Secondhand smoke is a health hazard

[Icycle]

Drinking kills others when driving is involved. Why not ban drinking too -- it affects people who don't even drink.

Well, driving while intoxicated kills other people, so we ban it. Driving sober and drinking without driving kill a lot fewer people, so we tolerate them.

The whole point of this study is that second hand smoke does kill people, so we should ban smoking in places that expose people to second hand smoke.

I have no problem with people killing themselves slowly with cigarettes. Smoke all you want! Two at a time if you like! Just don't smoke where I have to inhale your carcinogens.

People on this thread also keep try to force a comparision between smoking and unhealthy dietary habits. Both certainly negatively impact the health of the person who indulges in them. The key difference is that smoking also negatively impacts the health of innocent bystanders.

 

[RobAce]

"You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

GREAT FREAKING QUOTE Goodie......
I love that quote!

Rob

 

[Goodieluver]

This is going to sound big government, but im for banning smoking in ALL indoor stores, restaurants, sporting events, bars etc. i see it as if your smoking, your bothering people, if your not smoking, your not bothering anyone. seems reasonable to me.

What about outdoor sporting events?

 

[Goodieluver]

GREAT FREAKING QUOTE Goodie......
I love that quote!

Rob

As do i

As for diet not affectin others, it does

People who are fat cause insurances and doctor visits' rates to rise due to increase in activity. As ive stated for the third time now, buisnesses are FIRING employees due to them being fat, cuz it costs too much to keep them on the health plan cuz since they are overweight, they meet a "high risk" profile. I will simply ask this. How does me smoking while walkin down the sidewalk affect the majority populace? It doesnt

How does me smoking in a bar affect the majority populace? It doesnt, sure maybe non smokers may be there but who thinks that by goin to a bar it will be smoke free?(also its ironic, people who consume alcohol are complaining about smoke being bad when alcohol is BAD FOR YOU) YOU WALKING TO THE BAR AND BACK is more toxic than being in a bar for 3-5 hours due to the pollutants in the atmosphere. If u wanna ban smoking, argue against banning any form of internal combustion engine. If u want to ban smoking, why arent u riding a horse or rickshaw to work\the store daily?

 

[Goodieluver]

I'm not saying ban smoking.

If you want to smoke, go right ahead. But people who make the healtheir choice as to not smoke, shouldn't have to deal with your addiction.

I do hope u dont drink alcohol at all, or do any sort of drug usage, or use a cell phone(some say cell phone signals cause cancer) as those are "unhealthy" issues in modern society. Go join an amish farm if u wanna be away from the vices of the english.

 

[Icycle]

I avoid areas with smoke when I can, but you can't expect all pool halls or bars to ban smoking -- they'd lose half of their clientele.

This has in fact been proven to be completely false. The city of El Paso, Texas implemented a public smoking ban in January of 2002. The Texas Department of Health and the United States Centers for Disease Control compared the sales tax revenues for the 12 years precededing the ban and the 1 year following the ban, and found no statistically significant difference in bar and restaurant revenues from before and after the ban was enacted. This is consistent the finding of similar studies performed in other jurisdictions with smoking bans.

As of January 2004, five states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New York) and 72 municipalities prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, restaurants, and bars.

See this webpage for more information: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

 

[Icycle]

Several people on the thread have suggested that if someone doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke, they should just go someplace else. The problem is that some people just don't have that choice. Bartenders and waitresses for instance have to be exposed to second-hand cigrette smoke on a daily basis, whether they like it or not. Smoking was banned from airline flights in part because exposure to second-hand smoke was a very real occupational hazard for flight attendants.

And just because there exist other dangers that we can't control doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something about the dangers that we can control.

 

[tulipangel]

WOW, so all those years as a kid in the car with my parents puffing away might affect me? DUH! lol Eh, cant help what other people do and it sucks that non-smokers are getting sick but if its not one thing its another!

 

[maniactickler]

What about outdoor sporting events?

Anything outdoor is fine of course.

 

[maniactickler]

This has in fact been proven to be completely false. The city of El Paso, Texas implemented a public smoking ban in January of 2002. The Texas Department of Health and the United States Centers for Disease Control compared the sales tax revenues for the 12 years precededing the ban and the 1 year following the ban, and found no statistically significant difference in bar and restaurant revenues from before and after the ban was enacted. This is consistent the finding of similar studies performed in other jurisdictions with smoking bans.

As of January 2004, five states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New York) and 72 municipalities prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, restaurants, and bars.

See this webpage for more information: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

I agree with icy. banning smoking from bars wont hurt business much at all. if you ban smoking in all bars, its not like people can go to another bar to smoke. they will just continue to go where they always go and deal with the minor inconvenience.

 

[IrishTickle]

I agree with icy. banning smoking from bars wont hurt business much at all. if you ban smoking in all bars, its not like people can go to another bar to smoke. they will just continue to go where they always go and deal with the minor inconvenience.

Well Ireland has banned smoking for 2 years (I think?) now, and pubs (which were the main reason for the smoking ban) not only smell nice now, they have increased numbers of people attending.

I don't agree with an outright ban everywhere (suicide is your own choice after all!) but in the workplace is a must. As was pointed out, bar staff/ hotel staff/ anybody else who works in a smoking environment are suffering because selfish people want to smoke. Over here every workplace has a designated smoking area, which apparently has proven great as singles meeting places!

And coparing smoking to anything else that's bad for you still doesn't make smoking anymore dangerous.Smoking kills. It's a proven fact. So does second hand smoke. Not as assuredly, but it does. That's what the argument is. Kill yourself and not others.

 

[aun_existe_amor]

Recent Canadian government research has shown that cigarette smoking not only impairs sexual ability, it actually causes shrinkage of the male sexual "equipment."

Wow! If that is true, we need to get the word out ASAP! Maybe the warning on the cigarette packs should be updated to reflect this new information.

How about something like this:

* Warning: These cigarettes are king size -- how about you?

* Warning: Smoking sections in restaurants aren't the only things getting smaller.

* Warning: If you don't reduce your smoking, your smoking will reduce you.

* Warning: Smoking may lead to ridicule on your honeymoon.

* Warning: Smoke rises, but you may not.

* Warning: Second-hand smoke can be harmful to children -- That is.. if you're capable of conceiving any.

* Warning: Cigarettes get shorter the more you puff -- so do you.

* Warning: How can you enjoy a smoke afterwards, if there's no before?

* Warning: The only thing left after a smoke is a dead stub.

* Warning: Don't throw lit cigarettes in the urinal -- you might not have the range to put them out.

 

[MrMacphisto]

This has in fact been proven to be completely false. The city of El Paso, Texas implemented a public smoking ban in January of 2002. The Texas Department of Health and the United States Centers for Disease Control compared the sales tax revenues for the 12 years precededing the ban and the 1 year following the ban, and found no statistically significant difference in bar and restaurant revenues from before and after the ban was enacted. This is consistent the finding of similar studies performed in other jurisdictions with smoking bans.

As of January 2004, five states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, and New York) and 72 municipalities prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, restaurants, and bars.

See this webpage for more information: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5307a2.htm

Well, I'm glad that the economic damage doesn't seem to be as much as I thought. Maybe you're right... Maybe it won't truly affect sales, but I still think we're headed down a rather... interesting road with this debate.

 

[MrMacphisto]

And just because there exist other dangers that we can't control doesn't mean that we shouldn't do something about the dangers that we can control.

This is the same logic used to support pre-emptive strikes. We see a danger and try to solve it by getting involved, but instead, we just worsen the problem. Obviously, the repercussions of a smoking ban on indoor spaces is nothing remotely similar to the repercussions of war, however.... It's interesting to see mostly liberals support the indoor smoking ban idea. I thought liberals were the same people that hated it when conservatives told them what they could and couldn't do in their private lives.

You see, conservatives use a similar logic to yours when it comes to not supporting adoption rights for gay couples. They say that allowing a child to be raised in a gay family atmosphere harms him or her psychologically. Understandably, liberals reject this notion and say that the government has no business in this issue, but conservatives often pull out surveys and research to back up their claims.

What this boils down to is.... Whether you are liberal, conservative, or something else, how much control do you want to give the government? I'd prefer the government to stay out of the gay issue AND the smoking one. More often than not, it seems that government always manages to overstep its bounds once it is given the green light to interfere in our lives. You might be alright with a ban on smoking indoors in public places, but what about an outdoor ban? Believe it or not, there are cities in this country that have implemented partial outdoor bans on smoking -- which were implemented after the indoor bans were put in place. How far are we gonna go with this? For every group of people in favor of these indoor bans, there's always a certain percentage that would favor an outdoor ban as well, and even a few that want to outlaw smoking outright....

All I'm saying is... be careful what you wish for with government....

 

[MrMacphisto]

Recent Canadian government research has shown that cigarette smoking not only impairs sexual ability, it actually causes shrinkage of the male sexual "equipment."

Wow! If that is true, we need to get the word out ASAP! Maybe the warning on the cigarette packs should be updated to reflect this new information.

How about something like this:

* Warning: These cigarettes are king size -- how about you?

* Warning: Smoking sections in restaurants aren't the only things getting smaller.

* Warning: If you don't reduce your smoking, your smoking will reduce you.

* Warning: Smoking may lead to ridicule on your honeymoon.

* Warning: Smoke rises, but you may not.

* Warning: Second-hand smoke can be harmful to children -- That is.. if you're capable of conceiving any.

* Warning: Cigarettes get shorter the more you puff -- so do you.

* Warning: How can you enjoy a smoke afterwards, if there's no before?

* Warning: The only thing left after a smoke is a dead stub.

* Warning: Don't throw lit cigarettes in the urinal -- you might not have the range to put them out.

Those are great lines... I'll put it this way... While I "stand up" for smokers' rights, I don't actually smoke for the same reasons.

 

[RobAce]

On many posts within this thread some have been comparing smoking to obesity and saying that smoking is more harmful than obesity. I have through reading journals online from doctors, the CDC and other sources have found that obesity is actually more harmful and is becomming the nation's #1 killer ahead of cancer and heart disease.

Obesity is recognized by the National Institutes of Health as a disease and medical problems caused by obesity are numerous and can be serious or life threatening and is independently associated with an increased mortality rate.

Some of these obesity-related medical conditions are:

Diabetes (80% of Type II diabetics are obese), stroke, hypertension, heart trouble, shortness of breath, gallbladder disease, elevated blood cholesterol levels, some cancers (including breast cancer, colorectal, prostate, endometrial, cervical, and ovarian), arthritis, other orthopedic problems, reflux esophagitis (heart burn), snoring, sleep apnea, menstrual irregularities, infertility, and others medical conditions that are more common in heavy people than in persons of normal weight.

There were several articles showing how obese parents raise obese children and it continues down the line several generations. It also showed how habits are not only picked up by children at a young age but also reinforces poor imaging by teenagers and leads to an increase of depression and suicide for younger age groups.
So obesity does hurt other people.
Am I saying that things should be banned to keep people from being obese?
NO. Its a matter of choice. I only posted this because while I might be in the wrong for posting this (look at my pic in the members section, Im like 5ft 7 and about 160-170 lbs) I had a close family member die of obesity and I see her 2 children both also obese and I fear for them as well.
We all know I stopped smoking, but I dont want to take rights away from anyone, like Mac said....be careful what you let the government control.

Rob

 

[maniactickler]

This is the same logic used to support pre-emptive strikes. We see a danger and try to solve it by getting involved, but instead, we just worsen the problem. Obviously, the repercussions of a smoking ban on indoor spaces is nothing remotely similar to the repercussions of war, however.... It's interesting to see mostly liberals support the indoor smoking ban idea. I thought liberals were the same people that hated it when conservatives told them what they could and couldn't do in their private lives.

You see, conservatives use a similar logic to yours when it comes to not supporting adoption rights for gay couples. They say that allowing a child to be raised in a gay family atmosphere harms him or her psychologically. Understandably, liberals reject this notion and say that the government has no business in this issue, but conservatives often pull out surveys and research to back up their claims.

What this boils down to is.... Whether you are liberal, conservative, or something else, how much control do you want to give the government? I'd prefer the government to stay out of the gay issue AND the smoking one. More often than not, it seems that government always manages to overstep its bounds once it is given the green light to interfere in our lives. You might be alright with a ban on smoking indoors in public places, but what about an outdoor ban? Believe it or not, there are cities in this country that have implemented partial outdoor bans on smoking -- which were implemented after the indoor bans were put in place. How far are we gonna go with this? For every group of people in favor of these indoor bans, there's always a certain percentage that would favor an outdoor ban as well, and even a few that want to outlaw smoking outright....

All I'm saying is... be careful what you wish for with government....

This is exactly the issue id expect libs to be all for. libs are for more government control anyway. less power to the people. im more surprised by conservatives being for it. like me!

 

[MrMacphisto]

This is exactly the issue id expect libs to be all for. libs are for more government control anyway. less power to the people. im more surprised by conservatives being for it. like me!

I suppose you haven't been paying much attention to the current administration. Bush is about as big government as you can get.

 

[maniactickler]

I suppose you haven't been paying much attention to the current administration. Bush is about as big government as you can get.

Well, its not the norm for republicans, but ill give you this one. a libs fantasy is still socialism.

 

[aun_existe_amor]

 

[Dussicar]

As a douchebag, monsterous, flesh-eating smoker, myself, I can honestly say that for a very long time, I have done everything in my power to make DAMN good and sure that my disgusting, satanic, brutalising habit is not, under any circumstances, partaken around people who are so much as suspected to be non-smokers...As it stands, I go on the assumption that it's everyone around me who isn't holding a cigarette.

Sure, there are arguments that your rights to not have to inhale my smoke are founded completely. Yes, this is a very self destructive habit that also drags unwilling participants in tow. Yes, it would be inconsiderate to light up around you.

Which is why I don't...PERIOD!

However, my problem with non-smokers is not that they're complaining about my smoke in their face or even their children coughing to fits. It's the fact that those I've dealt with complain about the very principle of my habit.

No, not about the fact that I'm killing myself, or that my health is at risk. But the very fact that these pretentious jackasses(venom this way comes) do what they can to make things harder on me even though they are fully aware that I go through hoops to avoid hurting them. In my opinion, this is caused by one of two reasons. Though, I have to admit, reason 1. has more merit but can still contain people from camp number 2 every now and then.

1. Said person(perhapse a non-smoker of 35 or older) is sick of having to spend years as a silent body. Not able to speak out due to the over-whelming majority of smokers from decades past. It is now their time to shine. They don't have to put up with it any longer. It's these people I accomodate. These people that make me feel bad for being so inconsiderate to in the past.

2. The younger crowd. In most cases, we see teens to young adults in this order. On the whole, from what I've observed, their behavour, their objections are 20% wanting better air conditions for their environment and 80% power trip. It's funny how some can get off doing things to anyone for that little pecking order rush, yet, convince themselves it's for the better. Not all, mind you. Those like Ticklishgiggle and some people I've met are honestly trying to help their surroundings give me the old lecture but usually back off when noticing my consideration...Unfortunately creating a new set of problems. Namely, trying to save me and my lungs from destruction. A rather sweet gesture, But I'm happy dying slowly.

Actually, I'm trying at this time to quit. Since August of last year, I took up jogging. Though I smoke, I can still go for 4 or five Kilometers in the morning and then 4 or 5 more at night.

I want to quit to see how far I can REALLY go.

PS: Sorry if this post sounds drivelly. I was up till midnight last night drinking quite heavily. I'm still a little hung over.

 

[Icycle]

In another thread I discussed a modest proposal for dealing with the negative impacting smoking has on our children.

 

[Icycle]

Sure, there are arguments that your rights to not have to inhale my smoke are founded completely. Yes, this is a very self destructive habit that also drags unwilling participants in tow. Yes, it would be inconsiderate to light up around you.

Which is why I don't...PERIOD!

Thank you! I honestly appreciate this.

However, my problem with non-smokers is not that they're complaining about my smoke in their face or even their children coughing to fits. It's the fact that those I've dealt with complain about the very principle of my habit.

I would like to prohibit smoking in public places to prevent unwilling bystanders from being exposed to second-hand smoke. I honestly don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home or car, or designated smoking areas. If you want to smoke, or drink, or use drugs, or have any kind of consentual sex act with another adult (with or without the exchange of money), I don't care, as long as no one else is harmed by it.

However, I don't think smoking should be encouraged, so I also support taxing of cigarettes to pay for such things as anti-smoking advertisement, and smoking cessation programs.

2. The younger crowd. In most cases, we see teens to young adults in this order. On the whole, from what I've observed, their behavour, their objections are 20% wanting better air conditions for their environment and 80% power trip. It's funny how some can get off doing things to anyone for that little pecking order rush, yet, convince themselves it's for the better.

I fall into this age group, but I really disagree with this as a characterization of myself. I often see conservatives complain that liberals just do what they do for power or control, but for me at least, it's just not true. As I recently posted in another thread, I believe as I do because I honestly care about the well-being of other people, not because of some kind of need to control other people's lives. I want to put limitations on public smoking for the health and well-being of non-smokers.

Actually, I'm trying at this time to quit. Since August of last year, I took up jogging. Though I smoke, I can still go for 4 or five Kilometers in the morning and then 4 or 5 more at night.

I do wish you luck in quitting. It's going to take a lot of strength, since nicotine is powerfully addictive. But once you've succeeded your running should improve! I will be happy to see what you are really capable of!

 

[MrMacphisto]

In another thread I discussed a modest proposal for dealing with the negative impacting smoking has on our children.

That was a great thread, by the way... lol

 

[MrPartickler]

Just to clarify...

There is a HUGE financial incentive for the government to crack down on smoking. The literature is littered with studies citing the large amount of health care costs ALL U.S. TAXPAYERS PAY because of the health risks and diseases associated with smoking. This is why the governement is and should be involved. <a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/0916/smoking.html">Here's one article</a>, but you can find MANY others that cite similar statistics. They come from a litany of academic and medical sources.

I should point out that one article I found (from the New England Journal of Medicine) argued that, yes the short-term health care costs could be lowered by eliminating smoking. However, they argued that long term health care costs might increase since there would be more (former) non-smokers alive and experiencing other medical conditions normally associated with old age. LOL

Anyway, I fully expect smoking to continue to be a political "whipping boy" until it's banned altogether. Why? Because politicians can score points so easily with it! They say they're tough on smoking and they instantly get votes. NO POLITICIAN who values their job will stand up and be seen as the defender of <a href="http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/antismoking/a/statistics.htm">"the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death."</a> That ship has sailed. I'll bet almost every smoker (in the US at least) will try to quit at least once in their lifetime--and probably encourage others not to even start. And, frankly, that's just not a very reliable support base.

But hey, I'm all for personal choice too. (I remember making a similar proposal for the motorcycle helmet law enforcement.) People should do what they like; however, they should elect to shoulder the full amount of those costs, should there be any related health repercussions. For example: a smoker dying of lung cancer could volunteer to pay any associated medical fees out-of pocket. Why should others have higher premiums passed on to them? And if they don't have insurance, should Medicaid be used for such a known, preventable illness?

As for secondhand smoke, that's one that no one will ever want to step up to take responsibility for. So isn't the government right in trying to eliminate it altogether? I mean, if secondhand smoke, was I dunno, say <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/17/news/economy/secondhand_smoke/">costing our economy $10B a year</a>, would smokers be voluntarily stepping up en masse and accepting responsibility for that--financially and otherwise? Probably not. 🙄

As for the other red herrings mentioned: obesity, pollution, etc. They're different issues that require different strategies. Nevertheless, stay tuned. They may be next!