Smoking bans: Good or bad?
 

In Manitoba, people are adapting (I guess) to it. I think it's cool, except it, along with rising coasts of licings, helps keep the restaurants and bars empty. It's good for clean air, but not for business.

Even if you don't smoke, let's hear your thoughts!!

Good. I'm from California and it's pretty much always been illegal to smoke indoors since I can remember.

I fucking hate it. There's nothing more awesome then smoking inside except maybe smoking inside... a hospital! ='D <3 Zhongguo.

Stats have shown that smoking bans have helped business. From what I read a while back.

Smokers still go to bars, but non-smokers who wouldn't go also go now.

Philly has yet to ban smoking, which is a joke. It's a major city, and pretty much all major cities have banned it now to make places healthier for everyone. It just shows how much of a joke the city counsil is here.

I think we need to take the smoking bans further!

"Let's smoke those smokers!"

:biggrin:

Flush those sin sticks down the toilet!

They're not sin sticks, they're death sticks! DEATH!!!! D-E-A-T-H!!!!!!!

Be afraid.

Considering cigarettes are a proven health hazard to people other than just smokers, I'm surprised its taken this long to start happening.

From the perspective of an ex-restaurant employee, I can tell you that the service industry folks will be really happy now that they don't have to cough their way through ever shift and come home smelling like shit. I wish they'd do it in my state, but that's probably never going to happen.

I haven't kept up with the news or anything, but I think a smoking ban is now effective in UK, or was that the ability of attaining a 24h drinking license o.O? I can't remember, but anywho no smoking in public places like that is awesome ^_^
I hate having a night out with friends and then coming back home smelling like total crap, everything stinks, I usually feel like I have to have a shower before I go to bed so I can get rid of the smell >.<

There are only certain places here where smoking is banned inside eating establishments. Before they banned smoking in those areas though, people smoked even inside fast food joints. Think cigarette butts near the little kids' play areas. Really sad.
Friday's though has separated their smoking from the non-smoking section by sealing the bar area completely with a glass wall so there's still some hope for all you smokers out there, I guess.


That's actually the reason I have to take a shower every night, actually. As if people here don't get the message, it's polluted, we're inhaling car emissions, everyone's coughing in my face and yet they're still smoking in the middle of the street. It's like adding fuel to the fire. Not healthy for anyone. =(

Smoking bans work for exceptionally warm states that can have outdoor seating all year round, but besides that, I pretty much dislike smoking bans. Even as an ex-smoker.

I believe there are places smoke should not be allowed, like say libraries or hospitals. And I believe certain restaurants should have it banned like any popular fast food joint. But in bars and such, I think it's going a little too far.

When I went to West Virginia, I was surprised to find that you could still ask for the smoking section in the local Denny's. (Apparently, the "nicest restaurant in town.")

I am all for a smoking ban on inside facilities, even as a smoker. Except I really think that bars should decide whats best for their own business. I think business owners generally know what their customer prefers.

I've been to uppity bars where people would NOT like having smoke all around them. Thats respectable.

But I've also been to dives where vastly EVERYONE smokes. The smoking bans on these kinds of bars really affects the business, from what I've heard from owners.

But in all other public facilities, I understand people don't want to be swamped with smoke. I've been in smoking rooms of hotels which REEK and even *I* couldn't stand it.

Smoking bans are cool - but so long as you don't tell me where to smoke when I am OUTSIDE, or tell bar owners that they can't have their own right to decide whats good for their own business, I am down with it.

It's a good thing, as long as they also ban fatty foods, alcohol and everything else that isn't good for you and annoys other people. If they don't do that then they are hypocrites.

Well, see, that all doesn't really apply.

Smoking ANNOYS other people to the point of physical irritation. They can't argue the whole health angle, in my opinion, but I know smoke can get irritating to the eyes, throat and nose temporarily.

Fatty foods, alcohol, and everything else that isn't good for you doesn't really AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE unless really BADLY abused. You can't really BADLY abuse cigarettes.

Are you stupid? You do realize that fatty foods and alcohol only affect the person eating or drinking them, right? Smoking affects EVERYONE AROUND YOU.

Damn you, Sass, for beating me to it.

Also I hope this thread doesn't get derailed with one of those circular debates.

Fat people are a drain on the NHS and by extension all the taxpayers in the U.K. Ever heard of drink driving?

I've heard of drunk driving. Still doesn't apply, though.

Isn't that illegal?

How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving?

How many people are killed by second-hand smoke?

I don't see your point. Are you trying to say "Because Second-Hand Smoke isn't QUITE as lethal as Drunk Driving it should be legal"?

Look, we're not talking about the remote possibility that you might be killed by a drunk driver. We're talking about the fact that you are WITHOUT QUESTION affected in some way by the person sitting next to you in a restaurant blowing foul-smelling air your way.

Since alcohol is responsible for at least as many fatalities as smoking, they should either both be lawful or illegal.

Drunk Driving is ILLEGAL. Also, your logic makes no sense. "Alcohol is responsible for at least as many fatalities as donating blood to the Red Cross. So both should either be lawful or illegal."

Yet widespread. In 2004 in the U.S.A drunk driving was responsible for over 42,000 deaths.

A Harley-Davidson motorcycle owner can annoy the **** out of people with his insanely loud exhaust. A pet owner can annoy others by walking his barking, sh*tting, territory marking dog in public. The homeless can beg for change, Christians can pass flyers out in public, street musicians can butcher songs, and Rosie O'donnel has her own show...

I can't smoke...

We're not talking about what causes more fatalities. You're reading too much into this. We're talking about how smoking directly affects other people in restaurants who aren't smoking. And how it affects them EVERY TIME they go into a restaurant or bar.

What about conjoined twins sir?

I think its great, smoking is a filthy habit which many people in London do, I hate it when I'm sitting in the bar at my university, you can sometimes literally cut through the smoke with your hand it can be so thick. And I find nothing worse than to pay for such a nice meal and be suffocated by the smoke pouring out from the non-smoking section, it can really spoil my meal.

I'm all in favor for the idea of treatment contracts which the Uk is considering.The amount of resources these people take up is the reason why our health system is in tatters.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/s...973125,00.html

I'd rather be slightly damaged by smoke then injured or killed because of alcohol. Have these people never heard of non-smoking areas? Couldn't they go to a restaurant that doesn't permit smoking.

3,000 deaths a year by second-hand smoke.

Over 42,000 deaths a year by alcohol.

I'm not agaisnt a smoking ban, I'm against a ban on one dangerous intoxicant which disrupts other peoples lives, but not another.

Smoking areas do nothing, the smoke travels around the whole room.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000707.html

You could go to a non-smoking restaurant.

If those exist in your area (they don't in mine).

Yep, they exist in my area, they piss me off too because I can't smoke in them.

Oliver Wendell Holmes once pointed out that "The right for me to wave my fist ends where the other man's face begins". Your freedom to do stupid activities ends when they harm other people. And smoking in public harms those around you. Drinking is not directly harmful to anyone but the immediate person. Doing things like driving while drunk IS, and that's why they're illegal.

Still to be proven. From a utilitarian P.O.V alcohol is much worse than smoking.

I can't believe how many people still refuse to believe the dangers of second hand smoke. Besides, linking those 2 articles does nothing, I can link to a 100 more government reports and scientific studies/experiments which say the contrary.

Also of note those 2 articles are 6 years old.

I don't give a shit if smoking harms you permanently or not, to be honest. It makes my eyes burn and it smells like donkey ass on fire.

Please do, the articles may be 6 years old, but Straight Dope is pretty respected.

Let's start with the Centre for Disease Control, arguably the most respected authority worldwide on diseases and other health issues:

Link - 66 Results for Secondhand Smoke. All worth reading.
Link - 556 reports on Environmental Tobacco Smoke (the current medical term as best as I can tell)

On to the American Heart Association:

http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4521
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=1213
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/3243


The Mayo Clinic, possibly the highest-regarded medical care instutition in the U.S:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023

There's just the basics.

http://www.livescience.com/technolog...ll_danger.html

From the article: "Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society."

Cell phones are potentially hazardous to your health and other people's health! It even has the potential to kill you and people around you! Cell phones must be just as dangerous as cigarettes!

BAN CELL PHONES

I found that satire to be amusing.

Smoking has been banned in specific public areas in Chicago, but a loophole was formed for the bars and restaurants. You need to have a specific $3000 fan built in to your establishment for every x-sq.ft. coverage. I actually really like that idea, because those $3000 fans are strong enough to just pull the smoke straight up. I wouldn't recommend standing under one with a loose fitting hat though.

As far as smoking goes in general, the rule shouldn't be to ban them all together, but rather tax them out of control. At the Prairie Moon (the bar I frequent), packs of cigarettes cost $10 each. You could go two blocks down heading either north or south, and buy a pack for $6, but each night the packs behind the counter at the Prairie Moon sell out. I really and truly bet that even if they were $20 a pack, they would sell out. When I was smoking, I bought a $10 pack just so I could have two cigarettes.

Fun stuff. "If I'm going to intoxicate myself with plentiful amounts of alcohol, I don't want any nicotine getting on the way".

They should allow it in bars.

Most people here know that I'm a vicious anti-smoker. My reasons are wholly selfish but justifiable, due to my progressively worsening lung condition.

Were I born with better lungs, I might not care. I might've even picked up the habit as most of my friends eventually did. However, from my standpoint, anti-smoking laws were invoked specifically for people like me who have breathing problems and have never smoked a day in our lives.

Ideally, all people should be able to patronize the same buildings and restaurants. But when an establishment permits smoking, for me, entrance is a potential health hazard. A thick cloud of smoke can and often does trigger a coughing attack on my part. Physically, I just can't deal with it.
So when a place allows smoking, they're effectively alienating me. This isn't always fair, as I should be entitled to partake of their services like any other. If a restaurant is known to make the best ribeye steaks in the county, why shouldn't I be able to enjoy one, you know? And I would if not for the smokers whose presence represents a direct threat to my well-being.

And that's the basis of my argument. I don't care that they're killing themselves, not directly anyhow. But smoking has been proven to create a dangerous atmosphere; there are documented cases of non-smokers developing lung cancer and emphysema simply from working amongst smokers for an extended period.
Me, I present no physical threat to smokers. My breathing is not going to hurt anyone. I can enter a building, go about my business and not harm a fly when I exhale. Smokers, however, can.

Anti-smoking laws exist so as to afford all people an equitably breathable atmosphere. Smokers have a right to smoke but they don't have a right to harm me in the process.

As for smoking outside, I generally accept this and do my best to steer clear of the thick cloud, but it IS annoying when some inconsiderate fuck huddles directly in front of an entrance, spewing his toxins directly in my unavoidable path. If other people have to use the entrance, then smoking near it should be as illegal as smoking inside the building.

Not that anyone is fiercely enforcing smoking bans in most places. Violators get a disapproving glare, at best. People like me should be given citizen's permits to write out tickets for folk who flagrantly smoke where others need to be. It'd be the same as any other official private sector role, such as notary public.

I think it's fascinating that we've all accepted that other acts present public threats. Drunken driving is extremely hazardous and we've taken extensive measures to penalize offenders, despite the large alcohol lobby's initial protests.
We've recognized that guns are potentially dangerous weapons and have enacted laws to govern their sale, possession and use, despite whatever the NRA says about how innocent and safe they are. You just can't walk outside, fire off a few rounds in front of a crowd for amusement and get away with it.
We've even admitted that sex can be dangerous, what with HIV all over the place and some people not realizing their infection. We openly endorse condoms, restraint and even celibacy. We prosecute those who know they're infected yet continue to infect others.

But when cigarette smoking is known to be killing thousands each year, both actively and passively, all we can do is shrug and say they all brought it upon themselves? We enact a few wimpy laws to govern the use of cigarettes and then fail to enforce them with any consistence.

I'm not saying people can't smoke. I'm just saying that there's no way in hell they should be permitted to do so in ways that present direct threats to the well-being of others.

I just don't get it.

I hate cigarette smoke myself, so the bans don't bother me. Lets face it, it been proven dangerous many times over...so I support the bans however, if there were smoking outside where I could move away from it or designated areas...that would be acceptable to me.

So how does getting any of these illnesses while being around secondhand smoke necessarily prove that it was caused by secondhand smoke? People can get lung cancer/emphysema without being around smokers for extended periods of time.

It proves it simply through the modern miracle of common sense.

People who smoke have a higher rate of lung cancer and emphysema. FACT.

So it therefore stands to reason that people who are constantly exposed to secondhand smoke have a higher risk of developing lung cancer and emphysema. Smokers exhale the same carcinogens that they inhale.

Arguments like yours really piss me off. Sure, lung cancer isn't strictly dependent upon cigarette smoke, but the smoke definitely isn't helping, is it? But no, this is how smokers rationalize their habit, and how Big Tobacco defends itself. "You can't prove that these people wouldn't have developed lung cancer any other way, so secondhand smoke is therefore not the culprit. Innocent until proven guilty. Nyah."

However, studies have shown that people who've been constantly exposed to secondhand smoke do have a significantly increased rate of respiratory problems. It's a direct correlation and it's perfectly logical to believe that secondhand smoke could lead to lung cancer.

The only thing preventing people from seeing the validity of this argument is stupid pride and lost profits. It's the same bullshit that prompts the NRA goons into saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Perhaps so, but that smoking .12 gauge shotgun is a bit of a mitigating factor, isn't it?

This may just be me, but if I was a business owner, I wouldn't even care if I was told what to allow in my establishment if it affected people's health. In my opinion, business owners don't have a right to choose what to allow in their restaurant if it affects the health of others. Even if that thing you are told not to have isn't illegal. The articles I read said smoking bans help businesses, but even if that was false, and it didn't help businesses, it wouldn't hurt it significantly at all.

But I don't go in restaurants that allow smoking. I've stayed out of them my whole life, and I don't intend to go in them either. I hate how smoke clings to you. Your hair, your clothes. It's just disgusting. It's the most disgusting habit in the history of the world.

No, not really. Because you can't just jump to conclusions like that. Even an apparent trend doesn't make something concrete, that's what I'm trying to say.

A friend once said to me, "since they've allowed people to carry guns, crime around here dropped 17%" (whether or not this was true, I don't know). And I think, you know, that's cool and all, but there can be plenty of other factors that contribute to the drop.

Now you mention that there are "documented cases of secondhand smoke => lung cancer/emphysema", and I question the validity. Like I said above, that doesn't really prove anything, it just points out what could be potentially true, at best.

Maybe so. The question isn't so much if there is a higher risk but if the higher risk is significant. Lots of things carry various risks. Crossing the street carries risks of getting hit by a car. That doesn't make the risk significant, even though it's there.

How smokers rationalize their habit? Smokers rationalize their habit with a powerful physical/psychological addiction. Have some sympathy, pretty much every smoker I know wants to quit and wished they had never started. They do not want or need an excuse to smoke.

"Innocent until proven guilty." Show me how this philosophy is flawed.

As posted previously by another user, there's really nothing proving/disproving this.

Don't see the analogy with the gun part.

Eleo, you could tell me that there isn't one single "documented" case to support the claim that smoking or breathing second-hand smoke is harmful to you, and it wouldn't matter. It's just plain common sense. You're inhaling smoke, tar and other chemicals into your lungs. There's no way that's not harmful.

Plus, it really does smell horrible and it makes many people sneeze, cough and suffer burning eyes.

THANK you Arainach. Yet another instance where I agree 100% with you. They don't occur often :P but when you're right, you're right.

I am absolutely baffled at the amount of people on these forums that refuse to believe the PROVEN dangers of secondhand smoke.

As far as restaurants, I should have a right to enter any restaurant I want without a danger to myself. Smokers can do the same thing with a smoking ban in restaurants. You do NOT have a right to pose a health hazard to those around you.

And like I said, then you'd need evidence that it's significantly harmful.

Plus you guys make it seem like any given building that has a smoking section is just exploding with massive amounts of smoke lethal smoke. I have been to plenty of restaurants with smoking allowed and this is not the case by any means. Most of the restaurants I've been to have devices installed in the ceiling specifically for the purpose of sucking up smoke so it doesn't even wander to other sections.

They've had evidence for AT LEAST the past 20 years that this is so. Damn.

If you want to just ignore proven facts then I guess nobody can debate this.

I live in New York, and I don't smoke, so I'd have to say I am into smoking bans. I'm not worried about cancer or anything, I just loathe that goddamn smell.

There's nothing proven about it. Why don't you do your own research instead of believing what you hear in commercials.

NO. What I'm saying is that this is a no-brainer. This is so common sense - you do NOT need evidence. When you inhale foreign substances into your lungs it cannot be good for you. I don't care about or need evidence for me to be convinced that smoking is harmful.

You are completely mindboggling. You are trying to tell me that the same thing that contains something like 200 different carcinogens when inhaled - mind you, not after being exhaled by a smoker - isn't going to do me any harm?

Please, go on living in your little fantasy land where the rules of logic no longer apply.

Yes. That makes tons of sense. There's so many cigarette commercials to provide us with the real truth.

There have been countless studies to determine whether cigarette smoking causes cancer. And everyone but the most pigheaded denialists have come to the conclusion that there is a direct link between smoking and cancer. I shouldn't even have to cite specific case studies; by 2006, this is pretty much common knowledge.

The reason there are no pro-cigarette commercials is because they were yanked from the television and radio in the late 70s due to increasing evidence that smoking was indeed hazardous. The manufacturers, even then, were attempting to reach a new, younger audience and it was recognized that this was not something to be encouraged. Hence, the FCC banned tobacco ads.

So given that there are no advertisements on television and radio which support smoking, why would anyone waste money on ad campaigns to discourage smoking unless there was something truly harmful about the habit? What do these organizations have to gain for themselves? What are anti-smoking coalitions selling? About the only products they have to push are Nicorette and the patch, which is a financially suicidal goal since the ultimate aim is to render the need for these products obsolete.

The most logical conclusion, then, is that there is a genuine problem and the anti-smoking message is valid. I concede that the statistics they use may be embellished so as to put the fear of God into smokers, but nevertheless, the higher message - "Stop smoking, you suicidal twit." - isn't something people would say just to spite smokers.

As for the secondhand smoke argument, why don't you light your house on fire and stand in the blaze for a good hour. Breathe deep. Make sure that smoke gets deep down into the base of your lungs. Now, remember as you inhale, that's just basic carbons being burned off around you. Nothing like the complex chemical additives you'll find in the average cigarette. Tell me that the smoke around you is absolutely harmless. Tell me that you're enjoying the burn. Tell me that microscopic particulates in the air actually relax your airways.

The smoke from cigarettes may not be as thick, but you can't possibly insist, with a straight face, that exposure to secondhand smoke isn't tantamount to being inside a small, slow-burning fire that's ever-so-increasingly covering your airways with constricting particles and chemical by-products.

Use fucking common sense instead of trying to justify a habit with flimsy rationalization.

Based on your philosophy, we should just abandon science.

There are lots of things that are bad for you that you use, consume, and live in every day. Cell phones blast microwaves into your head. You'd think that would be bad for you, right? It can't be good, right? I mean, if someone said to you, "hey, I'm going to just fire off these waves into your head for a few minutes, do you mind?", you'd not really be up for it, right?

Yet this never freaks anyone out; people continue to use cell phones. Even if you don't personally own one, those same cell phone microwaves are flying all through space because everyone else is. All those microwaves, can't be good for you.

Should we ban cell phones?

No, how about I burn your house down for this experiment. What the fuck. How am I supposed to demonstrate this at all.

There's going to be a massive difference between suddenly inhaling the black smoke a house burning around you compared to that of even maybe even 100 people in your house, smoking. I don't get how this supports your argument. What you said is like saying, "if you stab yourself in the belly with a sword, it's gotta be as bad for you as pricking yourself in the belly with 100 needles."

Cig smoke has dirty stuff in it. Cool. We know that. Now show me that walking through dissipating cigarette smoke critically increases the risk of getting smoking-related illnesses.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I am an ex-smoker. What I see in you is you regarding smokers as the scum of the Earth because of your lung condition. You complain when they are indoors, and then you complain because they're too close to the entrance when they're outdoors. Nobody exists to accomodate your very specific condition. Get over yourself. Smokers exist, and not for you.

Dear smokers,

Fuck you, and enjoy life outside. lololol.

Your friend, Brent.

Yeah I know, I was going inside of a building this one time and like I had to sprint through gauntlet of maybe 50 smokers just blowing smoke right into my face, trying to give me cancer, it was crazy. All smokers are assholes and I hate them.

Double Post:
Just went to the doctor. Said I have lung cancer from all of that going inside buildings with smokers outside of them.

Eleo, you're being one silly motherfucker. Smoking is bad for you.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/lungs.jpg

No shit.

Oh thanks for showing me a picture of a cancer-ridden lung. Now I know that cancer is deadly and destructive. How informative.

That's not cancer, it's emphysema. Way to read.

Actually, way to edit your post after I reply to it.

But either way, thanks for showing me a diseased lung. I'd like to know what this proves besides "emphysema fucks you up."

The black encasing the diseased lung is tar. This person did not get tar in their lungs by taking handfuls of it and smearing it there himself.

I don't see that described in the picture.

These days I only smoke at the houses of other friends who smoke, and in my own home. If they're gonna try to ban that, then they can take my fucking (I want to call it a fag, but this board is populated with Americans) from my cold, dead hand. Which shouldn't take too long, because I smoke, so no problem, right?

PS: In Britain, the word "fag" really means the same as "cigarette" over here. Nobody would think of the other thing.

I hung out with some gutterpunks in London, England, and I remember being drunk saying "Damnit. One of uze fetch me a pack of fags. I got this real bad craving." When I told my American friends back home, I had some explaining to do.

I personally don't care either way about smoking bans. As long as someone's not purposely blowing their smoke in my face (which I've had happen), I don't care where smoking takes place.

Imagine being an Englishman, as the song goes, in New York. Imagine getting up in the morning, leaving your hotel, and announcing loudly as you leave the hotel that you really want to go and pick up some fags.

Oh yes. I created a silence that lobby will NOT forget.

Could you be anymore reasonable.

I hate going places and being subjected to second hand smoke, so I'm all for smoking bans. The one in Montreal that bans smoking from bars and clubs comes into effect. I can't wait.

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?

Yes, I would. But I'd own my house.

Similarly, if I did the same thing to him, I'd expect him to get pissed.

But if I were moseying down the sidewalk and smelled burned rubber, I'd have nothing to say about it, because I do not own the block, or the air.

Eleo, I don't want to turn this into a racial thing, but you're black. White people have extremely porous hair. Don't tell me you've never heard any black people say that white people smell like wet dogs when they get wet. There's even a book called, "Why Do White People Smell Like Wet Dogs When They Come Out of the Rain?" It's basically a book that explains black and white stereotypes.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...lance&n=283155

My point is that white people - ESPECIALLY white people with naturally blonde or red hair - pick up smells and hold them. If I go into a pizza restaurant, for example, I'll smell like pizza until I take a shower. Cigarette smoke clings to me. If I walk through a cloud of it in the morning, I'll still smell it in my hair that night, and not just faintly, either.

Last I checked I "own" my body.

So don't walk it through my smoke and exercise true control of it. You make it seem like smokers are going out of their way to confront you and blow smoke right into your face.

I mean, what, because you own your body you can legally do whatever you want?

"Can't arrest me, I own my body, you're not allowed to touch it."

"So what if I'm in your house? I own my body, I can do what I want!"

Like I said earlier, I've never found a non-smoker to smell like smoke to demonstrate.

Similarly, never found a wet white person to smell like a wet dog. I thought that was just a dumb stereotype; kind of like niggers stealing TVs.

Well I'm not certain if your nose is damaged, you're lying, or it's just a ridiculously improbable coincidence, but the smoke smell definately does linger on nonsmokers who have been around people smoking.

no, but smoke drifts easily, sometimes if a place like a coffee shop decided not to use AC, and opened their windows... all the smoke outside would drift in, and everyone would have to smell it.. You don't do it intentionally but it happens anyway.

I'm sorry but people who say second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer are just in denial. One thing I've noticed about smokers is that they are in denial because they can't stop smoking, so they just make up whatever BS to make themselves feel better. As for the non-smokers that actually use the argument that second hand smoke hasn't been proven to cause cancer, use your brains. You can taking in the same cancer causing chemicals, just not directly into your mouth and lungs. But you are taking them in.

Double Post:
Oh, it most certainly does. I walked by someone smoking on the street. Walked by, so that means I spent less than a second next to a smoker outdoors, and I smelled it on my clothes after walking 3 blocks back to my place.

then why did you go and do it anyway?

I remember my mom borrowing a fleece jacket of mine, and when I got it back it hella smelled like smoke. But that's neither here nor there. All I'm saying is that I'm not racist, I just hate the jews.

what with their matzoh bread and their stylish religious leaders.

it's not fucking jealousy.

fuck you.

:(

Okay. You win. Smoking should be banned from the planet!

This thread should be closed.

I don't think "ZOMG IM LOSING AND CANT ADMIT IT" is a valid reason to close a thread, Eleo. But what do I know?

Actually, it's because we're now arguimg whether or not and how quickly and how permanently smoke does or doesn't stick to your hair and clothes, which apparently has something to do with whether you're negroid or caucasian. It was at that point that I realized I don't care anymore.

I'm glad smoking has been banned in most bars and restaurants, because I think it's the most disgusting habit on the planet, and those who partake should be burned at the stake for their sheer stupidity...HOWEVERT, it makes you wonder what's next....

Eddie Izzard does a stand-up routine and starts it by remarking, "So, no more smoking in bars anymore...and soon no drinking and no talking."

I think it's good that they have banned smoking inside bars where people eat. Only because it sucks to be huffing smoke while your chomping on some good. Other then that I get stuck outside with the family everytime we go out to eat due to everyone esle smoking but me :P