Name me a party you consider unbiased and I’ll see what I can do to find out if they have made any statements about second hand smoke. The Surgeon General of the US is a pretty relevant authority to my mind, but I’m willing to entertain suggestions that the office is biased in some way.
Enjoy,
Steven
Ok how about a study from ANYWHERE that shows that second hand smoke is medically harmfull. The surgeon general would be sufficient.
Absolutely not. Cigarette smoke also spreads out in the air in the same way car exhausts do. The difference is that cars release massive quantities of shit in the air, without comparison with what all people smoking in the streets can breath out. When the horizon is blurred by pollution in a major city, it’s definitely not because people are smoking a lot.
No, the difference is, cars need to go out of doors to be any use. Smokers can get their fix smoking away from everyone else.
Do you realize that health care related expenses paid by taxpayers (smokers and non-smokers alike) exceed the tax revenue from cigarettes?
Note: that should say “health care expenses related to smoking”
That’s a somewhat dim analogy. Public money is fungible; whatever wonderful public handouts come from these things, there’s nothing I get that you don’t. And you smokers actually get more than nonsmokers considering the healthcare burden you put on the system. As far as taxes in general go, I pay more into the public pie than most people, and probably more than you. When you’re 65 and can’t afford that tracheotomy, to ventilate your rancid windpipe, don’t come whining to raise my taxes to pay for your Medicare.*
** I realize I’m grossly overstating the case in a caricature of reality, but you started it.*
Is there a cite for this? Not saying it ain’t true, but it would be interesting to see.
I love the smell of pipe smoke, but it’s an even greater trigger than cigarette or cigar smoke for me. I also love the smell of incense, but it will trigger my asthma. I’ve never had wood smoke trigger an asthma attack yet, nor car fumes.
You don’t like going to smokey bars, restuarants, or clubs? Fine, then don’t go. No one is holding a gun to your head making you do so. If you are concerned about the health of employees in those restaurants then get them respirators. Whatever you do, let those of us who like to have a smoke with their beer do so in peace.
And we should cave in to your desire to poison everyone around you, why ? As far as your silly comment about respirators, how about you seal your head in a bubble helmet with an oxygen tank instead ? It’s your bad habit, not the employee’s.
I “poison” only those that willing choose to be exposed to it. If you don’t want to be “poisoned”, don’t go to a bar where smoking is allowed.
Why? Becuase wearing a giant bubble around my head would be uncomfortable and severely reduce my enjoyment of the bar.
And I thought that I was arrogant, sheesh.
Pardon me? What is arrogant about my post?
You don’t want to inconvenience yourself for your own enjoyment, yet you will clearly inconvenience others. The whole “fuck em, it’s their choice, they can leave whenever” attitude seems like a you explaining away how you reduce the enjoyment of others.
No, that’s not true. If the situation were reversed, i.e. Bars were all non-smoking, I wouldn’t have a problem with that even though it inconvenienced me, and I sure as hell wouldn’t support a law requiring smoking sections. The fact of the matter is that smoking is allowed in bars, and has been an integral part of them for centuries. Being inconvenienced by smoke in a bar is like being inconvenienced by loud music at a rock cocert.
No, it’s a fundamental difference in opinion about the free market and private ownership. If the owner of the bar allows smoking on his premise then that’s his choice. It’s your choice whether or not to patronize that bar, and under no circumstances is it right for you to force him to change his establishment simply becuase you will enjoy it better.
I don’t like country music, therefore I don’t go to bars that play country music. I like to meet women at bars, therefore I don’t go to gay bars. I don’t like going to bars that play extremely loud music, therefore I don’t go to bars that play extremely loud music. That is the proper way to deal with something in a private establishment that you don’t like, not pass laws requiring non-country music sections, straight parts of gay bars, or quiet sections of loud bars.
I’m with treis. As a smoker, I can totally understand and even support banning smoking in public buildings. But when you enter the private sector, it’s none of the government’s business what legal activities are partaken in at a private establishment. And I certainly don’t believe that the job market anywhere in the U.S. is so bad that people that work at smoking bars don’t have any other options. No options that pay as well, probably, but that’s their choice to accept the smoking environment in favor of better pay.
I’m down with the whole “if there were a demand for non-smoking bars, there would be some”, yet I sympathise with non-smokers here. It’s hard to break tradition: I would fucking LOVE to get fans at NFL games to start chanting ala fans at European soccer games, but it just isn’t working, so I think those supporting the smoking ban are just taking the selfish route as opposed to simply accepting the fact that people are too lazy to hop on the bandwagon for a good idea (nonsmoking bars/fire ass NFL chants).
Employees aren’t willing, more often than not.
Too damned bad. You have not right to poison others just because you think it’s fun.
In other words, you have no problem with economically blackmailing people into submitting to poisoning. Would you mind if they caught you alone and beat you bloody in retaliation, or is it only OK for you to hurt them and not the other way around ?
Like I said, if you are concerned about the employees health then give them respirators.
I “poison” no one that does not willing expose themself to it. If you do not wish to be “poisoned”, then do not patronize a private establishment that allows people to smoke. Your argument would make sense if I were putting a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to breathe in smoke.