Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When it gets down to the fact that others' choice to engage in something legal in an establishment negatively affects someone else's health, then yes there should be the ability to regulate that and prohibit that from happening. To say that non-smokers should just not visit a restaurant that has a smoking section is silly. We have the right to go to an establishment and not be subjected to second hand smoke. Regardless if there is a little partition "separating" the sections, you are still exposed to the smoke nearly the same as far as second hand smoke is concerned.
Just to give an idea:
"Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth- weight babies"
If being in a restaurant around smokers for a little while were a true public health hazard OSHA would get involved, but it's not.
BTW, a restaurant is not public property, it's private business and smoking is legal, AND people have choices.
Doesn't matter anymore tho. The non-smokers and pro-nanny-government people got their way. Just don't come crying when it's your rights that are being infringed upon. (and by rights, I don't necessarily mean smokers rights, I mean the owners of the business.)
When it gets down to the fact that others' choice to engage in something legal in an establishment negatively affects someone else's health, then yes there should be the ability to regulate that and prohibit that from happening. To say that non-smokers should just not visit a restaurant that has a smoking section is silly. We have the right to go to an establishment and not be subjected to second hand smoke. Regardless if there is a little partition "separating" the sections, you are still exposed to the smoke nearly the same as far as second hand smoke is concerned.
Just to give an idea:
"Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth- weight babies"
No offense (b/c I know most folks are gonna accept whatever the American Cancer Society prints) . . . but those figures you cited are not facts, they are supposition. Not trying to argue with you, b/c I am fully aware that people believe whatever the ACS prints but their contributions depend on your believing that stuff, too. And not interested in arguing about it, but just wanted to point out that if you get your info from non-biased sources, you will find that most of the data that is cited was prepared by organizations that have an interest in seeing contributions stay high so they can stay in business.
You would have to live in a Bell Jar with smoke pumped in 24/7 to get the effects you cited above. Stuff like low weight babies, too, are basing that on smoking as a criteria without taking into account the person's overall diet, drug addictions, etc.
But again - not trying to be rude or argumentative. As a writer, I know what the popular statistics are and I realize folks have had this hammered in their heads very deliberately for a quarter of a century so of course, most people trust the information. And as a daughter of parents who truly do have reactions (eyes burning, coughing) from even the faint scent of cigarette smoke, I also am aware that regardless of how exaggerated the supposed effects of secondhand smoke are . . . if it makes folks uncomfortable or causes an allergic reaction or asthma attack, then it is a real issue for them.
Being exposed to someone else's smoking is still secondhand smoke, and well there's no "safe" secondhand smoke. People have rights to do legal activities but when it infringes upon other people's right to live healthy, a line has to be drawn.
Being exposed to someone else's smoking is still secondhand smoke, and well there's no "safe" secondhand smoke. People have rights to do legal activities but when it infringes upon other people's right to live healthy, a line has to be drawn.
It doesn't infringe on your "right" if you don't go to the restaurant. Choices.
Forcing the hand of the owner because you feel like you have some sort of right in their place of business is BS! It's THEIR business. THEY own it. If they want to cater to smokers, they should be allowed to!
Being exposed to someone else's smoking is still secondhand smoke, and well there's no "safe" secondhand smoke. People have rights to do legal activities but when it infringes upon other people's right to live healthy, a line has to be drawn.
Yes, we all want to live a healthy life. That is our top priority - living a health life. Gotta draw a line when it comes to our health.
Actually, now that I think about that . . . (NOT directing this at you, DEP, just thinking out loud here . . . ) I believe the obesity rates in this nation show that we DO NOT want to work that hard at it, tho.
If we really were so concerned about our health, we wouldn't have 2/3 of the folks in this nation being overweight. And a staggering Diabetes rate that continues rising . . .
And we would ban all combustion engines, since cars put out a smorgasbord of carcinogens.
And we would make sure no one lived in houses with asbestos or lead paint.
And we would stop chlorinating water - we would use oxygenation systems. And we would make sure no one had even a TRACE of arsenic in their water source.
And we would stop the manufacture of hair color and food dye. And we would not eat fish that contained even a TINY bit of mercury.
So I take it back. I guess we really are not that concerned about our health issues . . . if it is something we ourselves have to do like give up our fast food, hair color or our car. But we will clap our hands when there is a law passed that makes THE OTHER GUY have to change his/her habits, Hee Hee.
Last edited by brokensky; 12-10-2009 at 06:15 PM..
To say that non-smokers should just not visit a restaurant that has a smoking section is silly.
Why yes it is. That is almost as silly as saying that people who are offended by nudity should not visit a strip club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dep8477
We have the right to go to an establishment and not be subjected to second hand smoke.
Does the owner of the establishment not have the right to determine what legal activities are allowed in his or her place that they own, pay taxes on, and pay to run?
As a smoker I still dont want to smell smoke when I sit down to eat. I also will not stay if the music is overbearing to the point I have trouble hearing the quite conversation I may be having and I for sure will leave if I can here loud talk from the bar or profane language from anyone near by....It shouldnt be an issue to a smoker to have his smoke after he leaves the building unless they got parking lot smoke police.
Why yes it is. That is almost as silly as saying that people who are offended by nudity should not visit a strip club.
This is not a logical comparison. If someone goes to a strip club, they are more than likely going because of the nudity. Therefore, someone not seeking nudity would probably not end up there in the first place. People going to places that serve the public, such as restaurants, are going there for food. They are not going to there to possibly be exposed to cigarette smoke. There is a big difference with not going somewhere because it could offend you visually versus not going somewhere because it could negatively affect your health.
No offense (b/c I know most folks are gonna accept whatever the American Cancer Society prints) . . . but those figures you cited are not facts, they are supposition. Not trying to argue with you, b/c I am fully aware that people believe whatever the ACS prints but their contributions depend on your believing that stuff, too. And not interested in arguing about it, but just wanted to point out that if you get your info from non-biased sources, you will find that most of the data that is cited was prepared by organizations that have an interest in seeing contributions stay high so they can stay in business.
You would have to live in a Bell Jar with smoke pumped in 24/7 to get the effects you cited above. Stuff like low weight babies, too, are basing that on smoking as a criteria without taking into account the person's overall diet, drug addictions, etc.
But again - not trying to be rude or argumentative. As a writer, I know what the popular statistics are and I realize folks have had this hammered in their heads very deliberately for a quarter of a century so of course, most people trust the information. And as a daughter of parents who truly do have reactions (eyes burning, coughing) from even the faint scent of cigarette smoke, I also am aware that regardless of how exaggerated the supposed effects of secondhand smoke are . . . if it makes folks uncomfortable or causes an allergic reaction or asthma attack, then it is a real issue for them.
I just happened to read an article today that said the World Health Organization says secondhand smoking kills about 600,000 people every year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
