• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

smoking in public laws

Zolipara said:
Actually there isnt any real serious research on secondhand smoking. There is a lot of research on the dangers of smoking and all thats said about secondhand smoke is derived from the research on smoking. But if you say it enough times it "becomes true".
Click to expand...


That is simply not true. Here is a link, with additional links, to the Environmental Protection Agency, citing studies and data from the National Institutes of Health and other sources, on particular studies done in the 1990s on secondhand smoke effects.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

Here's a good, comprehensive one from NIH:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html
 
My opinion is that if smokers are to be forced to pay their own way through the medical system, so then should obese people, alcoholics, drug addicts, sex addicts (Hep/HIV, etc), speeders (in cars), etc. Where does it end? Obese people are taxing the medical system to a major degree now. There's actually a form of liver disease that mimics the fatty liver of an alcoholic but isn't due to that... it's due to too much junk food making the liver work harder than it was meant to. Obese people have heart issues, increased risk of diabetes II which has AWFUL side effects (I work in neurophysiology, I see it), etc. People everywhere do thangs that in the end can be life threatening. It's unfair to discriminate against someone because of their particular addiction.

It never pays to go too far.
 
I'm all for non-smoking public places, and that includes bars and restaurants, which allow smoking sections where I live. I draw the line at a law for bars & restaurants to be smoke-free, however. I'd like to see local governments give benefits to bars & restaurants that choose to be smoke-free.
I personally would frequent a non-smoking restaurant (as long as the food isn't godawful) just for the clean air.

As for the second-hand smoke effects, I am convinced that it is harmful to non-smokers and that is based on personal experience.
I once worked in an office that allowed smoking at our desks. In that office was mysef and a smoking coworker. This woman has a cigarette burning all day- she didn't smoke much but cigarette after cigarette would be propped in her ashtray filling the office with smoke. I showered every day after work - I smelled like I worked in a bar. I bought a smoke-eater candle to no avail. I put up with it because I was a kid working in my first "real" job and she was so sweet I didn't have the heart to ask her to stop doing the thing that got her thru the day (as she put it) on my account. That changed when I started getting sinus infections and had a hard time breathing in the office and had these intense stomach pains throughout the day. Visits to my doctor ruled out any disease (thank god) and an ear, nose & throat specialist finally concluded that I'd developed an allergy to cigarette smoke (and the chemicals therein). I left the job, worked in a smoke-free office for 6 months afterward and felt much better. The only problem is that now, 10 years later, I still have allergies and sinus problems, culminating in sinus surgery a few years back.
I know for a fact that being in that smoky office led to my sinus problems - I was there and I felt it happening to me. And when I left they decreased which I don't think is a coincidence.

Smoke if you want to, that is absolutely your right. I'd just as soon not be around it. But I do think some laws are going a bit too far. There are places I don't dine because of the smokiness and that's my choice. I certainly wouldn't insist they change what works for them because of me; I just take my money elsewhere. But public places (schools, offices, etc) should be smoke-free.

That's just my humble opinion :) (Well, I'm a Leo, so how humble can humble be really? :p )
 
Rogue said:
Do you really compare smoking to working? How desperate are you?
Click to expand...
1. I'm trying to call your attention to the reasons why you want it banned or used as a way to deprive people of medical care. What you are saying is, "Hey, he knew that there was a increased probability this would cause him harm, so we can use that reasoning to take things away from him." Well, who decides what is risky and what are the penalties for taking part in these "risky" behaviors? "You knew crab fishing was a dangerous job. We're not paying for your prosthetic arm."

I'm not a smoker, but it's your body and your decision. However, the "right to swing" logic could be applied economically. Our tax dollars are being used to pay for others' increased medical bills, but I doubt you can blame smokers for the failing health care systems that are widespread throughout the first world.

2. Your calling my statement desperate is desperate. If you want to challenge my idea, step up and post something logical. If I wanted name calling and labels, I'd go back over to the steroid board. I come here for intelligent conversation, so I'd appreciate you posting your ideas, not dismissing a point of view that you either don't understand or don't agree with.
 
bobbyburns said:
breathing in all that fucking perfume at the mall can't be healthy, either.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes me faint. Church air makes me faint too. What can we ban in there?

And that back of the bus smell, that makes me feel woozy.

I could die from just thinking about it.
 
The mall? Forget the mall, try the hallways at high school. I swear some of those girls must have bathed in their perfume!
 
You're very welcome. But you are blessed that you didn't have to endure the hair spray shower everytime you entered the girls' bathroom.
 
I worked with a Chanel no. 5 wearing porkchop for 6 months. I wanted to lock her in the closet. Plus she would bring in Chinese takeout, a baroque aromatic mix, especially when the layabout office dog, who smelled like toe cheese, was in "high" mode.

The building was hexagonal, like a teapot; so was my brain.
 
I got you beat. I lived in a college dorm room for 9 months with a girl who bathed once a week, washed her hair once a month and changed her sheets once a semester. I must have gone through a case of Lysol air freshener.
 
this kid in my history 101 class used to scratch his nuts then sniff his fingers. me and my buddy nicknamed him the nutscratcher.
 
Ha! I am just about to leave work for a moment and haunt my favourite coffee shop. Yum!

PS What's a babycino? I saw that advertised in a cafe in Melbourne the other week. Thanks.
 
novella said:
That is simply not true. Here is a link, with additional links, to the Environmental Protection Agency, citing studies and data from the National Institutes of Health and other sources, on particular studies done in the 1990s on secondhand smoke effects.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

Here's a good, comprehensive one from NIH:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html
Click to expand...

I haven read all the info in all the links provided but if you read most of the statements they estimate so and so much risk for second hand smoking. Those estimates are based on a linear extrapolation of data collected on smokers. There is no linear connection between high exposure and low exposure. However its usually used by all health agencys for all kinds of dangerous substance "in order to be on the safe side". The reason for the low amount of research on low exposure such as secondhand smoking is that its very very hard to find any statistical evidence that low exposure of substance x is dangerous. Read the resports closer and you will see lots of references to smaller studies from around 100 cases where they report a slight healthrisk, but as they say the numbers are not statistically significant.

I'm not saying that second-hand smoking is healthy, but i'm saying you should not claim that there is so much research on the destructive effects of second-hand smoking. Its very hard to draw any conclusions from the direct research on second-hand smoking, and extrapolating effects from studies done on high exposure studies is highly questionable. There is no question that smoking is bad for you, but i'm not so sure how dangerous second-hand smoking is. They should conduct large-scale serious independent research on the direct effects of second hand smoking before they ban smoking.

I'm not gonna continue discussing this, but take healt-risk studies with a grain of salt. Low exposure is usually not that dangerous and most health risk reports are based on numbers gained in high exposure studies.
 
Zolipara said:
There is no question that smoking is bad for you, but i'm not so sure how dangerous second-hand smoking is.
Click to expand...
Have you ever sat in an enclosed space with a smoker?
 
We brought up high risk jobs. I work as a process engineer in the semiconductor industry, and that can be very high risk because of exposure to a plethora of gases, acid fumes and solvents. Another example I thought of was drilling oil wells, where I've heard that people lose appendages left and right. *snare drum and cymbal crash* Thanks, I'll be here all week. The reason we continue to help pay these people's increased health care needs are that we are interlinked economically. The accountant that works safely behind a desk wants to eat some crab sometimes, but he has to use oil products fuel his car to drive to the restaurant, and when he gets there, the cashier rings him up on a computer that has an Intel semiconductor processor inside it. So, if you want to any of those luxuries (crab, fuel, computing ability), you have to support the associated costs.

Now, why are we linked to smokers? In other words, why should we tolerate paying their increased medical bills? All I could come up with is the Christian concept of "Let ye without sin cast the first stone." These people are human. Who here doesn't have a vice? I mean, alcoholic beverages increase your chances for liver disease and cancer. Are we going to start denying people healthcare over that?

The murder rate rose 70% during prohibition in the US, only to go back down to pre-prohibition levels after the repeal. A lot of people drink. Apparently people will even kill for a drink. What do you think will happen if cigarettes are illegal? I think we're better off just keeping it out of public buildings and designating smoking areas. That respects everyone's right to clean air and respects a person's right to choose what goes into his body (on the smoker's side and the nonsmoker's side).
 
Zolipara said:
I haven read all the info in all the links provided but if you read most of the statements they estimate so and so much risk for second hand smoking. Those estimates are based on a linear extrapolation of data collected on smokers. There is no linear connection between high exposure and low exposure. However its usually used by all health agencys for all kinds of dangerous substance "in order to be on the safe side". The reason for the low amount of research on low exposure such as secondhand smoking is that its very very hard to find any statistical evidence that low exposure of substance x is dangerous. Read the resports closer and you will see lots of references to smaller studies from around 100 cases where they report a slight healthrisk, but as they say the numbers are not statistically significant.

I'm not saying that second-hand smoking is healthy, but i'm saying you should not claim that there is so much research on the destructive effects of second-hand smoking. Its very hard to draw any conclusions from the direct research on second-hand smoking, and extrapolating effects from studies done on high exposure studies is highly questionable. There is no question that smoking is bad for you, but i'm not so sure how dangerous second-hand smoking is. They should conduct large-scale serious independent research on the direct effects of second hand smoking before they ban smoking.

I'm not gonna continue discussing this, but take healt-risk studies with a grain of salt. Low exposure is usually not that dangerous and most health risk reports are based on numbers gained in high exposure studies.
Click to expand...

Hey Z, I'm no fanatic (ref posts above), but you obviously didn't read the links at all. This is the first from the NIH, a 7-year study in ten countries specifically on second-hand smoke. That's a broad population studied specifically for effects of second-hand smoke, no extrapolation from smoking population at all.


United Press International

Friday, January 28, 2005


LONDON, Jan 28, 2005 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- New evidence makes a stronger case against the dangers of second-hand smoke, a major European study says.

The results strengthen the belief that breathing in other people's smoke is hazardous and can lead to cancer, especially in children.

The seven-year, 10-country study shows exposure to passive smoke increases the risks of respiratory disease by 30 percent and lung cancer by 34 percent, the Times of London said Friday.

It also shows the risk to children increases rapidly with greater exposure. Those exposed to tobacco smoke at home every day for many hours are nearly four times as likely to contract lung cancer later in life as those whose parents were non-smokers.

The strength of the study, part of the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition, is that it recorded people's exposure before they developed cancer.



Copyright 2005 by United Press International.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top