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.
You may not believe it, but I venture to say major reason for not believing it is because you are one of those on the scale from 1 - 10 (sorta defined earlier ranging from pure Putitan zealots all the way to those who simply don't accept/see the larger dangers) as around an 8. No personal insult intended in the least, but Lenin had it right in another day and age defending the existence of the Socialistic State, when he called those on the other end "useful idiots." You strike as more of one with a true agenda.
My reason for not believing it is that I find the scientific evidence that environmental tobacco smoke is poisonous to be overwhelming. If the only problem were the foul odor, then I would say let businesses decide how to handle it. Then we would still have smoky bars. We might have restaurants and hotels that would prefer to cater to people who did not want to smell the stench.
Yes, I have an agenda. I support smoking bans because I do not believe any business should allow the air that its patrons breathe be contaminated with substances known to kill people, even if there are some folks who are willing to accept the risks, as patrons or employees.
Quote:
Another non-sequiteur, Suzy, as this would obviously violate public safety standards and fire-codes.
Ah, Tex. Now we are at the heart of the matter. How and by whom are fire codes determined? Who sets public safety standards? Suppose I am a smoker who does not mind the risk of blowing myself up because I cannot stop smoking long enough to put fuel in my car. Should I not have the "right" to go to a convenience store that will allow me to do so, if I can find one? Obviously not, because I might blow up not only myself, but everyone else within the blast radius of the gas pump. All of us here have probably seen enough action movies to know what that explosion would be like.
The effects of environmental tobacco smoke are just as much a public safety hazard as smoking in the vicinity of a gas pump. The explosions are just as deadly, though they are quieter and invisible.
If legislatures can establish fire codes that prevent smoking near gas pumps, they can establish codes that prevent indoor smoking.
By the way, I had the horrifying experience one time of pulling up to a pump and discovering the person at the next pump had a cigarette in one hand and the nozzle to a pump in the other. I was terrified that she was going to drop the butt on the ground. That is the only time I have ever asked someone to put out a cigarette, and she was extremely insulted that I did so. I actually asked her to put out the cigarette before she blew us all up.
Quote:
That's fine. I empathize completely on the details of the business for privacy reasons. HOWEVER, it seems evident that the business you ran/help run, are not of the type that involve catering to long established customers and patrons who come in the eat, drink, stay a few days, etc. There is a difference.
Not really. Any service industry gains new customers and retains old ones by providing good service. In places with smoking bans in effect, bars, restaurants, and hotels are still doing that.
Quote:
*shakes head sadly again*. We are really just talking past each other, ma'am. LOL You will never see just how righteous and self-superior -- even if you don't intend it that way -- come across.
By your own admission, you have absolutely no experience with running a business of this nature. But simply take for granted your credentials to tell those who do, what they should do. Ultimately however, it involved a total smoking ban, right?
Why don't you just come out and say right out that you would like to see a total prohibition on smoking and the manufacture/sale of smokeable tobacco products? I could honestly respect that one a lot more, because it fesses up the the ultimate agenda and would save us both from wading thru the BS and cutting thru the rind and to the melon.
I was just stating facts, Tex. Total bans are easier for business to handle than partial bans. Simple truth. Would I mind if tobacco products disappeared totally? No. But if there are people stupid enough to want to use them, let them do it.
Quote:
Quote:
Please note that smoking bans are not "to save others from their own bad habits." They are to save bystanders from the effects of the smoker's bad habit.
Is there really that much difference in the general outlook and attitude? I can't see much at all, but I just one of those dinosaurs who believes in traditional ideals of freedom!
Anyway, so your purpose is to save "bystanders" from the effects of "smoker's bad habits", correct?
First? Give your definition of a "bystander", please. I mean, in the realm of patronizing a private establishment where they knew smoking was allowed aforehand?
Second: How does the said definition of the "bystander" offset any responsibility to take care of their own health issues?
I eagerly await the answers!
The "bystander" is the non-smoker. The business owner does not have the right to poison the non-smoker, even if he is willing to be poisoned, because allowing the business owner to do that is counter to the
role of government to preserve the health of its citizens. The restaurant owner cannot put poison in the food and beverages he sells. Why should he be able to allow it to be put into the air in his establishment?
Oh, quit twisting what people say. A sign about peanuts does not equate to wanting a sign about cigarettes.
Of course Suzy wouldn't be satisfied with a sign because it's not about the sign however she chose to use that argument. Use your opponents arguments against them, debating 101.
Both signs would would equally provide a warning to those entering the establishment about things that might be potentially hazardous, how is it any different?
Both Wisconsin and Michigan have GOP governors and legislatures.
What was that you were saying? Seems like you were trying to make some sort of a point.
I think it was probably something Limbaugh said. America's newsman (liberal hater and cigar lover).
Last edited by detwahDJ; 12-31-2011 at 12:34 AM..
Reason: added
Questions I have are:
Is second-hand smoke truly dangerous or merely a nuisance?
That's actually up for a fair bit of debate. There are actually a number of studies that show a reduced risk of lung cancer and heart disease from secondhand smoke. I have lists of secondhand smoke studies although they certainly lean in the direction towards secondhand smoke being a health risk, about 40% of the studies say the exact opposite. I would also like to add that studies that would normally be considered higher quality (like cohort studies versus case control studies or meta-analysis, larger sample sizes, take more confounders into account, etc.) are usually the studies that come up with smaller risk factors or even showing health benefits. To be fair, about 90% of all secondhand smoke studies have a confidence interval so wide that it does not rule out either health risk or health benefit.
I should also note that the vast majority of studies regarding any subject, that show neither an increase or decrease in a health risk usually never get published. So nobody really knows how many studies that have shown secondhand smoke has no effect on lung cancer or heart disease have ever been done. Give the small relative risks and wide confidence intervals, it is quite possible that they would absolutely dwarf currently available data.
I should also point out that the scientists who are affiliated with anti-smoking organizations (like Geoffry Kabat) have lost funding from government, universities, and private organizations after publishing studies that disagree with the official stance of anti-smoking organizations and public health agencies.
Like there was one study conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that showed that non-smokers breath in much less smoke than anti-smoking groups claim:
The largest study every conducted on secondhand smoke showed a slight reduction in lung cancer and heart disease. A cohort study, no less. It had more participants and ran longer than any other study.
"ConclusionsThe results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
When the study was published by the British Medical Journal, they were bombarded with anti-smoking activists attacking the scientists who conducted the study, the results (but not the methods), and the editor. Some of the comments even went along the lines of saying that regardless of the truth of study, that it is counterproductive to what they are trying to accomplish.
Here is a short report about the role politics play in scientific studies. It does mention the previously mentioned study several times in the report:
The largest case control study ever conducted on secondhand smoke was conducted by the World Health Organization. From everything I have read, it is was conducted about as well as you can conduct a case control study. However, it found much smaller increases in risk for lung cancer and heart disease in the spouses of smokers and people who work with smokers than the WHO claims. It also found a 22% decrease in risk for the children of smokers. The World Health Organization did what any unbiased, impartial organization dedicated to finding the truth would do: They tried to bury the study and deny it ever even existed. But some investigated reporters DID find out about this study and eventually hounded the WHO into releasing the study and they eventually did, but with a press release titled, "PASSIVE SMOKING CAUSES CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU". Yes, they even used all caps for the title.
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure."
Has the health factor been exaggerated as a rationale by those who are annoyed?
Yes. I personally seen people smoking those new E-Cigarettes (the ones that are just nicotine, water vapor, and a some flavoring) have some hypochondriac start with exaggerated coughing and wheezing while the wind is blowing vapor AWAY from them. I have no little doubt the majority of this, "Cigarette smoke makes me sick for days after just smelling the toxic fumes" is mostly made up of hypochondria and/or trying to find some way to find a way that something they don't like is hurting them.
Now, there are exceptions to this. Many asthmatics can have an asthma attack triggered by tobacco smoke (among other things).
How can smoking out-of-doors harm anyone (except the smoker)?
Not from any reliable research I have seen. Even the reports that claim the smallest whiff of smoke can kill or cause cancer don't even site any studies because it is usually too hard to get a high enough concentration of smoke.
Yeah, smoking was "cool" before the health risks were discovered. A problem arises when the smoker needs expensive health care because of the indulgence (an argument by some, even on the right, for the bans, or for not providing health care). However a diet of burgers, fries, and pizza does the same.
And most anti-obesity activists are anti-smoking activists. David Kessler, Kelly Brownell, John Banzhaf, and so on. They even state that the anti-smoking movement can be used as a blueprint to ban or regulate anything. Oh, most of them are also anti-alcohol as well.
I know for a fact that some are highly annoyed by the mere whiff of tobacco smoke (I have heard such comments outdoors, in public).
Surprise - I am not a smoker, but I am not upset by others doing it, or even whiffing their tobacco (or pot) smoke occasionally.
So what do we do about this? This thread is strangely popular.
My text is in bold.
Last edited by Frank_Carbonni; 12-31-2011 at 01:36 AM..
Geisinger Health Systems is about to become the latest hospital system to stub out tobacco use in new hires.
Starting Feb. 1, all job applicants - including for part-time and volunteer positions and students in Geisinger-based schools - will be tested for use of cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and gum as part of routine drug screening.
"Non-nicotine hiring policies are legal in 20 states, including Pennsylvania," Richard Merkle, Geisinger's chief human resources officer, said in an email.
Even those not actively smoking using smoking cessation products that to the best of my knowledge are harmless need not apply. While I would fully support a ban the use of these products at the facility you're certainly crossing a line here when a company is screening people that are using legal products at home or during their leisure. Two of these products are actually used to help people quit smoking.......
Michigan and Wisconsin have banned smoking in hotels. This happened last year. Jennifer Granholm is an anti-freedom slob and a left wing zealot. It's no wonder that Michigan elected a Republican this time for Governor.
My wife and I recently went on vacation down south. Coming back north we discovered that we couldn't get a smoking room at any hotel in WI or MI.
Why would these states discourage tourism? Tourism is one of Michigan's biggest industries. It's stupid.
If someone smokes in a hotel room -- IT WILL NOT KILL THE FAMILY IN THE NEXT ROOM. Get it Democrats?
Why is it that whenever LIBERALS are in charge ..... AMERICANS lose their FREEDOM?
Non-smokers should have the freedom to not be in a smoke filled room. Bed spreads, sheets, pillow cases, drapes, towels, etc. all absorb smoke and will smell like that. A hotel can have smoking and not smoking rooms but they are hurting themselves as a business when all they have left is to offer a non-smoker a smoking room. The non-smoker will not take it for the reasons given above and possibly many more. Non-smokers outnumber smokers and hopefully that trend will continue as more people with intelligence wake up to the fact that they are not only killing themselves but the secondary smoke that they exhale is killing those around them.
Non-smokers should have the freedom to not be in a smoke filled room.
At what point did someone put a gun to your head and force you to go into smoke filled room? You alreday have this freedom by seeking out and choosing to stay at a smoke free facility.
If you're unable to make these decisions for yourself ask another adult for guidance.
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.
America's newsman (liberal hater and cigar lover).
Non-smokers should have the freedom to not be in a smoke filled room. Bed spreads, sheets, pillow cases, drapes, towels, etc. all absorb smoke and will smell like that. A hotel can have smoking and not smoking rooms but they are hurting themselves as a business when all they have left is to offer a non-smoker a smoking room. The non-smoker will not take it for the reasons given above and possibly many more. Non-smokers outnumber smokers and hopefully that trend will continue as more people with intelligence wake up to the fact that they are not only killing themselves but the secondary smoke that they exhale is killing those around them. 
