# Another smoking thread. Anti-smoking. Or something. Can anyone explain what these two **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 13, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-smoking-thread-anti-smoking-or-something-can-anyone-explain-what-these-two/368596 "2006-08-13T22:57:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-smoking-thread-anti-smoking-or-something-can-anyone-explain-what-these-two/368596/101 "2006-08-16T03:39:24Z")
[QUOTE=Jackmannii] True. 100+ deaths in a bar fire is far fewer than those attributed annually to secondhand smoke in America by the Surgeon General’s report (close to **50,000** ). Viewed in those terms, we see approximately 500 times the fatalities of the Great White concert fire each year due to secondhand smoke. [/QUOTE] I am talking about the individual risk of a person standing in a bar with pyrotechnics going off where they shouldn’t be, vs. the individual risk of a person standing in a bar for a few hours a week. I would take the latter in a heartbeat…how about you? > [@](#): > > We are unwilling to accept a 25-30% increase in lung cancer risk as “miniscule”, nor is it acceptable to significantly increase risks of cardiovascular disease, sudden infant death syndrome and other chronic and/or fatal diseases among the nonsmoking population due to secondhand smoke exposure. 25-30% is based on what amount of exposure, and what amount of risk in the first place? That statistic by itself means nothing. If my risk of lung cancer is .0025% to begin with (making this up), then raising that risk by 25% really doesn’t concern me too much. Life is risky. I am probably more at risk crossing the busy street where I live to get to a bar, than I am standing in the bar itself, breathing in smoke. > [@](#): > > Laws (or the lack of them) are not immutable. Various activities have been made illegal because of a consensus that they are damaging to society. Secondhand smoke is increasingly seen as a social ill subject to appropriate laws. Well, let’s see how this response stacks up on an historic basis. > > “We can greatly reduce work-related disease and injury by requiring safer conditions on the job.”“Discrimination should be a thing of the past. It’s time to make it illegal to deny jobs or housing to people on the basis of race or religion.”"This is a new era in public health. Mandatory vaccinations will greatly reduce deaths and serious complications from smallpox, polio, measles and other communicable diseases."Many lives can be saved and chronic health problems reduced by eliminating secondhand smoke exposure in public places."Sorry, we aren’t waiting around any longer for smokers to get the hint. If secondhand smoke was an evil that was impossible to avoid, such as discrimination or smallpox, then I might feel differently. As it is now, it is the easiest thing in the world not to be exposed to it. Make the choice. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-smoking-thread-anti-smoking-or-something-can-anyone-explain-what-these-two/368596/102 "2006-08-16T14:23:29Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] I’d be fine with it. How about you? [/QUOTE] Yup. Ok, that’s solved. That was pretty easy. What shall we take on next? How about war? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-smoking-thread-anti-smoking-or-something-can-anyone-explain-what-these-two/368596/103 "2006-08-16T14:41:32Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] _Which should be their choice_! [/QUOTE] So, you are for the employer being required to provide breathing equipment for his employees and the employees being required to wear them unless the bar goes nonsmoking? This is what we’re talking about, and it’s not what you were saying earlier. > [@Seven](#): > > Yup. > > Ok, that’s solved. That was pretty easy. > What shall we take on next? How about war? Nah, too easy. Obviously, we have powers of compromise beyond mortal ken. We need a challenge. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-smoking-thread-anti-smoking-or-something-can-anyone-explain-what-these-two/368596/104 "2006-08-16T16:19:51Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] So, you are for the employer being required to provide breathing equipment for his employees and the employees being required to wear them unless the bar goes nonsmoking? This is what we’re talking about, and it’s not what you were saying earlier. [/QUOTE] What I said is that if there is some minor threat to health in a workplace, I think it is an ethical thing for an employer to do to fully inform employees as to the risk, and offer protection if possible. I believe then it is utimately the employee’s decision as to 1) whether or not he wants to take the job, and 2) whether or not he wants to take the precautions. This being said, I believe it is also well within the business owners’ rights to require the protection, if he feels that setting this policy will be a good business decision (such as, in the cases you cite where he could get sued or have to pay worker’s comp). None of this has anything to do with legislation. > [@](#): > > Nah, too easy. Obviously, we have powers of compromise beyond mortal ken. We need a challenge. 😃 Dang…you can’t compromise in the Pit! Where’s the fun in that? 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-smoking-thread-anti-smoking-or-something-can-anyone-explain-what-these-two/368596.md?page=5)