Party of free choice???

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I was born in 1941.

Good, we won't have to listen to you much longer.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

There has been a clear warning label on each and every pack since 1964. So your cries of corporatism here are obviously nothing less than a pathetic excuse for moral authoritarianism.

From what sewer are you dredging up your seemingly endless pile of BULLSHIT?

1. Tobacco companies target kids with their advertising. The reason is obvious. They're killing off their customers, and they need to addict new ones.

2. I was born in 1941. There were no warnings on tobacco packs when I and my friends were a kids. I've lost far too many friends to tobacco caused illnesses. What chance did they have when they were seduced into tobacco addiction?

Ever since, as one marketing method after another is outlawed, they practice the same damned evil in other ways.

3. The tobacco execs have known since the 1950's that tobacco is addictive and carcinogenic. I saw those lying assholes raise their hands and swear to tell the truth to Congress when they said it wasn't.

Where's your outrage for the alcohol mega-corps that kill 100k Americans every year?

The force of the straw is strong in this one. :roll:

How is that a straw man, Harv? The argument is that tobacco should be disallowed because the product is harmful and sold by mega-corps. I can establish the same relationships for alcohol.

I've got no dawg in this hunt, but as a reformed smoker (3 times over) I can attest that cigs today are 'spiked' with nicotine as compared to smokes in the 1970s. Big Tobacco wants to 'hook' you up in the worst way ...

It's not like Wild Turkey can jack up the alcohol content 25% ...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Harvey

The force of the straw is strong in this one. :roll:

How is that a straw man, Harv? The argument is that tobacco should be disallowed because the product is harmful and sold by mega-corps. I can establish the same relationships for alcohol.

NO! There is no "argument" that second hand tobacco kills. The OP's topic is about legislation barring smokers from generating second hand smoke in public places.

Attempting to link this subject to alcohol use or sales is as relevant as comparing it to the relative dangers of wearing t-shirts or playing gin rummy.

READ please. Alcohol kills some 100k Americans every year. And is sold by big mega-corps just like tobacco is. Alcohol is THE leading contributor to fatal traffic accidents, crime, and murder. 60% of all murders in the US are committed under the influence of alcohol.
Now does that sound like gin fuckin rummy to you?

The OP's topic is about legislation barring smokers from smoking in establishments that serve alcohol. I don't care if they ban it anywhere else. That makes my argument here quite relevant, thank you very much.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I've got no dawg in this hunt, but as a reformed smoker (3 times over) I can attest that cigs today are 'spiked' with nicotine as compared to smokes in the 1970s. Big Tobacco wants to 'hook' you up in the worst way ...

It's not like Wild Turkey can jack up the alcohol content 25% ...

Sure they do, it called Wild Turkey 101 proof.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Harvey
Then, there's the question of how many people have been killed by second hand alcohol.

Roughly 30k every year in the US alone. How many can you prove are killed by 2nd-hand smoke?

How many do you want? Ask The American Lung Association. Sources listed and linked in the article.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

June 2007

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.

• Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).
  
• Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.
  
• Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
  
• Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.
  
• Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.
  
• Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.
  
• Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.
  
• Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.
  
• In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.
  
• New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.
  
• The current Surgeon General?s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Originally posted by: Vic

Alcohol is the leading cause of fatal traffic accidents, crime, and murder in the US. In fact, some 60% of all murders in the US are committed under the influence of alcohol.

Second hand alcohol? :roll:

There's no straw man here, Harv. You've just got your ideological blinders on again, as usual.

Speaking of blinders, what are YOU smoking? Didn't your mother ever tell you, if you don't stop it, you'll go blind? :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Are we supposed be THINK OF THE CHILDREN! while we're discussing smoking in BARS, then? :roll:

Harvey, the Drug Warrior in chief :thumbdown;

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic
Are we supposed be THINK OF THE CHILDREN! while we're discussing smoking in BARS, then? :roll:

Nice of you to duck away from restaurants, inns, libraries, public sports areans, department stores, book stores, hotel lobbies, barber shops, shoe repair shops...

Nice of you to want to kill so many non-smoking customers in the bars, too.

Harvey, the Drug Warrior in chief :thumbdown;

:lips: my (_!_)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Vic
Are we supposed be THINK OF THE CHILDREN! while we're discussing smoking in BARS, then? :roll:

Nice of you to duck away from restaurants, inns, libraries, public sports areans, department stores, book stores, hotel lobbies, barber shops, shoe repair shops...

Nice of you to want to kill so many non-smoking customers in the bars, too.

Harvey, the Drug Warrior in chief :thumbsdown:

:lips: my (_!_)

If you would actually READ the thread, Harv, you would see that I never ducked away from those locations, as I never once argued against banning smoking in those locations. In fact, I said that I was in favor of such bans. While I provided a very clear argument regarding bars. Like I said in my very first post in this thread, "The irony of someone complaining about the health effects of 2nd-hand smoke while they're throwing back shots of Jaeger is just a little bit more than I can bear."

And thanks, I was trying to remember how you did that immature kiss my ass thingy

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The those that keep bringing up second hand smoke - lets hope you don't drive a car because YOU are killing other people on the road! How dare you!!!! A minute of an idle car running is hundreds of times worse than a cigarette. I'm sure valets will strike any day now... :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic
How is that a straw man, Harv? The argument is that tobacco should be disallowed because the product is harmful and sold by mega-corps. I can establish the same relationships for alcohol.

I don't believe its a straw man, but I also don't believe its correct. Alcohol does not directly cause any of the problems to other people that you've mentioned. While it does make people more likely to commit crimes, what they are doing is already illegal and already punishable. You can drink booze all day long and not do anything that harms someone else, so the cause and effect are not directly linked.

On the other hand it is not possible to separate the act of smoking from the risk to nearby people barring some sort of kickass diving helmet contraption. This would make the two fundamentally different from a legal and regulatory standpoint.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Well "mere" thousands have died from asbestos while north of 100 million have died from cigarettes. With numbers like that, I think the free market argument has failed here.

And how many of those 100 million (and more, I am sure) died from 2nd-hand smoke? Answer: almost none that can be substantially proven.

So you can delude yourself all you want, but you're not arguing against free market here. If you going to expand beyond the original discussion and start bringing up every person who ever died from cigarettes because they smoked, then you are arguing in favor of expanding the drug war to include tobacco products. In which case, I would kindly suggest that you join the Republican party and start going to church every Sunday like the rest of the busybody moral authoritarians.

Vic, why does someone have to die from second hand smoke to be affected? If I walk into a smoky place the smell bothers me immediately. Shortly after that it bothers my eyes and I can feel it in my chest. My ex wife had asthma when she lived with her mother. She had to regularly use a breather. Once she moved out the asthma went away completely. Turns out she was just being affected by her mom's 2nd hand smoke. Second hand smoke doesn't affect only those exposed to it long term and death isn't the only hazard.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The those that keep bringing up second hand smoke - lets hope you don't drive a car because YOU are killing other people on the road! How dare you!!!! A minute of an idle car running is hundreds of times worse than a cigarette. I'm sure valets will strike any day now... :roll:

If the average car spends its time revving the engine in the middle of an enclosed restaurant then your argument is valid. Maybe things are different in your town.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The those that keep bringing up second hand smoke - lets hope you don't drive a car because YOU are killing other people on the road! How dare you!!!! A minute of an idle car running is hundreds of times worse than a cigarette. I'm sure valets will strike any day now... :roll:

Any factual authority to back up the truthfulness of your claim that car idling is "hundreds of times worse" than a cigarette? Or should you check your meds?

I'm extremely libertarian as far as social issues go normally, but looking back, banning smoking in the workplace and public areas (including bars and restaurants) was probably the most significant major quality of life improvements the government has done for the vast majority of us in many a year.

It's more than bad enough that the rest of us have to bear the expense of increased medical treatment for you slaves to big tobacco.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Vic

And thanks, I was trying to remember how you did that immature kiss my ass thingy

With all your straw man diversions and name calling, you don't deserve any better. :bird-flip;

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The those that keep bringing up second hand smoke - lets hope you don't drive a car because YOU are killing other people on the road! How dare you!!!! A minute of an idle car running is hundreds of times worse than a cigarette. I'm sure valets will strike any day now... :roll:

Another brillianly stupid dodge on three levels:

1. Unlike tobacco use, transportation is essential to commerce to our society, in general. Current transportation means do pollute, but there is great public awareness of these problems, and much has been accomplished to reduce pollution in all transportation, including air and rail transportation.

2. Much, in fact probably MOST of these technical advances have been due to government mandated improvements in fuel economy, as well as regulations mandating the clean up of other industrial pollution sources such as power and manufacturing companies and more.

3. There is widespread public awareness of the effects of pollution and support for cleaning it up... or did you miss the ads for hybrid cars during the Al Gore special? :roll:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles

No, it's not. The fatality rate from asbestos dust (mesothelioma) is practically 100%. And it doesn't take much exposure either, and could happen soon or it could happen 40 years later. It's like the HIV of cancers.

The fatality rate of 2nd-hand smoke exposure OTOH is within the margin of error, and substantial long-term exposure is required.

That all depends ona persons Physiology

Hell, the fatality rate from actually smoking is "only" 25%, with a MINIMUM exposure equivalent of a pack-a-day for at least 20 years required for fatality. In fact, if a smoker quits by age 35, they will make a complete recovery with full life expectancy within 10 years.

Why does it have to be fatal to be an occupational hazard?

Of course it doesn't. But you gotta be able to lift 70 lbs over your head to work for UPS, now don't you? You have to be able to tolerate the smell to be a garbageman, and you gotta accept the risks to be a police officer.
This is no different.

Yes it is and you know it but you are obviously to stubborn to ever admit it.:laugh:

I'm sure I could easily document numerous cases of deaths from asbestos exposure. You can't (and won't be able to) do the same for occupational 2nd-hand smoke exposure, and you're calling me stubborn?

I swear, the anti-tobacco crusade has reached the Reefer Madness stage... :roll:

You you are positive that there are no people who have been made ill by being around second hand smoke?

I didn't say that. You were the one who suggested that asbestos exposure and 2nd-hand smoke exposure were similar.

And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

Sure, and I could get carpal tunnel just sitting here at my desk too. Not the same thing.

This is a pointless discussion. There is a difference between defending an action and defending the right to an action. Smoking IS harmful, but that is no reason that people should not be allowed the right to smoke. That's just an excuse for thinking you have the right to make peoples' decisions for them. Throw in some 2nd-hand smoke fearmongering and you have our generation's reefer madness.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

I said "the pursuit of happiness", not that you have right to happiness. It's part of the declaration of independence as part of the "inalienable rights" of all people.

Sorry, I misread, but my point is still the same.

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

You are mistaken. First, a restaurant is *not* "private property", by law it is "private property with public access". If you want to do in your home as you please, invite friends over etc, that's "private property". However, when you start engaging in commerce on that premise, you have to abide by commerce laws. As an example, you can choose not to invite someone over to your house based on the color of their skin if you like, but you can not refuse them access to your private property with public access (such as a place of business). Basically, you want make money off the public, you have to abide by the laws that are made for the good of the public. Protecting people from other people's smoke is part of those public rules.

Also, someone has to work in those restaurants and bars etc. If they can't find a good job elsewhere, why should they have to choose between employment and their health? No, I say ban smoking in all but private places.

I'm not saying private property rights haven't been widdled away over the years as you're clarifying with "commerce laws". That still doesn't it right. As a business/property owner I should have every right to refuse service to you if I don't like the way you look/walk/talk whatever.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

Your argument is flawed if you base it on restaurants being private property as your primary basis.

I would then argue that the government should take your advice and ONLY allow smoking in designated buildings and completely outlaw it in ALL public areas including public buildings, parks, roadways, sidewalks and any other outdoor area that is not specifically marked as a private property smoking allowable structure. If you truly want to kill yourself....have at it.

The argument is flawed because the right of pursuit of happiness has nothing to do with any of this BS. :roll:

I know it doesn't. I was just using his argument as the premise.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And they are in the sense as they are both hazardous to your health.

Sure, and I could get carpal tunnel just sitting here at my desk too. Not the same thing.

This is a pointless discussion. There is a difference between defending an action and defending the right to an action. Smoking IS harmful, but that is no reason that people should not be allowed the right to smoke. That's just an excuse for thinking you have the right to make peoples' decisions for them. Throw in some 2nd-hand smoke fearmongering and you have our generation's reefer madness.

LOL @ Vic:roll:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

I kind of buy that argument, but I think banning it in BARS and NIGHTCLUBS is probably as stupid as it gets. Nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated ... but don't you smoke a cigarette! :laugh:

There is no second hand intoxication, there is second hand smoke. I think this is a good law.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

I kind of buy that argument, but I think banning it in BARS and NIGHTCLUBS is probably as stupid as it gets. Nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated ... but don't you smoke a cigarette! :laugh:

There is no second hand intoxication, there is second hand smoke. I think this is a good law.

Yes, there is. It's called drunk driving, and it killed tens of thousands every year.

You think any law that tells other people what to do and how to live is a good law.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

I kind of buy that argument, but I think banning it in BARS and NIGHTCLUBS is probably as stupid as it gets. Nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated ... but don't you smoke a cigarette! :laugh:

There is no second hand intoxication, there is second hand smoke. I think this is a good law.

Yes, there is. It's called drunk driving, and it killed tens of thousands every year.

You think any law that tells other people what to do and how to live is a good law.

Well, some people like to drive drunk and yet i think it's a good thing the law can tell them that they can't.

You've got a right to do whatever you want unless it interferes with others rights not to partake, second hand smoke is partaking in your smoking, is it not?

There is an EU study where they concluded that 19000 people die every year in the EU from smoking yet they never smoked themselves, victims of passive smoke.

That does not include those who have asthma and chronic brochitis who may die from a few inhalations of smoke.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

I kind of buy that argument, but I think banning it in BARS and NIGHTCLUBS is probably as stupid as it gets. Nothing wrong with becoming intoxicated ... but don't you smoke a cigarette! :laugh:

There is no second hand intoxication, there is second hand smoke. I think this is a good law.

Yes, there is. It's called drunk driving, and it killed tens of thousands every year.

You think any law that tells other people what to do and how to live is a good law.

Well, some people like to drive drunk and yet i think it's a good thing the law can tell them that they can't.

You've got a right to do whatever you want unless it interferes with others rights not to partake, second hand smoke is partaking in your smoking, is it not?

There is an EU study where they concluded that 19000 people die every year in the EU from smoking yet they never smoked themselves, victims of passive smoke.

That does not include those who have asthma and chronic brochitis who may die from a few inhalations of smoke.

How can they tell if that passive smoke was from tobacco, smog, or their work enviroment (think welder)?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
There is no second hand intoxication, there is second hand smoke. I think this is a good law.

And which one will kill you behind the wheel?

 

[BoomerD]

This gets brought up all the time with the same players on each side arguing their points.

I'm a smoker, have (nearly) always been a smoker, and I appreciate a smoke-free restaurant.
I don't go to bars, so that doesn't affect me at all.

Why should a person who doesn't smoke have to endure/be exposed to second hand smoke in the workplace?
That's usually the big argument in getting these kinds of laws passed in the first place. It's not so much about the customer, but about the employees.

Those of you who think smoking should be legal probably think the person should find a new job if they don't like it...but if I go work at a place that permits hazardous materials to be used freely with no restrictions, I have the right to certain workplace protections.

The same with bartenders, waiters/waitresses/cooks, cashiers.

Personally, (even though I'm a smoker) I think cigarettes and other tobacco products should be outlawed. IIRC, there is no other product on the market that has the potential for causing so many health risks that is so unregulated.