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.
Thank you for the cite PM, but while it certainly encourages people to file such claims, it doesn't refer to what should be an established body of many thousands of such successes. Actually it's a bit strange because it talks about increasing success 'recently', but if we take 'recently' to mean over the last ten years or so, that's been a period when about 90% of workplace smoking has disappeared.
I would expect that there should be a link out there listing a body of successful cases that attorneys could consult for guidance if the claims are true ... but I'm not aware of any.
Wayneb isn't missing the point at all. But maybe you're missing his. So long as people can get into the building without going through a cloud of smoke, that's enough in a situation where no other alternative (like in your car) is practical. If the area outside is so crowded that you can't find a place where you're not smoking around someone else, smoke wherever, with the exception of right there at the door. Other people can simply move any number of places in the area, but they can't typically enter the building in more than one place.
Have you ever seen an airport smoking lounge? It is enclosed with no ventilation. I took a trip with a good friend of mine who is a smoker. She does not smoke in her home (goes outside) and never smokes around people she knows to be non-smokers. She went into the smoking lounge at one airport and came out gagging. She couldn't handle the smoke even as a smoker. On the other hand she went fairly psycho at the Denver airport when told she could smoke in the cocktail lounge and was then told by a server that she had to order something. They kicked her out and she went outside the airport to smoke. We had a really long layover. (Priceline can be painful) She has tried many times to quit because she has grandchildren and doesn't want them to start smoking. Her mother cries on the phone when they speak because she is the only smoker, on her side of the family, and she fears for her daughter's health.
I hope the militant anti-smokers elect to donate their upcoming tax refunds to the state & fed.
Because once the smokers quit, there is going to be a BIG REVENUE HOLE.
What then, another wealth-redistribution plan justified by the fact that the ex-smokers now have extra cash in their bank accounts?
Have you ever considered the fact that smokers drive up the cost of healthcare? Your taxes on cigarettes pale in comparison to the dollars spent on smoking related illnesses. We won't miss your cigarette taxes.
Last edited by pommysmommy; 02-03-2012 at 08:03 PM..
Thank you for the cite PM, but while it certainly encourages people to file such claims, it doesn't refer to what should be an established body of many thousands of such successes. Actually it's a bit strange because it talks about increasing success 'recently', but if we take 'recently' to mean over the last ten years or so, that's been a period when about 90% of workplace smoking has disappeared.
I would expect that there should be a link out there listing a body of successful cases that attorneys could consult for guidance if the claims are true ... but I'm not aware of any.
You have a point there. As I recall, Las Vegas employees who have filed worker's comp claims for second hand smoke related illnesses have not been so successful but I think it is because they sign something acknowledging that they will be exposed to second hand smoke and that second hand smoke can be harmful. IOW, they agree to accept the job knowing the risk. Do you believe that cigarette smoke is not toxic or carcinogenic?
Have you ever considered the fact that smokers drive up the cost of healthcare? Your taxes on cigarettes pale in comparison to the dollars spent on smoking related illnesses. We won't miss your cigarette taxes.
PM. I would strongly disagree. While I could lay out the whole argument here, it would be a bit lengthy, but if you go to
you'll find it, fully referenced with citations to medical journals etc, and I'd be more than happy to hear any specific, substantive criticisms you might have of it. Bear in mind that the tax rates it refers to are far less than half the current tax rates, and yet STILL smokers were subsidizing the health care costs of nonsmokers. But, as noted, I'm happy to hear specific criticisms of the arguments or citations.
Re your question on smoke: I believe almost any kind of smoke will be toxic or carcinogenic in sufficient concentrations over sufficient periods of time. Smokers inhale enough smoke in their lifetime that it is almost indisputable that it has carcinogenic consequences for some of them. The question though, particularly with regard to this thread, revolves around secondary smoke exposure: something likely to be 1,000 to 10,000 times less intense overall.
you'll find it, fully referenced with citations to medical journals etc, and I'd be more than happy to hear any specific, substantive criticisms you might have of it. Bear in mind that the tax rates it refers to are far less than half the current tax rates, and yet STILL smokers were subsidizing the health care costs of nonsmokers. But, as noted, I'm happy to hear specific criticisms of the arguments or citations.
Re your question on smoke: I believe almost any kind of smoke will be toxic or carcinogenic in sufficient concentrations over sufficient periods of time. Smokers inhale enough smoke in their lifetime that it is almost indisputable that it has carcinogenic consequences for some of them. The question though, particularly with regard to this thread, revolves around secondary smoke exposure: something likely to be 1,000 to 10,000 times less intense overall.
A child sitting in an unventilated home or car is not at small risk. Three members of my family have been diagnosed with tobacco related illnesses, my mother and father died. The doctors on both death certificates checked that tobacco use contributed to death. Cigarette smoke is toxic in any amount.
you'll find it, fully referenced with citations to medical journals etc, and I'd be more than happy to hear any specific, substantive criticisms you might have of it. Bear in mind that the tax rates it refers to are far less than half the current tax rates, and yet STILL smokers were subsidizing the health care costs of nonsmokers. But, as noted, I'm happy to hear specific criticisms of the arguments or citations.
Re your question on smoke: I believe almost any kind of smoke will be toxic or carcinogenic in sufficient concentrations over sufficient periods of time. Smokers inhale enough smoke in their lifetime that it is almost indisputable that it has carcinogenic consequences for some of them. The question though, particularly with regard to this thread, revolves around secondary smoke exposure: something likely to be 1,000 to 10,000 times less intense overall.
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.
