Smoking -- attitudes in Chicagoland (environment, budget, job)

[FormerStocktonian]

Yes, welcome to the 21st Century America. The era where government dominates our lives and treat us like little children.

All I can say is lets keep allowing government to ban our everyday activities. Little by little, our government will turn more into a dictatorship if anything.


Even with smokers having to take it outside, the non smokers will still find something to complain about. I'm sure that a non smoker just passing by a smoker will complain about it as well. Just that little pass of smoke will cause great harm, I'm sure.

[at home america girl]

Wow, you must live a happy life!

[NSH]

true non smokers, those who have never smoked, really could care less if people smoke or not cause we are used to it. It's the smokers who quit then get withdrawals and cravings and don't know how to handle themselves when they smell smoke that are causing all the raucous.

[FormerStocktonian]

Actually, I live a wonderful life and would be even better without the government getting into our personal lives.

There is a list of many things we do in our everday lives that pose a health risk. Cancer from cell phones, breathing in the gases that are in the air, car exhaust fumes, computers, your microwave, etc., etc.

I just feel that smokers should not be made out to feel like criminals.

[Don Vito]

I love it when people cry big government, particularly when the governement is trying to save peoples lives. I remember the huss fuss in when the seatbelt laws came into effect. Never mind the fact that tens of thousands of lives were probably spared a painful, bloody, violent, and horrific death...we should be worring about "big government" according to some people. The same goes for this smoking ban, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people can breath clean air in public spaces and are spared the cancer causing poison fumes (which has been scientifically prooven to kill non smokers). Want to complain about big government? Complain about the patriot act which is violating the constitution, you know somthing a little more important. No one is saying you can't light up, they are just saying you can't do it an enclosed space where other people have to share the air. It is funny I don't see drunkards complaining about how they can't drink in public, take it some where private or somewhere its designated. Sheesh.

[aragx6]

Actually the data is still out on second hand smokes effects. No study has been able to beat the 5% margin of error.

[sukwoo]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Actually the data is still out on second hand smokes effects. No study has been able to beat the 5% margin of error.

I don't believe this is true. There is a substantial body of scientific work demonstrating the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Don Vito

It is funny I don't see drunkards complaining about how they can't drink in public, take it some where private or somewhere its designated. Sheesh.

You apparently don't even see one tiny bit of irony in glibly admonishing smokers to take it somewhere where it's designated while simultaneously cheering on legislation that legislates most designated areas out of existence. There used to be places where smokers had a reasonable expectation that they could carry out their habit in peace without being hectored by the Smoking Nazis, but now even those places have been legislated out of existence. "Take it somewhere private" indeed. Except now there are virtually no private places left where smokers can smoke. On what basis does the public have a reasonable expectation that they can sit in a casino and plug a slot machine for hours in a smoke-free environment? If a privately owned bar wants to allow its patrons to smoke, what business is it of yours? It would, after all, be a "designated area" you so casually suggest smokers retreat to. That is, until that designated area is legislated out of existence, and then the next one, and then the next one, with your approval no less. Just be honest and say you don't care if smoking is banned outright.

[aragx6]

The media and the government are very biased about smoking, so it shouldn't shock anyone what information they in power choose to disseminate.

Anyone with an interest on the subject should view this site: The EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke (SHS) - The Facts.

Clearly he has a bias as well, but it's a really good first look into some of the issues with the "science" behind the smoking studies.

I know there's a lot of information on the site and most people would rather argue about what they believe than read deeper into an issue, but I urge everyone on each side of this argument to read some of the info there before posting again.

[Don Vito]

Originally Posted by aragx6

Actually the data is still out on second hand smokes effects. No study has been able to beat the 5% margin of error.

Well if we are going to REGRESS and suggest that second hand smoke is not harmful, there is no point to this dialogue.