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.
Here in GA there are a few bars that still allow smoking and its a night mare for the people who don't smoke.
Some places provide a designated area for smokers but it's still not enough to keep the asphyxiating 2nd hand smoke from ruining things.
Smoking bans are WAY more helpful than harmful. Inconvenient for smokers but no one's night get ruined from not being able to breathe or having clothes that stink.
Why, you ask? Because New York City government, particularly Mayor Bloomberg, hate personal freedom. I'm not a smoker, but God damn, let these people a have a smoke if they want. Private property owners should decide their own policies. And the rules about smoking outside are asinine. I'm at much more of a risk from car exhaust than some guy smoking a cigarette. And stop taxing them so much. Leave them, and britney, alone.
Got my main reply wiped because I wasn't logged in, and the chances of you, Kefir seeing this response to your 8 year old comment are slim.
So I'll just say: Your 172 cancers number is talking about smokers. My comment about 5 cancers was in reference to 1,000 nonsmokers normally having 4 in a lifetime but with one extra added (i.e. to make it 5 in a lifetime) if they worked for those whole lifetimes in offices/bars/restaurants full of 1940s through 1970s levels of heavy smoking and poor ventilation.
That's correct: Put 1000 people into those heavy smoking conditions for their entire working lifetimes and all the EPA Report could claim was 1 extra case of lung cancer. And they only got away with THAT claim by ignoring normal scientific statistical standards which would have concluded ZERO extra cases.
- MJM, with apologies for the delayed response: I've been active on Quora the last few years...
Can you believe I actually DID see your post but for the life of me I cannot remember an 8 year old conversation.
But it brings to mind 2 thoughts: 1. Memories of cocktail hour at the Monster where by 7 PM you could barely see the bartender making your drink.
2. A gentleman from another forum posited that there was no such thing as cancer caused by "second hand smoke." That lung cancers in non-smokers, and probably many smokers as well, is instead caused by the nuclear fallout released by the hundreds of atomic bombs tested in the atmosphere above the United States for half the last century. If they detonated fission devices in Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming and Utah, where did they THINK the fallout would go?
THe government had to deny these non-smoker cancers SOMEHOW, hence the brilliant fantasy of "second hand smoke."
<I am just repeating someone else's theory as food for thought, but I don't dismiss it offhand. It is exactly what I would expect any government to do to avoid the largest financial liability in history.>
Of course I believe that smoking causes cancer but I also believe that inhaled radioactive nucleotides do as thoroughly, or more so.
Last edited by Kefir King; 04-13-2019 at 09:04 AM..
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.
