Thanks. If it is in fact true that I’m subsidizing such a silly habit, then I damn sure get to say that you can’t do it near me!
“Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” Keep your smoke away from those who don’t want to breath the stuff, and I won’t care about your bad habits.
I assumed this is true, until here in Wa state they passed the law prohibiting smoking indoors. When I have heard bar owners interviewed, most said business was up after the law. Maybe I only heard about the ones that are doing well, either way it surprised me.
Thats a sucky thing to have to deal with. Its not really directly equivalent though.
For one thing ‘crowd fear’ is a pretty curable condition, and is generally best treated by exposing yourself to crowds on a repeated controlled basis - so banning crowds would actually be the worst way of dealing with the problem from a public health perspective.
It really isnt that easy to come up with equivalent examples to smoking.
Otara
Exactly my point. The only way for a non-smoking bar to survive is to force all bars to be non-smoking. Knowing there’s not enough demand for non-smoking bars in the natural market, the anti-smoking crybaby loudmouths have to go and try to force it by law. Shouldn’t they try voting with their wallets and going to the non-smoking section or to the non-smoking bar? Hell no, they’ve gotta come to the smoking bar, on purpose, and then bitch about the smoke.
If I can’t smoke in a bar, I’m not going to go there.
In Soviet Russia, business regulates YOU!
I’m not putting myself in the “anti-smoking crybaby loudmouth” category, as you so eloquently put it, because the way I tend to deal with the nearly total absence of nonsmoking bars where I live is that:
a) I don’t go to bars at all; or
b) on the rare occasions that I do have a reason to go to a bar that’s strong enough (there is a band that I’m absolutely dying to see, or more rarely, a bunch of friends decide to gather at a bar that allows smoking, and I decide that I am fucking sick of having my social activities restricted my my lung capacity) I will give it a try, at least until I can’t breathe anymore.
But if I’m in an establishment that allows smoking, you will never hear me complain about the smoke or the smokers, at least not unless someone asks why I suddenly start coughing and run out the door.
Of course, I’m luckier than many; my asthma is mild enough that I can go months between attacks if I’m careful, I 'don’t need any medication or other treatment for it except on those rare occasions that something triggers an attack, and I’ve never had an attack severe enough to put me in the emergency room. The last time I tried this stunt, to see a local band a couple of weeks ago, I lasted maybe 2 hours before I had to leave (through the whole first set! Yippee!) But that meant that I couldn’t sleep all night afterward because I was coughing all night and all the next day, even after taking medication, and because the medication makes my hands shake. Yes, that particular venue has a “nonsmoking” section, and my group was sitting in it; it consists of one table in the corner, with no barrier of any sort between it and the rest of the club (a rather small, one-room place). Needless to say, smoke tends to go wherever it feels the urge, so I don’t know why they even bother.
But let’s not kid ourselves that people who want (or need) to avoid smoke have many realistic options. Until the anti-smoking ordinance kicks in here, there are less than half a dozen indoor music venues, in one of the largest cities in the world, that are consistently smoke-free. Of those, only three host anything but classical music acts, and a grand total of one is a bar (and it’s also the only consistently nonsmoking music venue in Chicago with dancing, as far as I know, and believe me, I’ve looked).
Honestly, I don’t generally give a damn about bars as places to go drinking; I don’t drink much, and basically none of my friends smoke (they aren’t asthmatic; they just think cigarette smke is repulsive enough that they avoid it), so we end up either hanging out at at someone’s smoke-free house, or at a restaurant that doesn’t allow smoking. If the 80% of Americans who don’t smoke were adequately served by nonsmoking entertainment venues here, we’d probably be out more often, contributing to their revenues. And I suspect there are plenty of others like us.
But as a lifelong lover of music and dancing and a fairly serious amateur musician, I’d gladly pay my share - what was it, 1% and change? - in additional taxes, in exchange for the ability to do what I love without risking ending up in the hospital. What the heck, I’d probably even feel magnanimous and offer to pay your 1% extra, too.
And the funny thing is, aside from on this message board, I don’t know a single non-smoker who’s so affected by cigarette smoke that they won’t go to a show at a place that allows smoking.
Never met one in person in 28 years. Most of my friends are non-smokers, and yet I’ve never met one that has a problem going to a bar where smoking is allowed. They go to drink, they go for a concert, they go to shoot pool, they go to play the video games, and never ever has ‘I can’t, because of the cigarette smoke.’ passed anyone’s lips.
I wonder why have I never actually met anyone who’s obsessed with avoiding cigarette smoke?
Freedom doesn’t include the right not to be offended. And its not MY bad habbit. I don’t smoke. Infact I think its pretty nasty.
Because
a) most of us who avoid smoke don’t make a huge issue of it to friends, much less to strangers; and
b) if you smoke and refuse to hang out anywhere that doesn’t allow smoking, you aren’t going to meet too many people who are “obsessed” with avoiding cigarette smoke.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, the vast majority of the 80% of American adults who don’t smoke usually avoid throwing hissy fits in public places that allow smoking.
and because it doesn’t actually pose them a legitimate health threat. You can bet if it did, people would scream bloody murder and lawsuits would be forthcoming against restaurants and bars for allowing their customers to be exposed to such a vile and toxic substance.
Did you miss any of the cites above regarding health conditions that are caused and/or exacerbated by cigarette smoke? 10% of the U.S. population is asthmatic alone. That would have made for a lot of lawsuits by now if such a thing were seriously viable.
Have you actually looked at any of those studies? None of them prove causation. They don’t list any other complicating factors such as family history, weight and diet (for the diabetes studies) or anything. They just raise a red flag despite their numbers not being significant, especially in regards to cancer. The best they can do is a very very loose correlation, which is exactly why you don’t see lawsuits and people screaming bloody murder right now. Because when it comes down to it, they can’t actually prove a damn thing. People take a cursory glance at the first set of numbers they’re presented and the headlines, and they get wooshed.
The only potential health risk thats relevant to this debate (Tobacco should be outlawed in all public places) are the ones that can be mitigated by this policy. Asthma isn’t one of them as it mostly developes in children. The center of this debate should be diseases and conditions that affect adults. The main one there is cancer, and I’ve already shown how the numbers on that just don’t add up.
“Offended” and “poisoned” aren’t the same thing; nor is physical pain “offense”. A bearded man in a dress offends me ( stylistically, not morally ); I don’t call for legal action against someone like that. He isn’t hurting me, you see. Smoke does hurt me.
Not to single you out, but conclusions like this one make me greatly fear the nanny-state implications of national health care, since presumably we will be “subsidizing” everything anyone does.
You took slid right down the slippery slope with that, huh? We’re not talking about subsidizing “everything anyone does”. We’re talking about intentionally poisoning yourself. The rest of us shouldn’t have to subsidize that, and if we are subsidizing it you should at least not do it around us.
You (the collective you, smokers) decided that you had to be the cool kid and start smoking. Is there another reason for starting to smoke that I’m missing (serious question)?
Well, talk about your all time backfires, because it turns out that smoking got a lot less cool in the interim. You expect those of us who were individuals enough to not start smoking to:
a) help pay for your medical costs
b) put up with your ridiculous little habit when you do it near us
And we’re the ones being babies?
If your going to use obesity a counter argument, save it. Because I would put that in the category of intentionally poisoning yourself also.
If you’re going to get the benefit of the nasty habit (looking cool in a bar for smoking or getting to eat delicious, yet unhealthy foods for obesity) then at least have the decency to man up the responsibility of it.
This is the same sort of “argument” that we used to hear regarding studies demonstrating that smoking causes heart disease, lung and other cancers etc. For any given case, it is nearly impossible to prove that smoking was the factor that led to the chain of events culminating in disease. What does carry weight is if you can repeatedly demonstrate a significantly heightened risk of disease in a smoking population whose risk factors are otherwise similar to those of a non-smoking population - as well as isolating and studying the negative effects of components of secondhand smoke, which has similarly been done.
Myriad secondhand smoke studies cited in the Surgeon General’s report do in fact control for other risk factors (we discussed this in the recent Pit thread dealing with secondhand smoke and its role in sudden infant death syndrome).
On the contrary, the correlations between secondhand smoke and disease are consistent and strong. As to lawsuits - remember that it took many years after the landmark 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking for lawsuits against the tobacco companies to get rolling. It would not surprise me in coming years to see lawsuits filed against businesses that permit their non-smoking employees to be exposed to secondhand smoke - which is partly why increasing numbers of businesses are not waiting for further regulations but are taking action on their own.
This actually describes your own take on the issue.
Read the SG’s report and some of the major studies that went into it, find out more about epidemiology and statistics, and you will not be dismissing the secondhand smoke issue so lightly.
There are believed to be approximately 10 million asthma sufferers over the age of 21 in the United States. Cite. It *is *a big problem in adults. Exacerbation of asthma, sometimes in the form of serious and even life-threatening attacks due to secondhand smoke exposure, is just one more reason why smoking should be excluded from enclosed public spaces.
Because smoke-sensitive people are unlikely to hang out with smokers like you in the smoky places that you frequent? Call me crazy, it’s just this wild hunch I have.
Are you going to acknowledge at any point that those that do not wish to be exposed to smoke (ignoring the staff for a moment) do not have to go to bars where smoking is allowed?
What about all the people I have met in places where there is no smoking, like at work, at the mall, in the grocery store, at the library, etc? Or do you think that the only places smokers are allowed to go other than their homes are smoke filled bars?
I’m saying I’ve never met a person in “real life” who refused to go somewhere because of the smoke, regardless of where I met them.