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.
I am a smoker for about 57 years,already outliving a lot of my non smoking friends. So much for the smoking kills and 2nd hand smoke retoric! When is the last time you saw 2nd smoke on a death cerficate? I think my point
is it that it"s a lifestyle choice, that has been taken away. I don't look at
it as losing because it is what it is! The only way I can get even is not to
patronise bars or restaurants any more. Think of all the money I will save
by eating and drinking at home, so I win and the businesses lose! This is how I will deal with it and in time they will all show a loss of revenue, which is a proven pattern in other states.
I have gone to bars since the "smoking ban" went into effect. None of them banned smoking. So....no effect, I suppose.
I don't mind going to a restaurant for a meal and not smoking, but I will NOT go to a bar where I can't smoke. It's not a hard fast law in NC so those bars that ban smoking do indeed loose my business.
It really shouldn't hurt them. Lots of smokers like stepping outside, it gives them a chance to meet like minded others. And as many of them have said "Why should others suffer because of my bad habit?"
It has helped business owners who haven't had to replace their vents as often due to the buildup from cigarette smoke. And they can make more money because smokers finish, pay and leave so they can go smoke which helps clear up tables for more customers to come in.
A study of a six-month temporary smoking ban imposed in 2002 in Helena, Montana, showed the number of heart attacks down by 40 per cent compared with other years. Coincidence?
It really shouldn't hurt them. Lots of smokers like stepping outside, it gives them a chance to meet like minded others. And as many of them have said "Why should others suffer because of my bad habit?"
It has helped business owners who haven't had to replace their vents as often due to the buildup from cigarette smoke. And they can make more money because smokers finish, pay and leave so they can go smoke which helps clear up tables for more customers to come in.
A study of a six-month temporary smoking ban imposed in 2002 in Helena, Montana, showed the number of heart attacks down by 40 per cent compared with other years. Coincidence?
That study was bunk,even the AMA said its interval levels were junk.........try another study that ones worn out. stanton glass a big time anti-tobacco elitist worked on that study..nearly every study done on tobacco is by anti-tobacco groups like acs ala or robert wood johnson foundation.......heres what other medical experts had to say about the helena study.
These numbers are far too small. The study surveyed at most 40 admissions across a six month, or 26 week period. So, even an increase/decrease of one per week makes a huge impact. It is also claimed that the increase of 5.6 in outside Helena admissions was insignificant, however it is a near 50% increase.
[RIGHT]- Ben Hirsch, Research Assistant
University of Massachusetts [/RIGHT] The attempt to make claims about the effects of smoking bans based on this very weak ecologic study raises disturbing questions about our ability to distinguish between sound science and wishful thinking.
[RIGHT]- Geoffrey C Kabat
Epidemiologist[/RIGHT] This is, in my opinion, gross misrepresentation designed to provide maximal public impact in furthering the biased and unscientific opinions of these authors. . . This so called study does not even come close to meeting the basic criteria of a properly executed scientific study.
[RIGHT]- Henry F Mizgala
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University of British Columbia[/RIGHT] Smoke-free workplace legislation protects workers and the public from cardiac, respiratory, and cancer risks associated with second-hand smoke and facilitates cessation among smokers. However, unrealistic expectations can hinder efforts to expand smoke-free workplace laws. The 40% decline in acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) associated with a smoke-free ordinance in Montana is neither biologically nor epidemiologically plausible.
[RIGHT]- Farzad Mostashari, MD MSPH,
Assistant Commissioner
NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene [/RIGHT]
[LEFT]We previously presented data showing that the Helena observations are consistent with random variation because of the small number of observations on which they are based[/LEFT]
[RIGHT]Brad Rodu
Professor, Department of Medicine and Endowed Chair,
Tobacco Harm Reduction Research[/RIGHT]
That study was bunk,even the AMA said its interval levels were junk.........try another study that ones worn out. stanton glass a big time anti-tobacco elitist worked on that study..nearly every study done on tobacco is by anti-tobacco groups like acs ala or robert wood johnson foundation.......heres what other medical experts had to say about the helena study.
These numbers are far too small. The study surveyed at most 40 admissions across a six month, or 26 week period. So, even an increase/decrease of one per week makes a huge impact. It is also claimed that the increase of 5.6 in outside Helena admissions was insignificant, however it is a near 50% increase.
[RIGHT]- Ben Hirsch, Research Assistant
University of Massachusetts [/RIGHT] The attempt to make claims about the effects of smoking bans based on this very weak ecologic study raises disturbing questions about our ability to distinguish between sound science and wishful thinking.
[RIGHT]- Geoffrey C Kabat
Epidemiologist[/RIGHT] This is, in my opinion, gross misrepresentation designed to provide maximal public impact in furthering the biased and unscientific opinions of these authors. . . This so called study does not even come close to meeting the basic criteria of a properly executed scientific study.
[RIGHT]- Henry F Mizgala
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University of British Columbia[/RIGHT] Smoke-free workplace legislation protects workers and the public from cardiac, respiratory, and cancer risks associated with second-hand smoke and facilitates cessation among smokers. However, unrealistic expectations can hinder efforts to expand smoke-free workplace laws. The 40% decline in acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) associated with a smoke-free ordinance in Montana is neither biologically nor epidemiologically plausible.
[RIGHT]- Farzad Mostashari, MD MSPH,
Assistant Commissioner
NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene [/RIGHT]
[LEFT]We previously presented data showing that the Helena observations are consistent with random variation because of the small number of observations on which they are based[/LEFT]
[RIGHT]Brad Rodu
Professor, Department of Medicine and Endowed Chair,
Tobacco Harm Reduction Research[/RIGHT]
Then show me a study for the health benefits of cigarettes.
Just a quick note, but you even aside from the long term cancer risk, secondhand smoke also causes an immediate allergic reaction in some people, strongly affects some people's sense of smell and taste, and so forth. All that is sufficient legal grounds for treating smoking in enclosed public places as a "public nuisance" subject to a ban.
The basic fact smokers need to grasp is that their smoke is physically entering other people's bodies against their will, and they don't like how it affects them. And you don't have the right to impose such an outcome on other people in public places.
Quote:
The basic fact smokers need to grasp is that their smoke is physically entering other people's bodies against their will, and they don't like how it affects them. And you don't have the right to impose such an outcome on other people in public places.
How is that any different from Carbon Monoxide from peoples cars "physically entering peoples bodies against thier will?"
Well, it has been shown to suppress appetite and relieve stress.
And it's cheaper than Prozac, or pills for the suppression of appetite.
Perhaps a little exercise and/or breathing techniques would help too. And unlike cigarettes it won't fill your lungs with smoke and it's free compared to $4 a pack.
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.
