Homz Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't smoke, but I might be willing to start, just to piss off the loones who won't let anybody else smoke. I prefer FREEDOM over the tyranny of the do gooders. I'd rather die free with a cigarette in my mouth, than live as a healthy slave. The anti-smokers will tell you that the science is clear and that there is no arguing the facts...BULLSH!T! This is the same argument that algore uses to convince weak minded people that man made global warming is real. It's a classic trick of tyrants, bullies and liars that's been used for centuries. There are at least two sides to EVERY argument and the studies on second hand smoke do not all point to death from second hand smoke (see article from the BMJ below). The same loones that want to "protect" people from second hand smoke will vote to allow the murder of babies at the drop of a hat. The difference being, that patrons of bars and restaurants, are thinking, sentient beings that can walk away from the second hand smoke if they think it's dangerous... they can make a choice. An unborn baby has NO choice in his/her fate...they can't walk away from the abortionist's tools. Furthermore, unborn babies have no control over the actions of their mothers, and it is LEGAL for women to SMOKE and DRINK while pregnant, even though we KNOW for a FACT what the consequences can be for babies born to women who smoke/drink while pregnant. Where is the outrage on the part of the second hand smoke nazis? Why is it not illegal to sell alcohol/cigarettes to pregnant women? Why is it not illegal to procure or provide alcohol or cigarettes to pregnant women? The bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, hotels, etc., are usually led by left wing crusaders, so much for the idea that the left likes freedom. I'd like to personally waterboard the militant anti-smoking crowd... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=enstrom&fulltext=californians&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1136223983111_7352&FIRSTINDEX=0& sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1 Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2 1 School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA, 2 Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA Correspondence to: J E Enstrom jenstrom@ucla.edu Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease. Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years. Setting Adult population of California, United States. Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits. Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking. Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98. Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdntac Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 If someone chooses to smoke....fine. It's your life and your choice. But why should other people be subjected to your smoke? Why should others be forced to inhale your second-hand smoke? Why should others be forced to go home stinking like a cigarette? Someone's right to smoke where ever they want ends when it directly affects someone else (see the above examples) --- because YOU choose to smoke, not me. If someone should be inconvenienced it should be those who are doing the action, not those who are affected by it. One reason I think that is often overlooked when it comes to the no-smoking-in-bars/restaurants debate is the potential health risks for employees. I wonder if there is a concern in regards to providing a "safe working environment" idea behind the bans? That said, I wouldn't have any problem if there were smoking and non-smoking bars. I'd prefer to have a choice but certainly enjoy the ability to go to a bar or restaurant and being able to leave without stinking of cigarettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Stewardesses were complaining of the smoke-filled cabins of airliners in the seventies. Not much sympathy for them then. Not like you could open a window. Was it Virginia Slims cigarettes that advertised "you've come a long way, baby?" :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuckomf Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 The guy who used to run our tool crib at the mill had a sign that said. "You enjoy smoking. The byproduct of your habit is smoke and ash. I can taste it and smell it on my clothes. I enjoy beer. The byproduct of my habit is piss. Go ahead and light up. Don't mind me when I piss in your hair." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemoon Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't smoke' date=' but I might be willing to start, just to piss off the loones who won't let anybody else smoke. I prefer FREEDOM over the tyranny of the do gooders. I'd rather die free with a cigarette in my mouth, than live as a healthy slave.[/quote'] Go for it! Go get lung cancer to piss off the "loones"--that makes a lot of sense. I would support your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno690 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Here in Illinois' date=' smoking is banned in bars now, so you get to see a lot of drunk people standing outside. The sidewalks get littered with butts. I am 100% anti smoking, but it's a bar for cryin out loud.[/quote'] Evanston is trying to pass an initiativr to make it illigal to smoke in your car! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Here in Illinois' date=' smoking is banned in bars now, so you get to see a lot of drunk people standing outside. The sidewalks get littered with butts. I am 100% anti smoking, but it's a bar for cryin out loud.[/quote'] You keep asking for something, one day you might get it......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bol316 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 The guy who used to run our tool crib at the mill had a sign that said. "You enjoy smoking. The byproduct of your habit is smoke and ash. I can taste it and smell it on my clothes. I enjoy beer. The byproduct of my habit is piss. Go ahead and light up. Don't mind me when I piss in your hair." Don't forget the vomit. Should it be ok to vomit all over the floor at bars too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twelvebar Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 As someone who has worked in the bar industry for over 20 years, there was no better day than the first day of no smoking in public buildings where I live. No one misses the smoky dirty atmosphere. this includes the smokers I work with. They gripe a bit when they go outside in minus 40, but over all it is much cleaner, less smelly, and more pleasant inside. Business actually went up, despite the same histrionics the OP has here. If smoking didn't affect other people there would be a point, but smoking pollutes an entire room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't smoke' date=' but I might be willing to start, just to piss off the loones who won't let anybody else smoke. I prefer FREEDOM over the tyranny of the do gooders. I'd rather die free with a cigarette in my mouth, than live as a healthy slave. The anti-smokers will tell you that the science is clear and that there is no arguing the facts...BULLSH!T! This is the same argument that algore uses to convince weak minded people that man made global warming is real. It's a classic trick of tyrants, bullies and liars that's been used for centuries. There are at least two sides to EVERY argument and the studies on second hand smoke do not all point to death from second hand smoke (see article from the BMJ below). The same loones that want to "protect" people from second hand smoke will vote to allow the murder of babies at the drop of a hat. The difference being, that patrons of bars and restaurants, are thinking, sentient beings that can walk away from the second hand smoke if they think it's dangerous... they can make a choice. An unborn baby has NO choice in his/her fate...they can't walk away from the abortionist's tools. Furthermore, unborn babies have no control over the actions of their mothers, and it is LEGAL for women to SMOKE and DRINK while pregnant, even though we KNOW for a FACT what the consequences can be for babies born to women who smoke/drink while pregnant. Where is the outrage on the part of the second hand smoke nazis? Why is it not illegal to sell alcohol/cigarettes to pregnant women? Why is it not illegal to procure or provide alcohol or cigarettes to pregnant women? The bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, hotels, etc., are usually led by left wing crusaders, so much for the idea that the left likes freedom. I'd like to personally waterboard the militant anti-smoking crowd... [i']http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=enstrom&fulltext=californians&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1136223983111_7352&FIRSTINDEX=0& sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1[/i] Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2 1 School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA, 2 Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA Correspondence to: J E Enstrom jenstrom@ucla.edu Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease. Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years. Setting Adult population of California, United States. Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits. Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking. Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98. Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. Hey KSG, while you're on the rebel Band Wagon, let's Twist Up a Hooter and Smoke the Sh!t out of it. Or are you just for personal freedom when it comes to the Tobacco Companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Hey KSG' date=' while you're on the rebel Band Wagon, let's Twist Up a Hooter and Smoke the Sh!t out of it. Or are you just for personal freedom when it comes to the Tobacco Companies.[/quote'] I am against the war on drugs and I beleive that pot should be legal. Call me when you get it twisted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FirstMeasure Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I am against the war on drugs and I beleive that pot should be legal. Call me when you get it twisted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Can you imagine the revenue taxing pot would bring in. Of coarse they would over do it. But we could be paying down that deficit right quick. Hell Eye'll twist it up and just hang out with you while ya'll smoke it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Robot Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't smoke' date=' but I might be willing to start, just to piss off the loones who won't let anybody else smoke. I prefer FREEDOM over the tyranny of the do gooders. I'd rather die free with a cigarette in my mouth, than live as a healthy slave. [/i'] Hey KSG. I am not an anti smoking loon. Lots of my friends smoke and I used to aswell. It is just that the ONLY way you can see a band in my city (other then a huge venue gig) is in a pub. That means i dont have a choice. That means that MY rights are being infringed upon. I should be able to see a band without ingesting cigarette smoke and incurring a Dry Cleaning bill to boot. If they hadnt banned smoking in pubs here it would have been the music industry that died, not the other way around - because people my age stopped going. I has nothing to do with being a do gooder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSG_Standard Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 After reading all of the posts on this thread, the common themes amongst those who support cigarette bans seem to be focused on non-smoker's right to not be subjected to second hand smoke. The longest lived medical/scientific study, that included the most subjects appears to be the study I referenced in an earlier post from UCLA published in the BMJ. This study showed little to no correlation between second hand smoke and health risks. Those of you that are for the bans seem to believe that your right to a smoke free bar/restaraunt/etc, trumps the rights of smokers. Because you don't like the smell of smoke or what it does to your equipment, the smokers must bend to your will. What about perfume in public places? Do any of you suffer from asthma? It would appear that perfume is one of the triggers for asthma sufferers having attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asthma http://segal.org/asthma/ http://www.webmd.com/asthma/default.htm So, why isn't there a big push to outlaw perfume in public places? It would seem to me that the big push to outlaw cigarettes in public is more of a political ploy to move tobacco into being an outlawed product. It is a well known and accepted idea that cigarette smoking is dangerous to the person that actually smokes, but there is not the same level of scientific "proof" that second hand smoke is dangerous. I don't like rap, I think it's harmful and awful. Just because I don't like it, I don't try to outlaw it, I turn the dial or channel or walk away when I hear it. I don't like alot of things but I'm not pushing to outlaw the things that I don't like, and neither should anybody else...IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 =D> =D> Hold me you crazy Texan !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Robot Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 There is no doubt. Rap should be banned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G u e s t Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 . . KSG-Standard - that post of yours (31st @ 05:58:48) is so rational, so sensible so darned spot-on, it should be writ large on bill-boards around the world. If you're standing, I'm votin' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 What about perfume in public places? Do any of you suffer from asthma? It would appear that perfume is one of the triggers for asthma sufferers having attacks. So' date=' why isn't there a big push to outlaw perfume in public places?[/quote'] No athsma here, but I have severe allergies and a seriously degraded sense of smell. The few things I can still smell a mile away are tobacco, sh!t, and incense/air fresheners/candles/perfumes. Most "perfumes" are altered to me, so I guess I only smell some components of it instead of the entire concoction. As a result, many of them smell like bug spray to me, especially if put on too thick. Listen up ladies.... :-) With all the retired folks in Arizona, it seems some of the worst offenders are the little white-haired old ladies. I can't stay in the same room with them, my throat is raw in 15 minutes. On the rare occasion I go to a mall, I can smell the potpourri as soon as I walk in the door. Can't stand it. I don't like rap' date=' I think it's harmful and awful. Just because I don't like it, I don't try to outlaw it, I turn the dial or channel or walk away when I hear it. [/quote'] Ditto. I don't like alot of things but I'm not pushing to outlaw the things that I don't like' date=' and neither should anybody else...IMHO. [/quote']Hmmmm.... Seems I recall some old, obscure saying about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness. Let's see.... Where did I hear that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 ... Big bortherism is horrid in this situation. South Dakota instituted a similar ban and it took that to get the bar owners in gear. The promoters of the law were the typical suspects plus the big business saloon owners going after the "yuppie" crowd. Letting the legislature push the thing made them appear to remain the good guys to smokers: "Gee, we didn't do it, so come and spend your money." They don't add that they feel there's a faster turnover of nonsmokers. When the small business owners realized what was happening it was to late. It appears from here that restaurants without smoking in my general area of the world lose 25-35 percent of local business because brown bagging takes over since the restaurant "experience" isn't worth paying for if there's no section for smokers. That loss of business and usually loss of restaurants has been pretty typical around this part of the country. On the other hand.... it appears it will be on the 2010 ballot to overturn. Unfortunately I think our society has become so "let go make others do what we want them to do" that common sense is a victim. Until smoking is illegal, smokers will hang out where they're comfortable and vote for their spending with their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 As was mentioned here smoking was banned in New York State years ago, which was originally for indoor venues only. But once you start down a slippery path it doesn't take much to fall into the abyss. For example smoking has now been banned EVERYWHERE on my university campus; yep Neo, even outside! Now I never smoked a day in my life and I don't care to do so, but where are smokers going to smoke now? I guess they have to drive off-campus, smoke in their car and then come back. But then our lawmakers will probably come up with a rule that you can't idle your car because the fumes are harmful to the environment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.