Would You Be In Favor of a Statewide Public Smoking Ban? (Philadelphia: to buy, luxury)

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by susquehannock

I don't know anyone PERSONALLY who died of lung cancer. That was the question I was asked.

Well, I do. And so have many others who posted on this forum.

[susquehannock]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

Well, I do. And so have many others who posted on this forum.

Sorry to read that. Were all the cases caused by the same source?

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by lisak64

We can't rid society of everything that kills people. If we did, we have no guns, alcohol, fast food, bungee jumping, mountain climbing, NASCAR, prescription drugs, boating, cars, etc. But we can allow adults to make choices in their own lives and we can do the best we can to protect others from those choices. Making 80% of drinking/eating establishments smoke free would do just that.

Adults making choices is one thing. But, as health professionals will tell you, smoking is a pediatric issue. Roughly 75% of smokers start as children. The tobacco companies still spend lots of money to get kids to smoke. Most of the rest start in college. As fewer kids go into college smoking, the tobacco companies have started to target college students. I am OK with the risks I am taking in my own life. I don't want to have to deal with a risk I have chosen NOT to take.

[TERMINOLOGY]

Smokers need to step up here. You are getting creamed. Come on smokers show us whats inside of you.

[TERMINOLOGY]

Probably pretty close to being acurate at 20%. Consider the numbers from this poll. It shows 30% are smokers. Consider this population smokes more than the national average.

[TERMINOLOGY]

Maybe that's how the issue needs to be settled. Smokers don't have the numbers to sustain a referendum.

Let the people decide.

[Katiana]

Public health issues should not be decided by referendum.

[CosmicWizard]

TERMINOLOGY wrote:

Smokers need to step up here. You are getting creamed. Come on smokers show us whats inside of you.

I've already expressed my views both for and against smoking. I'm in favoer of allowing smoking facilities at the discretion of the owner, and I'm in favor of completely disqualifying smokers from health insurance. All dis-ease care for smokers must be paid out of pocket. If a smoker is broke, they get no health care whatsoever. No handouts. Let the dire health and finacial consequences related to smoking be know right up front. To smoke or not to smoke is a personal choice.

[TERMINOLOGY]

Why should the public be disqualified from deciding public issues?

[TERMINOLOGY]

NAR

I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, the way it works is that you and I pay for the health care of those who don't have it. Change that, and you would be closer to ground. We also pay for the health care of all the illegals, who are having children at Mercy Hospital tonight.

But as long as we are wishing, How about if the establishment would accept the liability for the smoke that it allowed to enter the lungs of an innocent dinner, or bar hopper.

I think that this is part of the motivation for some of the more conservative's thinking along this line. If the Big Brother found RJR liable, than why couldn't the city be liable for allowing a person to contract cancer at one of it's public establishments? If RJR was liable, than wasn't Big Brother also?