped we have become as a society.

While I agree that walking by a smoker on the sidewalk will not harm you the evidence that living with a smoker is damaging is overwhelming. I think it's also reasonable to believe that working in a smoke filled office / shop for years would also be dangerous. From my years of working in the operating room I've seen the lungs of nonsmokers that certainly looked as if they had smoked because they lived with a smoker. Now with all that said I still firmly believe that smoking is your right and that there needs to be a reasonable accommodation for workers.

About the farts not being dangerous. Obviously you have not been around my mates and I after the atomic wings at Quaker steak and lube.

 

[The Nid Hog]

I'm going camping in a National Park this week. I'm taking my pipes and a pistol and I am going to smoke.

Nannies are in season this month too.

Have you noticed there are generally more sick looking people in health food stores than in tobacco shops? Speaks volumes about hypochondria doesn't it?

There was a new study out today saying all the old studies are as wrong as this new study will be as soon as a newer study comes out.

I was born in America and I don't recall moving but it seems I must have as I'm certainly not in the same place any longer.

Why would you want to shoot a nanny? Back when I was a young, single guy, there were lots of attractive nannies out and about and it would have never occurred to me to take a shot at one. If your idea of America is a place where it's acceptable to assassinate those in the child care industry, then, sir, I want no part of it!

 

[jazzman]

I'm going camping in a National Park this week. I'm taking my pipes and a pistol and I am going to smoke.

Nannies are in season this month too.

Have you noticed there are generally more sick looking people in health food stores than in tobacco shops? Speaks volumes about hypochondria doesn't it?

There was a new study out today saying all the old studies are as wrong as this new study will be as soon as a newer study comes out.

I was born in America and I don't recall moving but it seems I must have as I'm certainly not in the same place any longer.

Speaking of studies--or we might like to refer to those old-fashioned things called "facts"--is there any evidence in the history of science, medicine, or mankind that anyone was ever harmed by being close to a lighted tobacco product outside?

(The so-called evidence of second-hand smoke harm in an enclosed area is extremely debatable, but myth has replace reason in that area; I won't go there.)

 

[_JP_]

Well, non-smokers needed a reason to ban smoking, since "I don't like it" doesn't really suffice in the USA (or at least, it didn't used to.) So the myth of "deadly" second hand smoke was cooked up by the political left, and here we are twenty five years later.

Not a myth. There are many studies spanning back decades that have come to the conclusion that second hand smoke is a danger. There is no study that I know that shows otherwise.

 

[wolfmanxiii]

Not a myth. There are many studies spanning back decades that have come to the conclusion that second hand smoke is a danger. There is no study that I know that shows otherwise.

According to some studies the cardiovascular disease risk increase involved in being around second-hand smoke on a regular basis (for instance having a smoking spouse) is about 18%. This is not even enough to be considered at all dangerous until it reaches a 200% risk increase. That's as good as your argument is it not?

Really how dependable do you think these "studies" are. I mean think about how many variables there are involved in surveying people:

Family history of cardiovascular disease

What the pollution level of every place they've lived has been during the times they lived there

Whether or not they work with chemicals or have ever cleaned their own home and mixed chemicals and breathed them in

Whether or not they've every been in a house fire

Do they use public transportation

How much time to they spend walking near high-traffic streets

Have they every owned a car with an exhaust leak

Do they live anywhere near any kind of industrial plant

What climate they live in

Were they born with any cardiovascular problems that they grew out of

Do they exercise normally (cardio and not just resistance)

What is their diet?

Do they live near swamp land or a farm or any other source of methane

Did they have black mold or any other kind of mold or hazardous inhalant in a place they ever lived in

Do they burn leaves or often participate in bonfires or camping and cooking over an open fire? Do they grill out a lot? Have they every lived in a home with a wood burning stove?

Were the scientists being pushed to get the study published/were they given ample time?

Was there a cross-study done by a separate scientist that the scientist never knew or had contact with to make sure that they were getting the same results?

Was there anybody other than the scientists overseeing every bit of the study who had nothing to benefit out of it?

Has the person ever had pneumonia or any other kind of really bad lung trauma?

Were the statistics ever skewed?

ETC ETC ETC

I could go on and on and on....the point is that in order for these studies to be accurate every single environmental, hereditary, etc etc etc. factor needs to be controlled and accounted for. A few decades of studying random middle-aged individuals is not enough for any of this to be 100% or even 95% accurate. For instance I smoked for 10 years, my girlfriend has never smoked in her life and I've never smoked around her. She has more breathing problems than I do. She has more health problems than I do, and I can still run 3 miles a few days a week without keeling over, she cannot. She also happens to be one in favor of public transportation and takes it every day...that doesn't mean I can blame her breathing issues on public transportation. The logic behind these things is flawed and nothing more than theory, the problem is that scientists have a lot to gain in grants from making these "discoveries" and a lot of them are really stressed and pushed to get things done resulting in false data on numerous studies. So much false data has been reported that a government agency was formed specifically for investigating cases of suspected falsified scientific data. This is what happens when science and politics get in bed with each other. THINK and think for yourself, don't be sheeple.

 

[DarthFlader]

Not a myth. There are many studies spanning back decades that have come to the conclusion that second hand smoke is a danger. There is no study that I know that shows otherwise.

Well, here's the kicker: I'll believe you if you can tell me the name of just one person that died of second hand smoke.

Case closed.

 

[-dave-]

Well, here's the kicker: I'll believe you if you can tell me the name of just one person that died of second hand smoke.

Case closed.

im sure second hand smoke is dangerous, but only a very slight percentage of danger. i could drown in my own toilet too, theres a very slight percentage of that happen as well, im waiting to be banned from my own loo

 

[IronJohn]

Well, here's the kicker: I'll believe you if you can tell me the name of just one person that died of second hand smoke.

Case closed.

http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/2008/02/09/michigan-bar-employee-dies-from-second-h?blog=5

 

[Bertilak]

Well, here's the kicker: I'll believe you if you can tell me the name of just one person that died of second hand smoke.

Case closed.

Well, I can't name anyone who died from stepping in dog doo, but people are still expected to "curb your dog" and pick up after it. It is unfortunate that enough people are so inconsiderate that there need to be laws about that. Even so, I do not loose any sleep over peoples right to own dogs because of those laws.

It would be nice if all smokers were considerate enough to "curb their smoke" and not leave butts for others to pick up. Admittedly it is harder for smokers than dog owners because smoking is a physical addiction and cigarette smoke doesn't just drop to the ground in a small lump.

Even fresh dog doo is less offensive to me than the smell of cigarette smoke. Dog doo only sticks to your shoe. Cigarette smoke sticks to your hair, clothes, and skin and it burns your eyes. And by "your" I mean everyone within a few yards of a smoker.

So despite my strong libertarian leanings I loose no sleep over smokers' imagined loss of rights because of public smoking bans. Walk all the dogs you want to, but be careful whose lawn you foul. Smoke all the cigarettes you want to but be careful whose air you foul. We all breathe the air.

 

[-dave-]

http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/2008/02/09/michigan-bar-employee-dies-from-second-h?blog=5

why would she get a job there if her asthma was so bad? if i was seriously allergic to dog poop or even really didnt like the thought of dog poop, i wouldnt get a job walking dogs

 

[SRock]

I fully support smoking bans indoors on health and air quality grounds, but I'm not sure you can make those same arguments for smoking outdoors. This has me baffled a bit.

I agree 100%. I think that banning smoking at all INDOOR public places is a fantastic idea, but banning it outdoors is a bit much.

 

[Bertilak]

I agree 100%. I think that banning smoking at all INDOOR public places is a fantastic idea, but banning it outdoors is a bit much.

Depends on what you mean by outdoors -- a duck blind or by the main entrance to a high-traffic shopping mall.

Where I see it a lot is outside restaurants with a crowd waiting for their tables. Everyone else has to elbow through the smokers, wait in line to get on the list, then find a smoke-free place to wait their turn.

 

[Bertilak]

why would she get a job there if her asthma was so bad? if i was seriously allergic to dog poop or even really didnt like the thought of dog poop, i wouldnt get a job walking dogs

Maybe she needed the money to buy food and clothing, pay the rent and her car loan, etc.. I suppose she could have passed up this job and applied for CEO of IBM. Selfish of her to not have considered that.

 

[SRock]

Depends on what you mean by outdoors -- a duck blind or by the main entrance to a high-traffic shopping mall.

Where I see it a lot is outside restaurants with a crowd waiting for their tables. Everyone else has to elbow through the smokers, wait in line to get on the list, then find a smoke-free place to wait their turn.

Very true. I can see a ban at crowded entrances, but I can't see making an entire park, beach etc. off limits.

 

[Bertilak]

Very true. I can see a ban at crowded entrances, but I can't see making an entire park, beach etc. off limits.

That's the trouble with *most* laws -- make them specific enough to address the real problem and you need a lawyer and a supreme court ruling to understand them. Then the rule of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.

So these bans have the same problems as most laws.

 

[SRock]

That's the trouble with *most* laws -- make them specific enough to address the real problem and you need a lawyer and a supreme court ruling to understand them. Then the rule of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.

So these bans have the same problems as most laws.

True, true

 

[The Nid Hog]

At the school where I work, a number of different policies have been put in place to restrict smoking. No smoking in buildings, and if you are to smoke, it has to be in a designated area that is a set distance away from a building. As it works out, just about the only place that meets these requirements is the central flag pole. So every day, all of the smokers gather around the flagpole to have a smoke. It reminds me of Dawn of the Dead, where the zombies return to places familiar to them in their lives, roaming back and forth in shopping centers. So go the smokers, standing nervously alone or in small groups around the flagpole on hot days and cold, rain or shine. There are administrators in expensive suits, maintenance workers in coveralls, students of every conceivable kind. Together and alone, having a smoke. I suppose that it's a classic YMMV scenario. Personally, I find it extremely sad to see so many people nervously milling around and trying not to look humiliated, and that this takes place beneath the flag. One look at that oasis of lost souls is all that it would take to make me quit smoking. If I smoked.

 

[wolfmanxiii]

http://blogpublic.lib.msu.edu/index.php/2008/02/09/michigan-bar-employee-dies-from-second-h?blog=5

The article clearly states that she suffered from a sever asthma attack...not a sever second-hand smoke attack. What this translates to (being someone who had asthma as a child I know these things) she could have died in the same way due to someone wearing too much of a perfume that made her asthma flare up. This is why asthma patients are given emergency inhalers.

 

[_JP_]

Very true. I can see a ban at crowded entrances, but I can't see making an entire park, beach etc. off limits.

Park, beach, for the same reason that dogs are prohibited because of the doggy-doo. In this case, it's cigarette butts littering the landscape.

 

[Bertilak]

Park, beach, for the same reason that dogs are prohibited because of the doggy-doo. In this case, it's cigarette butts littering the landscape.

Way back when, I was a smoker. I rarely smoked filters. It always annoyed me when other smokers tossed their filter butts. My non-filter butts simply disintegrated/decomposed in a matter of a few days.