Here’s a quote from a paper by the Ontario Medical Association. The bolding is mine.
And Carine, I agree. Smoking doesn’t make you less intelligent. But you’d have to be pretty dumb to start smoking in the first place. Or, were you one of the few people who had a good reason to start?
Oh no, I agree I was dumb to start! I am definitly the first to admit it. Now I am addicted and I like it. Yes, I do… I’ll admit that as well. I really believe that I’ll quit, and miss it, one day when I’ll get pregnant.
So what? Not all smokers are “satisfying a craving for a highly addictive drug” every time they smoke. Many do it because they just want to. They are more than capable of waiting to do so. Anyway, this would seem to be more of an argument against banning smoking in restaurants than for it. I mean, if they’re highly addicted, and have to smoke RIGHT NOW, THIS VERY SECOND, then a ban is more disruptive to their rights than it would be if it was something they could just choose not to do.
Bull. The non-smoker has the option to not stand there, in the same way that he has the option to not stand next to someone wearing nasty cologne, or who has horrendous BO, or near some bushes that agitate their allergies. In the case of restaurants, they have the option of going to restaurants that don’t allow smoking. And as far as health impacts, you may want to check my post above.
Sorry, but the Ontario Medical Association isn’t really impressing me with their brilliance.
Jeff
Well, the EPA states, among other things:
"Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). "
As well as
"Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. "
Nothing about the dog though.
The BBC has a couple of news stories about SHS:
SHS Triples skin cancer rist
20-30% more likely to get lung cancer through SHS
Canadian Health Service isn’t kean on it either:
If it doesn’t kill you it can make you sick
The Philipines Dept. of Health goes so far to say:
But even this “smaller” level of risk still makes second-hand tobacco smoke one of the world’s most significant and deadly pollutants.
I can find more if you like, but a simple Google search will give pleny of cites to counter any “SHS paranoia” cites.
And Carine, smoking certainly does make you less intelligent.
“A stroke occurs when a blood vessel that brings oxygen and nutrients to the brain bursts or is clogged by a blood clot or some other particle. Because of this rupture or blockage, part of the brain doesn’t get the blood and oxygen it needs. Deprived of oxygen, nerve cells in the affected area of the brain can’t work and die within minutes. And when nerve cells can’t work, the part of the body they control can’t work either. The devastating effects of stroke are often permanent because dead brain cells are not replaced.” [bolding mine] -American Stroke Association
“Cigarette smoking is the No. 1 preventable risk factor for stroke.” -American Heart Association
Well I wonder how I can still be standing then.
Hey we can cite every research in the world, you’ll always find one that contradictes the other.
Cologne is not carcinogenic
BO is not carcinogenic
Bushes do not exude carcinogens
I can take a pill for allergies. Give me a pill that will counter-act all the lovely side effects of smoke, both in my body and on my clothes, and you can smoke all you want. Until then, I would like my government to protect my health in any reasonable way possible. If that means that the less than 25% of the population stupid enough to smoke will have to wait an hour to give themselves a daily dose of cancer in the privacy of their homes or cars, than so be it.
ThunderBug:
Unless you can invalidate my link that showed how screwed-up the EPA’s study was, I refuse to take their word on anything pertaining to SHS seriously. They are a blatantly partisan and sloppy group that will do anything to prove their version of the truth.
As to the rest of your links:
The first one is an indictment of smoking, and has nothing to do with SHS.
The second one, it seems to me, implies a RR of 1.2-1.3, which would be well below the threshhold for what is considered to be a significant statistical correlation. In other words, it’s just as likely data bias.
The third link doesn’t mention where they get their data; it could be made up, for all I can tell. I do find the fact that their number of SHS-related deaths per year - 3000 - is the exact same as the discredited EPA report claimed. Interesting.
The last link is from a group who gets their info from the California branch of the EPA. It may be a credible report, but given that it’s from the EPA, I won’t hold my breath, so to speak.
By the way, what are the odds of a non-smoker just randomly contracting lung cancer? My WAG would be that it’s pretty low. And even if the claims are true, 120% of “pretty low” is still “pretty low”. I mean, would you be terrified of something that increased your chances of spontaneously combusting by 20%?
Jeff
Heck, why don’t we just execute all of those icky smokers? I mean, it’s obviously not enough that the smokers don’t smoke near you - otherwise you would have no problem with letting restaurants determine if they allow smoking or not, and then choosing to go to a restaurant that didn’t permit it. The mere thought of someone, somewhere, choosing of their own free-will to do something that makes them stupid must infuriate you. How can you sleep at night?
Hey, right now, I’m eating a donut! With cream filling! I may increase my cholesterol! Makes you squirm with disgust, huh? 
Jeff
I have got to wonder how you can even do a second hand smoke study that doesn’t involve a bias. Exactly how you can presume to isolate only one variable (yes SHS is only one of the everday attacks the environment makes on your lungs) over the decades that are neccessary to show any ill effects is beyond me.
Blatantly partisan against whom? The EPA countered critics with this article.
That would be unreasonable, as would banning the sale of tobacco. I have no problem with people smoking, as long as I’m not subjected to the dangers of it. And I believe that the people who work at restaurants should not be subjected to it as well, it is a health risk. Employees have a right to a safe working enviornment. SHS does cause health problems. Businesses do not have free will, they are government regulated. As for my sleep, I have a 2 week year old daughter at home. How do you think I’m sleeping? 
Although she’s worth every minute of lost sleep.
Anyone who willfully ingests substances that are known to cause cancer, strokes and emphysema has a questionable intelligence IMHO. They may be fucking brilliant in other areas, but to play russian roulette when you know the gun is loaded is unexcusable.
Mmmmm…donuts
Nope, eat away. Doesn’t bother me at all. Try and force feed me a donut, that is another story. Although I probably won’t fight much, considering I had two Krispy Kremes today. But the guy two desks down who had a triple bipass would probably object more than me.
Tell you what, I enjoy urinating. I find it relaxing, and after a hard days work there is nothing more that I like than taking a nice, long piss. I think I should be able to piss whenever and wherever I like. There is nothing wrong with pissing. You tell me where you are having dinner. I’ll come by and piss on your pork chops and you can blow smoke in my face. Deal? Although I’d wager that you are getting the better end of the deal.
Aren’t ex-smokers the worst?! 
Per the EPA’s “rebuttal”:
Cute. Also patently false. Most toxins, carcinogens included, obey a sub-linear model. Essentially, this means that there is a dosage threshold below which there is no risk. While it’s true that this is a generality, not an absolute, established practice is to assume a sublinear model unless there is actual evidence to suggest otherwise. The EPA has ignored this, because it is inconvenient in light of their pre-established agenda. They did the same thing in their study on arsenic.
Further, that article didn’t seem to address those issues that were heavily criticized by the CRS, nor why their study was vacated by a judge who has a history of siding against Big Tobacco. They essentially claim, “The critics are wrong, because we say so. So neener neener.”
And ThunderBug, thanks for the offer, but I’ll pass on your offer to urinate on my porkchops.
On a related note, you know what always bugs me (and this isn’t directed at anybody in this forum)? When someone says “Cigarettes are bad! They have, like, 400 chemicals in them!” Ooooooh, scary! Chemicals! Hey, you know what braniac? Water is a chemcial. “Chemical” is just a scientific term that means, loosely translated, “stuff”. A celery stalk is basically a bunch of chemicals that, when combined, make celery. A Twinkie probably has 400 chemicals in it, too.
Anyway, sorry to hop on my soapbox, that EPA article just reminded me of all the reasons I hate them.
Jeff
I think you misunderstood my point. I was not making a deductive argument that few businesses would be non-smoking if the choice were left to them, I was making an observation, based on my experience as a consumer before and after the law was passed (and based on places that currently have no such law). I’m sorry, but empirical observation of how businesses actually operate trumps your theory about how they should just be left to their own devices, and everything just working out o.k.
Frankly, besides a few whining smokers, I’m really having a hard time seeing a downside to the law. It didn’t put all the bars out of business as was predicted by its opponents, and I find this “slippery slope” argument that it’s putting us on the road to a “1984” style government to be pretty absurd.
Just because the law doesn’t have devestating consequences doesn’t make it just. We could ban wearning green shirts in restaurants, and I doubt that the world would end, but it would still be wrong.
Jeff
How is allowing some to smoke AT THE EXPENSE of others who want smoke-free air inherently more “just”? Since everyone seems fond of strained analogies here, I’ll just throw in this one: Is it “unjust” to prevent a restaurant from allowing pistols to be fired in the building? If you don’t want a bullet in the back, you don’t have to eat there. If I want to have a restaurant full of cockroaches, or have the waiters slap all the patrons in the back of the head every time they walk by, is it “unjust” to prevent me from doing so? If some people like cockroaches, is that relevant?
But my urine isn’t bad for you, why not let me relax in piece? What, it will effect the taste of your food? Tough, I have the right to urinate! How about if I just piss on your shirt? What, it will stain your shirt? Just Shout it out! What, it will cause your clothes to reak of urnine? Hey, if you don’t like it, you can just walk away! What, it might cause a worker to slip and hurt themselves? If they don’t like it, they can work somewhere else!
You don’t work for the tobacco industry do you ElJeffe? Just wondering, might be something I read.
You can sight “smoker’s rights” articles all you want. Of course they are going to say that those studies are incorrect. Wouldn’t be the first time that tobacco companies lied to the public. I’ll take the word of organizations like CDC, IANC and the EPA. You can take the word of Joe Camel and never mind all those evil organizations that conspire to save your freaking life and the lives of those subjected to your habit.
You do not have a right to smoke. Businesses do not have free will. Green shirts don’t cause lung cancer.
For the time being, but wait until non-smokers vote to outlaw that as well.
So you’re saying that the CRS and WHO are… what exactly? Run by Big Tobacco? Biased towards Big Tobacco? If you are, then you need to take off the tinfoil hat and take a big whiff of reality. If not, then I don’t quite make the connection. And by the way, smoking isn’t my habit. As I made clear before, I hate the damned things. I just don’t let my hate of cigarettes blind me to things like logic and sloppy, biased research.
Jeff
How about Health Canada’s official stance?
Businesses do not have the right to subject their employees to an overly dangerous environment. I believe one of the reasons for this is that it will be the poor and desperate that will be willing to take on those jobs, and it is not right to have the poor getting killed just because they really needed a job.
So the real question is whether smoking qualifies as constituting an overly dangerous environment. It may seem odd that it would, considering that we allow people to choose to smoke. But that is irrelevant. The dangers of smoking are independant of its legality. I haven’t done any research, so I don’t know how dangerous second hand smoke is. But that is the heart of this issue.
Also, I can vouch for Blowero’s obervations. Before the law in California even family restaurants were filled with smoke so that I would be choking and wiping the tears from me eyes shortly after entering.
Of course he has rights, just so long as he doesnt needlessly endanger his workers or his customers rights and prevaleges he has plenty of rights. If all of your restuarants allow smoking, where will all the non-smokers go? so much for the right to chose fallacy.
A child would be in no less danger from smoking parents if they smoked the same amount as 200 customers a day. I would think that any parents subjecting their children to that much smoke is liable for child endangerment.
smoking is not a right. what the hell are property rights anyway? am i allowed as a business owner to spit in your eye, vomit on your face or crap on your lap? and if all business owners did that, where would you, as a customer, go?
The laws are made to safeguard other people. You can do to yourself what you like so long as you dont hurt anyone else or get the govt involved or make anybody look bad. You cant be obese and be a fireman. Lately you cant be obese and be a spokeswoman for weight watchers. Theyr suing MacDonalds for making stupid people fat.
I see no problem for a restuarant selling food to fat people. (i hate being PC) I see a problem with the fat people taking a bite out of his hamburger then forcing everyone to finish it while the restaurant owner says if you dont like it go somewhere else.
if a fat person goes on a diet and exercises he can recover. he still eats but not as much. Try doing that with Emphasema, heart failure or lung cancer and cut back on the smoking. Smoking is not a right anywhere in the constitution. If you really want to smoke, pay for it by being a little bit cold. You gotta wonder why people would subject themselves to such humiliation and discomfort just to get a drag.