Second hand smoke not a threat!

[Crysta]

Ok heres the deal. Currently sometime while watching tv and going to parties I have stumbled across the newest add for kids. Apparently they want MTV, an adult tv station, to stop putting smoking ads in their programs. Well this is different I thought and switched the channel. Then upon my surprize another commercial and another about the effects about second hand smoke...well this is absolutely wrong. I am thinking. And right I was. After some extensive research I have come to this conclusion. SECOND HAND SMOKE DOESNT KILL! Did you know that the only thing it is suppost to be based upon was actually thrown out by the supreme court? Yes! Thats right! The supreme court threw out the case because of lack of evidence. Go fig. Now I am not saying it is right to smoke...smoke will kill you. But second hand smoke is NOT going to kill you unless contained to a confined area and done for long periods of time. Like being trapped in a car with the windows rolled up for a LONG time. What the american heart and lung association fails to mention is that what they are basing those nice little numbers on is ALL the people with ALL heart diseases and lung diseases. Your actual chances of getting lung cancer is 1 in 500,000 people. Yep thats actually 10 in 5 million people will die from lung cancer...but it may not be of second hand smoke. There are thousands of people where I live becomming ill and generating lung diseases because of the pollution in the air. Yep that is right! Sut in the air is making people sick and I think one died but im not sure. But the fact of the matter is that second hand smoke is no more harmful than breathing the air around you now. (unless you live in a plastic bubble with air filters) So now you know the truth!

[ItalianStereotype]

http://www.studentplanet.com/WARP/Vol2Issue43_10_18/koolaiddestroyer_small.jpg

OH YEAH

[Zhukov]

I am glad that the truth has finaly come out. It makes me mad.

[Spectre X]

the supreme court doesn't know shit.

there's tar in second-hand smoke. tar=bad for lungs.

you can get sick if you breathe in second-hand smoke too much.

and to think that the pollution in the air on earth is more dangerous than second-hand smoke, it's just plain idiotic.


and :lol at Italian

[FS]

Crysta, you need to choose your words more carefully. The title of this thread is "Second hand smoke not a threat" yet in the post itself you speak only of second hand smoke not causing death. Furthermore, you concede that extensive exposure to second hand smoke IS dangerous and possibly even lethal.

What exactly was this "extensive research" you've done? Asking all your friends if they ever killed a person by blowing smoke in their face?

I don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, surprisingly few people drop dead each year because they're in the presence of smokers. That is not to say that second-hand smoke, increasingly likely in high abundance or frequency, can nibble at the health of surrounding people.

Christ. I never have a problem with smokers and they don't have a problem with me, but when they start trying to defend what they do I feel like punching them in the throat.

[Immortal Goat]

Hey, maybe second hand smoke won't kill you, but it sure as hell causes poor health conditions. For example, I work in a place where I am exposed to second hand smoke, and I have had the same goddamn cold for 2 weeks. I may not be contagious anymore, but my coughing has not stopped in the slightest. And do you want to know the scary thing about this fact? I am exposed to very little second hand smoke. If someone is in poor health already, second hand smoke is definitely a threat.

[Zhukov]

Huh? Are you saying that second hand smoke ruins your immune system? The cold you recieved was carried through the smoke. The smoke didn't actually give you the cold, so stop whining.

[Immortal Goat]

No, I had the cold before I went to work that week. What I am saying is that the smoke is PROLONGING the effects of the cold. Since I was already coughing and hacking, the smoke simply made it worse, and NOW, even though the cold is technically gone, I am still hacking and coughing because the smoke is making that symptom last longer.

[The One and Only...]

Then don't work there.

I have problems with people who want to make smoking in any building prohibited. That should be up to the business.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Then don't work there.

I have problems with people who want to make smoking in any building prohibited. That should be up to the business.

I agree, but as folks like theapportioner have pointed out, there's really no precedent being set by banning smoking, particularly in eating establishments and bars. All of these places have certain health codes and sanitation standards that must be met, and to argue that businesses should have complete autonomy over everything they do is asinine. In that case, we'd have rats in every kitchen, no sanitation policies like washing hands and maintaing clean kitchens, etc. I think blowing second-hand smoke all over someone's dinner arguably qualifies as unsanitary...

[AChimp]

They banned smoking in all public places (including restaurants, malls, offices, bars, etc) here in Winnipeg just a month ago, and now the province is thinking of banning smoking provincewide.

And they probably will because smoking is gay.

[Perndog]

Then don't work there.

This ties in with the post I just made in your minimum wage thread. When you're doing unskilled work (as I assume Goat is) and a lot of times even when you're a skilled worker, it's not like there are always ten other employers lined up and waiting for your application. Most of us take what we can get and then try to find something better while we're working there. A little smoke is not a reason to just quit a job, and if a person doesn't have an opportunity to work elsewhere and has the choice of putting up with poor health of giving up his income, it's the completely unnecessary detriment to his health that deserves to go.

[The One and Only...]

Yes, but then again completely unnecessary federal regulation deserves to go as well.

If it that big a deal, gather up some support among the other workers, and request a change. Let it be known that it may cause you to leave that workplace for another. Then, just keep your eyes open for other job opportunities. If the employer starts to see that he is at a disadvantage because of his policy on smoking, he will set up a ban.

Most workplaces have already realized that it makes their business more attractive if workers have to smoke outside of the building (or, at least, somewhere so that most people aren't exposed to it).

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yes, but then again completely unnecessary federal regulation deserves to go as well.

Such as? What regulations, on this topic, do you think should go...? Maybe the appearance of a kitchen? Maybe you'd like it if Cooks and servers didn't need to clean their hands after wiping there asses, then handling your food...? Come on, I know you have devised this tyranical portrait of the government in your head, but use some comon sense...

If it that big a deal, gather up some support among the other workers, and request a change. Let it be known that it may cause you to leave that workplace for another.

Awwww. *pats you on the head*

The problem with this argument is that people generally always choose poor health standards over not having enough money to pay bills or feed their families. For every 10 employees that complain about the standards, there are 20 more waiting to take their shitty job, especially these days....

No, you need someone to enforce such standards. I know you've turned the government into a monster, but private interests will not regulate themselves at the risk of raising costs. Someone has to make them do it....

Then, just keep your eyes open for other job opportunities. If the employer starts to see that he is at a disadvantage because of his policy on smoking, he will set up a ban.

What disadvantage will there be? Smokers will go there to smoke, and there will always be people to take the place of disgruntled employees. You act as if employyees haven't complained about these things, or haven't organized against it. You expect the private market to regulate itself all of the time, but that simply won't happen.

Most workplaces have already realized that it makes their business more attractive if workers have to smoke outside of the building (or, at least, somewhere so that most people aren't exposed to it).

Like what, diners? How about bars? Restaurants? These places wanted and thrived off the money of smokers. Owners want there places to seem friendly to everybody, but places such as diners and bars have taken a hit from these laws. They were never going to willingly change...

[O71394658]

Your actual chances of getting lung cancer is 1 in 500,000 people. Yep thats actually 10 in 5 million people will die from lung cancer...but it may not be of second hand smoke.

Well, considering there are only 300 million people in the U.S., only 600 people die of it per year? :/

I find that hard to believe.

[soundtest]

And rightfully so.

Edit: I'm on crack.

[O71394658]

That might do it. :/

[kahljorn]

"I think blowing second-hand smoke all over someone's dinner arguably qualifies as unsanitary..."

We all breath the same air, whether or not there is smoke in the air doesnt make it any more sanitary. An airborn virus does not need smoke to survive.

The idea of the earths air not being as bad as second hand smoke is really dumb, unless you are in wyoming or some shit you are going to be succepted to a billion cars exhaust fumes, along with industrial venting and all that shit. Cigarette smoke is tiny and insignificant compared to that. Smoke goes away very quickly. You are really stupid if you think one cigarette can fill an entire restaurant with enough smoke to cause any negative effects. Everybody inside would need to smoke, and possible smoke on the cieling. Did you know heat rises? Oh.

Also I dont smoke, I just think alot of things about antismoking laws are dumb. Do you see everybody in los vegas with lung cancer?

[AChimp]

Like what, diners? How about bars? Restaurants? These places wanted and thrived off the money of smokers. Owners want there places to seem friendly to everybody, but places such as diners and bars have taken a hit from these laws. They were never going to willingly change...
That's very true, but it's been proven time and time again that these "hits" that the businesses take from banning smoking are imaginary in the long run.

Sure, after the first week the smoking ban was introduced here, business was down in a lot of places because the smokers were having a tantrum and desperately trying to prove their point. After the second week, business was back to normal because non-smokers realized they can start going out again. The bars and clubs are full, and the casinos never lost a cent.

In fact, all the mall food courts and small coffee shops are doing BETTER business now because there are always free spots to sit. It used to be that people would come in, buy one fucking cup of coffee and sit for an hour and smoke, thus using a seat and preventing anyone else from sitting there. Now they can't do that anymore, and 5 non-smoking customers can use the same seat in one hour because they leave when they're done eating and make room for the next person.

[soundtest]

I had a brilliant point, numbers guy... but your avatar is so hypnotizing that I... hi :love

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Like what, diners? How about bars? Restaurants? These places wanted and thrived off the money of smokers. Owners want there places to seem friendly to everybody, but places such as diners and bars have taken a hit from these laws. They were never going to willingly change...
That's very true, but it's been proven time and time again that these "hits" that the businesses take from banning smoking are imaginary in the long run.

Sure, after the first week the smoking ban was introduced here, business was down in a lot of places because the smokers were having a tantrum and desperately trying to prove their point. After the second week, business was back to normal because non-smokers realized they can start going out again. The bars and clubs are full, and the casinos never lost a cent.

That's nice to hear, but places (particularly diners) in new york are not reflecting that since having the "indoor clean air act" set in motion this previous summer. Coming from a certified 24 hr. diner geek, business has been stifled. Many of the diners in my area have had to change hours and cut back on staff, simply because the people just aren't coming. I used to believe all the "research" that proved no supposed hit to business, but I'm not so sure anymore...

Don't get me wrong, I suppose this will be better for people in the long run. This is just a situation where I think I'd rather see the small business owner get some discretion. I'm very torn on the issue....

[The_Rorschach]

Smoking is good for you, it helps you get up those rotten pieces of your lung when you cough.

[kahljorn]

Just out of curiosity, is there like a thing, a report thing, that says that los Vegas has higher lung/heart cancer rates than elsewhere? I think that would be a good indication, isn't it legal to smoke EVERYWHERE there? Including when you're taking a shit? I'm pretty sure I remember a restroom in vegas with an ashtray over the toilet paper.

[Perndog]

The idea of the earths air not being as bad as second hand smoke is really dumb, unless you are in wyoming or some shit you are going to be succepted to a billion cars exhaust fumes, along with industrial venting and all that shit. Cigarette smoke is tiny and insignificant compared to that. Smoke goes away very quickly. You are really stupid if you think one cigarette can fill an entire restaurant with enough smoke to cause any negative effects. Everybody inside would need to smoke, and possible smoke on the cieling. Did you know heat rises? Oh.

Hot air rises. Cigarette smoke floats around; some of it rises, some of it stays right at head level.

There is a big difference between the atmosphere of an entire city accumulating car exhaust and a restaurant accumulating cigarette smoke. I live in Minneapolis, and yes, the air outdoors here is much cleaner than it is inside most of the bars. We have a thing called wind, and many millions of times the volume of air in proportion to the amount of pollution.

Second hand smoke does not kill everyone or maybe anyone. It doesn't cause health problems in most of us. But when you're indoors around smokers, you smell it, and if you're close enough you taste it and breathe it. Some (most) of us nonsmokers don't like cigarette smoke; I find it repulsive unless I happen to be smoking the cigarette (which I do about once a month). There is a reason cigars and pipes are banned in many places (sadly, since they smell so much better than cigarettes), and that is the same reason smoking of any kind should be banned (though I agree that it should be up to the business owner) - it involves one group of people creating an unpleasant atmosphere for the rest of us. I don't care whether it gives me cancer or not, I just plain don't like it.

[punkgrrrlie10]

The idea of the earths air not being as bad as second hand smoke is really dumb, unless you are in wyoming or some shit you are going to be succepted to a billion cars exhaust fumes, along with industrial venting and all that shit. Cigarette smoke is tiny and insignificant compared to that. Smoke goes away very quickly. You are really stupid if you think one cigarette can fill an entire restaurant with enough smoke to cause any negative effects. Everybody inside would need to smoke, and possible smoke on the cieling. Did you know heat rises? Oh.



Great reasoning. Perhaps you should go swimming in a toxic waste dump...I mean seriously it's just an accumulation of everything else that's bad for you so having extra won't hurt you, right? oh.

[kahljorn]

It's wonderful that the basic statement was of comparison. But hey, you're using a computer, right? Adding to the waste in the enviroment, jackass. BUT A LITTLE MORE WONT HURT, RIGHT? WHY DONT YOU JUST GO TAKE A DIP IN A TOXIC WASTE DUMP CAUSE YOU KNOW A LITTLE EXTRA POLLUTION WONT HURT ANYTHING.

Smelling smoke and inhaling it are two different things, inhaling smoke and breathing it are also two different things. It's like breathing the same air as a person with aids, then making out with them. Big difference.
I also believe in order to develop lung cancer some kind of damage needs to occur to the lungs, because cancer is basically a damaged cell reproducting like crazy.
A wisp of smoke here and there won't hurt anything, just like getting a little nick on your arms won't bleed you to death.
I am aware of wind, as well as car exhaust rising to the same policy as the smoke.
But damn, when you're sitting on a freeway in traffic don't tell me you can't smell that fucking exhaust.
Maybe everybody should just grow their own tobacco and smoke it clean and clear. Would it be "Safer"?

[Perndog]

Making out with a person with AIDS is pretty much safe. It's not transmitted in saliva. :rolleyes

[kahljorn]

Then making out with a cigarette should be safe to. Woe for metaphores.

[Immortal Goat]

OK. You are obviously not getting it, Kahljorn. A WHISP of smoke may not harm you, but being in a building where HUNDREDS of smokers are coming in all day (for example, the restaurant I work in), the smoke has very little chance to escape anywhere except the non-smoking section. Then, we get people in there who cannot breath the smoke. I have been working as a seater for about three weeks, and already I have seated 10 people who have to carry around a tank of air attatched to their nose. You cannot tell me that they have less of a right to eat in a restaurant than the smokers do. The smokers do not HAVE to smoke, it is a choice, but the sick do not have a choice.



Just fucking smoke outside if you have to. Or better yet, just fucking quit. It's a disgusting habit anyway.

[kahljorn]

the sick dont need to eat in a restaurant :/

[FS]

kahl, do you think it would be fair if you'd get seated next to an incredibly fat person on an airplane?

[kahljorn]

Nope, but I would have to live with it, wouldn't I?

[kahljorn]

"You are obviously not getting it, Kahljorn. A WHISP of smoke may not harm you, but being in a building where HUNDREDS of smokers are coming in all day (for example, the restaurant I work in), the smoke has very little chance to escape anywhere except the non-smoking section."

If hundreds of people smoke there, and only seven or eight are bitching about it, is it okay to tell the hundreds who dont care about the smoke they can't because it's an inconvenience to one or two people who don't want to go eat somewhere else, or even eat outside? Or just like, shut the fuck up and eat their food then leave? Or even eat at home?
There are plenty of restaurants that are smoke-free already without enforcing it on everyone.
And not being able to smoke in a bar is lame :/

Thought I should respond to that.

[Immortal Goat]

Fair enough about the bar comment. However, it is not only a few people complaining about the smoke. Most of the people there that do not smoke HATE working in the smoking section. Is it because they are afraid of getting cancer? NO! It is because it is a disgusting habit that should not be allowed in public places. It is the same thing with pot. I don't think it should be illeagal, necessarily, but it shouldn't be allowed in public places.

[kahljorn]

I see, I think places should be able to choose if their restaurant is smoke-free or not, and certain types of places should have no choice in the matter, Like a medical lab/hospitol, and gas stations. While a bar or a diner should be able to do whatever the fuck they want, and if a person complains they can get their food to go.
Employees have this wonderful choice of deciding where they want to work, so they can base it off of whether or not the companies work ethics are to their standards. Somebody getting a construction job shouldn't do it, then complain that they have to do physical labor.

Personally, I hate the smell of smoke.

[Immortal Goat]

People do not always have the choice of where they want to work, Kahl. Take it from me. If I had that choice, I wouldn't be working in fucking Red Lobster. I would be working in a Gamestop or Best Buy. I am stuck at Red Lobster because I am under 18 (not for long, though) and I got hired only because my mother has worked there for 20 or so years. I need to pay for my school tuition, and if I quit, then I am out of school.

So, Kahl, do you still have any smart-ass comments about where people work? I can argue all night about it.

[kahljorn]

People who work are stupid.

I work at sears.

[Immortal Goat]

And do you absolutely LOVE your job?

[AChimp]

Can't we all just agree that smoking is gay, that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke DOES cause cancer and that it's fun to piss off smokers by banning their favourite past-time? >:

[kahljorn]

I'm going to go buy a pack of cigarettes now just to piss you off :(

[Immortal Goat]

While you go and smoke your cigarettes, just picture this...

http://whyquit.com/joel/emphysema.jpg
emphysema

Happy smoking,Kahl. >:

[The One and Only...]

Such as? What regulations, on this topic, do you think should go...? Maybe the appearance of a kitchen? Maybe you'd like it if Cooks and servers didn't need to clean their hands after wiping there asses, then handling your food...? Come on, I know you have devised this tyranical portrait of the government in your head, but use some comon sense...

Quit changing the topic. We are talking about smoking. (Also, while I don't think really think those laws need to go, I don't think they are necessary.)

Awwww. *pats you on the head*

The problem with this argument is that people generally always choose poor health standards over not having enough money to pay bills or feed their families. For every 10 employees that complain about the standards, there are 20 more waiting to take their shitty job, especially these days....

No, you need someone to enforce such standards. I know you've turned the government into a monster, but private interests will not regulate themselves at the risk of raising costs. Someone has to make them do it....

Do what? Make smoking in buildings illegal?

As I said before, most businesses have already made a "no smoking inside the building" policy.

Besides, if people choose to work for higher wages instead of care about their health, isn't that their own damn fault? Are you trying to say that people can't take care of themselves?

Business has, and always will, regulate itself based on the consumer's and worker's demands. Unfortunately, everyone has this image of big, evil corporations taking over the world put in their mind from revisionist history. If I only had a nickel for how many times my history book infers that a strong, central goverment is key to prosperity...

What disadvantage will there be? Smokers will go there to smoke, and there will always be people to take the place of disgruntled employees. You act as if employyees haven't complained about these things, or haven't organized against it. You expect the private market to regulate itself all of the time, but that simply won't happen.

The disadvantages should be obvious. If people are constantly leaving because of the owners smoking policy, it would be simpler to have designated smoking areas set up for those who do smoke. It takes time to find new employees; it's true it doesn't take much in many fields, but even a day can be damaging.

Like what, diners? How about bars? Restaurants? These places wanted and thrived off the money of smokers. Owners want there places to seem friendly to everybody, but places such as diners and bars have taken a hit from these laws. They were never going to willingly change...

Then don't go to those bars, restaurants, or diners. Aside from the occasional run-down bar, places often have areas set aside for non-smokers anyway.

Don't like the smoke as an employee? Think about it this way. If smoking were banned is such places, you might not have the job in the first place. After all, smokers do constitute a large number of people who frequent these areas...

[O71394658]

I would like to add that I support Kahl's last 3 or so posts. Poeple keep calling restaurants public places. They are not. They are privately owned institutions. The owners should be allowed to show discrepancy.

[kahljorn]

"Happy smoking,Kahl. "

That picture looked like the kung pao chicken I had te other day.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Quit changing the topic. We are talking about smoking. (Also, while I don't think really think those laws need to go, I don't think they are necessary.)

Jackass, tell me how this is off topic. The argument is essentially ABOUT government regulation, to ban smoking, or to not ban smoking. The discussion is about regulation, and if you can't address my points, please, don't play the straw man argument of "stay on topic."

Do what? Make smoking in buildings illegal?

As I said before, most businesses have already made a "no smoking inside the building" policy.

Besides, if people choose to work for higher wages instead of care about their health, isn't that their own damn fault? Are you trying to say that people can't take care of themselves?

I'm saying people are placed in positions where they need to prioritize. Families often needed to send their children to work in factories, and private businesses didn't just stop doing that and put up little signs. I'm saying people will be exploited, and to buy into your little Libertarian fantasy of self-regulation is asinine stupidity.

Business has, and always will, regulate itself based on the consumer's and worker's demands.

Read above.

Unfortunately, everyone has this image of big, evil corporations taking over the world put in their mind from revisionist history. If I only had a nickel for how many times my history book infers that a strong, central goverment is key to prosperity...

An activist central government, yes. What history books are you reading?? It seems you're only interested in the history provided by www.lp.org.

The disadvantages should be obvious. If people are constantly leaving because of the owners smoking policy, it would be simpler to have designated smoking areas set up for those who do smoke. It takes time to find new employees; it's true it doesn't take much in many fields, but even a day can be damaging.

Bar tending, particularly in cities and college towns, much like waiting tables, is a VERY competitive field. Tips are good, and the hours are often plenty. This isn't about the customers who leave, it's about the workers who need to pay bills, just like workers have ALWAYS chosen to sacrifice their own health and well being in order to feed their families and pay the rent or mortgage. Your utopian fantasy of a business world that has always reghulated itself is just that, a fantasy. Give me examples, tell me of major events when businesses changed their policies not merely for profit, but for the good of their workers. Did the motor industry? How about the factories during industrializing America in the 19th Century...? Hell, even today, people are working longer hours for less pay, and in some fields, the attempt to unionize can still cost you your job.


Don't like the smoke as an employee? Think about it this way. If smoking were banned is such places, you might not have the job in the first place. After all, smokers do constitute a large number of people who frequent these areas...

I agree. However, when the laws are instituted, after a period of adjustment, smokers will give in and return to these places. The jobs will be there again, just like smokers dealt with losing the right to smoke up every other place.

I would like to add that I support Kahl's last 3 or so posts. Poeple keep calling restaurants public places. They are not. They are privately owned institutions. The owners should be allowed to show discrepancy.

And again I say show me a proivate establishment that has complete autonomy over itself. Koitchens must be clean, food must be prepared in a sanitary fashion, and workers must wash their hands when they piss or shit. Regulation exists on MANY common sense levels, and anybody who has frequented all-night diners would know that these bans don't seem to far out of step with the previously mentioned regulations.

[Spooky]

I say we all follow Denis Leary's opinions on smoking. :(

[The_Rorschach]

We're all sucking wind anyway, who gives a fuck.

The air in most cities is more lethal than anything the last few hundred cigarettes I've smoked could ever hope to be. The fucking rain that raises our crops melts stone for Christ's sake. We don't ban cars because we need em, well, those waiters need customers - Even the ones that smoke. If you want to live forever, strap on your birkenstocks, hike on down to the rainforest and gum granola for all eternity. As for me, I'm going to continue to suck down cigarettes and suck down whiskey until my liver and lungs implode, at which time I'll suck on a winchester.

I agree with both Kev and Kahl on this one: Banning cigarettes is execessive and stupid, we have larger things to worry about.

[soundtest]

While you go and smoke your cigarettes, just picture this...

http://whyquit.com/joel/emphysema.jpg
emphysema

Happy smoking,Kahl. >:


You know, the obligatory picture of a diseased lung or organ for shock value is so played out it hurts... maybe it's just the fact that I am a smoker and live in Canada - where every cigarette package purchased by law has a similar image covering half its surface area - but it just doesn't bother me anymore. Perhaps I'm desensitized, but when I look at a picture of a healthy lung or organ it's not exactly appealing either... :/

[Anonymous]

You know, the obligatory picture of a diseased lung or organ for shock value is so played out it hurts... maybe it's just the fact that I am a smoker and live in Canada - where every cigarette package purchased by law has a similar image covering half its surface area - but it just doesn't bother me anymore. Perhaps I'm desensitized, but when I look at a picture of a healthy lung or organ it's not exactly appealing either... :/

What they should put on cigarette packs is a picture of Juno from Beetlejuice. Not that I have such a picture at the moment, but still...