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.
No, because I don't go to establishments that ban smoking. I don't eat out a lot already, but the one bar I go to still permits smoking. So that's where I go. It kills time, and gives me something to do while waiting to do my next song instead of drinking MORE Coke.
To be fair it should be that smokers and non smokers should have their own areas in a bar or restaurant. It would be up to the customer which area he/she uses.
To be fair it should be that smokers and non smokers should have their own areas in a bar or restaurant. It would be up to the customer which area he/she uses.
To be fair the property owner should decide the rules of his or her establishment. If the patrons don't like it, they can patronize an establishment that provides the services that they feel are important.
Let's say you're a nonsmoker...and by some miracle, it's the NON-smoking side that's full. Are you willing to wait longer, or would you sit in the other section and complain?
I had the pleasure of spending a great deal of time with 3 out of 4 of my great-grandfathers and all 4 great grandmothers.
All of them smoked, and they all died in their 90s, but not of cancer. Understand they lived into their 90s in late 1970s and early 1980s when most men died in their late 60s and early 70s and most women died in their mid-70s.
The great-grandfather that died prematurely, died in his 70s in an auto accident, and had it not been for that, he most likely would have lived another 20 years.
My grandfather smoked until his late 60s before quiting and died at 92 of pancreatic cancer unrelated to smoking.
My other grandfather was killed in a coal mining accident in the 1950s, so I never met him.
I have dozens of family members, including my father and his brothers and sisters who smoked and they're in their 70s and 80s and doing fine.
The same for a lot of my friends parents and grand-parents.
I think it's absurd to suggest that smoking causes cancer.
At most, one might conclude that smoking may cause cancer in certain select groups of people who are predisposed to such diseases genetically.
For many of those who contract lung cancer, the evidence suggests they would have contracted it even if tobacco products never existed, simply because of genetics.
You have a good point Mircea and to be very honest with you, even the research that directly dealing with FHS (first hand smoke) is often misleading and inconclusive. I usually don't argue it because it kind of gets us off subject and it require much much more detailed analysis of the research (meaning there are more subtle blunders and generalizations used than in SHS). SHS is a much easier topic and very relevant to the current trend of legislation being pushed.
I also too have a grandfather about to hit 90. He is in excellent health and still works the fields (drives and repairs his tractor himself) and works himself to a level fitting of his generation. He has smoked for over 75 years and when he switched doctors, the doctor did a full workup on him. After he was finished, the doctor said "You are in excellent health, your lungs are extremely healthy and I can tell you have never smoked a day in your life". My grandfather told him he had been smoking since he was a child and quite often and the doctor was floored.
The point is, medicine is a practice when it deals with human conditions. We honestly do not know many things about the human body. I am not saying we are ignorant, but there is not one "magic" remedy for every situation. This is why a doctor will try various medicines on people to find what works.
The research needs to understand this, but all too often it attempts to take the varibles of a human being and place it into a simplistic static forumla. This is pure folly, but like I have said previously, much of these issues are far more political than they are scientific. Who knows what truly causes cancer. It may also be strongly dependent on genetics which is why some might be extremely suceptible to harm from some elements, yet almost impervious to others.
Our research needs to account for this, but research doesn't get paid unless it is supporting the view point of the payer (well, these days at least). So we get a lot of assumptive work and that work is nothing more than political leverage for those seeking an agenda and in this case, it happens to be the complete ban of smoking.
Let's say you're a nonsmoker...and by some miracle, it's the NON-smoking side that's full. Are you willing to wait longer, or would you sit in the other section and complain?
What would you do if a restaurant was full anyway? If you do NOT want to sit in a smoking area..you wait until a table is ready in the non smoking area. That's what we do anyway, wait if it's full.
If it's smoking that's full, however, I can choose to not smoke and sit in the non-smoking section.
That's what non-smokers really think is unfair..that smokers have the self-control to sit in either section!
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.
