Author Topic: Non Smoking (Read 1439 times)

Hawklore · « **Reply #30 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:23:17 PM »

My dad and brother have asthma we all are very disgrunted about having to smoke a cigereete while we eat, AKA: breathing in 2nd hand smoke. I think they should pass amenmdment 6..

GET RID OF SMOKERS IN RESTRAUNTS!:D

JB73 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:26:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I just left the lefty liberal local 145 meeting, and we decided that running JB73's life is what we really want to do. So get those butts outta here Mr.!

LMFAO!

i KNEW it u all are trying to get me!!!!!!!!!

HELP HELP they're after me!!!!!!

boxboy28 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:36:53 PM »

There is no clear cut soliution to this argument!

I myself am a smoker and the law/amandment is toejam! It is an attack on the freedom of choice that this great country has given to all of us. I do agree there does need to be better acommidations made for the NON-smoking section vs the smoking sections.

Now as far as a smoke free work enviroment........hey i work in one now and i have to go out side to smoke but even the squeak about that is i live in Michigan and if you dont know its freezing cold outside here already!
Now could make the squeak that my office building needs to accomidate me by making a heated room outside for me to smoke in!
and the best part is all you non-smokers out there that squeak about us smoking in the parking garage and that they have to "walk throught our smoke" cry "ahhh second hand smoke is killling me but never once stop tp think about all the carbon monoxide your breathing in from the car exhuast.

Oh well im done its a pointless argument and a stupid one at that.

Light em up boys smoke em if you got em!

let the flame fest beguin!\

BOXburningBOY;)

MrLars · « **Reply #33 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:37:11 PM »

The law here in California works well. The bars haven't lost patrons, the resturants are a much more pleasant place to eat, public buildings smell better and are cleaner, employee production has risen...

The benifits far outweigh any inconvieniances.

Besides, y'all should quit ya know, you'll feel the benifits within a week...it feels gud too

Non smoker for 3 weeks now...after 43 years

gofaster · « **Reply #34 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:45:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by narsus
Smoker here,

Just did a bit of research can't find a single instance of someone dying from second hand smoke. Interesting.

You must not have looked hard enough.
"Second-hand smoke risk factor for crib death"
http://www.canoe.ca/Health0202/21_smoke-cp.html

"Second-Hand Smoke:More Dangerous Than You Realize"
http://www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/hlthfile/hfile30.html

"Secondhand tobacco smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States."
http://www.protectmontanakids.org/solutions/smoke/secondhandsmokebasics/

I could go on, but why bother?

Kanth · « **Reply #35 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:46:15 PM »

I haven't seen the wording but I'm wondering if they decided to make a building for smokers to smoke in so they won't be standing out in the rain..

if that qualifies as a work building they aren't allowed to smoke in.

just curious.

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
yes, however, the amendment would not even allow a "smoking lounge" if the employer and the employees wanted one. It's not just work AREA smoking, it's work PLACE smoking. Meaning no smoking at all inside the building. If the wording was for work AREA smoking, I'd be more inclined to consider voting for it. As the wording is now, I will not vote for it.

fd ski · « **Reply #36 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:53:09 PM »

what happend to you conservative folks who want the government out of our lifes ?

Leave it to the market. Bar owners have every right to run NON - SMOKING establishment if they like.
There is no reason why you should regulate what people do in their free time.

If you don't like to breath in smoke, don't go to places that allow smoking. Ti's pretty straight forward.
As for second hand smoking crap, well, i have to breath air that your 15-year-old-piece-of-shit-pick-up-with-bad-head-gasket puts out. Stop driving NOW !!!

You can't regulate people's mentality.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #37 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:53:40 PM »

kanth,
Around here it would. We have a similar law and even when we designate a 'smoke shack' your not allowed to smoke in it. No smoking indoors, at work. Bars are the only exception. And if you run a private business in your own home, you can't smoke in your own house. Technically even after business hours.

mrfish · « **Reply #38 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:58:36 PM »

everyone fumed and huffed and puffed about it at first but no one even thinks about it anymore and it's only been a few years. it's a great law.

gofaster · « **Reply #39 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:00:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fd ski

If you don't like to breath in smoke, don't go to places that allow smoking.

That's not always an option.

When my sister was married, she made arrangements with a top-line hotel in Washington DC (actually, Maryland, but they're both right next to each other and it was an easy ride to The Mall so I counted it as DC). I think it was the Hyatt - can't recall offhand. The hotel had a giant indoor lobby, and on the ground floor of the lobby was the sports bar. The doors to the rooms opened to the inside of the hotel. We were there for 3 days since I was part of the party and had to be there for rehearsal and such. The other members of the family, all of us from out of town, had reservations there, too. None of us smoked.

So where do you think that sports bars' smoke went? Certainly not into the open air, since it was on the ground floor of an enclosed lobby.

And making another reservation certainly wasn't an option at that late date, particularly in DC in the Spring.

easymo · « **Reply #40 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:15:35 PM »

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Smoking Out Bad Science
By Lorraine Mooney
For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that second hand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade the most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms non smoking wives, children and co-workers to make the case for crimin- alizing smoking.

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

It is now obvious that anti-smoking activists have knowingly overstated the health risk of second hand smoke. The only definitive large- scale study on the subject was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer. It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a nonsmoker of contracting lung cancer is set as 1. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16, and exposure to smoke in the workplace increased it to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide- 0.93 to 1.44 that the true risk ratio could be trivial or nonexistent.

funkedup · « **Reply #41 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:18:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fd ski
what happend to you conservative folks who want the government out of our lifes ?

Leave it to the market. Bar owners have every right to run NON - SMOKING establishment if they like.
There is no reason why you should regulate what people do in their free time.

If you don't like to breath in smoke, don't go to places that allow smoking. Ti's pretty straight forward.
As for second hand smoking crap, well, i have to breath air that your 15-year-old-piece-of-shit-pick-up-with-bad-head-gasket puts out. Stop driving NOW !!!

You can't regulate people's mentality.

Amen bro

funkedup · « **Reply #42 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:20:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Smoking Out Bad Science
By Lorraine Mooney
For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that second hand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade the most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms non smoking wives, children and co-workers to make the case for crimin- alizing smoking.

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

It is now obvious that anti-smoking activists have knowingly overstated the health risk of second hand smoke. The only definitive large- scale study on the subject was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer. It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a nonsmoker of contracting lung cancer is set as 1. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16, and exposure to smoke in the workplace increased it to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide- 0.93 to 1.44 that the true risk ratio could be trivial or nonexistent.

Yep no surprise here.
The second-hand smoke issue is just a smokescreen (heh I'm funny) that the proponents of a "nanny state" are using to erode yet another individual freedom.

Eagler · « **Reply #43 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:20:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by easymo
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Smoking Out Bad Science
By Lorraine Mooney
For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that second hand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade the most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms non smoking wives, children and co-workers to make the case for crimin- alizing smoking.

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

It is now obvious that anti-smoking activists have knowingly overstated the health risk of second hand smoke. The only definitive large- scale study on the subject was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer. It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a nonsmoker of contracting lung cancer is set as 1. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16, and exposure to smoke in the workplace increased it to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide- 0.93 to 1.44 that the true risk ratio could be trivial or nonexistent.

all I can say is that this study did not use ppl like my dragon lady older sister for the smoke input

If it's bad enough to smell on your clothes, I can't see how it doesn't get into your system

I think its just plain rude - which goes along with the average cig butt flicking smoker I see daily.

easymo · « **Reply #44 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:25:17 PM »

In other words. The other guys vices are worse then yours.

Your starting to sound like a leftie.