My Message to All Smoker and Non-Smoker

I'm a smoker and I have no problem with an indoor smoking ban or smokers having to smoke 50 ft from a building as long as it makes sense.

The only place I see where the smoking ban doesn't make sense is in bars.
People go into bars to drink, which is bad for your health. Why would someone who goes into bars worry about second hand smoke when they are poisoning their bodies to begin with? They are basically saying that they want to poison their bodies, but want to pick and choose how it is done. That does not make sense.

Some counties here in Georgia have made laws against smoking in bars IF they serve food. If they do not serve food then smoking is permitted. That makes sense.

I don't smoke now... but I have in the past. I've never really minded when people asked me not to smoke around them. As long as they were nice about it that is. There are those militant non-smokers out there who seem to be incapable of being civil on the subject. These people act in an indignant and obnoxious manner and demand that you not smoke anywhere around them... even if you're in a place where you have the right to smoke.
These are the types of people I tell to go pound sand... while I'm blowing smoke in their face. You've taken what could have been a polite request and turned it into a confrontation with your self righteous attitude. Not a good call.

If you go out to a bar or a restaurant where smoking is permitted, what makes you think people are going to stop doing what they have a right to do, just because you give them a bunch of attitude? Simply put... if you don't like the smoke, go someplace where it isn't permitted. Having spent a lot of time as a bartender, I ran into far too many of these types... and even as a non-smoker now... they still disgust me.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Resinveins]

I watched my Dad die of emphysema. That sucked. What sucked even more was seeing him attached to that hose for the last three years of his life. And the panic he went through when the oxygen delivery was ten minutes late.

He tried to quit numerous times and couldn't. He lived the last years of his life with a significantly diminshed quality of life, depreived of most of what he enjoyed prior. But it was his choice. Stupid, self-destructive and regrettable but his choice.

I'm all for banning smoking in public paces --- especially restaurants. I also believe the tobacco companies should pay into a fund, indexed to trends, to offset the increased cost of health insurance due to smoking-related diseases. And yes, the same should be true of other industries whose product is directly related to specific health issues.

Originally posted by jtma508
I also believe the tobacco companies should pay into a fund, indexed to trends, to offset the increased cost of health insurance due to smoking-related diseases. And yes, the same should be true of other industries whose product is directly related to specific health issues.

Oops, there goes our economy as I think about 99% of businesses will be in lawsuits for the next century. Bye Bye all restaurants and fast food joints. Bye bye auto industry, alcohol, power plants, pharmaceuticals, agriculture. etc.... Oh wait! Stress related ilnesses are health risks also! I can sue my job because my boss is a prick!!!

Originally posted by Yoda411
I welcome all of you second-hand smoke deniers to debunk this article.

simple

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

this statement is clearly untrue but is one of the six most important aspects of the report according to your link. if this aspect is erroneous, then what else might be?

the source of the study is also biased, according to the link

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)"

this is no more reliable than a report produced by the tobacco companies.

i could find studies to show smoking is not bad, but they would be biased aswell. i suggest you open your mind to the possibility that you are being lied to for a few moments and actually think about this.

reply to post by pieman


... and your assuming the government would lie about cigarettes being bad for you why? You do realize the government has a nice hefty tax on tobacco products?

Why don't you post one of your articles and we will see who is more credible. My side of the argument is obviously the Surgeon General. Who is arguing for your side? You?

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report

Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.

Supporting Evidence
* Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
* Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
* Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.

2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
* Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.

Supporting Evidence
* Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
* Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
* Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
* Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
* Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.

4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

Supporting Evidence
* Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
* Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
* The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

reply to post by Yoda411


you're just not getting the point i am making, that report is utterly unreliable and biased, no matter how many times you quote it or refer to it. the truth is the truth weather i say it or someone highly qualified.

have you heard the story of the emperor who wore no clothes? this is the equivalent of a report by the tailor describing the beauty of the emperors new suit. the boy didn't need to be qualified to see that the emperor was clearly naked.

the toxicity of cigarette smoke is not high enough to cause all the things that it is alleged to cause and it is impossible to measure the effect when there are many, many things spewing out the same stuff that's in SHS, except they spew out more at higher concentrations.

i don't need to be a scientist to see a disconnect in the idea.

[edit on 15/12/08 by pieman]

and i'm not a smoker, i just don't think this is realistic.

[edit on 15/12/08 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


Everything is biased! Any study you show me has probably been funded by the cancer companies themselves!

reply to post by Amaxium


Bravo!!!! Star for you!!! I have been saying this for years. My grandfather died of an esophageal tumor. The Dr. said it was caused by smoking, NOT!!! He had chronic, severe heartburn that went untreated, not to mention that he worked most of his life around CARS!!!!!!!!!
Excellent post OP!! Very well presented!!!
Thank you so much for bringing this to peoples attention.

reply to post by sadisticwoman


um, i know, i said that in my first post on this page.

i could find studies to show smoking is not bad, but they would be biased aswell.

what exactly is your point? personally, i try to think for myself before believing everything i'm fed by those that wish me to think they know better.

[edit on 15/12/08 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


But YOU'RE biased too!

Nothing can be trusted, especially not yourself!

reply to post by spitefulgod
Banning smoking is like a dog chasing his tail!Wheres it gonna end?More control on the population only gives more power to "The Beast" so go ahead and pet him and feed him......one day your hand will be the next meal!

If they ban smoking because it might be a factor that makes you die, then they should ban all of the prescription drugs, too.

Moreover, they should ban anything that might be a factor in increasing odds of death if the public can be said to not like whatever that activity is.

what about exitotoxins in our food such as Monosodium glutamate? Makes some people irritable and affects other people's lives.

what about Prozac? That just causes the person taking it to kill themselves and sometimes others. Shouldn't we ban that too?

what about driving slow in the left lane. That not increases the odds of death, but is more annoying than bad diesel exhaust, isn't it?

let's ban all of it... plug people into little sanitary cells and rpevent everyone from doing anything unless they are a legislator or lobbyist.

Banning things is not the answer.
It just makes them more risky and attractive and creates an illegal market for them.
But I agree if they put health warnings on cigarettes and alcohol they should also put it on fast food and manufactured food containing trans fats and other poisons.
The fact is there is just as much poison in the food they sell us as in everything else.
How come people smoked cigarettes even more than they do now, 100 years ago.
And the cancer and heart disease rates were much lower?
The food was better and they got more exercise just living each day.
And they didn't have all these pharmaceutical poisons in them.

reply to post by mrwupy

Originally posted by mrwupy
Back in the late 1940's and early 50's the government was setting off nuclear explosions in the atmosphere on a regular basis on American soil. They were pumping the radioactive particles right up into the jet stream and shooting them across the entire continent. Then they realized how stupid that was and started burying the bombs they tested.

There was just one problem. All of the radiation that was already out there from the tests they had already done.

The simple solution was to have the Surgeon General jump up and declare, "OMG! Smoking causes cancer!"

From that time on all cancers and most deaths have been blamed on smoking, when in reality the cancers and deaths were from the radioactive particles the government unleashed upon its own citizens with it's nuclear tests.

Yep, it's another conspiracy.

Erm.. what about the rest of the world....??


[edit on 15/12/08 by pretty_vacant]

ok i am a smoker.

Yes its bad for you and others around you ..

let me ask you one question?

Is it ok for you to tell me what i can and cannot do with my own body?

(2nd hand smoke is not an argument here i do it away from others and not in my house around my family or anyone else!)


And don't even dare to bring the 'strain on the system' argument when i get ill later on in life .. the tax from my cigarettes pay for this 10 times over .. in fact the tax from cigarettes in one year in the U.K is enough to pay for every police station and police officer in the country for that year..

Alcohol related deaths are clearly the number one killer and yet are freely available and much much cheaper in the bang for your buck department.

So i ask you again what right have you got to tell me what i can and cannot do to my own body as long as i do not hurt other people directly or indirectly.


is smoking bad .. yes .... is jumping out of airplanes from massive heights with a sheet to break your fall bad? .. yes....... is hurtling along a solid track at 180mph in a formula one car bad for you ? .. you bet it is !!! it increases risk significantly.

When were the risk police set up ?

And on what grounds do the pretend to want to help my life? should we ban everything ? or maybe we can just target things that are sensational and are not really under regional control because it is not hot enough to grow tobacco here....

Maybe we should only champion substances/activities .. that have zero risk and can be controlled locally to .. wait for it ... MAXIMIZE PROFIT.

Yes i am a Heavy smoker and i really believe that if the government is 100% sure of what it says they SHOULD ban smoking PERIOD. then i would not moan because deep down they were doing it to help people and not make money..

Rant Over


EDITED TO AD:

I must say i am most impresssed by the poster of the original topic, as a non smoker i think your post is admirable! and a breath of fresh air .... HA!



[edit on 15/12/08 by Quantum_Squirrel]

Originally posted by thing fish
reply to post by pieman

 

this is one of the very few instances where i am for more government intervention. there are not many issues that will get me to that point but this business about smoking will.

it does effect everyone. some smokers tend to ignore that fact or spin it so we're being told that cars effect everyone..

the issue is cigarettes. not pollution from vehicles.

you cannot, kinda, sorta, be for big government. if you understand it there is no gray area there.

the issue is, given the enormous threats faced today, you can make THIS an issue at all? at best this is one of many minor annoyances incurred whilst socializing. lots of things are bad for you and/or effect you, but start opening these doors and you're asking for it. the biggest threats to your well being are not coming from your neighbor, they come from the very people you foolishly empower while they take advantage of your ignorance.

i think the bigger issue here is wanting things like this regulated by govn't at all? regulations, no matter the topic, only bring more regulations. regulations=unrecoverable freedom and control. handle your problems yourself, like a man! it's wishful thinking to believe they are concerned for your comfort at bars and stadiums. control is their goal and greed their motivation. and why do people only begin whining when they tell you to? you don't actually think the "sudden crisis of the week" originates with you, do you?

what about the toxic food? bovine growth hormones, pesticides, insecticides, GMO, aspartame, fructose corn syrup, fluoridated water supplies, mutated, diseased meat & poultry tolerances, mercury in seafood, processed foods, MSG, etc... goes on and on totaling to thousands of poisonous substances that informed people place well above"stinky cigarettes". these things are definitely harming you. only difference is govn't wont ever tell you to gripe about those.

not to mention the coming CODEX announcement Dec. 2009 to take control of all vitamins and nutrients. codex has already categorized vitamins / nutrients as toxins only legally consumed at levels that cause no effect.

so joke and mock the "stinky smokers" while enjoying a nutrient free, chemically preserved and genetically modified Monsanto Dog in your smoke free stadium, proudly knowing you're helping make the DEPLETED URANIUM polluted world a better place! or you could be a man and stop serving your master. help and take care of your own business and educate yourself. because seriously, using energy whining about public smoking is ridiculous enough, considering the mass of relevant issues, but trading liberty for it is the sorriest thing i have ever heard.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Yoda411

 

you're just not getting the point i am making, that report is utterly unreliable and biased, no matter how many times you quote it or refer to it. the truth is the truth weather i say it or someone highly qualified.

OK, so let me get this straight.

The surgeon general has been lying to us all along about the devastating effects of second hand smoke?

What would his intent be in doing so?

Edit: Furthermore what makes you think your more qualified than the Surgeon General? You are after all, just some guy in a forum.

[edit on 12/15/08 by Yoda411]

Let me first state that I do not smoke.

I move down the street and pass a person who is smoking. I don't even get hit with the stuff because I am walking.

I walk through the lobby where people are smoking to get into the building. I get 2 or 3 seconds of smoke and then I am on my way (note that I got just as much or more smoke from car exhaust while I was on the street corner).

I roll into a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. I'll give you that the place smells of smoke (what a shocker!), so I walk out and find another establishment to patronize.

If there is some other event where I am absolutely trapped next to someone who is smoking I ask with respect if they would put it out. If they do I thank them. If not I just wait until I am done with my business and then leave.

I have never experienced or heard of a situation where someone was forced to inhale second hand smoke for hours on end. I might be annoyed by someone smoking, but I don't think that gives me the right to tell them what to do with their lives. You think people would act more like an adult these days. Instead of letting things go everyone wants to get in your face and make a scene (like they are some crusader for justice).

Enough already.

There is big money to be made in the "anti-smoking" propaganda.

Hell, the tobacco companies even support/make money from it!!

You charcoal grill is worse in terms of noxious smoke than a cigarette. Milk has a higher carcinogen rating than SHS. I did an entire debate once about this for a class -- the wealth of information out there, and the total conspiracy....

Big tobacco and others make money off the pro-smoking....the same and the government make money off the "anti-smoking" ... make money advocating and demonizing it...

DUH.