Poll: Most Texans want statewide smoking ban (Houston, Austin: motel, quality of life)

[TexasReb]

Great editorial as relates to this thread:

Jeff Jacoby

[TexasHorseLady]

Thanks, TexasReb! Great editorial. And very pertinent.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Something to be aware of when you see these "polls" claiming that "most people want a ban." You'll note that the numbers almost always come in at between 75 and 80%. That's not an accident. Thees polls are usually bought and paid for by antismoking interests that are awash in tax money and can afford to hire the "best" pollsters to produce the results they want.

To give an example of what I am talking about, just visit the webpages of The Mellman Group. Check out their blurb about what they offer:

“Some pollsters simply report on opinions. We use the most sophisticated analytical tools available to understand the motivations of consumers and voters so we can intervene in their decision-making processes to produce the outcomes our clients want.”


Without knowing and intelligently evaluating the survey details and processes themselves, surveys are meaningless, particularly when sponsored by an advocacy group.

[Brian.Pearson]

The only good thing about smoking is that smokers die sooner and that affects how much Social Security can save.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Brian, there's some truth to what you say, although the same argument has been made at least as strongly about fat people. The main difference is, that although smokers and the obese tend to save the medical system tax money with earlier deaths, the smokers additionally pay enormous amounts of tax money into the system to support nonsmokers. Cigarettes are taxed on average at about 300% on top of base product cost. If we quadrupled (i.e. 100% + 300%) the base product cost of soft drinks, cupcakes, and potato chips, etc then the products would be on a more equal footing tax wise while better subsidizing "healthier" folks.

[migee]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Have you been tested to verify what you are allergic to? It could be something else in your work environment. Most people put on clean clothing every day before going to work, so I'm skeptical that could be the problem. It might be worth it for you to get some allergy tests and shots to reduce your allergic reaction.

I do not need a test when I know everytime I pet a friend's dog or cat my skin tickles like crazy. And after a few moments in their house I am sneezing, my eyes itch, my nose is running and after a while I get the sensation that I have to spit hairs out of my mouth....Anyone that has the allergy know exactly what I am talking about.

And in work,I get the same sensation, though to a lesser degree. All day my nose runs, and my eyes itch.

People do not come to work in clean clothing when they are petting their animals before coming to work, or the cat is rubbing agaqinst them while they are sitting on the bed in the morning getting dressed. They bring the animal hairs into work with them....Like I said, I have plenty of friends that own pets, I know their habits.

As for me getting shots - Why should I?

We who are allergic to animals have rights also. I wonder how many kids have asthma because of their families pets?

Let's face it, animals carry bugs (fleas, ticks, lice) that transfer to humans.

I avoid going to homes that have animals. We all deserve a safe and healthy work environment. Laws should be passed to protect everyone.

And again, there is the problem with bites from animals. In the USA alone, there are about 1 million bites per year, many devastating to the victims. Pet owners should be required to carry insurance - not just homeowners insurance, animal bite insurance - for all pet owners.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Migee, what you're saying is true, but just as with what they call "thirdhand smoke," I don't think it's the sort of thing that should be legislated against. There are small portions of the population that are hyper-allergic to many things -- roses, smoke, peanuts, shellfish, pets, sunlight (I was even reading the other day about a poor little girl who's actually allergic to COLD!) -- but that doesn't mean that all restaurants and such places should be required by law to ensure NO exposure to those things. If someone is so allergic to peanut or shellfish particles that even submicroscopic airborne exposures are life-threatening, I would say they should avoid ball games and restaurants with fish on the menu: not push to ban peanuts from ballgames or shellfish from restaurants. Similarly for the population hypersensitive to the sun: even though UV radiation is a Class A Carcinogen with no safe level of exposure I think it would be wrong to ban patio dining on the basis that some potential workers theoretically might be forced to choose between a paycheck and cancer.

The important thing is to be consistent: if you're going to legislate on such bases for such things as traces of secondary smoke, then you need to legislate on the others as well.

[catman]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

(Quoting The Mellman Group website): We use the most sophisticated analytical tools available to understand the motivations of consumers and voters so we can intervene in their decision-making processes to produce the outcomes our clients want.”

IMO, that says it all! So much for unbiased accuracy.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Something to be aware of when you see these "polls" claiming that "most people want a ban." You'll note that the numbers almost always come in at between 75 and 80%. That's not an accident. Thees polls are usually bought and paid for by antismoking interests that are awash in tax money and can afford to hire the "best" pollsters to produce the results they want.

To give an example of what I am talking about, just visit the webpages of The Mellman Group. Check out their blurb about what they offer:

“Some pollsters simply report on opinions. We use the most sophisticated analytical tools available to understand the motivations of consumers and voters so we can intervene in their decision-making processes to produce the outcomes our clients want.”


Without knowing and intelligently evaluating the survey details and processes themselves, surveys are meaningless, particularly when sponsored by an advocacy group.

Exactly. Particularly the bolded part.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by migee

I do not need a test when I know everytime I pet a friend's dog or cat my skin tickles like crazy. And after a few moments in their house I am sneezing, my eyes itch, my nose is running and after a while I get the sensation that I have to spit hairs out of my mouth....Anyone that has the allergy know exactly what I am talking about.

And in work,I get the same sensation, though to a lesser degree. All day my nose runs, and my eyes itch.

People do not come to work in clean clothing when they are petting their animals before coming to work, or the cat is rubbing agaqinst them while they are sitting on the bed in the morning getting dressed. They bring the animal hairs into work with them....Like I said, I have plenty of friends that own pets, I know their habits.

As for me getting shots - Why should I?

We who are allergic to animals have rights also. I wonder how many kids have asthma because of their families pets?

Let's face it, animals carry bugs (fleas, ticks, lice) that transfer to humans.

I avoid going to homes that have animals. We all deserve a safe and healthy work environment. Laws should be passed to protect everyone.

And again, there is the problem with bites from animals. In the USA alone, there are about 1 million bites per year, many devastating to the victims. Pet owners should be required to carry insurance - not just homeowners insurance, animal bite insurance - for all pet owners.

You should get the shots because YOU are the one with the medical problem.

You cannot expect the whole world to micro-manage their lives to accomodate you and YOUR problem.

FYI, children who are raised with pets will have strong immune systems. Immune systems that are never exposed to germs become weak. Billions of children are raised in homes with pets with no ill effects. You do not catch asthma from pets. If you have a sensititvity to animal dander, you may have an asthma attack. That is because your body has a weakness, a flaw, and that is not caused by the pet.

Fleas, ticks and lice? House pets take preventatives that stop fleas and ticks. House pets do not have lice. Children in school are the ones who get lice and pass them around......not dogs and cats.

You are much more likely to catch a disease from a member of your own species.

Everyone knows that if you are around someone with children, you are much more likely to catch a cold......what should we do about parents in the workplace? How do we decontaminate them?

FYI, e-coli from humans is everywhere. It is on grocery carts, door knobs, chairs, tables, phones and computer keyboards. E-coli is everywhere because of people's lax toilet habits. What do we do about people who don't wash their hands after using the restroom?

You cannot de-germ and de-allergen the whole world. If you have an allergy, you must deal with it yourself. Suffer or take medication.