Reply With Quote
Besides, the studies. I don't need a study to know that I feel unhealthy around cigarette smoke. Especially indoors. It's kind of a common sense thing, no?
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
You could probably get a copy of that executive summary and see if it has the details you are looking for.
I'm not on the SHS side or anything. I'm just saying there are a lot of studies.
Besides, the studies. I don't need a study to know that I feel unhealthy around cigarette smoke. Especially indoors. It's kind of a common sense thing, no?
I'd imagine those are just projections, hence the reason for the wide gap in heart disease deaths. There is simply no way to prove that SHS did or didn't cause those deaths.
To my knowledge, there is no study available that shows causation.
The problem is that these studies deal with chronic exposure over a number of years. Somehow, it translates into limited exposure, like going to the bar for a few hours, can cause cancer! That simply isn't true. Or at least hasn't been proven.
All this back and forth makes me want to smoke.
i dont feel like finding my original post to see if i already said it or not. and i know that xrays arent the only way to measure up. but ive smoked from the time i was 12 or 13 until this august. i had chest xrays done at the VA a couple weeks ago and they said i didnt even show evidence of being a smoker. and thats including smokign weed for a huge part of my adolescense as well, as well as being around smokers that hwole time.
but also i realize that doesnt really prove anything. i just hate being told what i cna and cant do. its bad enough certain things are already illegal, dont start telling me where i can and cant do legal things.
i think we should divide the US into 2. all teh pussies go live in one half and the rest cna live in the other.
edit:i know someone is going to rag on me for my typing errors. get over it. its a ing internet forum.
LOL @ being for cig rights, but not guns.
C'mon BtB.
You'd think common sense would tell you that smoke of any sort in your lungs would be bad, period. Filtered or not. Naturally grown out of the ground or processed. Out of the exhaust of an old diesel truck ... whatever. I mean, there's ing arsenic in second hand smoke ... WTF? That's BAD.
But what makes smoking unique and incomparable to fatty foods or sodas is that smoke is INVASIVE to the people around you. When you choose to smoke in my general vicinity, you ABSOLUTELY are forcing your choice onto me. And if forcing your onto me unsolicited is illegal, then forcing your smoke on me should be as well ... because that also enters my body. I mean, you should have the right to , too ... but you should also have the right to choose WHO you and WHO you're ed by. And I don't think rape should be legal in bars either, regardless if the owner wants it to be or not.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 12-20-2008 at 09:11 AM.
And I smoked for over 23 years before I quit ... I'd have had no problem having to go outside to smoke, I had for years (by choice) anyway. You know, to not subject other people to my own bad choice.
Exactly its forced upon you. This is why I'm for a ban with the exception of a bar because its your social choice to walk in or not.You'd think common sense would tell you that smoke of any sort in your lungs would be bad, period. Filtered or not. Naturally grown out of the ground or processed. Out of the exhaust of an old diesel truck ... whatever. I mean, there's ing arsenic in second hand smoke ... WTF? That's BAD.
But what makes smoking unique and incomparable to fatty foods or sodas is that smoke is INVASIVE to the people around you. When you choose to smoke in my general vicinity, you ABSOLUTELY are forcing your choice onto me. And if forcing your onto me unsolicited is illegal, then forcing your smoke on me should be as well ... because that also enters my body. I mean, you should have the right to , too ... but you should also have the right to choose WHO you and WHO you're ed by. And I don't think rape should be legal in bars either, regardless if the owner wants it to be or not.
I'm sorry .. but unless it's a members only club, the general public is allowed, and when you're serving the general public certain guidelines must be followed to ensure the basic safety of the people who frequent your business. You've got to wash your hands after using the bathroom, you have to be held to certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen and behind the bar, follow safety standards when handling, storing & cooking food ... why shouldn't the air your customers breathe be included in the safety standards? When there is a real potential that your customers could be harmed by it?
I'd actually agree with you if drinking and smoking were not mutually exclusive .. but they are, and smoker's DO still have the option to step outside. Oh, and if the sign on the door said Joe's Bar & Ashtray - The Place to Go to Drink and Smoke.
What this sounds like to me is that some of your pool buddies smoke and you've spent a few hours listening to them about having to be inconvenienced when they are running the table on your ass by having to go outside for a few drags.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 12-20-2008 at 10:13 AM.
There used to not be seatbelts in cars, either ... until it was determined that the driver would be much safer in an accident if they were wearing one.
You have to start somewhere.
Unorthodox, but I agreeYou'd think common sense would tell you that smoke of any sort in your lungs would be bad, period. Filtered or not. Naturally grown out of the ground or processed. Out of the exhaust of an old diesel truck ... whatever. I mean, there's ing arsenic in second hand smoke ... WTF? That's BAD.
But what makes smoking unique and incomparable to fatty foods or sodas is that smoke is INVASIVE to the people around you. When you choose to smoke in my general vicinity, you ABSOLUTELY are forcing your choice onto me. And if forcing your onto me unsolicited is illegal, then forcing your smoke on me should be as well ... because that also enters my body. I mean, you should have the right to , too ... but you should also have the right to choose WHO you and WHO you're ed by. And I don't think rape should be legal in bars either, regardless if the owner wants it to be or not.
How about the employees? Unless the unemployment rate is 0, people don't really have the choice whether they accept to work in a place where smoking is allowed.
They have to choice to not work there.
And just to add the my earlier post, almost all of these studies are done by survey/interview with the subjects answering questions about exposure from memory. A limited few deal with dosage/exposure(workers wearing monitoring devices and the like).
Oh, and that Surgeon's General report is just another meta analysis, which includes the EPA report. The actual risk in NA (20% lung, 25-30% heart disease) is roughly cut in half if you take out Asia.
You have a better chance of getting cancer from drinking chlorinated water.
Some of these bans have been in place for years. Have the cases of heart disease/lung cancer dropped in those states?
I disagree. If jobs are something that is not available to everyone (US unemployment rate is 6.7%), then they are forced to accept to work in an unhealthy environment. I mean if your handling dangerous chemicals at work, isn't it your employer's duty to provide you with protective gear? I'm not saying waitresses should wear gas masks, but that argument would be more logical than "they can chose not to work there".
I think what this REALLY all boils down to is the selfishness of people that do smoke and that THEY don't want to be inconvenienced by having to step outside. Most smokers know how bad it is and still do for their own personal reason(s), but as a human being ... isn't it somewhat disburbing that they are aware of the hazards and apparently really don't give a who they *take down* with them? From a purely human stand point?
Honestly? I really don't give a one way or another about what kind of rights he thinks he does and doesn't have as a bar owner .. what I care about now is that I had to quit going to have a drink out and shooting pool and playing darts with my friends (things I really liked to do) because since I quit the smell of smoke makes me very ill.
Oh, well, sucks for me. It also sucks to think that I would still be able to enjoy those things if smokers just stepped outside ... I mean, I did it when I smoked and it was never a big deal. Then we could ALL have a good time. But we can't have that, can we?
If it's an air quality issue, then it should be tested and regulated by OSHA, you know, like all the other air components in the workplace.
Why is SHS treated differently?
While I see your logic, I'm pretty sure that would put a greater financial burden on the bar owners than a smoking ban (that has had very little impact on revenue wherever it has been implemented).
Air filtration systems are pretty advanced nowadays.
They simply aren't given the option.
I'm not disputing that fact, I'm saying a proper ventilation system is expensive (emphasis on proper).
This is assuming they even need one.
Obviously it has very little impact on revenue when you eliminate the second half of the compe ion.
If you take half the city and ban smoking and allow smoking in the second half the non-smoking businesses will suffer.
If you eliminate smoking completely then you don't have a basis to properly measure impact.
I'd imagine it destroys the businesses that are located in border towns located next to states that have no ban.
I think what this really boils down to is the selfishness of the people who refuse to open their own business or promote non-smoking establishments. We are giving you the choice to not enter my business if you don't like the rules of my establishment, the food, the color of the walls, the smell of my cooking. Instead you would rather control my business vs. creating or promoting your own or ing simply finding another place to dine.
I'm sorry but it does have everything to do with the rights of the business owner. Its private property thats open to the public.
If you have a right to that property then a bar owner would have consequences for kicking you out. You could return with a Sheriff and force your way in. That is simply not the case any more than it is in your own home. Regardless of sanitary regulations. Its illegal to serve spoiled food. There are codes. There are no laws and no codes federally for smokers. Not yet. When there are then the argument changes but until then these people are being unethically stripped of their legal rights by the preference of a minority group.
I can't say if thats accurately been measured.
They love to say things have no impact but at what study?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions