P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[ReFLeX]

I have just seen the episode of Penn & Teller's B.S. where they rail against a guy in New York fighting for smoking bans. I'm not in total agreement with them, and they aired smokers using fallacies to argue against the bans, which seems foolish, but I know where they're coming from. For this thread however, I don't care about the bans or the reasoning behind them. What I want to know is,
What the crunk is the truth about secondhand smoke?

I've heard all my life that secondhand smoke is bad for your health. Now, I'm not so attached to that belief that I didn't doubt it immediately while watching the episode. So what I understand is that the EPA did a very questionable study that concluded secondhand smoke caused lung cancer. And that major anti-smoking or cancer-related organizations cite that study to support their claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous. But is that the bottom line?

I mean obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but is there really no other credible study that concludes secondhand smoke is dangerous? If not, then why would tobacco companies allow the government of Ontario to print labels on their packages extolling the effects of secondhand smoke? If there's no strong evidence, then wouldn't they fight that all the way?

Now, looking at the anti-smoking essays, I do see some curious side-stepping, such as in this factsheet (http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3543_314681_432986_langId-en,00.html) where the actual statement about secondhand smoke being dangerous is in a little block that's unsourced.
...an estimated 3,500 men and 2,900 women died from the disease.

* Source: Canadian Cancer Statistics 2004

* A non-smoker exposed to second-hand smoke has a 25% increased chance of lung cancer. Increased chances of cancer of the sinuses, brain, breast, uterine, cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and lymphoma are also noted. Health Canada estimates that more than 300 non-smokers die from lung cancer each year because of exposure to second-hand smoke.
* Several studies and significant medical experience show that those who chew tobacco have an increased risk of cancer of the oral cavity. Snuff increases the risk of cancer of the oral cavity and larynx.
* Smoking is also a contributory factor for the development of cancer of the throat, mouth, bladder, kidney, cervix and pancreas.

The encouraging news

* Tobacco use is the single most important preventable cause of death in the world...Emphasis mine. And I do remember Penn explaining how they came up with the 25% figure, and how they estimate how many die of lung cancer from exposure.

But what about the Paediatrician-in-Chief at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children (http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/ofhc/news/CLMNHO/3892.asp)
We know that second-hand smoke contributes to disease and death in childhood and later life:

*
When a pregnant woman breathes second-hand smoke, the growing fetus is also exposed to nicotine and carbon monoxide. This decreases blood flow, deprives the baby of oxygen, and can lead to low birth weight. Nicotine also reaches the fetus and affects the heart, blood vessels, digestive system, and central nervous system.
*
Several recent studies have shown that children whose mothers were exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy have poorer attention, cognition, and behaviour.
*
Babies whose mothers smoke before or after birth may also be more likely to develop colic during the first six months of life.
*
Second-hand smoke is a risk factor for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Babies are more likely to die of SIDS if any person in the home smokes.
*
Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to develop asthma, ear infections, and lung infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Children with asthma make more emergency room visits if there is second-hand smoke in their home.
*
The effects of second-hand smoke continue into later life — new evidence suggests that adults who were exposed to it as children are at higher risk for heart disease and some forms of cancer.
Yes? No?

This Ontario Medical Association position paper (http://www.oma.org/Health/tobacco/2ndsmoke.asp) does cite the EPA study, and also one from 1964(!), but also has a number of others such as 1. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation , 1991:83;1-12.

5. National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: Measuring Exposure and Assessing Health Effects. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1986.Is this all misdirection? The WHO apparently found "weak" evidence for connecting secondhand smoke and cancer. Penn says the risk is "not statistically significant". Are we talking the kind of odds such that it is possible to die in a plane crash, but statistically unlikely... to the point of statistical insignificance? Or more likely than that? Less?

[kmortis]

I've heard all my life that secondhand smoke is bad for your health. Now, I'm not so attached to that belief that I didn't doubt it immediately while watching the episode. So what I understand is that the EPA did a very questionable study that concluded secondhand smoke caused lung cancer. And that major anti-smoking or cancer-related organizations cite that study to support their claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous. But is that the bottom line?
THe problem is that the much-touted EPA study was fraudulant. They cherry picked the data for the meta-analysis, ignored 2/3rds of THAT data, doubled their margin of error, doubled the number of deaths, and then proceeded to inflate the number every subsequent time it was quoted.

Dave Hitt (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html) did a good job summarizing all the issues with this report. Take away the report, you take away the "evidence" for lethal "second hand smoke".

[IllegalArgument]

At TAM3, someone questioned P&T on the second hand smoke show. Apparently, the questioner had send info P&T about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Penn said he had looked at the information agreed that second hand smoke did actually pose a real threat. Unfortuately, B*llsh!it doesn't have the budget to redo shows, or spend time correcting them in new shows. I haven't seen the details, Penn and the questioner didn't go into it, since it was a Q&A session.

[roger]

To be honest, I don't look to Penn to evaluate scientific findings such as these. I don't think he can do it any better than I can. Give me six months of concerted effort in the field, and maybe I can evaluate the scientific merit, but other than that, no. Certainly as sceptics we can point out flawed methodology when it occurs, but otherwise we are left to seeing what the conclusions are of the majority of the experts.

With that said, it seems logical that second hand smoke can be somewhat harmful. The dangers of inhaling organics and particulates are well known. My hobby is woodworking, and there are many dangers associated with prolonged exposure to particulates down to 1 micron, solvents, etc. So in the absense of evidence in regards to second hand smoke, I'd prefer caution rather than a libertarian free for all in this matter.

[strathmeyer]

Yeah, the whole problem that that particular episode was that they were debunking one story and acting like it solved the whole issue.

The issue isn't "does second hand smoke cause cancer," the issue is "do bartenders who can't be around second hand smoke deserve to be gaurenteed a working environment".

[Loon]

Two other issues with that particular show:

1) They conflated scientific and legal proof (a la Victor Zammit), harping on the fact that a court didn't really like the study

2) They assumed (or spoke as if) the only concieveable reason to avoid secondhand smoke was the risk of lung cancer, ignoring heart disease, other lung diseases, smell and sensitivity.

[casebro]

I thought there were ground rules for cancer studies. Like exposure must double the rates, elimination/treatment must halve the rates, otherwise statistics/clusters can overly influence a study. Look at the 2,000,000 deaths in this country every year, 2,500 hundred extra from hand-me-down smoke is a pretty small risk.

[Brown]

That particular episode of BULL*** was bull****. The boys made a number of factual errors, and their conclusions did not logically follow from their presentation. At best, the episode was sloppy.

I've written about this episode before, and I won't go into gory details. Basically, the boys messed up (1) by citing a lower federal court decision as a scientific finding; (2) by falsely suggesting that a person's right to put substances into his own body (assuming that such a right exists) can encompass putting the same substances in the body of another who would not put them in his own body voluntarily; and (3) by suggesting that if second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, those exposed to second-hand smoke don't have a beef (which is incorrect from both a factual and legal standpoint).

There was an incident at TAM3 that showed that even Penn Jillette didn't really buy into the message he was trying to sell. During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

[Ohmer]

(3) by suggesting that if second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, those exposed to second-hand smoke don't have a beef (which is incorrect from both a factual and legal standpoint).


Yes. To me, this is like farting in someone's face and then saying they shouldn't be upset because it won't harm their health.

I really didn't like that episode.

[KingMerv00]

HOW MUCH second hand smoke do you need to be exposed to for it to be harmful?

Live with a smoker?

Work with smokers?

[Dogdoctor]

If you are a cat second hand smoke might be bad also.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-07/tu-nss072902.php

[Jorghnassen]

HOW MUCH second hand smoke do you need to be exposed to for it to be harmful?

Live with a smoker?

Work with smokers?


Depends on your health status prior to exposure. If you have asthma, for example, it's no fun...

[Melendwyr]

Yes. To me, this is like farting in someone's face and then saying they shouldn't be upset because it won't harm their health.

I really didn't like that episode. If I remember correctly flatulence has been shown to spread bacteria. So it's entirely possible it could harm their health.

[egslim]

It's anecdotal, but http://rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_abuse.shtml
A friend of mine asked me to take a look at her computer. She said the computer was unusually "quiet" and would reboot itself on occasion. I surmised correctly that the fan on her power supply was faulty. She was a chain smoker and apparently smoked a lot while working on the computer; not only was the power supply fan gummed up with revolting tar and nicotine, but the CPU's cooling fan was clogged beyond use, and the cdrom drive drawer would not open. This is the only computer I have ever worked on that died from smoking.
AndI've seen a computer die from smoking, too.

A customer came in with a dead computer, claimed it was under warranty, and asked if we could fix it. We had look at it, and before we even laid eyes on it, we could smell it. Imagine the stench of an overused ashtray times ten.

We looked at the yellow case (it was supposed to be beige) and the date of purchase (3-4 months previous) and goggled in disbelief that she actually had any lungs left.

"What are you doing with this computer?" I asked in total disbelief.

It was at a taxi service. She smoked, the cabbies smoked, and the room was apparently only about eight by twelve. Smoking took place 24/7 in this place, and her fingers and the computer bore witness. We opened the case, and there were visible deposits of brown tar everywhere. The whole thing was gummy and slimy inside.

We had to tell her she was on her own. Naturally, she countered with the "it's under warranty" argument, but the computer was well beyond that. She left quite mad. We insisted she take her computer with her when she left.

If that's what can happen to a computer... ;)

[SquishyDave]

There was an incident at TAM3 that showed that even Penn Jillette didn't really buy into the message he was trying to sell. During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.
I'm pretty sure he said in the episode he doesn't like second hand smoke any more than any other non smoker, I believe the skit with the loud annoying musicians was illistrating this. But that wasn't the point, I have to put up with a lot of things I don't like because the skeptical tools I use come up with an answer that opposes my preferences. That's part of being a skeptic. You can still hate second hand smoke but support peoples right to blow it in your face if it's not harmful. (You get my meaning, just exagerating the point.)

Apart from that, I really don't know if second hand smoke is harmful, I looked into for a bit but got so much contradictory info that I gave up. Don't know if it hurts, don't care enough to find out.

[Rockin' Rick]

Basically, the boys messed up (1) by citing a lower federal court decision as a scientific finding;

That court found that the EPA testing methods were seriously flawed, thus the results were in question, and the report discounted. That court's decision had nothing to do with the science in particular.

(2) by falsely suggesting that a person's right to put substances into his own body (assuming that such a right exists)

There is no law that indicates otherwise, therefore the right does exist. There are laws that regulate the sale, distribution, and possesion of certain substances, but not their use.

can encompass putting the same substances in the body of another who would not put them in his own body voluntarily;

No such claim was made.

and (3) by suggesting that if second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, those exposed to second-hand smoke don't have a beef (which is incorrect from both a factual and legal standpoint).

They did not say that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. What they said was that the smoke haters and the EPA are using false information to drive the issue.

During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

Penn being a non-smoker I would assume doesn't like the smell. Perhaps it's an eye irritant to him as it is to many others. And I have the impression that Penn is a polite person and was probably offended by the action of Hitchens.

I'm a casual cigar smoker, and I am always polite about it. I find out if an establishment or person's home is cigar friendly. I ask people around me if they mind if I smoke. I expect the same. I do not smoke in my home.

I've spent some time reading through reports on the issue of second-hand smoke. While most of these reports do not suggest that it is harmless, they do suggest that it is not particularly dangerous. Do you know what epidemiology and relative risk are? The majority of the tests find that air filled with tobbacco smoke isn't particularly more dangerous than ordinary air. Most score a relative risk of around 1. Is it healthy? no. Is it killing 3000 people per year? no.

[Rockin' Rick]

With regard to asthma and other respiratory issues...
tobbacco smoke is not the danger, smoke is. Leaves, lumber, tires, tobbacco, a casserole left in the oven, methane, etc. are all bad.
I just saw an ad for an air freshener (which uses feng shui also) and the claim is that it is good for asthmatics. It's not an air filter, it just adds parfume to cover up other odors. So it's actually worse for asthma by displacing even more oxygen.

[Ducky]

To the OP:

The truth about second hand smoke is that it contains vitamin C. Kevin trudeau told me so. It's not the smoke but the cigarette filter that causes cancer.

[Loon]

There is no law that indicates otherwise, therefore the right does exist. There are laws that regulate the sale, distribution, and possesion of certain substances, but not their use.

Hmm. I know not, but I suspect that there are laws regarding use beyond underage laws (i.e., heroin use is illegal)

I've spent some time reading through reports on the issue of second-hand smoke. While most of these reports do not suggest that it is harmless, they do suggest that it is not particularly dangerous.

If I spend the night among cigarette smoke, I wake up wheezy and congested the next day. There are issues beyond the epidemiological here. One is that tobacco is a drug and it can affect people in the vicinity (the tobacco in the smoke I mean, not some sort of magical tobacco radiation). There's also the smell and the irritant factor.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cancersa.org.au/i-cms?page=1.6.36.368.188



Conclusions of the 1997 NHMRC report The health effects of passive smoking (http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/advice/nhmrc/foreword.htm)
This extensive Australian review of the scientific evidence linking passive smoking to many diseases, including asthma in children, lower respiratory tract illness, lung cancer, and major coronary conditions and other illnesses. As very little Australian data exists describing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke outside the home, it estimates the risk of illness from exposure to ETS at home for people who have never smoked.

This report concludes that:



An estimated 13% of lower respiratory illness in children under 18 months (about 16,300 cases per year) is due to passive smoking
Children exposed to ETS are about 40% more likely to suffer from asthmatic symptoms than those not exposed
About 8% of new cases of childhood asthma is attributable to passive smoking (about 46,500 children per year)
It is estimated that the risk of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease is about 24% higher in people who never smoke but who live with a smoker, compared to unexposed people who never smoke
It is estimated that people who never smoke and live with a smoker have a 30% increase in the risk of developing lung cancer compared to people who never smoke and live with a non-smoker (leading to about 12 new cases of lung cancer and 11 deaths from lung cancer per year in people who never smoke)
Passive smoking contributes significantly to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.

There are plenty of studies on this issue.

[SquishyDave]

http://www.cancersa.org.au/i-cms?page=1.6.36.368.188



There are plenty of studies on this issue.
Thanks AUP. But I want to know if semi regular breathing in of others smoke is bad news FOR ME, apart from being annoying.

Coz I'm not a kid, (with luck I won't have any) and I'm not living with a smoker (with luck I never will). What about regular party/pub goers? This is the crux of the issue I think behind banning smoking in public places. It's a useful study, but doesn't help the whole banning in pubs thing.

Of course all this just academic to me as smoking is already banned everywhere in Canberra, except if you have a certain type of ventilation.

[Euromutt]

Quoted by AUP:Conclusions of the 1997 NHMRC report The health effects of passive smoking
[...]
As very little Australian data exists describing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke outside the home, [...]"Very little data" on ETS exposure outside the home, okay...
[...] it estimates the risk of illness from exposure to ETS at home for people who have never smoked.And the conclusion to ETS exposure inside the home are estimates.
It follows, then, that the conclusions are based on inadequate data and estimates. Call me old-fashioned, but that hardly strikes me as a very strong basis for formulating public policy. It doesn't exactly help that the provided link results in a 404 error (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/404ref.htm).

Look, obviously there were studies around prior to the 1992 EPA meta-study indicating that ETS exposure had detrimental effects; those would be the studies on which the EPA's conclusions were based. But, as previously noted, the main criticism of the EPA meta-study was that the data had been "cherry-picked," relying only on studies whose conclusions supported the EPA's pre-determined conclusion. Logically, then, it follows that there must also have been other studies around at the time which came up with contrary findings. Indeed, the Congressional Research Service noted that, of the 30 studies the EPA incorporated into its analysis, "six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."

I'm sure you can dig up "plenty of studies" indicating ETS is harmful, but when there are four times as many studies contradicting those findings (in that they conclude the data does not prove a correlation, let alone a causal relationship), it's dishonest to claim that the science is solidly on your side.
Hmm. I know not, but I suspect that there are laws regarding use beyond underage laws (i.e., heroin use is illegal)I think you'll find that it's possession, not use, of certain controlled substances which is illegal. Moreover, tobacco is definitely not one of those substances. Have you ever had occasion to closely examine a store-bought pack of cigarettes? You'll find that, in the USA and most other western countries, the pack bears an excise tax stamp from the state or national government; that government's imprimatur, indicating that the sale and possession of that pack of cigarettes is legal (and that the government has taken its cut of the filthy lucre).
If I spend the night among cigarette smoke, I wake up wheezy and congested the next day. There are issues beyond the epidemiological here. [...] There's also the smell and the irritant factor.No doubt. But if it bothers you that much, perhaps you shouldn't be frequenting establishments which permit smoking on the premises.
To me, this is like farting in someone's face and then saying they shouldn't be upset because it won't harm their health.Actually, from my perspective, it's like you shoving your face up my arse and then complaining because it smells of fart. Look, if I came into a club where you were listening to a band you happen to like, and I demanded that they turn down the volume or, better yet, stop playing all together because the noise might damage my hearing, how would you react? You'd probably tell me that if I didn't like it, I could [rule 8] off, and rightly so.
To take it a step further, imagine that I and a bunch of like-minded people, none of whom ever even visit the establishments you frequent, managed to get a law passed banning any noise over x decibels, on the basis that it might damage the hearing of the employees (and the science supporting that is probably a damn sight stronger than it is regarding ETS), even though the employees themselves aren't particularly concerned. Does that strike you as reasonable?

[jimtron]

With regard to asthma and other respiratory issues...
tobbacco smoke is not the danger, smoke is. Leaves, lumber, tires, tobbacco, a casserole left in the oven, methane, etc. are all bad.

Do you think that patrons should be allowed to burn leaves and tires in bars and restaurants? I'm not sure I understand your point.

[Euromutt]

Incidentally, it might serve to make my previous post more clear if I explain where I'm coming from. As my sidebar says, I live in Washington state. Last November, a ballot initiative was passed banning smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and the like, and it went into effect on December 8th.
Prior to Initiative 901 being passed, 85% of the establishments affected were already non-smoking. In my area, this included a number of bars, and their number was clearly on the rise even before 901 was proposed. The hot new bar around the corner from my house was non-smoking from the start, and another one nearby closed for renovations and went non-smoking when it reopened. So it's not like you couldn't go for a night out without avoiding ETS.

Washington state also has the most restrictive liquor laws in the Union. Alcohol servers are legally obliged to stop serving alcohol to any customer who is likely approaching the BAC (blood alcohol content) limit, even if that person is demonstrably not going to be operating a motor vehicle in the immediate future (e.g. there is designated driver, the customer lives one block away, whatever), and both an alcohol server and the establishment where he works can be held liable for damages caused by a customer who is DUI after drinking in that establishment. Because of this and other factors, relatively few people are willing to work as alcohol servers, and anyone who is can find employment almost anywhere he pleases. (I don't work as a bartender, but I took the course to get a state alcohol server's permit so I could tend bar at an event at the place where I do volunteer work.) So if an alcohol server doesn't want to work in a smoking environment, he has that option.
The issue isn't "does second hand smoke cause cancer," the issue is "do bartenders who can't be around second hand smoke deserve to be gaurenteed a working environment".Let's not prevaricate about the bush; the latter concern is merely a fig leaf. The "workers' protection" argument was seized upon by the anti-smoking lobby because there was no way anyone could make a case that the power of the state should be applied to prevent people from smoking in bars just because non-smokers didn't like it. If you don't want to drink (an entirely voluntary behavior) around smokers, stay home, or find a non-smoking establishment, or get enough fellow non-smokers together and petition the management to convert the place to a smoke-free environment; if you're so desperate not to wreck your lungs while you're wrecking your liver, there are certain options open to you.

If this were really about protecting the wellbeing of alcohol servers, all these studies purportedly showing a causal link between ETS and cardio-pulmonry disorders would be secondary to an actual survey of bar staff asking "do you want to be guaranteed a smoke-free work environment?" If there's ever been such a study, I've never heard of it. Besides, if anyone were really concerned about bar staff's wellbeing, where are the people lobbying for volume restrictions on music and customer conversation, mandatory 50% gratuities, and what have you?

[ReFLeX]

That particular episode of BULL*** was bull****. The boys made a number of factual errors, and their conclusions did not logically follow from their presentation. At best, the episode was sloppy.
I kind of suspected as much, but I like to give fellow skeptics the benefit of the doubt. This kind of thing is what happens when you have a political agenda, I suppose.

...I'm definitely staying away from pool halls in Québec, then.

[Godmode]

If we lived in a world where second hand smoke was the only pollution, it would probably be a significant danger. The fact is you will get exposed to more danger from walking down or even living on a busy road then you will get from someone lighting up next to you.

Smoking is just the new thing to hate. There are bigger issues to worry about.

[kalen]

I don't think second-hand smokers get much of an exposure. For example, do you know anybody who got hooked on second-hand smoke?

[Spidey13]

I just want them to pay me back for all the free nicotine they get from me.

[ysabella]

Well, and nicotine helps suppress some forms of colitis. And health insurance so far isn't helping to pay for it, from what I read. So do people with colitis go to smoky bars and inhale deeply?

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

As an Asthmatic, and a rather severe one, I can attest that secondhand smoke definitely causes symptoms. My eyes swell, my chest tightens and my nose runs. None of this is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for what YOU are doing to YOUR body. Look at it this way, if someone was releasing arsenic and lead fumes next to you, wouldn't you want a different table?

Do I even need to go over the futility of putting the smoking section on the TOP floor of an establishment?

Then again, to quote comedian Auggie Smith:
"Mr Bartender man, I am over there trying to GET DRUNK with a woman I barely know so we DRIVE home and have unprotected sex, and this guy is blowing SMOKE in my face..."


I believe in non-smoking sections that actually have WALLS, and smoke eaters in the smoking section to ensure the airflow is going in a sane direction. I don't think it is too much to ask. Bars are very hard, because if I am going to be drinking...well....taking antihistamines is out of the question. I'm afraid they get very little of my cash. There is a bar in the area that has an open-air section in the summer. Very nice.

[ysabella]

None of this is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for what YOU are doing to YOUR body.
Right, but who is forcing you to be in there, instead of in a non-smoking establishment?
I don't like smoke either, but I think laws are going a little far.

[clarsct]

Gotta eat somewhere, ys.

Why should I be confined for what others are doing. I am doing nothing. I am being imposed upon by what others are doing. Your rights extend ONLY to the point that you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Infringe upon me not.

IF it is your house, I may, indeed, get up and leave. But in public, I ought to be able to go where I want and do what I want, so long as I do not intrude upon others. We do have noise ordinances in most cities. It is the same issue. Imagine if everyone in the restaurant had a portible radio, but no headphone. Now imagine all of them were full blast. (I have yet to see a volume control on a cigarette.) How long before you get a headache? Should they be able to do this? Or does it infringe upon you? Are you against noise ordinances, as well?

[Loon]

Legally, it's a tough call for me. I love being able to walk into a restaurant and know there will be no smoke there to stink up the place. It suits me just fine. On the other hand, I don't think restaurants should be forced to be entirely nonsmoking (though well ventilated non-smoking probably should be a requirement)

[CaptainManacles]

Gotta eat somewhere, ys.

Why should I be confined for what others are doing. I am doing nothing. I am being imposed upon by what others are doing. Your rights extend ONLY to the point that you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Infringe upon me not.

IF it is your house, I may, indeed, get up and leave. But in public, I ought to be able to go where I want and do what I want, so long as I do not intrude upon others. We do have noise ordinances in most cities. It is the same issue. Imagine if everyone in the restaurant had a portible radio, but no headphone. Now imagine all of them were full blast. (I have yet to see a volume control on a cigarette.) How long before you get a headache? Should they be able to do this? Or does it infringe upon you? Are you against noise ordinances, as well?


Uh, last time I checked, you don't have a undeniable right to patronize someone else's establishment. They have a right to allow or disallow service to you, and weather or not you can be on the premises. As an extension to that, they can also define the terms by which you are granted permision into their establishment, for example, if you are going to eat there, you have to put up with smokers. Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street. If you didn't like it, you would have to leave. Actually, I don't understand how you could come up with an example that so perfectly illustrates the opposite conclusion, go to any bar and I'm certain that the noise level inside the bar is beyond noise ordinance standards, and it's probably bad for your health and the health of the workers. Try to call the cops on them and see what happens.

Basically, if someone breaks into your house and starts smoking, you can involve law enforcement. But you have no place to violate the rights of a business owner and tell him that he has to give you a smoke free environment to eat food, any more then I could demand a smoke free environment to eat food in your house. A business is no more public then your front yard.

[kmortis]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

As an Asthmatic, and a rather severe one, I can attest that secondhand smoke definitely causes symptoms. My eyes swell, my chest tightens and my nose runs. None of this is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to suffer for what YOU are doing to YOUR body. Look at it this way, if someone was releasing arsenic and lead fumes next to you, wouldn't you want a different table?

Do I even need to go over the futility of putting the smoking section on the TOP floor of an establishment?

Then again, to quote comedian Auggie Smith:
"Mr Bartender man, I am over there trying to GET DRUNK with a woman I barely know so we DRIVE home and have unprotected sex, and this guy is blowing SMOKE in my face..."


I believe in non-smoking sections that actually have WALLS, and smoke eaters in the smoking section to ensure the airflow is going in a sane direction. I don't think it is too much to ask. Bars are very hard, because if I am going to be drinking...well....taking antihistamines is out of the question. I'm afraid they get very little of my cash. There is a bar in the area that has an open-air section in the summer. Very nice.
One little comment from a parent of an asthmatic, it's not that it's CIGARETTE smoke, it's that it's smoke. IT wouldn't matter if it were cigarette, cigar, campfire, or a housefire smoke. It's the particular matter (IIRC) that does the damage, not just that it's cigarette.

I agree that the division of smoking and non- should be better, but I also don't think that the government has the right to impose unfunded mandates upon business; they do, but I don't agree with it.

[a_unique_person]

I don't think second-hand smokers get much of an exposure. For example, do you know anybody who got hooked on second-hand smoke?

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the research is finding.

[kmortis]

It's not a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the research is finding.
And the research is finding that workers in a smoke filled environment are getting the equivalent of 6 cigarettes a year. So, again, it's not that they're cigarettes that makes them harmful, it's that it's smoke.

[Marc L]

At TAM3, someone questioned P&T on the second hand smoke show. Apparently, the questioner had send info P&T about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Penn said he had looked at the information agreed that second hand smoke did actually pose a real threat. Unfortuately, B*llsh!it doesn't have the budget to redo shows, or spend time correcting them in new shows. I haven't seen the details, Penn and the questioner didn't go into it, since it was a Q&A session.

That sucks. I realize they don't have the budget to redo shows, but there has to be a way for them to give corrections-if only on their website. Otherwise it looks like they're giving false information, which can only hurt their credibility.

Marc

[Beerina]

2) They assumed (or spoke as if) the only concieveable reason to avoid secondhand smoke was the risk of lung cancer, ignoring heart disease, other lung diseases, smell and sensitivity.

It is, of course, the last two that are the real political drivers behind this. Indeed, people who are hypersensitive to it (even allowing for the placebo effect) are just tools used by those with a political agenda because they hate cigarette smoke.

In science, one doesn't question the researcher, only the research. In politics, it's the other way around if you want to get anywhere in understanding.

[clarsct]

Uh, last time I checked, you don't have a undeniable right to patronize someone else's establishment. They have a right to allow or disallow service to you, and weather or not you can be on the premises. As an extension to that, they can also define the terms by which you are granted permision into their establishment, for example, if you are going to eat there, you have to put up with smokers. Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street. If you didn't like it, you would have to leave. Actually, I don't understand how you could come up with an example that so perfectly illustrates the opposite conclusion, go to any bar and I'm certain that the noise level inside the bar is beyond noise ordinance standards, and it's probably bad for your health and the health of the workers. Try to call the cops on them and see what happens.

Basically, if someone breaks into your house and starts smoking, you can involve law enforcement. But you have no place to violate the rights of a business owner and tell him that he has to give you a smoke free environment to eat food, any more then I could demand a smoke free environment to eat food in your house. A business is no more public then your front yard.

On the other hand, I do not have the right to dump oil in my front yard, nor do I have the right to burn trash in my front yard, either. If I turn my boombox up to an unacceptable level, the cops might indeed be called and will tell me to turn it down. I could be cited for disturbing the peace.

So, apparently, even on private property, the owner can be called upon to give up certain amounts of rights, because it is considered harmful, or even undesirable, to those around him/her.

kmortis: Yes, smoke is bad for you. It is worse for asthmatics. I don't care where the smoke comes from. If the guy next to me in the restaurant is setting his napkins on fire, it would probably affect me similarly, and I would ask to be seated elsewhere. I fail to see the relevance.

Notice I did not say all smoking ought to be banned, but rather that I would prefer to have a smoke free environment available. I do not think it is too much to ask. If you want to smoke, smoke. I care not. But I do not wish to smell of it, nor have my health put at risk. (For me, remember, it IS a risk, after all.) By your argument, Cpt Manacles, a businessman would have to make no concessions for a handicapped individual, either. They have no right to be there.

[Spidey13]

On the other hand, I do not have the right to dump oil in my front yard, nor do I have the right to burn trash in my front yard, either. If I turn my boombox up to an unacceptable level, the cops might indeed be called and will tell me to turn it down. I could be cited for disturbing the peace.

The problem with these examples is that they are potentially harmful and/or annoying to people who are not on your property. You can't dump oil because it could run off into someone else's yard. You can't burn trash because of the smell or danger of fire that could spread to your neighbor's yard. A loud boombox can be heard next door. These things affect people who have not chosen to visit your property on their own free will.

Smoking in a restaurant/bar only affects people who willingly go there. It's not going to harm the people across the street, like your examples would.

[Rockin' Rick]

Do you think that patrons should be allowed to burn leaves and tires in bars and restaurants? I'm not sure I understand your point.

The point is that the smoke haters cite tobacco as the great evil. For those with respiratory trouble all sorts of air-borne contaminates are troublesome, including air-fresheners. The smoke haters leave that part out. That's all I am getting at.

[clarsct]

Are you telling me you cannot SMELL the cigarette smoke froma bar from a block or more off?

I certainly can.

As with the good Cpt, your argument can be used to say that no business has to put in any ramps/toliets or such for the handicapped.

I have a condition which renders smoke intolerable. Some people have a condition which renders normal toliet stalls intolerable. Still others have great difficulty with sidewalk curbs.

I see no one arguing for the removal of Braille from a keyboards of ATMs, and I see no one arguing for the removal of sidewalk ramps or handicapped stalls.

But somehow my condition isn't worthy of the same consideration, even though it could be more dangerous for me to be around smoke than for a guy in a wheelchair to negotiate a sidewalk curb. Last I heard, his Bronchial tubes won't swell shut from having to do so.

There are better arguments for why blind people shouldn't use drive up ATMs.

Why is it ok to discriminate against asthmatics? Because our disease isn't visible? I assure you it can be deadly, just the same. Some people are FAR more sensitive than I am.

I am merely advocating a non-smoking section. Ya'll can smoke on the other side of the place, if it pleases you. I would like a wall between us, but I would settle for a couple of really good smoke eaters on your side of the room.

[clarsct]

The point is that the smoke haters cite tobacco as the great evil. For those with respiratory trouble all sorts of air-borne contaminates are troublesome, including air-fresheners. The smoke haters leave that part out. That's all I am getting at.

Pot Pouri is EVIL!

Messes me up, literally. I can't stand the stuff. It is AT LEAST as bad as cigarette smoke.

If I was in a restaurant that had pot pourri at the tables, I would ask them to remove it. Same concept. It is interfereing with my breathing.

[Rockin' Rick]

If I spend the night among cigarette smoke, I wake up wheezy and congested the next day. There are issues beyond the epidemiological here. One is that tobacco is a drug and it can affect people in the vicinity (the tobacco in the smoke I mean, not some sort of magical tobacco radiation). There's also the smell and the irritant factor.

Actually your conditions can certainly contribute to epidemiology. If indeed it is the toxins in the smoke that causes your reaction that data could/should be tabulated. Studies have looked at those sorts of things.

Smell and irritation are valid points, this why some establishments have chosen to be smoke free. It doesn't take a smoking ban for this, it takes money or the lack of. If enough customers complain the owners will need to react. Because I realize that some people don't like it or have respiratory problems is the reason why I have no problem with any place being smoke free and why I try to be polite when I smoke. My problem with the issue is that it's being driven by a supposed grand scale health risk. And while there is some risk the severity of the danger has been drastically exagerated.

I read a piece this morning and learned that cigar smoke has more niccotine in it than many believe. While cigarettes are much higher and the feeling of some is that cigars are fairly safe, it turns out they do have some impact in certain situations. Other plants have more niccotine occuring naturally than tobacco does, but the fermentation process of some leaves to cigars increases its levels, which I didn't know.

The whole point I think is that there is much more going on and we all need to look deeper at the results of a large number of tests before we build legislation. Using the EPA findings as gospel is irresponsible.

Some Congress members have suggested taxes on various unhealthy foods. What body or whom determines which foods are unhealthy? For years we had the silly 4 squares food chart, then they modified it to the food pyramid which indicates starches and carbs are what we should eat the most of, and now the latest thing is that we eat too much starch and carbs, the all meat high fat diet, and so on, yet the government still hasn't changed its guidelines. What happens when we pass laws based on the wrong information?

[Rockin' Rick]

Pot Pouri is EVIL!

Messes me up, literally. I can't stand the stuff. It is AT LEAST as bad as cigarette smoke.

If I was in a restaurant that had pot pourri at the tables, I would ask them to remove it. Same concept. It is interfereing with my breathing.

Maybe we should ban incense?

[clarsct]

I hate incense, as well. Same effects. My eyes swell up, my nose runs, my chest gets tight and I have difficulty breathing.

Ban? No. Have it restricted to only certain areas (IE, have an area where it ISN'T), Yes, indeed.

The non-smoking areas should include incense at the very least, and I would like to see it include potpouri(How the HELL do you spell this word?), as well.

But I have yet to see many places have these things. Tobacco smoking is FAR more prevalent, and more relevant to the OP.

But yes, these things would be included, of course. Incense IS smoke, I fail to see why someone would think it would be ok in a non-smoking section. Potpourri is a little shakier on the smoke thing, but I would definately see it removed. If the waitress wouldn't remove it from my table, I would do so myself, though if it were on every table, I would complain to the management and likely not stay there at all. I couldn't.
If the management was very callous, I might sue them for discrimination, but it would take a bit for me to go that far.

I wish I wasn't asthmatic and I wish I didn't have allergies to almost everything. But reality is what it is.

[GrnMtSkeptic]

There was an incident at TAM3 that showed that even Penn Jillette didn't really buy into the message he was trying to sell. During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

If you saw the Bullsh!t episode on secondhand smoke, then undoubtedly you heard Penn say "Just for the record, neither of us smoke so we both hate secondhand smoke...". Not that the marvelous masters of magical mayhem need an apologist, but I fail to see how Penn's adverse reaction to secondhand smoke at TAM3 says anything about the "message he was trying to sell."

[Spidey13]

Are you telling me you cannot SMELL the cigarette smoke froma bar from a block or more off?
I certainly can.
No, I can't. Maybe it's because I smoke, or maybe your condition makes you more sensitive to the smell. I don't know, but I honestly don't remember ever smelling cigarette smoke from that far away.
As with the good Cpt, your argument can be used to say that no business has to put in any ramps/toliets or such for the handicapped.
Actually, I would agree that no business should HAVE to have these things. However, it would be completely stupid on their part not to because they would probably be boycotted and go out of business.
I have a condition which renders smoke intolerable. Some people have a condition which renders normal toliet stalls intolerable. Still others have great difficulty with sidewalk curbs.
I see no one arguing for the removal of Braille from a keyboards of ATMs, and I see no one arguing for the removal of sidewalk ramps or handicapped stalls.
But somehow my condition isn't worthy of the same consideration, even though it could be more dangerous for me to be around smoke than for a guy in a wheelchair to negotiate a sidewalk curb. Last I heard, his Bronchial tubes won't swell shut from having to do so.
I understand you have a serious condition and I don't mean to sound insensitive to it. The main difference between smoking and these examples is that they do not disallow other people from doing something. If an entrance has a wheelchair ramp, I can still walk through that entrance. If there is a handicapped stall in the restroom, I can still poop in it.
There are better arguments for why blind people shouldn't use drive up ATMs.
I can't think of any argument why a blind person can't use a drive up ATM, as long as they're not actually driving which, of course, they're not allowed to do. I've walked to plenty of ATMs.
Why is it ok to discriminate against asthmatics? Because our disease isn't visible? I assure you it can be deadly, just the same. Some people are FAR more sensitive than I am.
I am merely advocating a non-smoking section. Ya'll can smoke on the other side of the place, if it pleases you. I would like a wall between us, but I would settle for a couple of really good smoke eaters on your side of the room.
I'm all for a non-smoking section ,too, and I appreciate the fact that you're not one of those people who want to ban smoking everywhere. We just had a smoking ordinance passed in my city, (guess that's why I'm getting into this discussion so much) which mainly affected restaurants. I have a three-year-old daughter around whom I don't smoke. When I go out to eat, I'm usually with her, therefore I'm usually not smoking in restaurants anyway, so this ordinance hardly affects me at all. It just bothers me when a person who owns a private business is required by law to make certain accomodations for certain people.

Having a non-smoking section will increase the number of people who go to most businesses and most business owners will see it as a wise move to have one. However, if a person owns a business and does not want or does not care about losing customers by allowing smoking, I believe that should be their right. I'm all for not allowing smoking in any place where people are required to go, like a courthouse, DMV, or most government buildings. But when it comes to a private establishment, I just think it should be up to the owner whether to allow smoking in all areas, some areas, or not allow it at all.

[clarsct]

Spidey:
Blind people. Drive up ATMs. Cars, traffic, etc. I wouldn't think it would be safe, even for a sighted person. Perhaps I am underestimating the abilities of the blind, but to me it doesn't seem like a safe situation. I could be wrong.

As for the rest:
Well, the fact is that there ARE laws requiring Handicapped access, and once you opened that can of worms, then you leave it open to require non-smoking sections. I imagine soon there will be non-kids sections, too. I hate to tell you parents this, and I understand it isn't everyone, but many of your little cutsie-pies are downright aggravating to the rest of us.

I admire that you are honest enough to say that you disagree with the handicapped access laws. I do not agree with your assessment, per se, but I may agree with the idea that some of the regulations and the enforcement thereof are a little out of focus. If a handrail is 23" above the floor instead of 24" above the floor, I don't see that big a difference, functionally.

The fact is that secondhand smoke can be a real risk factor for some of us. I'm sorry, but my right to breathe and live outwieghs your right to smoke absolutely ANYWHERE you want to. For one of us to have a room to ourselves is a small compromise that seems fair.

[Spidey13]

Oh, I understand completely that many people don't like kids. Hell, most other people's kids get on my nerves, too. And if a business owner does not want to allow children under a certain age, then I think they should have every right to do that.

Also, I don't think I should have the right to smoke abslutely anywhere. I believe that anyplace people are forced to go whether they want to or not, such as certain government buidlings, hospitals, etc. should not allow smoking in order to accomodate all the people who are going there and don't have a choice.

Anyway, if I owned a business, I would definitley have a non-smoking section.

[ysabella]

I still don't see why it has to be the law of the land in order to satisfy you, clarsct. I'm sure smoke would have kept you out of some restaurants, but not all as there are smoke-free restaurants (and bars) around.

I don't tolerate smoke well either, but I don't see why nonsmokers wanting to be able to eat or drink in every single establishment in the state (without having to be near smoke) should outweigh smokers wanting to smoke at the table right after eating, or smoke at the bar, in some establishments that cater to them.

I have a problem with some of the handicapped-access laws too sometimes, having read articles about that guy Jarek Molski (http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/focus/molski1104.html) going around suing hundreds of businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[Euromutt]

The fact is that secondhand smoke can be a real risk factor for some of us. I'm sorry, but my right to breathe and live outwieghs your right to smoke absolutely ANYWHERE you want to. For one of us to have a room to ourselves is a small compromise that seems fair.I don't think you're going to find many smokers who would assert that they should have the right to smoke anywhere they please. Like Rockin' Rick, I try to be a considerate smoker, and I don't smoke in restaurants (tobacco smoke interferes with my enjoyment of my food as well), I try to stay downwind from non-smokers when I'm outside, etc.

But here in Washington state, as in many other places, the discussion is far beyond the point of providing non-smokers with smoke-free environments. Prior to the passage of Initiative 901, most places open to the public (stores, office buildings, etc.) were already smoke-free, as were 85% of restaurants and bars, as I noted before. Because my wife is a non-smoker, I don't smoke in my own house, and all my friends are either non-smokers or live with non-smokers, so I don't smoke in their houses either. I don't bowl or gamble, so essentially, a number of bars were the only places left where I wanted to go where I could smoke without being exposed to the elements (and remember, this is western Washington; it rains a lot). Now I can't do that anymore either.

I don't care if I can't smoke everywhere, but I would like to be able have somewhere I can smoke and have a roof over my head and, ideally, a pint in front of me, all at the same time.

[Spidey13]

I don't care if I can't smoke everywhere, but I would like to be able have somewhere I can smoke and have a roof over my head and, ideally, a pint in front of me, all at the same time.

RAmen

[I less than three logic]

A quick note: The braille on drive thru ATMs question is slightly amusing but the reasoning for it is quite obvious. There is braille on drive thru ATMs because they are mass produced, it is more cost effective to make one button design and put it on all of them then to make a special set just for drive thru ATMs.


Arguments over smoking bans seem to quickly degrade into an “us and them” situation. I’d like to state that I do not smoke, I find the stench of tobacco smoke rather repulsive, and I honestly don’t know why there is a debate on smoking bans in the first place. I don’t understand why anyone smokes; the general consensus from my co-workers is that it relieves stress, which, I’ve noticed, seems to be included in a whole slew of woo claims. I’d like to see the day when the idea of smoking bans is moot, not because it has been made illegal, but because there is no longer a desire amongst the public to smoke.

However, I do not support smoking bans. I think it should be up the business owner to decide whether to allow or disallow smoking in his/her establishment. If they find that allowing smoking prevents them from finding employees to work or customers to keep them in business I’m sure they will change the policy. I think they should have to provide a clearly visible sign informing everyone whether or not smoking is allowed, and make sure ventilation is sufficient to prevent nearby business from being affected. I think it has been established that there is definitely a market for catering to non-smokers, and I’m sure that without smoking bans smoke-free business will still exist. I think we should be able to decide for ourselves which business to support.

"In America, through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from." - Peter Ustinov

[Anti_Hypeman]

My college has a few designated areas outside and a sign stating that in a few months those will go away. The campus is gonig totally smoke free. I am a non smoker and find that totally stupid.

I dont care if someone smokes in the parking lot there is no reson to go that far. I really dont want to face the wrath of smoking professors that cant get their fix. They are trying to mandate morality for no good reason.

[CaptainManacles]

On the other hand, I do not have the right to dump oil in my front yard, nor do I have the right to burn trash in my front yard, either. If I turn my boombox up to an unacceptable level, the cops might indeed be called and will tell me to turn it down. I could be cited for disturbing the peace.

So, apparently, even on private property, the owner can be called upon to give up certain amounts of rights, because it is considered harmful, or even undesirable, to those around him/her.


The point at which you start being intentionally stupid is the point at which I stop debating. I understand that it's hard to admit that you're obviously wrong, but you're just making yourself out to be a fool. I understand that you can drag this debate on forever by ignoring the obvious and making continual irrational statements, but understand that I'm just going to bail and you're not fooling anyone but yourself. I am not going to explain things to you twice, please go back and read what I've already posted because it's an appropriate response, still, for what you just posted. Just to highlight

>>Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street.<<

So did you ignore that or are you just unable to read? What part of "so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street" didn't you understand? Do you need to get your mommy in here to help you with this?

>>By your argument, Cpt Manacles, a businessman would have to make no concessions for a handicapped individual, either. They have no right to be there.<<

That's true, and it's revolting that businesses are forced to take that burden with no rational justification as to why they're the one's responsible for it. Generally skeptics like to have logical justification for things, not just this mob mentality that makes businesses easy targets. Now, I'm not saying handicapped ramps are a bad idea, in the same sense I recognize that smoke smells bad. If business were given the option, I would not patronize a business that refused to put in handicapped access, and there would also be the option of setting up a charity that would provide money for business to make such changes. That's the best way to do things, through arrangements that all parties involved agree are fair, instead of through violence.

Further, I do feel such laws have done damage to handicapped availability and have furthered an attitude of personal irresponsibility. Instead of making personal sacrifices and taking responsibility for making your own moral values a reality, people leave it to the government to make things right. Very rarely do people notice, say, if the house they are buying is handicapped friendly, unless the government tells them it has to be.

[clarsct]

I still don't see why it has to be the law of the land in order to satisfy you, clarsct. I'm sure smoke would have kept you out of some restaurants, but not all as there are smoke-free restaurants (and bars) around.
Well, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that the laws are there for just little ole me, nor that they ought to be. A smoke free bar? You MUST be joking. Not in my neck of the woods, anyway. I hear they have such mythical beasts in California and New York, but not in the Midwest.
Besides which, I already posted something about the idea of worrying about your health in a bar, did I not?

Most restaurants have non-smoking sections. I appreciate this. Not all of them here do, and I do not frequent those that do not. I do not live in a state where smoke-free is mandatory.

I don't tolerate smoke well either, but I don't see why nonsmokers wanting to be able to eat or drink in every single establishment in the state (without having to be near smoke) should outweigh smokers wanting to smoke at the table right after eating, or smoke at the bar, in some establishments that cater to them.
I never said it did. I said I was for a non-smoking section, preferably with a wall in between or some sort of ventilation on the smoking side.ANd it isn;t a matter of tolerate, it is a matter of HEALTH. It isn't that I find it irritating, it is a matter of it physically making it hard for me to breathe. If someone was choking you, wouldn't you find it inconvienent?

I have a problem with some of the handicapped-access laws too sometimes, having read articles about that guy Jarek Molski (http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/focus/molski1104.html) going around suing hundreds of businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I, too, deplore such actions, and have said so. But, as I stated earlier as well, once the door was opened with the AWDA, then you have to make allowances for all disabilities. Asthma was something I was born with. No double standards on which ones count. One will suffice.

[clarsct]

The point at which you start being intentionally stupid is the point at which I stop debating. I understand that it's hard to admit that you're obviously wrong, but you're just making yourself out to be a fool. I understand that you can drag this debate on forever by ignoring the obvious and making continual irrational statements, but understand that I'm just going to bail and you're not fooling anyone but yourself. I am not going to explain things to you twice, please go back and read what I've already posted because it's an appropriate response, still, for what you just posted. Just to highlight

No name calling, please. If you wish to resort to Ad Hom, I must warn you that I can hold my own with the best. Bail if you wish, we call this 'running away'. If it is a p!$$ing contest you want, I can direct you to a forum where the rules aren't quite so strict.

>>Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street.<<

So did you ignore that or are you just unable to read? What part of "so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street" didn't you understand? Do you need to get your mommy in here to help you with this?

Is that the best you can do? Hrm. Maybe you better leave this insult business to the professionals. Are you here for a constructive debate? Then drop the name calling. It is not me that looks ignorant because of it. Come at me with a real argument. And learn the quote tags.

>>By your argument, Cpt Manacles, a businessman would have to make no concessions for a handicapped individual, either. They have no right to be there.<<

That's true, and it's revolting that businesses are forced to take that burden with no rational justification as to why they're the one's responsible for it. Generally skeptics like to have logical justification for things, not just this mob mentality that makes businesses easy targets. Now, I'm not saying handicapped ramps are a bad idea, in the same sense I recognize that smoke smells bad. If business were given the option, I would not patronize a business that refused to put in handicapped access, and there would also be the option of setting up a charity that would provide money for business to make such changes. That's the best way to do things, through arrangements that all parties involved agree are fair, instead of through violence.
So, you would not patronize a business that refused to put up handicapped ramps, but protest non-smoking sections?

Further, I do feel such laws have done damage to handicapped availability and have furthered an attitude of personal irresponsibility. Instead of making personal sacrifices and taking responsibility for making your own moral values a reality, people leave it to the government to make things right. Very rarely do people notice, say, if the house they are buying is handicapped friendly, unless the government tells them it has to be.

Personal responsibility? I am responsible for my asthma? A Veitnam vet is respinsible for his leg missing? A old woman is resonsible for her bone cancer? I really hope this isn't what you're implying, but it sounds like it.

Why would they care if their house was handicapped accessable, unless they were expecting handicapped visitors? A business is, implicitly, expecting visitors of all sorts. A business INVITES them in, in order to DO business. Not to mention the idea of Equal Employment, unless you are against that, too. Can't have an employee in a wheelchair if your place of business has only stairs, after all.

In fact, why should a place of business have a seperate ladies room? This is an unecessary expense forced upon the businessman!

There is a happy medium. Such extremism solves nothing and suits no one.

[Hittman]

To be honest, I don't look to Penn to evaluate scientific findings such as these. I don't think he can do it any better than I can. Give me six months of concerted effort in the field, and maybe I can evaluate the scientific merit, but other than that, no.

Don’t underestimate yourself. While it might take a lot of research to determine if a study is legitimate, it usually takes very little to determine if it’s Bullstuff. You just need some basic statistics under your belt, and a copy of the abstract of the study.

Shameless Plug: Since I haven’t posted enough here to be allowed to post a URL, Google Second Hand Smoke, go to The Facts (it will be on the first page) and read the pages on epidemiology. You’ll soon be able to debunk bogus studies quickly and easily.

That court found that the EPA testing methods were seriously flawed, thus the results were in question, and the report discounted. That court's decision had nothing to do with the science in particular.

The judge’s decision was 92 pages long, and he quit before he got all the way through it.

The Readers Digest Condensed Version: The EPA announced the results before doing the study, ignored 2/3s of the available data, doubled their margin of error, then doubled that number, to come up with 3,000 deaths (out of 280 million people.)

There are plenty of studies on this issue.

And virtually all of them are paid for by nicotine nannies. They range from the ludicrous to the ridiculous. My personal favorite: SHS Causes tooth decay in children.

I don't think second-hand smokers get much of an exposure. For example, do you know anybody who got hooked on second-hand smoke?

Excellent point, and one I haven’t heard made before despite years of debating this.

Cigarettes are highly addictive. If the exposure were as high as the NNs claim, then wouldn’t those who were exposed to it become addicted to it?

I have a condition which renders smoke intolerable.

If you had tintinus, which can cause days of pain from exposure to loud noises, would you demand that restaurants and taverns be forced to play their music at a whisper?

I'm sorry, but my right to breathe and live outwieghs your right to smoke absolutely ANYWHERE you want to.

I hear this claim from nicotine nannies all the time, yet I have never, ever met a smoker who demands to smoke anywhere they want to. They simply want a place where they can smoke. If that place is clearly marked, then there’s no reason for you to ever go there.

A smoke free bar? You MUST be joking. Not in my neck of the woods, anyway. I hear they have such mythical beasts in California and New York, but not in the Midwest.

Chicago just voted in a smoking ban. This mental illness is not just spreading through this country; it’s a world wide disease. Entire countries are passing laws against smokers.

[Sushi]

If you're allergic to dogs, don't go to an establishment that allows pets. Especially pet stores.

[ReFLeX]

If you had tintinus, which can cause days of pain from exposure to loud noises, would you demand that restaurants and taverns be forced to play their music at a whisper?Not analagous. Asthma is far more common, and increasingly so because of environmental conditions.

[clarsct]

Hittman: I was unaware of the Chicago smoking ban.

Non smoking areas are all I'm asking for, and areas that are truly smoke free. If the non-smoking area is on the second floor of your establishment, especially where the second floor is more of a 'balcony' type...then it isn't a non-smoking area. Yes, I have seen this. The Par a Dice Casino in East Peoria is a particular offender that is near me. Third floor, no smoking. Right.

Sushi: I do not go into pet stores, and actually cats are one of my worst allergies. Being around a cat long enough WILL send me to the hospital. However, I might ask that you not take your cat everywhere with you. Or, if it became the custom that many people did, I would ask to be seated in a non-feline area. I would also cite health reasons for this, as well.

As for the tintinus: What ReFlex said, as well as asking whether or not this is a chronic, degenerative disease? (Asthma will probably kill me. I already know that. The type I have will get worse with age.) Oh, and tintinus is a discomfort level. DISCOMFORT and NOT BREATHING are seperate items. Tintinus seems less deadly.

Smoke doesn't make me 'uncomfortable', it makes it damned hard for me to breathe. Until you've experienced an asthma attack, I'm not sure you will understand that, but an effort could be made.

For some people this can be a matter of life and death. I am fortunate I have the tolerance(physical, not mental) that I have. But I realize some are not so fortunate. Human empathy is not a foriegn concept to skeptics. I am amazed that some people here feel so little for the suffering of others.

[Hittman]

If you had tintinus, which can cause days of pain from exposure to loud noises, would you demand that restaurants and taverns be forced to play their music at a whisper?
Not analagous. Asthma is far more common, and increasingly so because of environmental conditions.

It doesn’t matter what is more common. What matters is that tintinus is a very real illness that can cause very real pain, for days, for someone exposed to loud noises. If you’re going to legislate against SHS because some people have allergies, you should legislatate against noise for tintinus sufferers.

Side note, which might make an interesting different thread: Back when smoke was everywhere, and buildings weren’t nearly as clean as they are now, asthma was far, far more rare. Now that things are squeaky clean, and smokers aren’t even allowed to smoke in a bar in most places, asthma is very common, but only in developed nations, where things have been sanitized.
Non smoking areas are all I'm asking for, and areas that are truly smoke free.

I don’t have a problem with that, although I don’t think using Big Brother is the best way to go about it. A private business that is open to the public is not a “public place.” The owner should be able to cater to their clientele however they want to. I have left many venues because the music was too loud for me, and found another place more suited to my place. I didn’t look down my nose at those who were there enjoying it, nor demand that Big Brother pass laws about the volume, I dealt with it as an adult and found a place that would cater to my tastes. That’s the way adults behave. (And I can make a far better case for loud music being harmful to health than anyone can make about the dangers of SHS.)

There are air filter units which will make the air inside an establishment, even one full of smokers, cleaner than the air outside. The anti-smoker movement refuses to even discuss them, other than to lie about how well they work. Business that want to cater to the few people who really are sensitive to smoke (as opposed to the multitudes who claim to be sensitive to it) would be able to install such filters, (they cost about three grand, so are affordable) and everyone would be happy. Except for the small, very well funded, very loud anti-smoker crowd.

Their real goal is to eliminate smoking entirely, and any ends justify their means.

As for the tintinus: What ReFlex said, as well as asking whether or not this is a chronic, degenerative disease? (Asthma will probably kill me. I already know that. The type I have will get worse with age.) Oh, and tintinus is a discomfort level. DISCOMFORT and NOT BREATHING are seperate items. Tintinus seems less deadly.

It can make the sufferer unable to function, often for days. In other words, it makes people ill, so the analogy isn’t flawed.

[kevin]

Washington state also has the most restrictive liquor laws in the Union.

I guess you've never been to Utah or a dry county in Missouri (or Kansas).

[ysabella]

clarsct, my apologies - I don't know how I conflated outlawing smoking with what you were saying. I think it's because that's what the P&T episode was about so there's a lot of it in this thread.

[kevin]

I agree that the division of smoking and non- should be better, but I also don't think that the government has the right to impose unfunded mandates upon business; they do, but I don't agree with it.

Yes! Damn those hand washing requirements! And why do they FORCE businesses to buy refrigerators to store meat?

Laws are political and need not have any basis in science. Of course many attempt to use science (rightly and wrongly) to support their view but it isn't neccessary. Although I do think outright smoking bans are wrong, I can't bring myself to oppose them that much because second-hand smoke really annoys me and reduces my enjoyment of a venue. Not because I think I'm going to get cancer in 20 years, but because I know I WILL get a headache in a couple of hours.

I would approve removing a smoking ban if replaced by a mandate that any advertising indicate if the event were smoking or non-smoking. Also signs be posted at entrances indicating the smoking/non-smoking status. Then I would know before showing up or buying tickets what I was in for.

Smoking/Non-Smoking areas do not work at bars (unless there are 2 seperate bars -- talk about unfunded mandates) or concerts or any venue where lots of people are mingling.

Leaving early, which is what I usually do at smoking bars (there goes that extra alcohol bill for the owner) isn't an option at concerts where I'd like to get the whole concert I paid for.

Just as your right to throw punches ends at the tip of my nose, your right to smoke ends at the tip of my nose. The individual rights in this instance balance out. Generally when this happens the majority will when. The majority of America is now non-smoking. Doesn't make it right, just makes it democracy.

[tkingdoll]

If you're allergic to dogs, don't go to an establishment that allows pets. Especially pet stores.

Ah, but MOST people aren't allergic to dogs.

Whereas most people are non-smokers, at least in the UK. I don't know the stats for the US but here I think it's something like two thirds of the population are non-smokers.

So, why should the minority dictate where the majority can go?

[clarsct]

It doesn’t matter what is more common. What matters is that tintinus is a very real illness that can cause very real pain, for days, for someone exposed to loud noises. If you’re going to legislate against SHS because some people have allergies, you should legislatate against noise for tintinus sufferers.
Can you be noised to death with tintinus?

Side note, which might make an interesting different thread: Back when smoke was everywhere, and buildings weren’t nearly as clean as they are now, asthma was far, far more rare. Now that things are squeaky clean, and smokers aren’t even allowed to smoke in a bar in most places, asthma is very common, but only in developed nations, where things have been sanitized.
Stats? Cites? Evidence?


I don’t have a problem with that, although I don’t think using Big Brother is the best way to go about it. A private business that is open to the public is not a “public place.” The owner should be able to cater to their clientele however they want to. I have left many venues because the music was too loud for me, and found another place more suited to my place. I didn’t look down my nose at those who were there enjoying it, nor demand that Big Brother pass laws about the volume, I dealt with it as an adult and found a place that would cater to my tastes. That’s the way adults behave. (And I can make a far better case for loud music being harmful to health than anyone can make about the dangers of SHS.)
Then make a case that loud music is more dangerous than SHS is for asthmatics. I'd like to see it.

There are air filter units which will make the air inside an establishment, even one full of smokers, cleaner than the air outside. The anti-smoker movement refuses to even discuss them, other than to lie about how well they work. Business that want to cater to the few people who really are sensitive to smoke (as opposed to the multitudes who claim to be sensitive to it) would be able to install such filters, (they cost about three grand, so are affordable) and everyone would be happy. Except for the small, very well funded, very loud anti-smoker crowd.
I have said I am very happy with the "smoke eaters". I've been in bars whose filtration and ventilation were good enough that I barely noticed any smoke, unless I happened to pass by a smoker. I've also been in bars where the only ventilation happened when someone walked in or out of the door. Then again, I suppose you weren't limiting it to my specific case. Well, >I< am anti-smoking, and I endorse the use of filters. The newer ones are very, very good. Fair enough?

Their real goal is to eliminate smoking entirely, and any ends justify their means.
For some, I suppose you might be right. But please don't paint us all with the same brush. I think I'm fairly moderate about my views. Smoke away...just not in my face. (I have had someone blow smoke in my face...once....I had to leave quickly before the cops showed up. That I will not tolerate.)



It can make the sufferer unable to function, often for days. In other words, it makes people ill, so the analogy isn’t flawed.
Yes, but could it be FATAL?

Just asking.

[clarsct]

kevin:
Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the US?

TKingDoll: Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the UK?

A few numbers on the boards will make discussing the issue clearer. Thanks.

(BTW, It seems to me I am in a minority. I seem to see more smokers than non. Confirmation bias? Or am I right? This is the basis of this question.)

[I less than three logic]

(BTW, It seems to me I am in a minority. I seem to see more smokers than non. Confirmation bias? Or am I right? This is the basis of this question.)
I feel that non-smokers are the minority in my area as well. :(

So, why should the minority dictate where the majority can go?
I don't think you meant it this way, but I'd also have a problem with the majority dictating where the minority could go.

I believe it should be up the the businesses to decide whether to cater to smokers or not. I don't think the government should choose for them. However, I think there should be standards for the non-smoking areas of businesses. If your going to try to provide for both you'd better make sure the area you call smoke-free truely is.

[kevin]

kevin:
Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the US?

According to the CDC 20.9% of adults in US are smokers (adult is 18 and above in the report.) They have a break down by year here:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/adults_prev/prevali.htm

According to that smokers haven't been a majority in the US at least since 1965 (earliest they list a percentage of overall population) and haven't been a majority of the male population since 1970.

Obviously as averages these can vary a great deal by region and by occupation. My own state (Missouri) is higher than average, but still not a majority, and had a spike in the late 90's. But that was still below 30%.

Certain industries may have higher percentages of smokers. You may be in such an occupation and that's why you see more smokers than non-smokers, but it doesn't hold up for the overall population.

[clarsct]

AH. Thank you for the info.

[kevin]

Here's numbers for the UK. Not sure of the source, it's from their national statistics department.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=866&Pos=6&ColRank=2&Rank=1000

They consider adults 16 and above. 25% of their adults smoke. They had a majority of males smoking in '74.

[LawnOven]

Maybe you people with asthma should just learn to smoke cloves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kretek

Kreteks were originally created by Haji Jamahri, a resident of Kudus, Java, Indonesia, in the early 1880's for medicinal purposes as a way to deliver the eugenol in the cloves to the lungs, as it was thought to help asthma. It cured his chest pains and he started to market his invention to the village...
Nevermind the rest of that sentence

See if it is good enough medicine for a 19th century indonesian villager; then it is good enough for you.

Plus they actually taste good...
And smell better...
And enhance alchohol...
and crackle when they burn.

Not to mention that cloves make you cool.

I like Djarum 'Black', rolled in black paper, then no one is fooling anyone about what you are getting.

Plus I think you would really have to try to get addicted to cloves.



And thus ends my essay entitled "Why people with asthma should stop whining and just smoke cloves".

*Note most of this was a joke; with exception to the parts that are true.*

[ReFLeX]

It doesn’t matter what is more common.Err. Yeah, it really does. Some people are seven and a half feet tall. Most doors are too small for them to go through without ducking. They represent such a small fraction of people, however, that it isn't seen as practical to make all doorways eight feet high. It absolutely matters how common they are.
What matters is that tintinus is a very real illness that can cause very real pain, for days, for someone exposed to loud noises.
I don't see any source saying that tinnitus causes pain. Rather, it's hearing damage caused by loud noise that leads to a usually subjective ringing sound. Unforunate, but it is acquired, much more than is the case with asthma.

Side note, which might make an interesting different thread: Back when smoke was everywhere, and buildings weren’t nearly as clean as they are now, asthma was far, far more rare. Now that things are squeaky clean, and smokers aren’t even allowed to smoke in a bar in most places, asthma is very common, but only in developed nations, where things have been sanitized.As clarcst mentioned, you'd have a tough time showing that asthma is more common now that things are "cleaner".

I don’t have a problem with that, although I don’t think using Big Brother is the best way to go about it."Big Brother" always tends to be an exaggeration by people who have not read 1984, and it is one here (an exaggeration).

Their real goal is to eliminate smoking entirely, and any ends justify their means.I don't think you can show support for either of those clauses.
It can make the sufferer unable to function, often for days. In other words, it makes people ill, so the analogy isn’t flawed.You do know how many obscure conditions there are that aren't specifically catered to by businesses, right? You've just picked one. Asthma is a growing health problem that genuinely needs to be addressed. Wikipedia cites this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15806035) for a figure as high as 1 in 4 urban children.

[tkingdoll]

Here's numbers for the UK. Not sure of the source, it's from their national statistics department.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=866&Pos=6&ColRank=2&Rank=1000

They consider adults 16 and above. 25% of their adults smoke. They had a majority of males smoking in '74.

Thanks Kevin, you saved me a task.

I agree that business should be allowed to choose whether or not they allow smoking, but I believe that the only reason pubs and restaurants do allow it is because of tradition. Once, smokers were a majority group, and as smoking and drinking went together, pubs catered for their largest market. Now, they are afraid of driving paying drinkers away if they ban smoking. But of course, there are many people who don't go to pubs because they can't stand the smoke, and in the UK, finding a non-smoking pub is like finding a decent pizza. It simply doesn't exist.

What would be interesting is some stats on what percentage of pub-goers on, say, an average Saturday night are smokers. Smokers have claimed pubs as their own, and some smokers argue that if you don't like the smoke, don't go to pubs. Well, if they are only representing 25% of the potential customer base for an establishment, then they are ones who should put up with other people's standards.

If/when the UK smoking ban comes in to play, I am willing to bet that few, if any, pubs claim a drop in custom in the long term.

[Paulhoff]

It is simple, your rights stop were my body begins.

Paul

:) :) :)

[TheChadd]

I support the anti-smoking laws which are occuring all over my country/state. During my law study I have looked at several cases to do with smoking/second-hand smoking/asbestos'/chlorine...etc etc etc.. In all of these cases the various companies have managed to come up with wild confabulations to dismiss the test results. In all of these cases the earliest results that showed detrimental effects were done some 20-30 years before the government (at least my government) began to deal with the issue. It's very, very hard to prove causation in these sort of cases and often by that time it's often too late.

[Sushi]

It's very, very hard to prove causation in these sort of cases and often by that time it's often too late.

So we need faith-based measures to protect us? If there is not strong enough evidence are we supposed to speculate?

[Sushi]

It is simple, your rights stop were my body begins.

Paul

:) :) :)

if your fart gets in my nose I should be able to sue

[TheChadd]

So we need faith-based measures to protect us? If there is not strong enough evidence are we supposed to speculate?
Well when the leap of faith is so small, yeah. It's up to you of course, you can keep breathing in something that appears to be having negative results... or you can say because the causation is not yet there I'm going to ignore all of that.

[Blue Mountain]

Current federal government policy in Canada is to reduce the incidence of smoking among the Canadian population (15 years and older) to as low was possible--the slogan for the campaign is "Toward a smoke-free Canada." The primary motivation is reducing the enormous expense the smoking population incurs on our government funded healthcare system. Secondary motiviations include improving the overall health of Canadians, reducing sick days from work, and improving birth weights. (Dying of lung cancer or emphysema is not only expensive, it's incredibly unpleasant.)

The Canadian strategy is first to try to prevent people from taking up the habit. For those who are smokers, the strategy is to make cigarettes expensive and reduce the comfort level of smokers, in the hopes these will encourage them to quit. The government makes many printed materials available to people wanting to quit, but unfortunately does not supply funding to individuals for things like the patch.

Here is a link to a PDF document (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/tobac-tabac/foward-avant/foward-avant_e.pdf) describing the Canadian program.

Where I live (Manitoba) the two major cities have gone non-smoking in all pubs and bars. I know of (only) one restaurant that lost enough clientele to go under; doubtless there were others. But most did not. Some bars have seen an increase in customers because people started attending who would never have done so before because of the smoke.

When the cities started musing about a smoking ban, the bar and restaurant trade went ballistic. Campaigns were mounted to stop the bylaws before they went to vote at council. Where did a lot of the FUD come from in the campaigns? Tobacco companies feeding stories to the restaurants.

People from Manitoba who travel to areas where smoking bans are not in effect comment on how (when they get back home) nice it is to be able to sit in a restaurant and not have to contend with other people's dirty habits.

Here's my take on the SHS issue: as a smoker, you have a right to abuse your body as you see fit. (I'm not in support of banning smoking; prohibition and the War on Drugs are sufficient proof that strategy will not work.) But you don't have a right to stink up my clothing, eliminate my enjoyment of my meal, or protentially cause an allergic reaction. If you want to stink up your own clothing and reduce your own taste experience, go right ahead. But not where you share airspace with me at a public establishment; do it in your own home.

I'm scared that someone will call for a ban on smoking at home because it will harm the children. That would be a nasty debate.

[TheChadd]

I'm scared that someone will call for a ban on smoking at home because it will harm the children. That would be a nasty debate.

I think before we went that nazi over smoking there are some worse habits that need to be addressed.

[Fun2BFree]

There is no "safe" level of smoking.

There is not "magical" transformation of smoke whether it is inhaled directly or indirectly it is the same substance.

Second hand smoke exposure can be measured on urine tests.

A ban on second hand smoke in a small town in Montana or Wyoming was accompanied by a sharp drop in ER visits for chest pain/angina with a return to higher number of visits shortly after the ban was repealed...

And I still think all such bans of smoking on PRIVATE PROPERTY are WRONG....morally wrong. I have recently walked out of two restaurants because they were too smoky...I avoid Vegas for vacation because it is too smoky...I avoid sitting in casinos and bars for the same reason in Vegas. Vegas had a brief flirtation with non-smoking casinos---it failed...the market will determine these things though. In general I think businesses would cater to both smokers and nonsmokers if each made their economic pwer felt as they should...it is different now than it was and people will vote with their wallet. Call a restaurant..ask if they allow smoking...if they do...say sorry I am taking my business elsewhere...

When I flew out of TAM/LV I was going to rent a DVD player and movie -I wanted to rent The Aristocrats...but INMOTION movies said, sorry corporate decided we won't rent that movie...so I said, "well I could rent some other movie, but based on your corporate decision to ban that movie, I am not giving you any business whatsoever..." will it matter? who knows...but that is all the power I have and all that I should have.

Another Example--in my town it is a rare restaurant that does not offer FREE Refills on soft drinks...there was no law passed....it has just happened by sheer force of the market...now I am sure this policy raises the price of a beverage for those single serving drinkers or maybe even is spread around to non beverage items and costs non soft drinking customers...but this is what the market wants and it all came about without a law.

Smoking sucks, I hate it...but reducing freedom sucks way worse.

[Paulhoff]

if your fart gets in my nose I should be able to sue

You can sue for anything you want, it does not mean it will go to trial.:teacher:

Paul

:) :) :)

[Euromutt]

Current federal government policy in Canada is to reduce the incidence of smoking among the Canadian population (15 years and older) to as low was possible--the slogan for the campaign is "Toward a smoke-free Canada." The primary motivation is reducing the enormous expense the smoking population incurs on our government funded healthcare system.That's the usual claim, and it almost invariably rings hollow, due to the fact that a lot of non-smoking related programs are funded by cigarette taxes.

Since 1998, when Ballot Proposition 10 was passed, the California Children & Families Commission (http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/), aka "First 5 California" has been given control of over US$700 million a year in state tobacco excise revenue, all of which goes to programs aimed at children age 5 and under (hence "First 5"), including such things as "readiness for school" programs and "oral health care initiatives." Despite the fact that Medi-Cal is one of the more developed state health-care systems in the US, it seems it's not so burdened by smokers that it requires every cent of taxes raised on tobacco sales. The Netherlands used the revenue generated by a hike in cigarette taxes in the mid-1990s to fund increased security on public transport (including buses and trams, where you're not even allowed to smoke). In 2001, for every £1 the British National Health Service spent on treating smoking-related disorders, the Exchequer raised £3.60 from tobacco sales (in tobacco excise and VAT); British smokers aren't just paying for their own medical costs, they're paying for a fair chunk of everbody else's. According to one estimate, if everybody in the UK quit smoking, income taxes would have to be raised by 8% to make up for the budget shortfall.

The harsh fact is that cigarette taxes are convenient little earner for governments, with the added bonus that they can be jacked at short notice to cover shortfalls in the budget without too many people raising a fuss. That's why few government will ever take steps which would lead to smking being eradicated. If governments were serious about actually reducing smoking, they should try following Bhutan's example, where the sale of tobacco was banned entirely in 2004 (though not the possession; Bhutanese citizens are permitted to bring cigarettes into the country from abroad ofr personal use, but are charged 100% import duties).
A ban on second hand smoke in a small town in Montana or Wyoming was accompanied by a sharp drop in ER visits for chest pain/angina with a return to higher number of visits shortly after the ban was repealed...Ah yes, the infamous Stanton, Shepard and Glantz study regarding the city of Helena. The study went unpublished, though not unreported, for over a year, and its methodolgy and conclusions were subjected to severe criticism, even by scientists who heartily support smoking bans.
See letters to the editor of the BMJ by Geoffrey C. Kabat (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#56035), epidemiologist and anti-smoker; and Brad Rodu (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#60213), professor of pathology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Or, as Jacob Sullum noted (http://reason.com/sullum/040403.shtml) in Reason:California's ban on smoking in workplaces took effect in 1995; it was extended to bars in 1998. Yet according to CDC data, the number of heart disease deaths in California did not drop substantially in either year. If smoking bans cut heart attacks in half, surely the effect would have shown up in these numbers.

Likewise, Delaware should see a sharp drop in heart attacks now that it has banned smoking in all workplaces. So should New York City, where a smoking ban took effect this month, and New York state, which recently passed a ban that takes effect in July. Ditto Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Florida. Or is there something special about hearts in Helena?

[Paulhoff]

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9704/16/tobacco.world/

Look at what we are doing to the 3rd world.

Paul

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[kevin]

That's the usual claim, and it almost invariably rings hollow, due to the fact that a lot of non-smoking related programs are funded by cigarette taxes.

A) All your counter claims are from California, the Netherlands and the British goverment. This is not an indication that this isn't true for Canada.

B) The actual claim for raising taxes was:
For those who are smokers, the strategy is to make cigarettes expensive and reduce the comfort level of smokers, in the hopes these will encourage them to quit.

That claim doesn't say anything about using the increased taxes to pay for healthcare, it merely claims that making cigarette prices higher will reduce the number of smokers. For anecdotal evidence I would offer that my brother dropped smoking pretty quickly after New York's huge tax increase.

Of course claiming that eliminating smoking would force an income tax increase are unprovable. You could always increase other "sin" taxes too. Alcohol and gambling are probably prime targets.

[Marc L]

The Canadian strategy is first to try to prevent people from taking up the habit. For those who are smokers, the strategy is to make cigarettes expensive and reduce the comfort level of smokers, in the hopes these will encourage them to quit.



Because that's worked so well for the US...



The government makes many printed materials available to people wanting to quit, but unfortunately does not supply funding to individuals for things like the patch.


Nor should they, IMO. If a person want's to quit, it's their responsibility to quit. Not the governments.


Some bars have seen an increase in customers because people started attending who would never have done so before because of the smoke.


So what you're saying is that alcohol consumption went up once smoking decreased. Hmmmm..... (just kidding)



I'm scared that someone will call for a ban on smoking at home because it will harm the children. That would be a nasty debate.

Oddly enough, though, I'd agree with that. At least for inside the home. Children don't have the ability to just up and leave the house whenever they want. And parents are ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of their children. Also, as the docs at Balboa take great pleasure in informing me everytime I see them, the younger a kid is, the more affected they are by the smoke. In my household, the smoker (me), goes outside to smoke, then takes a shower (or at least, changes shirts).

Marc

[Infinite]

Smoking is gross. I live with a smoker and it's nasty. Sometimes he smokes while sitting at the computer in the bedroom where I have to sleep. I am very allergic to cigerette smoke. I usually tell him to go outside, but the only time he goes out there really is when I'm sick with the flu. Everytime he gets in the car he lights up like he can't drive without a cigerette in his fricking hand. GROSS>>>>I'm thinking about divorce. lololo

[bpesta22]

Maybe we should ban incense?

Well, incense is illegal in most northern states. I think you can marry and / or copulate with second cousins in the south, and I have seen some european websites where not only is it legal, but it seems to be the norm, and one can buy videos of this type of activity.

As far as smoking, I say let the market sort it out, until and unless the science shows exposure to second hand smoke is more dangerous then is other activities of daily living.

[Paulhoff]

First cousin Marriage in the states

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

Paul

:) :) :)

[pipelineaudio]

damn communist nazi big brother thought police

BAH

dont smoke if you dont want to

dont go where smokers are hanging out

you pitiful totalitarians are one of the big reasons the music biz is in the state its in right now

[Spidey13]

First cousin Marriage in the states

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

Paul

:) :) :)

And Kentucky doesn't allow it!

HA!

[Paulhoff]

More

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=religion

The problems is no one checks the facts on this, this country is good for that, even the christain god had cousins marrying.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Blue Mountain]

damn communist nazi big brother thought police

BAH

dont smoke if you dont want to

dont go where smokers are hanging out

you pitiful totalitarians are one of the big reasons the music biz is in the state its in right now
Gee, you sure know how to push the buttons on this forum :)

I think I'll start carrying around a perfume mister full of skunk oil. Every time I catch a whiff of a cigarette, I'll give the smoker a couple of shots of the oil, so he can enjoy that for the rest of the day.

dont smoke if you dont want to
There's more to smoking than the health risks. Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Should be the same for the foul odour of cigarettes, too.

dont go where smokers are hanging out Like restaurants, movie theatres, shopping malls, public sidewalks, parks ... ?

Like the smoker I saw who discarded her lit cigarette into healthy green grass where children were running around barefoot? Then chewed me out when I pointed this out to her?

There's rights, then there's courtesy. Smokers seem to forget that all too often.

[ponderingturtle]

There's more to smoking than the health risks. Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Should be the same for the foul odour of cigarettes, too.


Wearing perfume in public should be illegal to by that logic.

[Silly Green Monkey]

People who bathe in perfume are as annoying as smokers.

[Blue Mountain]

Wearing perfume in public should be illegal to by that logic.
There are already campaigns underway by people sensitive to perfume to reduce the amount of perfume and cologne they encounter on a daily basis.

Where I live smoking is banned in all indoor public places, including restaurants and bars. Makes going to them much more pleasant. Some people have even started talking about banning smoking in outdoor public places, too. We'll be a while getting there, though.

In my opinion, the smoking of cigarettes should be strongly discouraged pretty much everywhere, every time. Not banned, though; look how effecive drug prohibition has been on reducing the consumption of marijuana (not!). Therefore, I'm not in favour of prohibiting people from smoking in the privacy of their own homes or back yards.

But keep your filthy stinking habit away from my nostrils and my clothes. It does you no good and does me no good. I see no reason why I should have to suffer while you're paying a megacorporation to send you to an early grave on a slave ship.

[pipelineaudio]

I say a bar owner or restaraunt owner is free to allow smoking if he wishes. If you dont like that, go elsewhere

Next were gonna have people coming in and insist that the band doesnt play certain songs since they might offend

When its YOUR house, you set the rules

When its my house, you are my guest, if you dont like my rules, get the hell out

[ponderingturtle]

There are already campaigns underway by people sensitive to perfume to reduce the amount of perfume and cologne they encounter on a daily basis.

MCS is a major public health crisis after all

[Rocky]

I don't care about the bans or the reasoning behind them. What I want to know is,
What the crunk is the truth about secondhand smoke?




I think everyone will agree that actually smoking is bad for your health. At what point is does it stop being bad? If I'm three feet away am I safe?

-R

[ynot]

Even if the smoke from smoking was completely harmless to health, smoking is harmless and costly to non-smokers in other ways. It's the cause of many accidental fires that cause death and property damage (buildings, forests, etc). This increases insurance premiums for non-smokers. Perhaps non-smokers should get a discount on property insurance in the way they do from life insurance. There's also the discomfort and inconvenience from the stink that non-smokers receive from smokers. When a smoker asks "Do you mind if I smoke?" the reply should be "Do you mind if I spit?". Then if they start smoking, start spitting on them. :D

[rockoon]

I am alergic to pet dander.

Fine. So I avoid animals.. seems simple, right?

Then some jerk who was recently fondling his/her furball cat, with cat hair all over themself, decides to go out into the private business that I happen to be visiting...

Do these people have a right to drag their pet dander everywhere? It seems to me that pet owners cannot help but drag their pet dander around because obviously it covers all of their clothings... its unavoidable since their house has billions of bits of dander dust floating around...

It seems settled then... pets must be banned. Nobody should be