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.
What it does "other than cause an inconvenience for everyone" is lead to that person racking up horrendous medical bills that we all have to pay for and jacking up the costs of medical insurance that we all then have to pay for.
I know they rack up horrendous medical bills, but so do people who eat themselves into morbid obesity, those who have unprotected sex with multiple partners, people who like to bungee jump and sky dive...see my point?
I also thought this thread was about smoking bans in NYC, not who racks up the most medical bills.
I know they rack up horrendous medical bills, but so do people who eat themselves into morbid obesity, those who have unprotected sex with multiple partners, people who like to bungee jump and sky dive...see my point?
I also thought this thread was about smoking bans in NYC, not who racks up the most medical bills.
The thread is not just "about smoking bans in NYC".
The OP specifically asked: "Why all these smoking bans?" The answer is because smoking is costly to the government and to "society" and the government doesn't want to pay the bills, so medical bills are an integral part of the discussion.You can't answer the OP's question without talking about medical bills.
You actually have to eat to live...but smoke? Clearly a reasonable person would say no to smoking, but not so easily to fast food. Although in theory I agree with you, the application of that is not feasible, although I would like to see a limit to the number of fast food places in any particular block/neighborhood. And the changes to the menu, like transfat and lower sodium make a difference....there are no safety measures for smoking.
Here's the deal. Smoking is legal. I personally think it should be illegal if things like weed are illegal, or the other way around. And I have a feeling that you would agree about that. But it's not. It's legal. An entire thread could be dedicated to why it is legal. So that said, the nanny state is for whatever reason going after this one area. People do have to eat, true, but they do not have to eat unhealthy. It's arguably just as bad as a vice if not worse than smoking when it comes to heart disease and the such. Should we also close down gay bars where this is statistically a lot of risque' sex because HIV rates are highest among the gay male community, and many people have to get their meds on our dime? I didn't think so.
And for what it's worth, I don't smoke cigarettes or weed or even drink heavily at all. A couple beers a month at most. I gave that crap up when I realized it only breaks my body down as I age. I took that upon myself, as an individual who can make my own decisions.
Quote:
As for your idea that it has killed business, that is the same line that was used to scare people when Bloomberg first pushed the smoking ban. And what happened to bars in the city? Did we see mass evacuations? Shuttering of half the East Village? Nope...we saw increased business. You can always smoke 2 steps outside...so what's the problem?
I really don't care what the stats say or what you perceive. And I never said it shut down entire neighborhoods. I have acquaintances who own establishments throughout a couple different cities who have all told me the same thing. And sure, you don't have to believe that. Whatever. I'm just telling you what I see and hear.
The thread is not just "about smoking bans in NYC".
The OP specifically asked: "Why all these smoking bans?" The answer is because smoking is costly to the government and to "society" and the government doesn't want to pay the bills, so medical bills are an integral part of the discussion.You can't answer the OP's question without talking about medical bills.
OK. In that case I have something to add. Read my essay, "Taxes, Social Costs, and the MSA" at:
and feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms you might have. Bottom line is that smokers MORE than pay for their own medical costs, as well as now paying for the health insurance of all the children that nonsmokers were too selfish to pay for themselves: It's called SCHIP... the federal tax increase of 150% on manufactured smokes and over 2,000% on roll your own tobacco used by one of the poorest well-defined minority groups in the country.
Flame me, I can take it. I'm from OHIO, a very 'smokey' state, just moved to relatively, &, IMO, great, smoke free Utah. Well, moved here 5 years ago. lol My Dad smoked until he tossed an end out the window, & it burned my pants (came in the back window) , & my Mom freaked & banned my Dad to the basement to smoke. He cut down alot. My Mom developed emphysema (sp?) from 2nd hand smoke (she has never smoked) , mostly in bars & euchre tournaments. &, probably, my Dad, whom she banned outside to smoke after she was diagnosed. My Dad had 1/4 of one cancerous lung removed last year, &, after 60 years of smoking, he quit, cold turkey.
My issue is, where do smokers 'rights' end & non smokers begin? My Mom got emphysema from 2nd hand smoke. Total innocent victim. There are lawsuits all over on smokers against tobacco companies. How about my innocent Mom, who never smoked, just inhaled 2nd hand smoke. It will probably kill her. Can she sue smokers for murder? If you say, she shouldn't have went to euchre tournaments where she knew there were smokers, not right. Shouldn't she be able to live her life & do things she likes w/o worrying others habits will probably kill her? Yes, I'm dramatic.
I know it's over the top, but, actually think outside the box. I have the right to live & breathe relatively clean air, right? PS Who forces people to buy cigarettes? They are insanely taxed, yes. So is alcohol here in Utah. Hubby & I drink, so, we pay. We don't cause others to get sick when we have a cocktail or 2.
I am strongly for all bans on smoking. I know I haven't smoked so I don't 'get it'. As of now, I'm thankful I live in Utah where smokers are the lowest % of all states in the US.
Just my 2 cents. Your rights begin where mine end, & vice versa.
Buckeyez, while I'm very sorry about the illnesses of both your mom and dad, you should know that you've been misinformed if anyone told you that your mom's emphysema was "due to secondhand smoke." Even if you believe that the research in the area is unbiased (which, if you read a lot of my writings you'll find I dispute quite heavily) all that could be said would be that there is some degree of chance that it could be related.
I haven't researched the ETS/Emphysema claims carefully enough to say anything about the degree of that chance, BUT, I have looked into the claims around lung cancer. The normal rate of lung cancer in nonsmokers is about 4 in a thousand per lifetime. Using the US EPA Report as sound data (which again, I would feel was greatly exaggerated) a lifetime of secondhand smoke exposure would increase those chances by 19% ... up to about 5 in 1,000.
So... if your mom had worked in a bar for forty years and then developed lung cancer, you'd probably find folks (even doctors) sagely nodding their heads and saying "It was because of the smoke." But in reality, all they could possibly say based on the actual science would be that there was about one chance in five that her particular lung cancer came from the smoke, i.e. that she was the unlucky one bartender in a thousand who got lung cancer from their decades of steady exposure.
I'm going into such depth on this because your father may be feeling great guilt over what he "did to" your mother.... and that guilt is probably completely unjustified and wrong.
McFaddedn Post: BUT, I have looked into the claims around lung cancer. The normal rate of lung cancer in nonsmokers is about 4 in a thousand per lifetime. Using the US EPA Report as sound data (which again, I would feel was greatly exaggerated) a lifetime of secondhand smoke exposure would increase those chances by 19% ... up to about 5 in 1,000.
I dispute your data:
From a report in the NIH publication based on Canadian statistics:
Quote:
<H3>Abstract
Life table methodology was used to estimate the probability of developing lung cancer by smoking status. Lifetime risks of developing lung cancer were estimated for six hypothetical cohorts (males, females, male current smokers, male never smokers, female current smokers, and female never smokers). Estimates of smoking mortality and incidence rates were calculated based on Canadian rates observed over the period 1987 to 1989. It was found that 172/1,000 of male current smokers will eventually develop lung cancer; the similar probability among female current smokers was 116/1,000. For those who never smoked on a regular basis the lifetime risk was substantially reduced. Only 13/1,000 males and 14/1,000 females in this category will develop lung cancer. When smoking status is not adjusted for, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is approximately 96/1,000 and 43/1,000 for males and females respectively.
I am not a smoker, but I hate when peoples freedom & rights are constantly taken away.
Why not have laws on bad breathe or car pollution?
Oh hell...was I sleeping in civics class? I missed the part about smoking being included in the Constitution!
And you may not have noticed, but the Mayor has also declared war on things like sugary sodas. Whether or not such indulgences are good for you, or bother other people, is a secondary consideration to the man. He just likes telling others what to do.
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.
As to the "Why?" question...
