How can you determine something is too dangerous?- A smoking ban Rant!

We all hear on a daily basis just how dangerous second hand smoke is to the health of others. Laws have been passed in an attempt to regulate it's usage. And, they have been taxed so abusively that the revenue that is brought in by this tax seems to be a major issue in everything from indian affairs to internet sales as states try to gain every cent they can to stabalize their overgrown budgets.
If we decide that that 30% increase in the risk of lung cancer ( a number obtained from my state legislature) that resturant workers are exposed to is too great, are we not obligated to take measures to EQUALLY regualte substances and activities that would pose an even higher risk to the members of society? And, if we have spent this much money bringing these risks into the awareness of the population, are we not obligated to invest an equal amount of resources to the discovery and revelation of other, much greater risks...
How often have you heard on tv that the machinist poses a genuine risk to his children. He machines many different types of metals at his place of work, including lead, and when he comes home, the dust from that work comes home with him....and therefore is in his children's environment. My husband is a machinist, and I have one child who has had a few seizures in his lifetime......and yet, the doctors never recommended a lead test for him....seems to me, considering his father's occupation, he would have been on a priority list for testing.

Well, if anyone is interested, this topic is for the purpose of trying to place the risks of second hand smoke in some sort of perspective when compared to other occiupations, activities, and common substances that we take for granted every day.
If we are going to make an honest attempt at cleaning the toxins out of our environment, well, it seems to me, there should be some sort of intelligent discussion as to what we should deem as acceptable or not, but it should be done by some sort of standard that considers the risks posed vs. the benefits gained. But, to do this we must have an adequate knowledge regarding the risks and harm done by all of these activities and substances. Otherwise, we just may be setting a standard that later on, we might find that we are just not willing to live by anyways...like giving up your car!!

Study: Dirty Air Lowers Lung Capacity

www.mercurynews.com...

"New research shows that teenagers who grow up in heavy air pollution have reduced lung capacity, putting them at risk for illness and premature death as adults."

I bet it is easier for a person to avoid a smoke filled bar than it is for a child to avoid a smog filled city....

"The effects were the same for boys or girls, and whether or not the children had asthma or smoked.

"We're seeing air pollution effects on all kids, not just sensitive subpopulations," said lead researcher James Gauderman, associate professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine."

Across the board...not just the smokers..

"They found about 8 percent of 18-year-olds had lung capacity less than 80 percent of normal, compared with about 1.5 percent of those in communities with the least pollution."

But, when that loss of lung compacity begins to cause trouble....will it be blamed on something as lame as second hand smoke I wonder???

So, considering that the health effects have been documented by proceedures that are probably similar to the studies that revealed the dangers of second hand smoke....well....should we all give up our cars, place more stringent regulations on businesses and the energy giants (another benefit to outsourcing jobs is that these companies can go to other countries with far less regualtions and throw more pollution into the environment than they are now and save themselves alot of money in the process!) What do ya say?







[edit on 10-9-2004 by dawnstar]

[edit on 10-9-2004 by dawnstar]

Yup, Rant is the word. Sure there are plenty of other toxins in the world, and a lot of them are necessary for business and commercial purposes, you know that old thing called the economy. Perhaps there's a difference between that and putting together a witches brew of toxins and carcinogens into a little white stick and setting fire to it for fun.

I don't know, I could be wrong, I just kinda take the long view of what most people in the world are going to be saying in 100 years time, and I suspect it'll be something like:

"They put WHAT in their mouths? for pleasure?"

All I know is...growing up, we had ONE smoker in the house...my dad. My mom and brother BOTH developed Asthma. I simply have a better constitution, and rarely get illnesses.

Smoking is banned indoors pretty much in places where other people don't have much choice in the matter.

Personally though, I think there should be "smoke-free" bars, and likewise restaurants that cater to smokers, if they so prefer...

I'm actually perfectly fine with places having a smoking section though, as long as there's a wall (glass or otherwise) between the sections.... I think some of the current regulations are a bit far.

Likewise, office buildings should have indoor smoking lounges, as long as they can be vented to the outside (which shouldn't be too difficult).

I have a question.
Why haven't they took cig's off the market?
answer: Look at all the money the goverment is making off the poor smokers.
Is it right for the goverment to let us buy cigs on one hand and than on the other hand say you cann't smoke that here, or here, or here.

Okay have sone bars etc smokefree, but shouldn't it be up to the owner of the bar or restant to decide if it's gonna be smoke-free or not.
Everyone has free will and they can decide for themselves if they want to be around the smoke.

On the 'Government is making money from smokers' stance..... just wondered if anyone has actually done the calculation ?

You know, income gained in tax on cigarettes versus the cost of health/medical treatment, business costs in sick days, etc.

Anyone seen any figures on this?

There are bans on other things... you can't drink in public and can't have open containers of alcohol in your car. Can't pee in public. Some factories, like Merck, have been forced to alter their factories so that they won't put out the godawful stench they used to. Regulations are put on cars and businesses to help clean up pollution.

Smoking sucks. It's dirty and it stinks. I knew this as a smoker and still know it as a former-smoker. People who don't do it don't want the side affects of it from those who do. I don't believe all of the second-hand smoke info I've seen and heard, but I do believe there can be some damage from it. Can't control people in their own homes, but in public they can and should control it. I'd rather not smell like smoke and have to breathe it in just because someone else near me is smoking. If I'm in their home, that's different because I know they smoke and expect it, so can choose to go or not. But in public, in common use areas, I shouldn't have to deal with it.

Pointing out how dirty the air is doesn't make the added personal pollution of smoking ok. If the pollution problem is really the concern here, then first on the list should be something that each individual can control and do themselves... like stop smoking. If having a beef about smoking bans and laws is the real concern here, then don't disguise it as an environmental issue.

And if you think your child is seriously in danger from lead, you should have him tested and not wait for a doctor to tell you to.

[edit on 10-9-2004 by torque]

I'll admit that immediately doing away with the oil isn't gonna work, that is why in my original post I put "some sort of standard that considers the risks posed vs. the benefits gained".

yes, many of us need cars to get to work, store and the like. But when the anti-smoker is someone who I know is hopping from bar to bar, killing his liver while endangering my children and every other child by driving drunk...all the while burning gas....well...who is he to gripe at anyone about the smoke he passes through on the street?

"and a lot of them are necessary for business and commercial purposes, you know that old thing called the economy"

so, having a ton of very expensive signs hanging in store windows in hopes that it will lure you into them to buy crap you really don't need is necessary for our economy???
sorry, don't even buy that part of your argument. but even it that was true, the fact is, there are substitutes for the xylenes, the styrenes and many of the other substances that are being used in the prints shops. unfortunately, they aren't as effective and therefore it takes more time to print those signs, which makes their cost higher....but still, there are alternatives, if we chose to use them.

"On the 'Government is making money from smokers' stance..... just wondered if anyone has actually done the calculation ?

You know, income gained in tax on cigarettes versus the cost of health/medical treatment, business costs in sick days, etc.

Anyone seen any figures on this?"

with one out of every eight children living in the smog filled cities having the lungs developing abnormally, just how do you propose we get an accurate assessment of the "cost of tobacco usage"? how can you prove that this one here is a result of second hand smoke, or smoking for that matter, but the other one isn't?

"then first on the list should be something that each individual can control and do themselves"

what, like walking a mile or more to work every day.....been there, done that....
or refusing to buy the newest, most improved kitchen gadget developed to cut your french fries or replacing perfectly good appliances and such with the newer model....been there, done that....
how about not burning garbage, branches, leaves, and whatever else in the backyard.....nope, don't do it..
wearing perfume....nope
dumping toxic cleansers down the drain...try not to, try my best not to use them myself either.
and....I haven't taken too many photographs in my lifetime either.
writing letters to gov't officials....oh ya....

I agree with you, each person should take responsibility and do what they can to cut out the toxins we throw into the environment. I've done what I can to clear them out of my personal space, since many will cause me physical discomfort. But, when placed into the realm of the gov't well, we get what we are getting.....the loudest screams will get addressed, mob rule, as long as the mob have the backing of big business and big money.....ain't no business gonna help finance a study to learn of the danger their industry poses to the population, so this tactic won't do much of anything to clean up the mess. what, the smokers, according to the anti-smokers shouldn't be smoking inside the workplace.......even when the air is so grossly contaminated by the substances used in it that any poor bird that flys into it dies within 24 hrs. they shouldn't be smoking in their cars, not if there are others in them... they shouldn't be smoking while walking down the streets, and they shouldn't be smoking at home around their family....well..if the gov't actuallly believes all this crap, they should kiss the taxmoney they get from the sale of cigarettes goodbye and prohibit the sale of it....then you guys can go on to your next scapegoat....then the next, then the next.......and of course, all the while, more of our kids will still be growing up with undeveloped lungs because too many of the population will not want to give up those things that they enjoy, like sunday drives, trips to the beach, bar hopping friday night...

As far as my son's problem goes, well, he is about grown now, and I wasn't aware of the danger that my husband's employment posed to him when the seizures occured.....it seems that the only information about lead poisoning I had access to was what was on the TV.....old paint causes lead poison....didn't have that problem, so didn't think too much about it. want to save lives...well, how about making the information about the occupational dangers pose a part of the school's curriculum so that these kids can have a better understanding of that important aspect when making their career decisions.

many of your posts just confirm what I believe......you want the clean air, as long as you can pick and chose who should sacrifice what for it... forget about making the decisions intelligently, that might bring to light the damage that you are doing.
if you are not willing to curtail you consumption of oil, and the products that people poison themselves making, well, then maybe you have no reason on this earth to gripe about the guy walking down the street smoking the cigarette....maybe the fact that he is walking to work is saving us from a massive amount of pollutants being thrown into the air?

My grandmother died from lung cancer. She never smoked a cigarette in her entire life, but lived in a small house with smokers most of her life.....for me personally. I can not be around it, my DH goes outside to smoke.....my sinuses swell up and I have a hard time breathing......yes, smokers have rights, but so do people like myself. When I'm out in public, I still have a right not to breath in something harmful to me...........

Originally posted by LadyV
My grandmother died from lung cancer. She never smoked a cigarette in her entire life, but lived in a small house with smokers most of her life.....for me personally. I can not be around it, my DH goes outside to smoke.....my sinuses swell up and I have a hard time breathing......yes, smokers have rights, but so do people like myself. When I'm out in public, I still have a right not to breath in something harmful to me...........

And I would fully support taking action to take ALL of the most common allergins out of the public space!! You know, perfumes, incenses, peanuts, air fresheners, ect....as it is, a patient suffering from respitory problems can't even expect not to come into contact with some of these things...heck our hospital uses pine-sol to clean with, even though pine is a common allergin!

to me, it would make more sense, do more good, and be much easier to justify than the stupid smoking bans will do.
the way the NY law is written, I could go into a resturand and smoke a clove cigarette, they couldn't do a thing about, and, I could go in and smoke a joint and be in less trouble and have a lower fine.
they do need to put it into some sort of perspective!

My opinion is in the minority most likely, but I don't understand why smoking is legal at all! Drugs are illegal because they are bad for you.....cigarettes kill far more than drugs but are still legal....same with alcohol...they're as bad if not worse than many illegal drugs

Originally posted by dawnstar
Study: Dirty Air Lowers Lung Capacity

www.mercurynews.com...

"New research shows that teenagers who grow up in heavy air pollution have reduced lung capacity, putting them at risk for illness and premature death as adults."

It is interesting to note that USC study that you referenced also says that growing up with pollution stalls lung growth as much as growing up with a mother who smokes.
www.sciencenews.org...

I think that we can all agree that passive smoking and pollution can both cause illness, but when you look at solution, I think that your idea of "equal" regulation is not feasible. In the case of second-hand smoke, the cause is known and the solution simple--control exposure to cigarette smoke. In the case of pollution, the causes are many and the solutions are anything but easy. We can't just take all the cars, trucks and buses off the roads, close all the factories and ban coal fuel sources. The controls here are incremental and because commerce is involved, the issue becomes political. For example, since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, the prevailing government has either strengthened or weakened the regulations included in this act. Some progress was made in the 90's throughout the Clinton adminstration, but any progress was more than negated after four years of Bush as the Clean Air Act has been all but gutted, exposing us to mercury, carbon monoxide, lead, arsenic, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals (some of the same toxins present in cigarette smoke, BTW.)

So do we not regulate passive smoking, which has a more clear solution, because the broader issue of pollution control is difficult to regulate? I think the arguments are mutually exclusive and quite frankly, it doesn't make sense, especially in light of the fact that the combination of second-hand smoke and pollution can do even more damage.

I think that it is also interesting to watch as smokers decry the bans and the hundreds of studies that prove that passive smoking is dangerous. I think the tobacco companies are to blame for much of this--they have spent trillions of dollars over the past 150+ years not only aggressively promoting their product to everyone over the age of 9, but also working to foster disinformation campaigns, create false reasearch, and to work against local legislation. I've included a link to page that compiles some of the articles that list the tobacco industries treacheries, but they have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar too many times. Some documented examples of the tobacco propoganda machine include:

*Creating under-the-table partnerships with HMO's, health magazines, and media companies to suppress publication of damaging information regarding smoking and passive smoking.

*Falsifying research that diminishes the effects of cigarettes and second-hand smoke.

*Being caught bribing state officials and politicians in exchange for non-support of anti-smoking bans and legislation

*Attempting to destroy evidence that shows how they manipulated nicotine levels in tobacco products specifically marketed to teenagers with the intent to get them hooked so they could literally sell them cigarettes "from the cradle to the grave."

There is more of this stuff out there--but www.smokefreemichigan.org... is a good place to start.

There is a little park with swings and a climbing set for kids right near my apartment building and it is always pretty crowded. There is also an office building down the street and frequently, smokers will sit in the kiddie park and smoke right in the faces of these children. I've seen women--pregnant mothers even, ask the smokers to please move away from their kids, only to be rebuked and looked at as if they are crazy. It is proven that second-hand smoke is detrimental to children and pregnant mothers (even outdoors--see www.iowaattorneygeneral.org/ atty_gen/WebReportVersionsmoke.pdf , family.samhsa.gov...) the fact that these people are so irresponsible only goes to show the need for stricter legislation and more education. No one would question protesters marching around a factory spewing toxins into the air, but what would the reaction be if there were protesters marching around this group of smokers at a park where there are children playing? Crazies, right? But considering the damage that these smokers could be doing to these kids lungs, a protest isn't so crazy.

And are these kids breathing in pollution too? Sure, but does that mean that they should also breathe in the cigarette smoke?



[edit on 11-9-2004 by lmgnyc]

Well, well.........

Why isn't the owner of a business (restaurant, bar, etc.) allowed to set the rules for his/her own place of business without the government intruding? If I can be refused service at the owner's discretion (for not wearing a jacket and tie, no shirt, etc.) why does that same owner not have the discretion to allow or not allow smoking in their establishment? If non-smokers shun the place, well that's just fine, and it's to the detriment of the business, but it's the result of a business decision made by the owner/management.

I propose that government at any level has the right to ban smoking in public facilities under its jurisdiction, but absolutely no local, state, or federal body has any right at all to dictate smoking policies to private businesses.

The various smoking bans that are in effect and spreading across the country are a prime example of Big Brother intruding and meddling in affairs that are none of government's business nor authority.

There are far too many laws and regulations on the books already that are supposed to protect us from ourselves, and I fear that they are only going to increase as time goes by until every aspect of our personal lives is subject to governmental regulation and intrusion.

Originally posted by SgtNFury
Well, well.........

Why isn't the owner of a business (restaurant, bar, etc.) allowed to set the rules for his/her own place of business without the government intruding? If I can be refused service at the owner's discretion (for not wearing a jacket and tie, no shirt, etc.) why does that same owner not have the discretion to allow or not allow smoking in their establishment? If non-smokers shun the place, well that's just fine, and it's to the detriment of the business, but it's the result of a business decision made by the owner/management.

I propose that government at any level has the right to ban smoking in public facilities under its jurisdiction, but absolutely no local, state, or federal body has any right at all to dictate smoking policies to private businesses.

The various smoking bans that are in effect and spreading across the country are a prime example of Big Brother intruding and meddling in affairs that are none of government's business nor authority.

There are far too many laws and regulations on the books already that are supposed to protect us from ourselves, and I fear that they are only going to increase as time goes by until every aspect of our personal lives is subject to governmental regulation and intrusion.

The smoking bans in businesses are mainly there to protect the workers more than the patrons. People who work in smoky businesses are subject to a great deal of second-hand smoke--it is like living with a smoker, which has been proven to cause illness in non-smokers. Because cigarette smoke is classified by the EPA as a "Group A" toxin--the same as asbestos and radon, or those that cause cancer, employers must protect their workers. In essence, by allowing smoking in their establishment, they are not protecting their employees from daily exposure to a cancer causing toxin. They are also leaving themselves open for lawsuits down the road if an employee should develop a smoking-related illness. It's not as simple as saying--"Well, if you don't want to inhale smoke, don't work in a restaurant/bar/etc." You are talking about an entire industry, and being that only a minority of people smoke, there are many non-smokers that work in clubs/bars/restaurants and their health is at risk. Think about coal miners--I doubt that they think about the 10% of miners that die of black lung when they take the job--they need the money, the coal mine is the only place to work, coal mining is the only way to pay the bills, etc.

Without regulation, employers will take advantage of the fact that people need to work. For some people, working in a restaurant or bar is the only work that they are skilled to do and the only place that they can work. Why should busboys or runners be subject to lung disease in 20 years?

A business owner may certainly opt to create a smoking establishment--there are quite a few in NYC--but they have to comply with regulations that protect their workers and ensure that proper ventilation systems are installed. And non-smokers can opt to go there or not.

And for all of the crowing that the NY bar owners did about how the smoking bans would put them out of business, it seems like it was all just talk. Business is up since the ban took effect -- www.no-smoke.org...

"But when the anti-smoker is someone who I know is hopping from bar to bar, killing his liver while endangering my children and every other child by driving drunk...all the while burning gas....well...who is he to gripe at anyone about the smoke he passes through on the street?"

A drunk behind the wheel is a completely different issue than smoking vs. non-smoking. Drunks have been driving around killing people long before smoking bans were put in place in bars. While it's true a drunken non-smoking killer has other things to worry about than second hand smoke, I think all the sober, law abiding non-smokers have a valid complaint.


"what, the smokers, according to the anti-smokers shouldn't be smoking inside the workplace.......even when the air is so grossly contaminated by the substances used in it that any poor bird that flys into it dies within 24 hrs."

Not all work places have air quality so poor as yours. I'd prefer not having smoking in the workplace because it makes me physically nauseous at times when it's particularly heavy. Now I work in a small office where people are allowed to smoke. Luckily I work in an area where I only have to smell the president's smoke for a few hours per day, but it's more than enough. If the air is that bad, you should be glad the government is banning smoking. It sounds like what you're saying is, you want smoking to be free-handed until they solve all the other problems with air pollution. Anyone truly concerned with improving the environment and air quality for all people should see the smoking bans as helpful. It's that much more smoke and carcinogens not going into the atmosphere at large.

"then you guys can go on to your next scapegoat....then the next, then the next.......and of course, all the while, more of our kids will still be growing up with undeveloped lungs because too many of the population will not want to give up those things that they enjoy, like sunday drives, trips to the beach, bar hopping friday night... "

Again, if the children's lungs are the issue, then I'd think you'd support a ban on smoking in public places where these children might be going, like restaurants, malls, stores, etc. Cars and fuel are highly regulated for pollution control and every generation gets better. I have no statistics on the percentage of air pollution that can be attributed to bar hopping, but I imagine it's probably pretty small. "the next scapegoat" makes me think that you're just taking the smoking ban thing as a personal affront rather than an impersonal method of making the public common areas more comfortable for everyone. I see smokers all the time saying "If you don't like it don't come here" or "If you can't take it get another job". Why should someone not go somewhere because of smoking? Why should someone actually have to change jobs because of smoking? Maybe a job waiting tables was all the person could get, but does that mean they should have to give up trying to make a living so that people can smoke in a restaurant? The average person is in a restaurant for about an hour. Even at 2 packs a day I could survive an hour, or a plane ride, or until break times to smoke.

Anyone who is truly concerned about the environment, the children and any other global community health issues should logically be a supporter of the smoking bans in public places.

Originally posted by torque
"But when the anti-smoker is someone who I know is hopping from bar to bar, killing his liver while endangering my children and every other child by driving drunk...all the while burning gas....well...who is he to gripe at anyone about the smoke he passes through on the street?"

A drunk behind the wheel is a completely different issue than smoking vs. non-smoking. Drunks have been driving around killing people long before smoking bans were put in place in bars. While it's true a drunken non-smoking killer has other things to worry about than second hand smoke, I think all the sober, law abiding non-smokers have a valid complaint.


"what, the smokers, according to the anti-smokers shouldn't be smoking inside the workplace.......even when the air is so grossly contaminated by the substances used in it that any poor bird that flys into it dies within 24 hrs."

Not all work places have air quality so poor as yours. I'd prefer not having smoking in the workplace because it makes me physically nauseous at times when it's particularly heavy. Now I work in a small office where people are allowed to smoke. Luckily I work in an area where I only have to smell the president's smoke for a few hours per day, but it's more than enough. If the air is that bad, you should be glad the government is banning smoking. It sounds like what you're saying is, you want smoking to be free-handed until they solve all the other problems with air pollution. Anyone truly concerned with improving the environment and air quality for all people should see the smoking bans as helpful. It's that much more smoke and carcinogens not going into the atmosphere at large.

"then you guys can go on to your next scapegoat....then the next, then the next.......and of course, all the while, more of our kids will still be growing up with undeveloped lungs because too many of the population will not want to give up those things that they enjoy, like sunday drives, trips to the beach, bar hopping friday night... "

Again, if the children's lungs are the issue, then I'd think you'd support a ban on smoking in public places where these children might be going, like restaurants, malls, stores, etc. Cars and fuel are highly regulated for pollution control and every generation gets better. I have no statistics on the percentage of air pollution that can be attributed to bar hopping, but I imagine it's probably pretty small. "the next scapegoat" makes me think that you're just taking the smoking ban thing as a personal affront rather than an impersonal method of making the public common areas more comfortable for everyone. I see smokers all the time saying "If you don't like it don't come here" or "If you can't take it get another job". Why should someone not go somewhere because of smoking? Why should someone actually have to change jobs because of smoking? Maybe a job waiting tables was all the person could get, but does that mean they should have to give up trying to make a living so that people can smoke in a restaurant? The average person is in a restaurant for about an hour. Even at 2 packs a day I could survive an hour, or a plane ride, or until break times to smoke.

Anyone who is truly concerned about the environment, the children and any other global community health issues should logically be a supporter of the smoking bans in public places.

I think you are taking the word scapegoat too lightly, or maybe you don't understand just what I mean by it.

Tobacco usage has been around probably as long as man......and it's considered sacred in many american subcultures.....notably the native americans..
40-50 years ago, there were not that many kids suffering from asthma, none of my friends had problems breething. I was practically raised in one of those smoked filled bars.....and well, tell ya want, I have more adverse effects from the exposure to the constant exposure to alchoholics than the side effects of the tobacco smoke. In plain simple words.....there are far fewer smokers in the world......and well, walk into any school nurses office and ask her to take a peak into her medicine chest.....it will probably be filled with mostly inhalers!!! Heck if they came out and said that the air quality in general is making it difficult for a large portion to survive in this world and measures to imrove it must be taken, I would agree!!! But, second hand smoke IS NOT causing this increase in asthma!! And that is the spin that is being put on it... Just blame the whole thing on the smokers......and divert their attention from the real cause!! The amount of smokers has decreased, the number of bans have increased, yet the number of asthmatics is still raising in alarming numbers!! It's not the smokers! Yet, Bush and friends are playing down the problem, easing up the restrictions on the businesses, and encouraging companies to take their manufacturing overseas....where there is less pollution control.
Well, I can make a few good predidtions of just what is gonna happen in a few years if certain facts prove out to be true...
Gloabal Warming has and will continue to play havoc with crops......which will lead to food shortages...
Bush and company will continue to act like financially inempt people......and blow our economy......making resources even more scarce.
More and more companies will continiue to fly overseas where labor is cheap and the pollution restrictions are non-existant...and I don't care if that pollution is halfway around the world, it will still effect our population.
So......we will see the effects of that polllution more and more....
And, the powers that be, still protecting their business interests and wealth will run the smoking is bad for you as far as they can, then switch to the next, then the next.....and the population, as the resources get less and less, and the fear builds more and more will act more unreasonable as time goes by.
Eventually they will be like those in pre-ww2 germany, willing to believe claims as insane as "The jews will kidnap your christian children and sacrifice them on their alters!"
What, their is already a growing sentiment that kind of says......remove the danger as far from me as possible! I don't even want the effects of smelling their clothing.....well......I am sorry, but xylene is ten times worse in that effect as smoking will ever be......but oh ya, we're solving that problem soon....we'll just ship those smelly jobs overseas....let it kill someone else. thinking that you'll be save.....ain't gonna work. The problems with the pollution has been known for over 30 years, we have scientific evidence that it is just as valid as any study that has been done on smoking and if this administration seems to feel it is okay to ignore or belittle that threat....well, I will treat the issue of second hand smoke in like manner.
They are picking out scapegoats in hopes that the public will direct their anger at them instead of looking for the true cause and directing it at them! And, it seems to be working quite nicely.
If tobacco smoke is so dagerous, you should be demanding your government make them illegal.
If you are truly concerned with the health of others you should be demanding they at least stop easing their restrictions and preferably they should be tightening. and, you should also be looking into your own habits and maybe ceasing some of them.
You should be demanding that no more of your taxmoney be used to subsidize the farmers that grow, according to you, a killer crop and that they divert that money to those farmers of fruits and vegetables, most are not subsidized and if everyone in the us were to eat according to their recommendations, well, we don't grow that much fruits and vegetables.
Instead, you spend your time pushing a small portion of the population farther and farther from you, unless of course they conform to what you think they should be...and our government still appears to be about as fork-tongued as they were when they first chatted with the american indians.
if it is that dangerous, outlaw it.....instead, they take your money to grow it, then they tax it when they sell it, and then, you gripe because people smoke it.......try to justify denying medical care to those who smoke, endangers employees who work in these places where there is pollution problems equilvalent to any danger that shs may pose if not more, and as a last resort.....just get them the hell away from me.....they can be the first to send into your concentration camps if they are too stupid to quit.....and then.....I CAN HAVE THEIR JOB, THEIR HOME, THEIR FOOD!!!

I know that isn't what most anti-smokers are thinking, but this just may be the long term effect...
this is what I am speaking out against! At least let the truth be known now.......the lung cancer, the respitory problems, the diabetes, ect.....are the effect of many different factors.....one may be shs, but it shares it'sBut place with driving your car, as well as the chemicals involved in the workplace, the crap that they throw into the products they sell you, the plutonian in the air, ect. .....so, we all share in the blame now, don't we.
yep, makes reall good sense to me.....

oh, by the way....before NY state had even announced the idea of waivers, they had exempted Kodak from the newest bans....you can smoke inside Kodak. Proving that throwing the smokers outside is not the ultimate best solution in all cases....I imagine that the reason they did this was that the risk of one of the smokers throwing their butt into the wrong area and blowing rochester off the map was greater than what the second hand smoke was presenting to you! that is a great example of taking the risk of shs and putting into relation with the other risks in the workplace...
you can have your smokefree resturants and bars, don't care really......
but, I do disagree when it comes to other "workplaces".

I don't think anyone is making smokers the scapegoat for asthma. I guess I don't get what your whole point is. You seem to be saying that since the rest of the world can mess up the air, it's not fair to ask smokers to curb their contribution to it.

I'm not worried about xylene or other chemicals when I support a public-places smoking ban. I'm thinking about the smoker and the fact that I don't want it on me or around me in certain places. Don't want the smell or the mess. Don't want ashes blown onto me or for my body or clothing to be burned by accident. Smoking bans have nothing to do with air pollution in general, and they were taking place long before Bush got into office. The bottom line is that the public areas are for everyone's use and a habit as intrusive as smoking needs to be curbed in those areas so that all can make use of them comfortably. I think it's pretty commonly accepted that the issue of smoking and second hand smoke exposure are pretty removed from the overall big picture of air pollution. The only thing that can be done about the big dirty picture is to write to politicians, get involved in environmental organizations and use your vote for a green agenda candidate. Accept that second hand smoke is a hazard of at least some degree. It does contribute to pollution to some degree.

Often for something to change environmentally it takes a disaster.

Point #1:I am of the opinion that individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesnt have a direct impact on others. If you want to use chewing tobacco or snuff in a public building, I have no problem with that. However, smoking tobacco(or anything else) in an enclosed space, effects other people negatively. Hey, I like listening to music, but I dont have the right to walk into a restraunt with a boom box turned up to the full volume. Why not? Because it has a negative effect on other people around me. And music doest even cause cancer! :p

Point #2: You cant compare the tobacco usage of ancient Native Americans, to the smoking habits of people today. First of all, the life expectancy of N.Americans was only around 30. Not many people would have lived long enough to develop serious side effects from smoking(lung cancer, emphysemia). Secondly, there is a big difference between smoking outside around a camp fire, and smoking in a small enclosed space that you share with other people.

Point #3: Chronic inhalation of cigarette smoke DOES cause lung cancer and emphyemia, along with a number of other conditions. This is medical fact. If you are an "average Joe" office worker that doesnt smoke, the chance that you will develop lung cancer or emphysemia is extremely small. However, if you have a daily smoking habit, your likelyhood of developing one of these disease rises exponentially. Your lungs are designed to breath air, and common sense would tell you that inhaling smoke is probably not a good idea.

I agree with you on your stance against global polution, however I dont think that the effect that smoking has on public health cant be taken lightly. Second hand smoke is unhealthy, yet easy to prevent. Why not do something about it?

[edit on 14-9-2004 by apw100]