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 I eat my Big Mac, it doesn't endanger the health of those sitting around me in McDonald's.
To be fair however, as much as I detest smoking, I too agree that the market should dictate whether smoking is allowed or not. It pains me to say it, but I too feel that a business owner should get to make thew decision, and if nonsmokers don't like it, they can show their feelings by not goint to the establishment.
From a purely selfish point of view though, I am happy for the smoking bans.
That would be fine with me. You won't catch me around anyone's smoking. From a purely healthy point of view, I'm happy for the smoking bans.
- As a non-smoker, I definitely prefer (and frequent) restaurants in Dallas.
- France banned smoking as a country. If it weren't for the huge amount of money that smoking taxes bring into our government coffers, I personally believe it would be banned in the US since it is a class A carcinogen.
- You'd be arrested for terrorism if you took any other chemical from this list and were putting them near the general public. Should a restaurant owner be allowed to put these compounds on your food or in the air? It would be considered a biological attack. Why is smoking any different? Cause it's been around for a long time and is taxed.
- As a non-smoker, I definitely prefer (and frequent) restaurants in Dallas.
- France banned smoking as a country. If it weren't for the huge amount of money that smoking taxes bring into our government coffers, I personally believe it would be banned in the US since it is a class A carcinogen.
- You'd be arrested for terrorism if you took any other chemical from this list and were putting them near the general public. Should a restaurant owner be allowed to put these compounds on your food or in the air? It would be considered a biological attack. Why is smoking any different? Cause it's been around for a long time and is taxed.
1) Good for you. If more people made a stand like that before there were laws, there would have been more smoke-free options without legislation.
2) The fact of the matter is, every breath you take is killing you (whether it be smoke-free or not). We are not immortal and just about ANYTHING you do is "bad for your health". While I believe the dangers of "second hand smoke" are greatly exaggerated, I won't get into details on this argument because it's futile. We'll just disagree forever.
3) That really doesn't mean anything. There are many things used in day to day life that can be dangerous. I hate to re-use the example, but perfume (which is also airborne) contains just as many bad chemicals and is horrible for your health to inhale. However, it smells good - so people don't care.
1) Good for you. If more people made a stand like that before there were laws, there would have been more smoke-free options without legislation.
Yup, you are right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krisco750
2) The fact of the matter is, every breath you take is killing you (whether it be smoke-free or not). We are not immortal and just about ANYTHING you do is "bad for your health". While I believe the dangers of "second hand smoke" are greatly exaggerated, I won't get into details on this argument because it's futile. We'll just disagree forever.
So, because every breath we take is one closer to death - we should throw caution to the wind? I love this argument. Lacking in logic at the very least. But you're right, we will disagree forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krisco750
3) That really doesn't mean anything. There are many things used in day to day life that can be dangerous. I hate to re-use the example, but perfume (which is also airborne) contains just as many bad chemicals and is horrible for your health to inhale. However, it smells good - so people don't care.
See, the difference is you don't use facts. Yes, it is true that there may be things in perfume that aren't good for us, but are they listed as a KNOWN CLASS A carcinogen? Nope. If they were, they'd be pulled immediately from the formula. So to use an example when there are no documented issues and it's just a whim or belief is again illogical at best.
So, because every breath we take is one closer to death - we should throw caution to the wind? I love this argument. Lacking in logic at the very least. But you're right, we will disagree forever.
No, that's not what I mean. But if you're going to argue that it's strictly for health reasons, then I expect you'll stop driving your car? That's a whole helluva lot more toxic to everyone than smoke. Also, you mentioned something about the nasty chemicals getting into our food. If you're so concerned about that, maybe you should read up on what actually goes into our food these days. I think second hand smoke would be the last thing you'd be worried about.
My point is - there's a lot of things that are harmful to our health. That argument is a straw man, though. It's just used by people who are anti-smoking to further their cause of banning smoking.
I mentioned that I think the dangers of second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Here is a link to some great information in regards to that:
See, the difference is you don't use facts. Yes, it is true that there may be things in perfume that aren't good for us, but are they listed as a KNOWN CLASS A carcinogen? Nope. If they were, they'd be pulled immediately from the formula. So to use an example when there are no documented issues and it's just a whim or belief is again illogical at best.
CHEC Articles: Fragrance in Perfumes and Cosmetics (http://www.checnet.org/HEALTHEHOUSE/education/articles-detail.asp?Main_ID=509 - broken link)
These results are just from a quick google. I could find more I'm sure. Here's an excerpt from the last link:
"The reality is that up to ninety-five percent of the chemicals used to make perfume are petroleum derived. Many of these chemicals are derived from benzene, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known."
No, that's not what I mean. But if you're going to argue that it's strictly for health reasons, then I expect you'll stop driving your car? That's a whole helluva lot more toxic to everyone than smoke. Also, you mentioned something about the nasty chemicals getting into our food. If you're so concerned about that, maybe you should read up on what actually goes into our food these days. I think second hand smoke would be the last thing you'd be worried about.
My point is - there's a lot of things that are harmful to our health. That argument is a straw man, though. It's just used by people who are anti-smoking to further their cause of banning smoking.
I mentioned that I think the dangers of second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Here is a link to some great information in regards to that:
These results are just from a quick google. I could find more I'm sure. Here's an excerpt from the last link:
"The reality is that up to ninety-five percent of the chemicals used to make perfume are petroleum derived. Many of these chemicals are derived from benzene, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known."
So here's the deal. When a chemical is listed as a carcinogen - it shouldn't be in any product or be subjected to the public. You can pile up article after article if you'd like, but if they aren't deemed a carcinogen, then legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's like quoting articles about conspiracy theories as a fact or something. And hey, I don't particularly like perfume.
So, you use the quote, "The reality is that up to ninety-five percent of the chemicals used to make perfume are petroleum derived. Many of these chemicals are derived from benzene, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known." I love that one. Do you know what table salt is? Soduim Chloride. So table salt is derived from two toxic elements. But you know what? Derived doesn't mean squat - it's only dangerous in the plant where you combine and/or use them as a reactant. Do you have any idea how many nasty, nasty chemicals are used in manufacturing? They have safety measures in place to keep them from the general public. Smoking in public does not.
I'm not quite sure how it works in Dallas but it's probably similar to what they do in Arlington. In Arlington if 25% or more of your sales are from food then you are considered a restaurant (I believe that's the %) and therefore not able to allow smoking in your establishment. Otherwise the establishment is considered a bar and able to allow smoking. Personally I don't feel that a city should dictate to a business whether to allow this or not. Nobody forces anybody to eat or drink anywhere. If you don't like smoking you are free pick up and go somewhere else and vice versa. If a restaurant doesn't allow you to smoke but you want to you can get up and go somewhere else. If allowing smoking in an establishment is a bad idea it will show in their bank account.
It is a bit ironic to force smokers out on a patio when nobody seems to mind SUVs driving by emitting noxious fumes.
While I can agree with the general premise of this statement - it is worth noting that we do have government mandated catalytic converters and emission testing to ensure they are below a predetermined limit. Imagine how bad it could be if these measures were not put in place.
It does amaze me how many patios are built on the front of restaurants - although the design of the building really dictates it and the restaurant gets free advertising showing how busy it is. I've often wondered why retail locations aren't designed in a fashion to have a central or rear-facing area for patios that can have some trees or something other than a parking lot to look at. Good design is very difficult to come by (and it costs more in many, many cases). I think about the awesome layout of Breadwinners - with the interior courtyards and roof top patio. That place has tons of character and architecture. But even there, they have a small outdoor patio area out off the front corner of the building, with cars parking directly in front of it. Last time I was there a couple weeks ago, they were adding to the rooftop patio area. With the beautiful Fall weather we're having - my wife and I may need to head over to check that out.
So here's the deal. When a chemical is listed as a carcinogen - it shouldn't be in any product or be subjected to the public. You can pile up article after article if you'd like, but if they aren't deemed a carcinogen, then legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. It's like quoting articles about conspiracy theories as a fact or something. And hey, I don't particularly like perfume.
So, you use the quote, "The reality is that up to ninety-five percent of the chemicals used to make perfume are petroleum derived. Many of these chemicals are derived from benzene, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known." I love that one. Do you know what table salt is? Soduim Chloride. So table salt is derived from two toxic elements. But you know what? Derived doesn't mean squat - it's only dangerous in the plant where you combine and/or use them as a reactant. Do you have any idea how many nasty, nasty chemicals are used in manufacturing? They have safety measures in place to keep them from the general public. Smoking in public does not.
Toluene, ethanol, acetone, formaldehyde, limonene, benzene derivatives, methylene chloride, and many others known to cause cancer, birth defects, infertility, nervous system damage, or other injuries. The EPA found chloroform as well in fabric softeners.
As Romantic as Hazardous Waste
Toluene was found in every fragrance sample collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a 1991 report. "Toluene was most abundant in the auto parts store as well as the fragrance section of the department store." Toluene has been proven to cause cancer and nervous system damage and is designated as hazardous waste.
I didn't get too much into details, because I'm not arguing whether or not perfume is as dangerous as smoking. The point I was trying to make is that there are a number of things that are bad for our health and are not illegal. If you are truly concerned about your health, you have the choice to not go to places that are filled with it.
I don't want to come across like the Marlboro man here. I'm not a completely insensitive bastard and I'll agree it's nice to eat in restaurants without smoke filling the room. I also don't smoke inside my own apartment for the same reason - it's not exactly pleasant. However, I still don't see a reason for a government to ban businesses/people from partaking. It's a slippery slope. If it's OK to ban smoking, what's to stop them from banning other things as it becomes fashionable or lobbyists take up the cause?
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.
From a purely healthy point of view, I'm happy for the smoking bans.
