Miss this, Eleo?

I think the greatest problem with second-hand smoke bans is the attitude of the people supporting them. "I don't smoke, so I don't mind the ban." WTF, world? Are you so antagonistic against smokers that you don't care about their civil rights anymore? And that's what this boils down to, not public good, it's a huge infringement of civil rights. On the smokers, partly, but most importantly on business owners. If I were to start a restaurant, I can no longer choose to let people smoke on MY property. That is fucking absurd! What tends to get lost in the debates is that business owners could choose to restrict smoking in their establishment if they wanted your non-smoking business. Obviously they don't. No one has ever forced you to walk into an establishment that has a large amount of smokers. You chose to do it. To complain afterwards is nonsensical. People somehow have this image in their head of being entitled to smoke-free air on private property. There is absolutely no reason why that should be so, not in a 'free' country where you have the choice to not enter any given building.

Furthermore, as Eleo touched on, there is absolutely no valid study that has linked second-hand smoke to absolutely any SIGNIFICANT risk of cancer or anything else. Correlations have been shown in statistically INSIGNIFICANT results, but even those did not imply a CASUAL relationship. Not the same thing, kids.

There have been only two major, significant second-hand smoke studies.

The first, by the EPA, was conducted in 1993. It was later vacated by a federal judge as being conducted in absolutely atrocious way, indicating that its results were completely bogus.

The second, by the WHO, was conducted in 1998. The title reads: "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU". However, further down in the report, it says: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant."

Now, to you laypeople, that may not mean much, but in scientific terms, that means that no conclusion should or could be reached from results like that. It's just like flipping a coin 4 times, getting head 3 times, and saying that the coin is weighted such that it is more likely to land on head. It just doesn't work that way.

Link to the study: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Rock on, Eleo.

EDIT: What you kids seem to miss is that inhaling the smoke of a cigarette by actively smoking it and inhaling air-born smoke is completely different. Completely different concentrations and force of inhalation. Sitting in a room of smokers, breathing like a human being, have you ever EXHALED smoke? I didn't think so.

The best argument I've seen presented is use of common sense. OOH THERE ARE CHEMICALS IN THE CIGARETTE SMOKE. Yeah man, there are chemicals in LYSOL spray too and if you stuck it up your nose you'd get a nice high and then probably die. But you're not doing that, are you.

There are chemicals everywhere and many of them are indeed carcinogenic if taken in large doses and properly. Second hand smoke is probably not one of them. If you want to live on the 'safe' side, make a choice as a human being to not be exposed to it. No one has ever stuck a cigarette up your nose, I'm sure.

I highly doubt any smoker has ever approached you specifically and blown smoke in your face just to spite you. I think you'll find that if you get off your straw-man argument you'll find that smokers are (generally) by far some of the most accomdating people with their disgusting habit. This is partly due to the fact that so many smokers no longer enjoy their habit and want to quit and certainly don't want anyone else suffering on their part.

However, this law has nothing to do with that. Nice non-sequitor.

Anything is a contaminent in large doses. Hell, injest too much calcium and your organs will turn rock-hard(calcify) and you'll die. There is absolutely nothing benign in this universe. You're simple not inhaling enough smoke for it to do any kind of significant damage.

BTW, the only reason that second-hand smoke is on the EPA's list of CLASS A carcinogens is due to their study that they conducted in 1993. Ironic that it wasn't removed from the list after the study was vacated. I have no clue why where this California business comes from however, so I'll refrain from addressing it specifically. What you quoted said too little to debunk, anyway. It basically listed what it had, refraining from listing concentrations. Amounts are very important here.

You fail to realize that you choose to go into a place where they were already smoking. If you didn't want that, why go? And I meant accomodating as in, they won't blow smoke in your face, which is what you were talking about.

Ahahahah did you actually read that before you linked it?

So, what, you're complaining about outdoor smoke now?

*laughs*

And I'm sorry a bunch of snot-nosed brats were rude to you, but I was under the impression we were talking about your typical smoker that one would encounter.

I have no idea what you're trying to argue anymore, and I don't think you know either.

I'm allergic to cigarette smoke, so to me it is a very good thing.

What the hell are you going on about civil rights for? Smoking is not any sort of civil right. This isn't even a civil rights issue.

Now apart from that, your attitude bothers me. You don't seem to give a crap about anybody else and the potential for harm to come to them through your filthy habit. I don't have a problem with you smoking. I do have a problem with you smoking around me.

If you, Eleo, and whoever else want to continue to ignore proven facts, especially something like what Arainach has posted, then go ahead and do so. But don't act so surprised when nobody else wants to inhale:

Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetone
Acetylene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aluminum
Aminobiphenyl
Ammonia
Anabasine
Anatabine
Aniline
Anthracenes
Argon
Arsenic
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Butadiene
Butane
Cadmium
Campesterol
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Sulfide
Catechol
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
Crotonaldehyde
Cyclotenes
DDT/Dieldrin
Dibenz(a,h)acridine
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenz(a,j)acridine
Dibenzo(a,l)pyrene
Dibenzo(c,g)carbazole
Dimenthylhydrazine
Ethanol
Ethylcarbamate
Fluoranthenes
Fluorenes
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid
Furan
Glycerol
Hexamine
Hydrazine
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen sulfide
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Indole
Isoprene
Lead
Limonine
Linoleic Acid
Linolenic Acid
Magnesium
Mercury
Methane
Methanol
Methyl formate
Methylamineethylchrysene
Methylamine
Methylnitrosamino
Methylpyrrolidine
n-Nitrosoanabasine
n-Nitrosodiethanolamine
n-Nitrosodiethylamine
n-nitrosodimethylamine
n-Nitrosoethyl methylamine
n-Nitrosomorpholine
n-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Naphthalene
Naphthylamine
Neophytadienes
Nickel
Nicotine
Nitric Oxide
Nitrobenzene
Nitropropane
Nitrosamines
Nitrosonomicotine
Nitrous oxide phenols
Nomicotine
Palmitic acid
Phenanthrenes
Phenol
Picolines
Polonium-210
Propionic acid
Pyrenes
Pyrrolidine
Quinoline
Quinones
Scopoletin
Sitosterol
Skatole
Solanesol
Stearic acid
Stigmasterol
Styrene
Titanium
Toluene
Toluidine
Urethane
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylpyridine
URL

into our lungs against our will.

Plus about 4,000 more chemicals. Most people like to avoid unecesarily inhaling carcinogens and other detrimental chemicals straight into our lungs.

So excuse us for expecting you not to infringe on our rights. Me choosing to shoot Lysol up my nose, as you mentioned, is far different from me having to inhale 4,000+ toxic chemicals because you don't want to be so inconvienienced as to have and wait until you get outside or get home to smoke.

And on top of just standard health hazards, you are posing a DEADLY risk to people with asthma, and to a slightly lesser extent, those with severe allergies.

I'm glad you didn't really read my post.

Nice useless list of chemicals. You want me to list the chemicals released by burning gasoline in your car? Or the chemicals released into the air from various kinds of deodorants? Yeah, ok, thanks.

Smoking isn't a civil right? Damn.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20right

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend13.htm

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend14.htm

http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend15.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...w/civilr19.htm

Yeah, sorry, doesn't look like smoking is covered there.

Civil rights deal with social and economic equality.

Useless? Those are about 100 of the worst ones in cigarrete smoke. Most of which either cause cancer or birth defects. There's over 4,000 total. Thanks for ignoring 20+ years of research.

You people are some of the most selfish people on the planet. Too fucking conceited to give a shit about the health of people around you, just so you don't have to be inconvienienced.

Since Eleo and now ieatjackets continue to post nonsense without Acknowledging the research, I'll keep reposting this until something happens:

Nothing will happen. They just want to ignore proven research and facts so they can have the peace of mind of not realizing they are screwing everybody around them over.

(Not having read the previous posts, Ill just say this:)

I do not smoke.

I do not care that others smoke.

People in this country (the USA) are becoming a society of pussies and weaklings. (Regarding a lot more than simple smoking bans)

Why impose a smoking ban: let these idiots kill themselves off. Hell, put more chemicals in cigarettes to speed the process up.


-- and in terms of someone like DeadHorse who is allergic to smoke, (o.O), then i can see how the bans would help; or i could just say avoid the smoking section at a restaurant. *shrugs*

They can kill themselves off if they want. That's their choice. And nobody is banning smoking. They are banning smoking in public places so that people who do choose not to screw over their health aren't having others do exactly that to them.

Quite frankly I think anybody now who picks up the habit has to be a total moron. In the past? Sure, I can understand that. Wasn't much information about the numerous carcinogens present in cigarettes. But now? Yep. Agreed. Add more chemicals to get rid of the idiots in society.

I know plenty of extremely intelligent people who smoke, among other things. One of them is literally a genius, in fact.

Since I am not even a smoker, I'd like to know, how the fuck am I screwing everybody around me over? By arguing on a forum?

Actually I think we've touched upon everything to not have to refute those links specifically.

Apologies. Assumed incorrectly.

The point still stands though, for most people.

You can also be a genius about certain things but a complete moron about other things. Smokers (at least ones that picked up the habit in recent years) are devoid in the common sense department, and nothings going to convince me other wise. Hell, it doesn't even take common sense to realize that inhaling several hundred carcinogens into your lungs is going to end up killing you.

And you've touched on everything just by ignoring facts that those links prove.

Remember those ladies in the department stores who used to walk up and spray people with cologne before asking permission? Well guess what. Cosmetic counter employees are now subject to immediate termination for doing that. Why? Because it makes the "sprayee" fucking stink and the person holding the spray has NO RIGHT to inflict an unwanted substance or smell or anything else onto another human being. The same is true for cigarette smoke.

When I used to smoke I truly did not realize how much that crap makes you stink. I used to think that non-smokers were just making an issue out of nothing. But a year or so after I quit, my nose mysteriously started working again and I realized (with embarrassment) that people were telling the truth. The shit stinks to high heaven and makes you smell just...dirty. I don't choose to smell like that anymore and no one has the right to make me. I shouldn't have to walk through a cloud of cheap cologne just because I'm in the mall, and I shouldn't have to walk through a cloud of putrid, noxious smoke to get into my building every morning and have that stench wafting off of my hair for the rest of the day.

Not being able to smoke indoors isn't even that big of a restriction.

Smokers should be glad that they're even allowed to smoke.

It really does suck for non smokers to have to second hand smoke every day when out...

Most of the smokers I know picked up the habit at a young age. I know I had started when I was 16. And it really had nothing to do with smoking ads on the back of magazines and it really had nothing to do with anti-smoking ads on television. It was about my friends doing it, it was about it calming my nerves during a very stressful time in my life, and it was about growing addiction. But psychological/financial factors play a huge role in addiction.

Nevertheless, people have different outlooks on life. If one doesn't care for their health, that's his or her choice. It doesn't make them moronic because it's their personal choice, and it doesn't concern you.

Uh what? How would it be fair to illegalize cigarette smoking?

When? Smoking is banned indoors pretty much everywhere but restaurants in certain cities/states.

I'm sorry, but cigarette smoke simply does not stick to you so easily or so permanently, especially if you're outside and merely walking through it. The only time I've ever had smoke stick to me was while smoking indoors. If what you said were the case, a substantial number of people inside any given building would smell like cigarette smoke regularly, because there's almost always someone or another outside of a building smoking.

ok, well I'm assuming that smokers enjoy 2nd hand smoking.
so let's say...

if you had a neighbor that burns rubber in his/her backyard everyday, and the smell always gets in ur house, would you be pissed off?