Smokin' in the boys room!

[MikePA]

...and we just tell them we don't care whether we're in the smoking or non-smoking section.

This is what we did, too. Usually meant we got seated long before other people.

Banning smoking in restaurants and bars is a perfect example of the nanny state. Counties near DC have passed similar laws and neighbors file complaints against neighbors when they can smell their cigarette/cigar smoke from hundreds of feet away. And lest anyone thinks this stops with smoking, review the ban on trans fats in New York City, another example of the government figuring out what's 'good for us' on an individual level and legislating it.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Bird, we are going to disagree on this but to reverse the roles wouldn't make sense as smoking and second hand smoke isn't good for peoples health.

Now if they said I couldn't eat at a certain place because I drive Ford/New Holland tractors and not Kubotas, well, I wouldn't want to eat at a Kubota place anyway Have a good one.

 

[Bandybear]

Interesting, equating inaction to stop the holocaust with anti smoking laws, a bit of a stretch for me!

Iowachild is right on the mark using Pastor Martin Niemöller poem to describe what is happening to our society today. We continue to see many of our freedoms eroded at the altar of political correctness. Tobacco is just one of the many fronts of which this assault is being waged. "Hate Speech" is another on of these areas. While I hope I do not get too political and get cut off, I see this as a political assault on the property rights of business owners. Once they get tobacco banned in private businesses, how long before the busybodies will be coming after people who have children in their homes and claim child abuse? Actually there is a movement to do just that.

And then we get into the area of what type of food you should and should not eat.

So if you do not speak up now against the government intrusion against business owners, who will speak up for you when the government is telling you you may not engage in a certain behavior.

It is inane laws like this that take the pleasure out of law enforcement.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

The main difference between what foods you eat and people smoking is the smoke is harmful to other people where as if you want to eat all fatty food it is only directly harmful to the guy eating them.

I agree that the government shouldn't get involved in private matters unless it is something that affects other people and society won't change on their own. Some times people do need a kick in the pants to do what is in the best interest of the majority.

 

[MikePA]

The main difference between what foods you eat and people smoking is the smoke is harmful to other people where as if you want to eat all fatty food it is only directly harmful to the guy eating them.

This assumes one believes second hand smoke causes health problems. I don't.

1. Create a problem.
2. Create fear.
3. Create a 'solution' only govt can implement.
(Many/most people will gladly give up $$$$ or individual liberties for the 'greater good'.)
4. Pass laws and/or raise taxes to implement the 'solution'.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Well, my eyes hurt if I am near second hand smoke for any amount of time so it does cause a problem for me.

So now we are discrediting all the doctors who agree this smoke is not good for people? Can anyone name one doctor who will agree with Mike in that second hand smoke is good for you? Please post a link to the source also.

 

[DUMBDOG]

Well, my eyes hurt if I am near second hand smoke for any amount of time so it does cause a problem for me.

So now we are discrediting all the doctors who agree this smoke is not good for people? Can anyone name one doctor who will agree with Mike in that second hand smoke is good for you? Please post a link to the source also.

Mike stated that he believes that second hand smoke does not cause health problems. He did not state that second hand smoke is good for you.

It is obvious that you disagree with him on this, and it is also obvious that you do not like smoke, but can we disagree with the views that are represented without enhancing their views?

 

[Robert_in_NY]

The point is there is tons of research out there linking second hand smoke to health issues. Then Mike comes on here and states he doesn't believe all of these doctors without providing any information to back up his reason to discredit them. But you are right.

So can anyone find any information that would back up Mikes claim that second hand smoke does not create health problems? Or Mike are you just "assuming" these doctors and their research is all flawed?

 

[MikePA]

The point is there is tons of research out there linking second hand smoke to health issues. Then Mike comes on here and states he doesn't believe all of these doctors without providing any information to back up his reason to discredit them. But you are right. So can anyone find any information that would back up Mikes claim that second hand smoke does not create health problems? Or Mike are you just "assuming" these doctors and their research is all flawed?

As requested, from a source no less than the World Health Organization.

Also, please quote your sources that show second hand smoke causes disease.

From the UK Telegraph. Click Here

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Right from Philip Morris's website

"Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS, is a combination of the smoke coming from the lit end of a cigarette plus the smoke exhaled by a person smoking.

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.

PM USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers."



Philip Morris USA - Smoking & Health Issues - Secondhand Smoke

So if the big tobacco company tells you this is bad for people and agree that smoking should be regulated in public places why is this discussion still going on? Must be the tobacco companies are also assuming the doctors know what they are talking about.