Smoking bans: Good or bad?

Originally Posted by Arainach

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Eleo

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Eleo

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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Eleo

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Eleo

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

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.

Based on your philosophy, we should just abandon science.

Originally Posted by DarkLink2135

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Crash Landon

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

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Dear smokers,

Fuck you, and enjoy life outside. lololol.

Your friend, Brent.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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



No shit.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

FELIPE NO

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

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't see that described in the picture.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Fatt

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Lady Miyomi

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.

Could you be anymore reasonable.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Eleo

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

Miss this, Eleo?

Originally Posted by Arainach

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.