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.
Since roughly 80% of the adult population does not smoke, smokers are a decided minority. I always tell non-smokers there will come a day when something you do the vast majority of people don't do or like including me and you'll need me to stand up in defense of you.
Equating 'minority' with 'victim' buys you zip.
In this day and age, downstream of billions in taxpayer money for labels and anti smoking edu, anyone who smokes today should be exempted from suing for health related problems. If you smoke you are beyond redemption.
Smokers are the 'walking dead', invisible except for the smoke that rises in the air after a trip thru their lungs.
That being said, some of the anti smoking bans are soo wrong.
stan4 answered this "property rights" issue well, but I'll add a bit. First off, Colorado bans smoking in virtually all bars and restaurants, so that is not an issue.
It is an issue. A big one. What Right does the government have to usurp the property rights of a business owner allowing his patrons to use a legal product on his private property?
Quote:
What is an issue is people being asked to not smoke in other places, say, at a bus stop,
Bus stops are public property, are they not? Funded by the tax payers? Sitting on a sidewalk that is also funded by the tax payers? I have no problem with the public, or their respective representatives, enacting a smoking ban on what is truly public property, such as bus stops, post offices, government buildings, public transit, etc.
Quote:
or a sporting event at an outdoor stadium.
Decision should be that of the owner of the venue. The owner has every right to make a no smoking policy. Likewise, he should have every right to allow his customers to smoke if that's the policy he thinks is most beneficial to his bottom line.
Quote:
(You can't smoke indoors at most public places here.)
A bar is not a "public place". Neither is a diner, or any other place that isn't funded by the public.
Quote:
Many smokers get all worked up about that kind of stuff.
Not surprising. When a segment of the population is ostracized, stigmatized, dehumanized, and vilified as much as smokers have been over the past three decades, "getting all worked up" is the least you should expect.
Quote:
Furthermore, these comments support my statements about being irrational. Smokers bring up other stuff, like candles. I've never seen any research that burning candles is as toxic as second-hand smoke.
That's because you have selective concern. You have been conditioned, like most of the public, to be hyper vigilant and extra sensitive toward cigarette smoke, but pay no mind at all to the myriad of other toxins that you are exposed to on a regular basis that are just as, if not more dangerous than exposure to second hand smoke.
Here's a particularly interesting snippet from the article....
Quote:
"""However, the use of perfume, cologne, air fresheners, and scented laundry products has become so commonplace that the indoor air quality of public spaces is more toxic than it was when people could freely smoke tobacco wherever and whenever they wished"""
Another example of this type of unwarranted hysteria is, for example, peoples perception of crime. Crime rates in this country are at 40-year lows, according to the FBI, but most people think crime rates are at all time highs, due to 24 hour news cycles and the constant broadcasts of crimes being committed. It creates the perception that the problem is far worse than it actually is.
Peoples percieved risk when it comes to exposure to cigarette smoke, much like their percieved risk of being victims of crime, are blown way out of proportion when taken in conjunction with all the other risk factors they are regularly exposed to without even thinking twice about it.
And FYI, I'm not a smoker, I just support the Free Market System and a business owner ability to make these kind of decisions on their own property, where customers can come in or stay out at will.
Quote:
You libertarians take things way too far. Yeah, such a restaurant may not be open long; it may kill a lot of people before the "court of public opinion" kicks in and it closes down. But, I guess, that's the price of "liberty". (Sarc)
If you went out to eat, and you saw a sign on the door that said ATTN: Employees of This Establishment Are Not Required to Wash Hands...... would you even go in? Probably not, so how would it kill anyone? And even if it did, they accepted that risk when they chose to go in and eat. The whole concept is ridiculous anyway, because there is no market for a business that doesn't require sanitation, so no one would even try it. On the other hand, there is plenty of demand for businesses that allow smoking. This is evidenced by the fact that government intervention is necessary to force them not to allow it.
Quote:
There's not much else that's worse than smoking. The vast, vast, vast majority of lung cancer deaths are to smokers.
They are? Do you have a link to substantiate your claim? I know you wouldn't just be pulling that out of the air, would you?
Restaurants are considered "public accommodations".
Re: lung cancer: Lung Cancer Fact Sheet - American Lung Association "Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively.Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.. . . It has been estimated that active smoking is responsible for close to 90 percent of lung cancer cases; radon causes 10 percent, occupational exposures to carcinogens account for approximately 9 to 15 percent and outdoor air pollution 1 to 2 percent. Because of the interactions between exposures, the combined attributable risk for lung cancer can exceed 100 percent."
I understand your perspective but I disagree in totality. As someone who has NEVER taken one puff, I don't think smokers are treated wrongly. We need to protect the health of people, we should not have to be exposed to others' bad habits. Second hand smoke has been known for decades to have adverse health risks for those exposed to it. If one wants to smoke, okay. But no one has to be forced to smoke with you indirectly, which is what second hand smokers are being exposed to.
Now I will concede that some look down on smoking, it's no longer seen as glamorous and cool thing to do. But smokers can either get help and quit or smoke if they choose to. But no one else should have to be exposed to it. Smells terrible.
If I walk in to a diner with a sign on the door that says "Smoking Allowed" and start smoking, and then you walk in to that same diner, also seeing the sign, than how are you "forced" to breath in Second Hand Smoke?
Is theere some law that says that you have to eat there?
No, you are choosing to expose yourself to it. The only law about smoking, should be that businesses be forced to declare whether they allow it or not. That way, everyone can make an informed and willing decision.
Red herring there dude. I mean seriously . . .smokers are the one who die from Radon more than anyone else. . .and . . .WTF does Radon have to do with smoking (other than that link).
nothing
you get exposed to radiation by flying in a plane. Neither here nor there.
So what you're saying, is that you only care about being exposed to dangerous toxins when they're emitted from a cigarette?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
The other thing about being inside, ashtrays have smoldering cigarettes in them so chemicals still are getting into the air of not properly put out. If you had the "honor" of hearing "Smoking or non-smoking" at restaurants, you may remember having to smell disposed cigarettes as well as in use ones. Down a sidewalk, they can be flicked but it is not as concentrated as indoors.
Accept you didn't have to smell anything. You could have found a place that didn't allow smoking at all, or eat at home. Did someone twist your arm and force you to enter?
Restaurants are considered "public accommodations".
Right, they can accomodate the public if the public so chooses. They aren't "public places"
Quote:
Re: lung cancer: Lung Cancer Fact Sheet - American Lung Association "Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively.Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.. . . It has been estimated that active smoking is responsible for close to 90 percent of lung cancer cases; radon causes 10 percent, occupational exposures to carcinogens account for approximately 9 to 15 percent and outdoor air pollution 1 to 2 percent. Because of the interactions between exposures, the combined attributable risk for lung cancer can exceed 100 percent."
Trouble with those numbers is how they are calculated. Take my grandfather for instance. He worked in a grain factory for many years and was exposed to all sorts of dust. He then went on to work in a steel factory and was exposed to many of those fumes. But he also smoked for 30 years. He died of lung cancer. They'll automatically blame the smoking with no regard whatsoever for his exposure to any one of many other things that could have caused his cancer.
Note: he didn't smoke at all the last 20 years of his life
And what about the whole candle thing? Aren't you even going to acknowlege it? Or are you just going to pretend like the risk doesn't exist? Should we now ban businesses from burning candles too, seeing as they pose quite a risk? Or are you ok with just ignoring those risks because you like candles?
Smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer. It's a contributing factor, that's all. It doesn't mean that if you don't smoke, you won't get lung cancer, or that you will if you do smoke.
In reality there is no way of knowing just how many people who've died of lung cancer, developed it as a result of smoking, only that smoking increases the risk.
Smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer. It's a contributing factor, that's all. It doesn't mean that if you don't smoke, you won't get lung cancer, or that you will if you do smoke.
In reality there is no way of knowing just how many people who've died of lung cancer, developed it as a result of smoking, only that smoking increases the risk.
It's been pretty well established that smoking CAUSES lung cancer. Oh, the pro-smokers will tell you differently, but that's not what the ACS or the ALA says.
Non-smokers, do you believe smokers are treated wrongly?
I believe the tobacco giants put lots of addictive chemicals in their products to maintain their market. About 20 years ago, they advertised heavily with cartoon characters aimed at pre-teens.
It's a scuzzy industry whose product kills its customers.
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.
Non-smokers, do you believe smokers are treated wrongly?
