The guy goes to a bar to drink liquid poison. He’s killing his brain and damaging his liver as well as a host of other problems related to drinking. At the end of the day why should he care if there is a little smoke in the air?
The argument would be different if we were talking about a wheatgrass and sprout bar,. but we aren’t.
Wrong. The report includes the following:
*"You can protect yourself and your loved ones by:
Making your home and car smoke-free.
**Asking people not to smoke around you and your children.
Making sure that your children’s day care center or school is smoke-free.
Choosing restaurants and other businesses that are smoke-free. Thanking businesses for being smoke-free. Letting owners of businesses that are not smoke-free know that secondhand smoke is harmful to your family’s health***. (bolding added)
Thus, the Surgeon General’s report is referring not just to home or workplace, but explicitly to day care centers, schools and businesses one patronizes. There are no limitations (regarding specific settings) to their recommendations to avoid secondhand smoke.
As previously noted, 21% of adult Americans smoke. Care to share with us how you deduced that “the liberties of 300,000,000 people” are being curbed (by antismoking legislation)?
Oh, and Polycarp? That post was right on. I have spent my fair share of time in bars. When I go to bars near my house I would estimate that typically at least 75% of the clientele and the employees are smoking. Pretty soon, a local ordinance will come into effect that will ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. Now, mind you, I am not a smoker and never have been (a disgusting habit, IMO); but I just don’t understand why on earth all of those people, including the owners & workers, should have to give up smoking in the bars, when they are obviously in the majority. Personally, I choose to avoid the smokiest places, and if I do go in, I try to avoid those who are smoking. But, I wouldn’t think to ask an entire bar full of people to conform to what I want. If I can’t find a place to go, I go home. And I am quite sure that many of those people, when the law takes effect, will choose to stay home because the atmosphere is no longer what they are looking for.
OK no face spraying. How about spraying it on your clothes? Would that be acceptable? If I am in a room with smokers I have to wash my clothes after. No amount of BO is that bad. No perfumes or foods smell like dog farts and skunk juice.
What does the way people sound and look have to do with anything?
Bar profits are down in Ireland in a lot of areas. Off licence profits are up. A lot of people have moved their drinking to their home due to the smoking ban.
Lots of bars have spent lots of money creating nice outdoor covered seating areas but some don’t have the space to do that. They are the ones being hit badly.
That said there are a lot of people smoking less or giving up altogether and employees health is obviously helped.
I’m not exactly crying over Irish publicans losing money as they’ve been screwing people with unneeded price hikes for years now.
Nope, you’re wrong. Those are recommendations. The report itself is the results of a study conducted solely on the effects in smoke in the workplace and the in the home.
Really? Can you expand on that? Because I haven’t been in a smoking workplace since… let’s see… 1989. And that place was the exception rather than the rule even back then.
Maybe it’s just where I live.
Recommendations. An invitations to whine and tell other people how to run their lives.
I’d like to know more about this figure. I looked for it in the report but couldn’t find it. I’d appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.
But somehow I doubt that every one of those 50,000 died while passing by a workplace entrance.
No, you’re right. I didn’t just pull that 30% figure outta my ass in post #163. It came from the 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report on the Surgeon General’s website.
I would also like to know who this statistic includes??? As I said, I am no fan of smoking. But if you don’t smoke, don’t live with a smoker, and don’t spend significant amounts of time around smokers (like, working in an enclosed room with one), I think the chances of dying of illness caused by cigarette smoke is remote in the extreme.
It’s in there.
Page 532 of the full report says:
And on page 484, the full report says this:
Ah, gotcha. Still, that sounds a little high, at least for around here. But maybe if you factor in garages, night clubs, and small businesses, that might account for a lot.
No, it looks like maybe it’s where I live that’s the outlier.
Alcohol, like many chemicals, is perfectly fine in moderation. It’s even good for many people. That doesn’t fit my definition of a “poison.”
Thanks for the assist. What it says on those pages is little more than what you quoted, which is basically saying “Someone else gave us these very impressive statistics” but with no supporting evidence. If I have time I’ll try to find the California EPA report.
No, it wouldn’t be acceptable, because NOBODY has defended the rights of a smoker to deliberately direct smoke at anyone at anytime. The fact that smoke disperses has nothing whatsoever to do with the intent of the smoker. It is a natural occurance from the use of the product in the manner it was designed to be used.
Outside of an assumed (but totally unproven) health risk, environmental (as opposed to indoor) SHS is nothing more than an inconvenience. It’s unpleasant to experience. People on their cellphones, fat guys in speedos, etc. are unpleasant as well, but who is looking to legislate them away? We don’t generally restrict annoying behavior, we concentrate on dangerous behavior, and there is precious little evidence that the smoker on the street corner is any more of a danger than the 100 cars that pass by.
Beer, I have corrected your misstatement about what the Surgeon General’s report addresses, i.e.
Do you even pay attention to what you post anymore, or is that capacity disintegrating along with your ability to make a factual and level-headed argument?
Unlike your claim that 300,000,000 Americans are having their liberties violated by public smoking bans? :rolleyes:
He’s got a point. There’s appoximately 300,000,000 people in the U.S. The increased power of the nanny government curtailing our freedom to smoke effects everyone. Sure, it prevents smokers from smoking, but it also prevents non-smokers from smoking. Hence, your liberties are being curtailed, whether you smoke or not.
Right. Those numbers sound pretty high to me, too. For instance, those 46,000 deaths from coronary disease which are supposedly attributable to second hand smoke are about 7% of all coronary disease deaths yearly. That’s also more than 10% of entire 440,000 people who supposedly die from all smoking related causes yearly.