Surgeon general warns of secondhand smoke

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Why should I have to go to another store or open my own because a few people are killing others at one of them?

What about kids who have parents that smoke? What about kids who's parents are like you?

because this is America. We are (well should be) able to make decisions for ourselvs. IF i want to run a store here smoking is encouraged then great! i should be able to! i am free to be a success or failure!

also going along with that. if you do not want to be around smokers then by all means go to a different bar/store/whatever or start one of your own.

What i do in my private business (long as it is legal. and right now smoking is legal) is up to me.

what about parents that smoke? what about it? again it is a persons right to do what they want.



this is what bothers me about this. people want to ban smoking i just cringe at what is next. fatty foods (oops already happening), running with scissors? riding a motorcycle? hang gliding?

It is not a person's right to "do what they want." You cannot kill, or steal, why should you be able to smoke when it hurts others?

And once again, what about children that are unwillingly exposed to smoke from their parents/others, and could get hurt because of it?

last time i checked smokeing was still legal (not for long though heh) and murder, thieft are not.

and what about children that are exposed to a parent that does not give them veggies? or makes them go out and play? or makes the study etc etc etc.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Why should I have to go to another store or open my own because a few people are killing others at one of them?

What about kids who have parents that smoke? What about kids who's parents are like you?

because this is America. We are (well should be) able to make decisions for ourselvs. IF i want to run a store here smoking is encouraged then great! i should be able to! i am free to be a success or failure!

also going along with that. if you do not want to be around smokers then by all means go to a different bar/store/whatever or start one of your own.

What i do in my private business (long as it is legal. and right now smoking is legal) is up to me.

what about parents that smoke? what about it? again it is a persons right to do what they want.



this is what bothers me about this. people want to ban smoking i just cringe at what is next. fatty foods (oops already happening), running with scissors? riding a motorcycle? hang gliding?

It is not a person's right to "do what they want." You cannot kill, or steal, why should you be able to smoke when it hurts others?

And once again, what about children that are unwillingly exposed to smoke from their parents/others, and could get hurt because of it?

last time i checked smokeing was still legal (not for long though heh) and murder, thieft are not.

and what about children that are exposed to a parent that does not give them veggies? or makes them go out and play? or makes the study etc etc etc.

Parents who make their kids study? Or go about and play and get exercise? I'm not getting the connection between that and parents who hurt their children by exposing them to smoke.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Why should I have to go to another store or open my own because a few people are killing others at one of them?

What about kids who have parents that smoke? What about kids who's parents are like you?

because this is America. We are (well should be) able to make decisions for ourselvs. IF i want to run a store here smoking is encouraged then great! i should be able to! i am free to be a success or failure!

also going along with that. if you do not want to be around smokers then by all means go to a different bar/store/whatever or start one of your own.

What i do in my private business (long as it is legal. and right now smoking is legal) is up to me.

what about parents that smoke? what about it? again it is a persons right to do what they want.



this is what bothers me about this. people want to ban smoking i just cringe at what is next. fatty foods (oops already happening), running with scissors? riding a motorcycle? hang gliding?

It is not a person's right to "do what they want." You cannot kill, or steal, why should you be able to smoke when it hurts others?

And once again, what about children that are unwillingly exposed to smoke from their parents/others, and could get hurt because of it?

last time i checked smokeing was still legal (not for long though heh) and murder, thieft are not.

and what about children that are exposed to a parent that does not give them veggies? or makes them go out and play? or makes the study etc etc etc.

Waggy.

Nevermind the non-sensical children argument. It's a tactic he's using to try to elicit a knee-jerking, emotional reaction because of the subject topic. He wants you to think of the children, and not the asshole parents that feed their kids McDonalds 3 times a day, smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day in their car with the windows rolled up, and lets them roll around the neighborhood doing whatever they want.

But yea, instead of punishing the terrible parents, we should punish all those people that have absolutely no effect at all on the children.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Why should I have to deal with smokers?
Why should I have to deal with smokers on the street?
Why should I have to deal with smokers at the store?
Why should I have to deal with smokers at a restaurant?
Why should I have to deal with smokers at the bowling alley?
Why should I have to deal with smokers in public buildings?
Why should kids have no choice but to breathe in smoke every day, when they don't have a choice?

Why shouldn't you?

Why should you be granted the right to dictate what occurs on another person's paid-for, private, property?
Why are you patronizing businesses that don't support your personal preferences when there are so many others out there?
Why should you support the stripping away of private property rights because you're inconvenienced?
Why are you going to bitch and moan the next time a right that you actually care about is taken away while you stood by when the government did it to others?

There is no such thing as the "Right to smoke in public areas and cause death to others."

Anyone who supports rights for those that choose to kill themselves and try to take other people with them has their priorities messed up.

Uhh, smoking is not illegal. Murder is. Murder isn't allowed in private establishments because it is against the law in every state in the United States. Since smoking isn't illegal, why should the government be allowed to tell a private establishment whether someone should be allowed to smoke there or not? You have every right to not step foot in an establishment that allows smoking as another person should have the right to smoke there.

 

[DrPizza]

Uhhh, maybe by making smoking illegal in establishments that cater to the public?

Now, to address the delusional people who think the government has no right to make laws affecting what you can and can't do on or with your own personal property...
Ever hear of zoning ordinances? There's a perfect example.

Furthermore, for the "It's my business, I can do what I like, serve whoever I like" people...
Try putting a sign in your window that says "White people only."


What you seem to be attempting is something similar to the Jim Crow laws that used to exist in the south, but rather than laws, you feel that people should be segregated by their own choice. i.e. if you don't like smoke and aren't willing to put up with a health hazard, you become a second class citizen, not able to shop in the same stores, etc.

 

[DAGTA]

I wish I could piss in someone's mouth in public. That's about the equivalent of being forced to breath someone else's buring chemicals and carcinogens. Well, actually, the piss would be less harmful.

 

[TGS]

Originally posted by: Extelleron


The government has every right to use any amount of force neccessary to protect the majority of citizens.

The government is bound to protect its citizens. The government is bound to protect me and you from smokers, just as they protect us from murders and thieves.

Patriot Act? 100% support. I am 100% in support of being a safer country and giving more power to the government rather than having everyone's rights protected completely. A small invasion of privacy is worth it for the defense of the nation and prosecution of criminals/terrorists.

[Offtopic]

A hearty :laugh: to anyone who can think this way.

[/Offtopic]

Honestly as a non-smoker I prefer non-smoking environments. When I'm out will my children, I practically refuse to go into an establishment that allows smoking. *shrug*

 

[DrPizza]

Gee, what happened? The thread fizzled out pre-maturely.. I thought these threads usually reached 150 or more posts. I suppose someone's trying to come up with a good reason why the government can regulate businesses, right down to whether their door swings in or swings out, but the gov't shouldn't be allowed to dictate what types of activities occur on the premises, even though the gov't already dictates that (ex. liquor license)

 

[SampSon]

Not a single article written about this report has quoted any real data from the report or research procedures. That is primarily because the report is a 700+ page document that not a single member of the press has enough time to actually read through it.
The only "data" presented are the same sound bites that have been used on this subject for years. They will tell you that X number of people died from disease due to second-hand smoke, but they won't ever produce the data, research procedures, citations, data pool size, etc etc.

After hearing about this report being released on my talk radio shows today I knew someone (particularly mosh 😉) would post an article covering the sound bites released by the surgeon general and start another huge smoking argument thread. Until someone here reads the entire 700+ page report, or posts significant data from other sources supporting the reports findings (good luck because it doesnt exist anywhere but on the ALA site) then no one here really has much of an idea of what they are talking about.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, maybe by making smoking illegal in establishments that cater to the public?

Now, to address the delusional people who think the government has no right to make laws affecting what you can and can't do on or with your own personal property...
Ever hear of zoning ordinances? There's a perfect example.

Furthermore, for the "It's my business, I can do what I like, serve whoever I like" people...
Try putting a sign in your window that says "White people only."


What you seem to be attempting is something similar to the Jim Crow laws that used to exist in the south, but rather than laws, you feel that people should be segregated by their own choice. i.e. if you don't like smoke and aren't willing to put up with a health hazard, you become a second class citizen, not able to shop in the same stores, etc.

Except in your example you would still have every right to enter a store that allows smoking. Just like everyone can eat at McDonalds if they are willing to put up with the possible negative health effects.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, maybe by making smoking illegal in establishments that cater to the public?

Now, to address the delusional people who think the government has no right to make laws affecting what you can and can't do on or with your own personal property...
Ever hear of zoning ordinances? There's a perfect example.

Furthermore, for the "It's my business, I can do what I like, serve whoever I like" people...
Try putting a sign in your window that says "White people only."


What you seem to be attempting is something similar to the Jim Crow laws that used to exist in the south, but rather than laws, you feel that people should be segregated by their own choice. i.e. if you don't like smoke and aren't willing to put up with a health hazard, you become a second class citizen, not able to shop in the same stores, etc.

I dunno, I see a big difference between letting all parties involved having a choice in the matter, rather than one having no choice at all (i.e., segregation by race). Furthermore, segregation was struck down by a constitutional right, that of equal protection, which had to be enacted by using interstate commerce laws, a rather powerful tool that the federal government has learned to use to its advantage. Don't get me wrong, I'm quite glad that this opened the doors to allow modern day civil rights laws, but not all laws pertaining to what private establishments can do should be equal, IMO.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Not a single article written about this report has quoted any real data from the report or research procedures. That is primarily because the report is a 700+ page document that not a single member of the press has enough time to actually read through it.
The only "data" presented are the same sound bites that have been used on this subject for years. They will tell you that X number of people died from disease due to second-hand smoke, but they won't ever produce the data, research procedures, citations, data pool size, etc etc.

After hearing about this report being released on my talk radio shows today I knew someone (particularly mosh 😉) would post an article covering the sound bites released by the surgeon general and start another huge smoking argument thread. Until someone here reads the entire 700+ page report, or posts significant data from other sources supporting the reports findings (good luck because it doesnt exist anywhere but on the ALA site) then no one here really has much of an idea of what they are talking about.

I've long been doubtful about 2nd hand smoke being a significant cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. But, I don't doubt lesser health effects. I can't count the number of people who go out to bars, who don't smoke, and who wake up with a sore throat and stuffed nose the next day due to the smoke. (or due to some other irritant in the air at the bar)

 

[Paulson]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, maybe by making smoking illegal in establishments that cater to the public?

Now, to address the delusional people who think the government has no right to make laws affecting what you can and can't do on or with your own personal property...
Ever hear of zoning ordinances? There's a perfect example.

Furthermore, for the "It's my business, I can do what I like, serve whoever I like" people...
Try putting a sign in your window that says "White people only."


What you seem to be attempting is something similar to the Jim Crow laws that used to exist in the south, but rather than laws, you feel that people should be segregated by their own choice. i.e. if you don't like smoke and aren't willing to put up with a health hazard, you become a second class citizen, not able to shop in the same stores, etc.

Except in your example you would still have every right to enter a store that allows smoking. Just like everyone can eat at McDonalds if they are willing to put up with the possible negative health effects.

Ok... here's where smokers get it totally wrong. So what you're getting discriminated against. If we're all going into McDonalds the side effects of the food are bad, however my bad fatty food wouldn't be going all throughout the air (unless I fart from such crappy food). Smoke gets absorbed in EVERYTHING. Nothing better than going out and coming home only to smell your clothes a day later, stinking of such bad smoke.

The reason we get so pissed off at you smokers is because what you're doing directly affects us. Maybe next time I go out I'll start squirting people that are smoking with a squirt gun, saying oh well, I like getting squirted and so should you so just tough sh!t deal with it or leave.

Total ignorant pricks.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Paulson

Ok... here's where smokers get it totally wrong. So what you're getting discriminated against. If we're all going into McDonalds the side effects of the food are bad, however my bad fatty food wouldn't be going all throughout the air (unless I fart from such crappy food). Smoke gets absorbed in EVERYTHING. Nothing better than going out and coming home only to smell your clothes a day later, stinking of such bad smoke.

The reason we get so pissed off at you smokers is because what you're doing directly affects us. Maybe next time I go out I'll start squirting people that are smoking with a squirt gun, saying oh well, I like getting squirted and so should you so just tough sh!t deal with it or leave.

Total ignorant pricks.[/quote]

You aren't going to be smelling like smoke unless you go into an establishment where it is allowed, but at that point it was your decision to do so. Also, if you go into a fast food restaraunt you very often do come out smelling like the restaurant... not that that has anything to do with the discussion.

Anyway, FYI, I'm not a smoker. Never have been and never intend to be.

 

[bctbct]

Not to get too far off topic but I recently saw a former Surgeon General talking about the therepuetic and pleasurable value of using a dildo on one of the pay channels so....

They have an opinion, take it or leave it.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

here is the executive summary: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/s...dhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf

and the full blown report: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/

 

[amol]

Smokers should be restricted to smoking in their own house/yard. Second hand smoke puts others in unnecessary risk, and thus, smoking should be illegal in public, just how reckless driving is illegal.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: SampSon
Not a single article written about this report has quoted any real data from the report or research procedures. That is primarily because the report is a 700+ page document that not a single member of the press has enough time to actually read through it.
The only "data" presented are the same sound bites that have been used on this subject for years. They will tell you that X number of people died from disease due to second-hand smoke, but they won't ever produce the data, research procedures, citations, data pool size, etc etc.

After hearing about this report being released on my talk radio shows today I knew someone (particularly mosh 😉) would post an article covering the sound bites released by the surgeon general and start another huge smoking argument thread. Until someone here reads the entire 700+ page report, or posts significant data from other sources supporting the reports findings (good luck because it doesnt exist anywhere but on the ALA site) then no one here really has much of an idea of what they are talking about.

I've long been doubtful about 2nd hand smoke being a significant cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. But, I don't doubt lesser health effects. I can't count the number of people who go out to bars, who don't smoke, and who wake up with a sore throat and stuffed nose the next day due to the smoke. (or due to some other irritant in the air at the bar)

I can agree with that. If you put someone in an environment with dirty air they could easily exhibit some respiratory problems. Of course the pollution/irritant doesn't exactly have to be cigarette smoke.

There are no solid studies from multiple non-involved sources to link second hand smoke as a direct cause of disease in non-smokers. Sure there are advocacy groups out there that push some data/studies, but they don't hold much water. It's like a car traffic safety advocacy group releasing a study that driving with only your left hand on every other tuesday of the month results in a 67% increased risk of getting in a car accident.

The reason we get so pissed off at you smokers is because what you're doing directly affects us. Maybe next time I go out I'll start squirting people that are smoking with a squirt gun, saying oh well, I like getting squirted and so should you so just tough sh!t deal with it or leave.

Total ignorant pricks.

I've seen this exact same (and I mean EXACT SAME) argument used by other members on this forum in smoking threads. The argument holds no water what-so-ever (no pun intended). You MAY have some semblance of a point if the situation was a smoker coming up to you and blowing smoke directly in your face. Otherwise you are bordering on arguing what basically constitutes "assult". It was an ignornat argument to make before, it's an ignorant argument to make now, and it will always be an ignorant argument to make.

Though to entertain your ignorance I will present to you the flip side of your "argument". Say there is a public spinkler system setup somewhere, but I don't like getting squirted with water. Instead of putting up a fight and saying that these people have no right to setup a sprinkler in public space, you should just not stand where the sprinkler is, in order to avoid getting squirted. Some people like to run around and frolic in the sprinkler, but some don't. Thoes that don't simply don't go there. Very simple concept that you will undoubtedly argue until you're blue in the face because you are also an "ignorant prick".

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Paulson
Ok... here's where smokers get it totally wrong. So what you're getting discriminated against. If we're all going into McDonalds the side effects of the food are bad, however my bad fatty food wouldn't be going all throughout the air (unless I fart from such crappy food). Smoke gets absorbed in EVERYTHING. Nothing better than going out and coming home only to smell your clothes a day later, stinking of such bad smoke.

What about the additional burden put on the health care system because you so carelessly chose to eat the grease-laden food at McDonald's 7 days a week? Higher insurance premiums affect everybody.

The reason we get so pissed off at you smokers is because what you're doing directly affects us. Maybe next time I go out I'll start squirting people that are smoking with a squirt gun, saying oh well, I like getting squirted and so should you so just tough sh!t deal with it or leave.

If you opened an eating establishment with a big sign on the window that said "Everybody that enters will be squirt in the face with a water gun", then I don't see a problem with this idea. People that don't want to get wet will find another restaurant. Others that don't mind, will enter and enjoy themselves. Why is this concept so foreign to you?

Total ignorant pricks.

Hey, I resemble that remark.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Not a single article written about this report has quoted any real data from the report or research procedures. That is primarily because the report is a 700+ page document that not a single member of the press has enough time to actually read through it.
The only "data" presented are the same sound bites that have been used on this subject for years. They will tell you that X number of people died from disease due to second-hand smoke, but they won't ever produce the data, research procedures, citations, data pool size, etc etc.

After hearing about this report being released on my talk radio shows today I knew someone (particularly mosh 😉) would post an article covering the sound bites released by the surgeon general and start another huge smoking argument thread. Until someone here reads the entire 700+ page report, or posts significant data from other sources supporting the reports findings (good luck because it doesnt exist anywhere but on the ALA site) then no one here really has much of an idea of what they are talking about.

and i suppose you have read this "700+ page report"? of course they are only going to note fragments of the report in the article or else the article would be 700++++++ pages long. :roll:

you and i have been down this road before haven't we? this thread isn't about "government control of our lives", but about the fact that even a total idiot should realize that second hand smoke is unhealthy to inhale.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
you and i have been down this road before haven't we? this thread isn't about "government control of our lives", but about the fact that even a total idiot should realize that second hand smoke is unhealthy to inhale.

Only an idiot would believe the situation is as black and white as you claim. There are known carcinogens and mutagens in gasoline additives and every day household cleaning products. Why not direct some of your attention to other products that you use on a daily basis? Because cigarette smoke is "icky"?

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: moshquerade
you and i have been down this road before haven't we? this thread isn't about "government control of our lives", but about the fact that even a total idiot should realize that second hand smoke is unhealthy to inhale.

Only an idiot would believe the situation is as black and white as you claim. There are known carcinogens and mutagens in gasoline additives and every day household cleaning products. Why not direct some of your attention to other products that you use on a daily basis? Because cigarette smoke is "icky"?

Because cigarette smoke has ZERO positives. Why tolerate something that does NOTHING except harm people?

 

[OutHouse]

for you morons who are screaming "keep the government out of private business" "let the private business person run it they way they want" well ok, does that include the health dept doing inspections, or following health dept laws on food storage and food temp or food preparers wearing hair nets. or removing all the wheel chair ramps, or having building codes that say you must have a sprinkler system, so many fire exits and min roof load weights...

so tell me what part of the government dont you want telling private business how to run their business?

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: moshquerade
you and i have been down this road before haven't we? this thread isn't about "government control of our lives", but about the fact that even a total idiot should realize that second hand smoke is unhealthy to inhale.

Only an idiot would believe the situation is as black and white as you claim. There are known carcinogens and mutagens in gasoline additives and every day household cleaning products. Why not direct some of your attention to other products that you use on a daily basis? Because cigarette smoke is "icky"?

Because cigarette smoke has ZERO positives. Why tolerate something that does NOTHING except harm people?

Because this isn't communist Russia and people would like to continue to enjoy their addiction? People participate in countless dangerous activities that offer little, if any, benefit other than enjoyment. It becomes a matter of acceptable risk. For some, being in the precence of smoke is more acceptable than for others.

Right now the public has the choice to (A) be around smoke in a bar or (B) to find some non-smoking establishment. The idiots are willingly and gleefully giving up those rights because it doesn't affect them.

In this context, when I say "rights", I mean the right for a bar owner to make his own decision to allow or disallow smoking in his bar.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Citrix
for you morons who are screaming "keep the government out of private business" "let the private business person run it they way they want" well ok, does that include the health dept doing inspections, or following health dept laws on food storage and food temp or food preparers wearing hair nets. or removing all the wheel chair ramps, or having building codes that say you must have a sprinkler system, so many fire exits and min roof load weights...

so tell me what part of the government dont you want telling private business how to run their business?

BigJ addressed most of that much earlier in the discussion:

Originally posted by: BigJ
Look at the laws that the regulatory agencies put in place regarding private businesses and they are only their to protect the customers and the employees from actions taken by the business that would jeopardize their safety in a way they cannot know about or avoid.

Making sure a building is built to code is a hell of a lot different than a customer being notified upon entering the premises that smoking is allowed and they're actively subjecting their bodies to whatever risk they think second-hand smoke proposes.

I just don't think this is one of those things that should be regulated to this degree because it's easy enough to avoid. Your examples are quite different from this situation.

BTW, has anyone tried to get any smoking bans passed in Las Vegas? I'd love to see how that went/goes over.