America is Communist

You guys are focusing on minor issues. American problem is far greater then smoking ban or any other petty bull shit. Patriot act and blatant violation of our constitutional rights is perhaps the biggest problem in America today and no one seems to give a shit. Large corporations are being bailed out by the government while average American worker has no job security and works for twice or three times less money then an average European worker, that is a concern. Health care services that are unaffordable, poor Education, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, those are real problems and you are focusing on smoking? Ridiculous.

Quote from: New Earth on April 15, 2011, 07:29:57 PM

You guys are focusing on minor issues. American problem is far greater then smoking ban or any other petty bull shit. Patriot act and blatant violation of our constitutional rights is perhaps the biggest problem in America today and no one seems to give a shit. Large corporations are being bailed out by the government while average American worker has no job security and works for twice or three times less money then an average European worker, that is a concern. Health care services that are unaffordable, poor Education, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, those are real problems and you are focusing on smoking? Ridiculous.

Nope. Two camels and a tiny car.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 15, 2011, 07:14:57 PM

Quote from: Vindictus on April 15, 2011, 07:11:46 PM

It ceases to be freedom when one person is passively hurting another just by being there.

Yes.  So driving should be banned too.

And is passivity such an important part of it?  Seems arbitrary to me.  Alcohol regularly causes one person to aggressively hurt another; I think that is much worse.  Drinking should be banned.

Don't be silly. Neither of those issues compare to passive smoking. Driving is an essential form of transport, and it isn't harmful unless you're sticking your face in the exhaust.

Not a lot of people become aggressive when drunk,

and those that do should know better than to become that drunk.

At the end of the day, smokers are essentially burning money while simultaneously killing themselves

and annoying others in the room. Even if passive smoke were harmless (and you're right, it isn't that deadly), is it really such a bad thing to not smoke? Can't you use patches or something?

but bars? Seriously? I don't think we can call this America if I can't have a cigarette and a beer together.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 15, 2011, 07:14:57 PM

Quote from: Vindictus on April 15, 2011, 07:11:46 PM

It ceases to be freedom when one person is passively hurting another just by being there.

Yes.  So driving should be banned too.

And is passivity such an important part of it?  Seems arbitrary to me.  Alcohol regularly causes one person to aggressively hurt another; I think that is much worse.  Drinking should be banned.

Don't be silly. Neither of those issues compare to passive smoking. Driving is an essential form of transport, and it isn't harmful unless you're sticking your face in the exhaust. Not a lot of people become aggressive when drunk, and those that do should know better than to become that drunk.

Quote from: sillyrob on April 15, 2011, 07:19:29 PM

From what I understand, second-hand smoke isn't anywhere as bad as everyone thinks it is. It's probably not as bad as the noise pollution that comes from people who bitch about smoke in the air. That's like digging knives into my ears.

At the end of the day, smokers are essentially burning money while simultaneously killing themselves and annoying others in the room. Even if passive smoke were harmless (and you're right, it isn't that deadly), is it really such a bad thing to not smoke? Can't you use patches or something?

You guys are focusing on minor issues. American problem is far greater then smoking ban or any other petty bull shit. Patriot act and blatant violation of our constitutional rights is perhaps the biggest problem in America today and no one seems to give a shit. Large corporations are being bailed out by the government while average American worker has no job security and works for twice or three times less money then an average European worker, that is a concern. Health care services that are unaffordable, poor Education, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, those are real problems and you are focusing on smoking? Ridiculous.

I wish to qualify my previous statement, because society would probably break down if there wasn't some driving.  Driving should be banned except by professional drivers of mass transit.  Being able to drive yourself is not essential; it's a luxury.  And due to the damage it's doing to the environment, I think that driving is doing a lot more harm than you seem to give it credit for.

Irrelevant.

But what's wrong with having a smoking section at a restaurant?

No, patches aren't the same. People can choose to kill themselves anyway they want, and if they want to spend money doing it, so be it. I think crying babies are annoying, but we cant ban them. I think Mormons are annoying, but we cant ban them. Fact of the matter is, we cant ban everything that annoys people.

I get not smoking in banks or grocery stores, but bars? Seriously? I don't think we can call this America if I can't have a cigarette and a beer together.

Also, with regard to banning smoking in bars and restaurants, I don't think a blanket ban is desirable. Rather, the government should afford legal protection to those restaurant owners who wish to ban it in their own establishments, but ultimately the decision should be up to the owner and not the lawmaker.

Quote from: sillyrob on April 15, 2011, 07:10:26 PM

I get not smoking in banks or grocery stores, but bars? Seriously? I don't think we can call this America if I can't have a cigarette and a beer together.

I dunno though. Sure, some bars would be fine with it, but a lot also wouldn't. For everyone that isn't smoking, the place would smell like absolute shit. I wouldn't go to a bar that smells like shit.

Also, why don't you just smoke and drink at your home if you wish to do that?

There isn't enough conclusive evidence of the health problems of second-hand smoke

In a prospective cohort study of adult non- smokers recently admitted to hospital for asthma, the impact of SHS exposure on asthma health outcomes was examined. Methods: Recent SHS exposure during the previous 7 days was directly measured using a personal nicotine badge (n = 189) and exposure during the previous 3 months was estimated using hair nicotine and cotinine levels (n = 138). Asthma severity and health status were ascertained during telephone interviews, and subsequent admission to hospital for asthma was determined from computerised utilisation databases. Results: Most of the adults with asthma were exposed to SHS, with estimates ranging from 60% to 83% depending on the time frame and methodology. the highest level of recent SHS exposure, as measured by the personal nicotine badge, was related to greater asthma severity (mean score increment for highest tertile of nicotine level 1.56 points; 95% CI 0.18 to 2.95), controlling for sociodemographic covariates and previous smoking history. Moreover, the second and third tertiles of hair nicotine exposure during the previous month were associated with a greater baseline prospective risk of hospital admission for asthma (HR 3.73; 95% CI 1.04 to 13.30 and HR 3.61; 95% CI 1.0 to 12.9, respectively). Conclusions: Directly measured SHS exposure appears to be associated with poorer asthma outcomes. In public health terms, these results support efforts to prohibit smoking in public places.

Quote from: Lorddave on April 15, 2011, 06:46:11 AM

Quote from: Wakka Wakka on April 15, 2011, 05:31:25 AM

Let us smoke, why should people be angry that my ignorance is killing me?

Because it's killing me too.

Second hand smoke a) isn't that dangerous b) you aren't getting that much of it.

So no, no one is killing you.

It's funny you posted that after someone else agreed with me, anyways, when I get home I'll find a study that says it isn't.

Quote from: sillyrob on April 16, 2011, 11:39:11 AM

It's funny you posted that after someone else agreed with me, anyways, when I get home I'll find a study that says it isn't.

Who agreed with you that second-hand smoking does not hurt anyone? 

Good luck finding a scholarly article that says it is harmless.

I never said harmless. Anyways, http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html. Plenty of discussion on how anti-smoking studies seem to be a bit fudged. It should also be noted that there are a lot of studies that talk about how horrible marijuana usage is, but we all know those are a bunch of crap.

It should also be noted that there are a lot of studies that talk about how horrible marijuana usage is, but we all know those are a bunch of crap.

They pointed out how little was in there because of the, "Finding chemicals in the blood does not mean the chemical causes illness. We have yet to determine how much of the chemical will cause illness." I think that's a valid point.

http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/passivesmoking.html

More interesting stuff. It should be brought up that smoke ISN'T the only cause of lung cancer, and how many doctors turn to a patient and ask them about their exposure to the many other causes of lung cancer? If a woman comes in with lung cancer, and her husband smokes, it's assumed it was caused by second hand smoke. However, do we know her exposure to Radon, what her diet was, how much exercise she got, do they present her families history of cancer? All of these are factors, and I would put money on the fact that if they dug more deeply into lung cancer patients who were non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke, they'd find a much lower percentage of them are caused by smoking.

When did I claim that smoking has no negative effects on one's health?

There isn't enough conclusive evidence of the health problems of second-hand smoke

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 16, 2011, 12:15:14 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on April 16, 2011, 11:39:11 AM

It's funny you posted that after someone else agreed with me, anyways, when I get home I'll find a study that says it isn't.

Who agreed with you that second-hand smoking does not hurt anyone? 

Good luck finding a scholarly article that says it is harmless.

I never said harmless. Anyways, http://www.nycclash.com/triplerisk.html. Plenty of discussion on how anti-smoking studies seem to be a bit fudged. It should also be noted that there are a lot of studies that talk about how horrible marijuana usage is, but we all know those are a bunch of crap.

http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/passivesmoking.html

More interesting stuff. It should be brought up that smoke ISN'T the only cause of lung cancer, and how many doctors turn to a patient and ask them about their exposure to the many other causes of lung cancer? If a woman comes in with lung cancer, and her husband smokes, it's assumed it was caused by second hand smoke. However, do we know her exposure to Radon, what her diet was, how much exercise she got, do they present her families history of cancer? All of these are factors, and I would put money on the fact that if they dug more deeply into lung cancer patients who were non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke, they'd find a much lower percentage of them are caused by smoking.

Quote from: sillyrob on April 16, 2011, 09:34:14 PM

When did I claim that smoking has no negative effects on one's health?

Quote from: sillyrob on April 15, 2011, 09:18:18 PM

There isn't enough conclusive evidence of the health problems of second-hand smoke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12711615

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 16, 2011, 11:03:48 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on April 16, 2011, 09:34:14 PM

When did I claim that smoking has no negative effects on one's health?

Quote from: sillyrob on April 15, 2011, 09:18:18 PM

There isn't enough conclusive evidence of the health problems of second-hand smoke

The way you worded it, you made it sound like I said smoking isn't unhealthy at all.

Quote from: sillyrob on April 17, 2011, 06:44:13 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on April 16, 2011, 11:03:48 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on April 16, 2011, 09:34:14 PM

When did I claim that smoking has no negative effects on one's health?

Quote from: sillyrob on April 15, 2011, 09:18:18 PM

There isn't enough conclusive evidence of the health problems of second-hand smoke

The way you worded it, you made it sound like I said smoking isn't unhealthy at all.

Are you suggesting that second hand smoke is not bad for a person's health at all?

If not, then it shouldn't be a question as to why there is we should not have a public smoking ban. If your actions are directly negatively influencing another person's health in more than just a negligible way, it should not be permitted.