Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on July 05, 2004, 11:13:29 PM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-05-mass-smoking-ban_x.htm
curly
-
My Dad smoked Pall Mall Reds (non-filters) from my birth till about age 19. Mom smoked Pall Mall Golds till age 17. I never smelled the smoke on me, now, I practically vomit after smelling cig. smoke.
Karaya
-
Private clubs and cigar bars are exempt.
California started out with this little exemption as well. AFAIK, there are no longer any exemptions.
-
I would have given up smoking years ago but now it's just too fun ticking all these people off.
Besides, the more I smoke the more taxes are paid to help the medical community.
I like to help where I can.
-
YEA just wait till these people are telling you that you cant even smoke in your own home!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
YEA just wait till these people are telling you that you cant even smoke in your own home!!!!!!
Oh yeah, not to mention what it costs me to support the smoking public. The word hypocrite comes to mind.
http://www.smokinglungs.com/whatcost.htm
There is currently a major debate ongoing in our society as to how the problem of continued funding of the Medicare administration can be accomplished. Currently, each working citizen contributes 2.9 % of his salary to fund Medicare. It is now predicted that the Medicare administration will become bankrupt sometime during the first decade of the twenty-first century. In an effort to prevent such a catastrophe, multiple potential solutions are being tried. Managed care medicine is sending patients home within hours after childbirth or major surgery. Patients with cancer and other life threatening diseases are being denied new experimental treatments. There is serious discussion of rationing expensive care for elderly patients. Despite public dissatisfaction and the fact that consumers are already in revolt over cuts in health services, no action is being taken by our leaders to reduce the health and fiscal consequences of the number one preventable disease causing factor in our country. No, it's not drunk driving, alcohol, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, guns, prayer in school or pornography. It is tobacco, the single most expensive cost item on the Medicare budget.
There is incontestable data from thousands of different medical and epidemiological sources all over the world, that cigarettes and other tobacco products kill three million people each year, including approximately 430,000 U.S. citizens. This carnage does not seem to move our elected representatives, and they have done almost nothing to change this lamentable situation.
Perhaps, consideration of MONEY, rather than loss of human LIFE and suffering is needed to catch the attention of our politicos.
The financial consequences of cigarette smoking are truly mind-boggling. The cost of tobacco related diseases including coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (stroke), peripheral artery disease, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, lung cancer and cancer of the lip, mouth, larynx, esophagus, pancreas and bladder has been calculated by conservative estimates derived from data collected in the National Medical Expenditures Survey. This data indicates that the direct cost of tobacco use is approximately $50 billion dollars each year. Direct costs include hospitalization, doctors bills, medications, and home and nursing home care. 43.3% of this amount is paid for by Medicare and Medicaid (MediCal in California). Put in different terms, the medical cost of each pack of cigarettes sold in the U.S. each year (24 billion packs) is $2.06, and the government pays $0.89 per pack of cigarettes. Before you become adjusted to these huge numbers, let me add that the indirect costs due to cigarettes including such things as fires, premature births, loss of productivity secondary to premature death adds up to another $50 billion or more.
State governments are also becoming increasingly aware of the adverse effects of tobacco on their local economies. The state of Texas, for example. reports (Texas Medicine, November 1993 p56-60) that it lost $4.2 billion in direct and indirect losses in 1990. This realization has led the attorney generals of a number of states, cities and counties to file suits against the tobacco industry for recovery of these losses.
Former Surgeon General Joseph A. Califano has called tobacco related diseases the largest single financial drain on Medicare, and estimates that these diseases will cost Medicare $800 billion dollars by the year 2010.
MacKenzie et al have reported the Human Costs of Tobacco Use in the New England Journal of Medicine March 31 and April 7, 1994 and noted the following facts.
* "The estimated average lifetime medical costs for a smoker exceed those for a non-smoker by more than $6,000."
* Insurance companies owned by tobacco companies charge smokers nearly double for term life insurance. (I am sure that they have a perfectly reasonable explaination for this given that they deny that cigarettes kill people.)
* Cigarettes are the leading cause of civilian fire deaths and injuries in the U.S. and cause $552 million in direct property damage annually.
* Smokers take an average of 6.5 sick days per year more than non-smokers.
Howard Barnum of the World Bank estimates that tobacco products cost the world economy $200 billion each year.
"This then, is a simple message: Tobacco consumption provides a net economic loss, and anti-tobacco policies are a cost-effective way to save lives and benefit the economy."
Despite these well known facts, the very politicians who prophesy the demise of Medicare, do nothing to regulate this public health hazard. It would therefore seem logical, that if we are truly interested in fiscal responsibility, balancing the budget and saving Medicare, then effective action will have to be taken to reduce this staggering financial loss.
Instead, our elected representatives, 79% of whom take political contributions from the tobacco industry, routinely gut effective tobacco control legislation. The most recent example, is the recently passed legislation to continue to subsidize tobacco farmers, to the tune of $34 million of your tax dollars each year to continue to grow the etiologic agent (tobacco) causing all of this physical and fiscal damage! What insanity!
-
Vive la socialisme!
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
My Dad smoked Pall Mall Reds (non-filters) from my birth till about age 19. Mom smoked Pall Mall Golds till age 17. I never smelled the smoke on me, now, I practically vomit after smelling cig. smoke.
Karaya
you never *****ed about joining me for a smoke break dude!:aok
(we used to work together, and i got him into the game)
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Besides, the more I smoke the more taxes are paid to help the medical community.
But that is cancelled out by the fact that you'll be dead sooner if you continue to smoke, and you can't pay taxes when you're dead.
I've been to various cons and other flightsimmers social events over the years, and have been amazed at the amount of smoking that takes place. :eek:
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
you never *****ed about joining me for a smoke break dude!:aok
(we used to work together, and i got him into the game)
Nah, outside doesn't bother, enclosed areas for too long now, I get queezy.
Karaya
-
Good, now maybe those who don't smoke can get the smokers to do some work. Nothing like working with someone who takes 15-20 5 min smoke breaks. Between that and their regular breaks and lunch they get about 10 minutes worth of work done.
-
IMO, if people want to smoke, let 'em. Slap a $10 per pack medicare tax on them to pay for thier health care in 40 years when they can't breath anymore.
I bet people will stop smoking real quick when cigarettes are $15+ a pack.
-
Does this ban apply to pot smokers as well?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Does this ban apply to pot smokers as well?
:rolleyes:
-
boy... you guys are sure quick to ban what other people do so long as you don't enjoy it.... The best excuse is that it saves you money...
How much money would we save if we banned swimming? Or rock climbing... how bout parachuting or scuba diving? maybe overeating? or simply ban some types of foods?
lazs
-
Or driving-it sure does kill and maim a lot of people, and the total costs are astronomical.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How much money would we save if we banned swimming? Or rock climbing... how bout parachuting or scuba diving? maybe overeating? or simply ban some types of foods?
Food laws were part of Billary's master health care plan. She had her version of PNAC coming up with crazy **** like that.
-
I guess my point is that we shouldn't put a price tag on freedom. They tried to put a price tag on booze use once. We are putting one on drugs right now.
lazs
-
The province i live in (yes funked a historically democratic socialist province) will be smoke free in all public and public access buildings in January.
That means everything from gubment buildings to pubs.
So far, the only city in the province that has be smoke free has been my hometown of Moose Jaw (shut up.) I spend prolly 10-20% of my time there as it is fairly close and I still have a ton of family/friends there.
Moose Jaw has been smoke free since this past February. At first there was a bit of a decline in people going out to the pubs, casino, clubs, and bingo halls. The real problem was people ditching on bar tabs because they informed the staff of the pub that they were just "slipping out for a smoke" and then bugger off.
Things have pretty much settled down by now though. The decrease in patronage at traditional "smoker friendly" establishments has gone back up to near normal levels and the problems with people ditching on tabs has all but dissapeared.
As a smoker' I would like to whine about the city and upcoming province-wide ban of smoking in public places, but I really can't justify such crying.
What i mean is, why should my practices that are unhealthy adversely affect those who choose to abstain from this unhealthy practice? I'm not so much talking about pubs and nightclubs and what-not, but more in places such as restaurants and coffee houses where there might be kids there that dont really have the choice to get up and leave if they are bothered by second hand smoke.
If i really need a smoke that bad, i can just go outside.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess my point is that we shouldn't put a price tag on freedom. They tried to put a price tag on booze use once. We are putting one on drugs right now.
lazs
Your *freedom* has a high price. It endangers others. The next time you're in a theater, why don't you stand up and scream "fire"?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/01/health/main547249.shtml
(AP) Heart attacks in Helena, Mont., fell by more than half last summer after voters passed a broad indoor smoking ban, suggesting that cleaning up the air in bars and restaurants quickly improves health for everyone, a study found.
Doctors said their study, which they described as a kind of "natural experiment," is the first to examine what happens to public health when people stop smoking ? and breathing secondhand smoke ? in public places.
The doctors, themselves backers of the ban, acknowledged the effects need to be demonstrated in a larger locale. But despite the small numbers involved, they said Helena's experience offers a clear hint that the change reduces the risk of heart attacks for smokers and nonsmokers alike from virtually the moment it goes into effect.
People who worry about secondhand smoke often fear lung cancer most, but that takes years of exposure.
Smoking is also a powerful trigger of heart attacks and it works quickly to increase the risk by raising blood pressure, increasing the tendency of blood to make clots and other ways.
The American Heart Association estimates 35,000 nonsmokers die each year from the effects of secondhand smoke on the heart. It said the Helena data should encourage more cities to limit smoking.
Helena's smoking ban was adopted by voters in June and lasted for six months, until enforcement was suspended after a legal challenge. It "led to an immediate and dramatic decline in the number of heart attacks we saw," Dr. Richard Sargent said.
Heart attacks climbed back to their usual level after smoking returned to bars, restaurants, casinos, bowling alleys and other public places in December.
Sargent, who with co-author Dr. Robert Shepard encouraged passage of the ordinance, presented the data Tuesday to applause at the annual scientific meeting in Chicago of the American College of Cardiology.
"It is an extremely important study with implications for all cities," said Dr. Guy Reeder of the Mayo Clinic.
Dr. Richard Pasternak, director of preventive cardiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, cautioned that because of the small number of heart attacks in Helena, the true effect of a smoking ban may differ.
Nevertheless, he said, "It's very plausible that you could see this kind of broad effect. It just takes one cigarette to make a vulnerable plaque rupture," triggering a heart attack.
The doctors kept track of all heart attacks in Helena, population 26,000, and compared that with the previous four years, adjusting the figures for seasonal ups and downs. During the six months the ordinance was enforced, heart attacks in Helena dropped from an average of seven a month to three.
They found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers.
"This is a tiny, little community in the middle of nowhere," Sargent said. "This study needs to be replicated in New York City."
A rule that took effect in New York on Sunday bans smoking in city workplaces. Last week, New York passed a statewide smoking ban, joining California and Delaware with stringent rules on indoor smoking. Dozens of smaller cities and towns around the country have similar rules.
The Helena study is likely to provide ammunition for those backing these bans. "This gives us real data and proof that this needs to be done," said Karla Cutting, a spokeswoman for a Chicago campaign to prohibit workplace smoking.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
boy... you guys are sure quick to ban what other people do so long as you don't enjoy it.... The best excuse is that it saves you money...
How much money would we save if we banned swimming? Or rock climbing... how bout parachuting or scuba diving? maybe overeating? or simply ban some types of foods?
lazs
Saw this reply coming lazs (and i knew it would be from you,) and that is a valid point. Your point being, I think, that individual freedom shouldnt be restricted by the whole, or majority, or women voters.
Like your freedom to drive your elkie that pollutes the air shouldnt affect the health of the guy who walks or rides his bike to work.
Straw man if i ever saw one.
And sure, I should be able to light up a smoke in a daycare if it came down to individual rights being primary in EVERY case.
But where I live, my individual rights are subject to limits that are demonstably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fine by me.
-
Its about time. I played clubs for years in that area. Some of my guitar cases and speaker cabs still smell of smoke even after relocating to the west coast 6 years ago. It was just nausiating to smell like a smoker the next day - clothes, equipment, etc. And wow, imagine being able to see all the way across a crowded club at midnight!
I agree with Modas, slap the tax on the packs but I'd still prefer them to smoke outside.
Sixpence, the one flaw with your comment is that most people don't stop smoking when it becomes inconvenient. Smoking was banned in my workplace several years ago and now they're gone for 10 minutes (or more) out of every half hour. Most of that time is the walking "commute" to the outside smoking areas.
MiG
-
lets get this straight.... I don't smoke. I hate the smell of it and I agree that people should not be allowed to smoke in public buildings. This has nothing at all to do with private buildings like resteraunts or bars.. if people wish to avoid them then the law should read that a sign on the door shall be in plain view stating wether the establishment is a smoking or non smoking one.
so far as my hot rods go... they are legal and probly put out less pollution than most since I don't put that many miles on them anyway... spilling a cup of gas probly puts out more... I have an electric lawnmower and edger so probly pollute less than the bike riding weed eater lawn blowing volvo driver..
now, back to the subject... loser and curly are taliking about two different things... curly wants to save money by limiting the amount people who smoke... smoke... curly feels that limiting peoples freedom to smoke in a private building may save him some money so it is worth it. this of course fails to take into consideration that people who choose to enter a smoke environment do so of their own free will.
loser simply feels that public and private should be the same thing... he feels the government has as much right to restrict you in a day care say (his example) as it does in your own home.
both arguements are silly and self serving for obvious reasons and lead to socialism of the most distasteful sort.
lazs
-
Lazs I think something was lost in the meaning of my posts.
First off, i have nothing against your "hot rods." If you recall, I own a 70 Duster with a 340. It prolly pollutes worse than your elkie and I'm fine with that.
My basic point (especially in my first post) that the sad fact is some people don't have common sense.
As I was told some 15 years ago by my Dad, "Son, they have to have lots of laws because they can seem to legislate common sense."
I actually share your feelings lazs (or so I think) on individual freedom restricting laws.
You and I dont need gun registration (like we have here) and laws that are tough on street racing. You know not to drink and drive.
You know your stuff about guns and you know how to keep them safe. You know when you are gonna giv'er in the elkie or any other of your cars you dont do it in a residential area or where innocent people are going to get hurt (or at least you do it where the chances are greatly reduced.) You know not to drink and then go for a drive.
Same goes for what I said about smoking. I have never smoked around a baby, infant, or someone who was in their teens that didnt already smoked. Heck, even if their is an adult that prefers that i dont smoke, I won't
See? common sense.
Unfortunately, not everyone has this commodity. Therefore some of us have to be limited as individuals as to what we can or cannot do.
You arent responsible for restrictive gun laws, smog laws, or smoking laws. Neither am I. But sometimes you (and I) have to be held responsible and made to pay for other people's stupid mistakes and irresponsibilty.
And in response to what you said, it is quite the inverse. The gubment has every right to restrict what I do in public (eg. smoke in a daycare to use your example) if i can't use my own head and figure out if what i have to gain from my own pleasure (smoking) is going to not outweigh the adverse affects on others who have no choice in their health being hurt.
What I do in my own home is my own business. Legislated under my own law of "common sense"
-
smoker = stinker !
:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
both arguements are silly and self serving for obvious reasons and lead to socialism of the most distasteful sort.
lazs
It's silly to note that exposure to second hand smoke leads to a 40% increase in heart attacks? I guess it's self-serving since I am interested in my survival ... pardon me :)
Sometimes Lazs, I believe you don't spend any time thinking about the issues, you just react. :)
curly
-
Let's see. Cigarette smoke is dangerous to those that don't smoke so it should be banned.
I don't live in Dallas/Ft.Worth, but I have to breathe all the pollution that floats to my house from the 1,000,000 cars on the freeway, the 1000's of airliners that fly in and out of DFW and the commercial pollution from manufacturing.
Should we ban cars, trucks, planes and factories? We would have healthier air and we would all live longer by your theory. :rolleyes:
Some people are allergic to perfume. Should we ban that? Those people would live longer healthier lives.
Now here's the kicker... Guns kill and injure innocent people. Should we ban those, or put a $10 a round tax on ammunition?
C'mon, all you guys screaming about the public health danger...sign up for the GUN BAN! It was your idea to start with.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Let's see. Cigarette smoke is dangerous to those that don't smoke so it should be banned.
I don't live in Dallas/Ft.Worth, but I have to breathe all the pollution that floats to my house from the 1,000,000 cars on the freeway, the 1000's of airliners that fly in and out of DFW and the commercial pollution from manufacturing.
Should we ban cars, trucks, planes and factories? We would have healthier air and we would all live longer by your theory. :rolleyes:
Some people are allergic to perfume. Should we ban that? Those people would live longer healthier lives.
Now here's the kicker... Guns kill and injure innocent people. Should we ban those, or put a $10 a round tax on ammunition?
C'mon, all you guys screaming about the public health danger...sign up for the GUN BAN! It was your idea to start with.:rolleyes:
I know of no studies which indicate airplane exhaust in moderate amounts presents a health hazard. Similarly for automobile exhaust properly equipped with catalytic converters.
You can have my guns right after you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.
Second hand cigarette smoke is an established health hazard. I don't mind you dying from it, but I object to public funds being spent to maintain your health.
It wouldn't be enough for cigarette smokers to give up medicare/mediaid benefits. Part of any hospital bill includes a fee which is used to pay for folks without medical benefits.
In summary, I don't care if you shoot yourself in the head, but please, don't ask me to bury your sorry carcass later.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
I know of no studies which indicate airplane exhaust in moderate amounts presents a health hazard. Similarly for automobile exhaust properly equipped with catalytic converters.
curly
Here, let me educate you...
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0630baby-airpollution-ON.html
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2/air-pollution-ozone-asthma.html
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/health.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11354823&dopt=Abstract
http://www.wri.org/wri/wr-98-99/airpoll.htm
http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/inhealth.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/carbonmonoxide/default.htm
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/02/MNGR16V8VA1.DTL
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/76/90276.htm
Hope this enlightens your view.
-
RPM, no doubt where your vote is going this year.
The slippery slope arguement is such garbage.
A public smoking ban wont lead to gun restrictions, a ban on cars/trucks/whatever, perfume, industry, or whatever else you would like to dream up.
-
But they make as much sense.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
But they make as much sense.
Yup, then better watch out for those prescios bodily fluids too then. Us commies are after those as you already know.
-
Originally posted by loser
Yup, then better watch out for those prescios bodily fluids too then. Us commies are after those as you already know.
I do not avoid women, but I do deny them my essence. ;)
-
I have always been kind of amazed at the way smokers jabber about their "rights" to smoke anywhere they want with total disregard to everyone elses rights and desires for clean air.
A smokers right to smoke ends where my right to breath clean air starts.
Instead of telling me to stay home if I don't want to breath your second hand stench, consider staying home and stinking up your own home instead of everyone elses lives.
dago
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
My Dad smoked Pall Mall Reds (non-filters) from my birth till about age 19. Mom smoked Pall Mall Golds till age 17. I never smelled the smoke on me, now, I practically vomit after smelling cig. smoke.
Pall-Mall are probably one of the most stinking brands. My granny was almost crazy when I smoked Pall-Mall, saying that it stinks like burnt bones, and never complained when I smoked cheapest non-filtered Soviet stuf.
Originally posted by Modas
I bet people will stop smoking real quick when cigarettes are $15+ a pack.
In 1992, when Russia switched from Soviet state economics to "free market" - all the prices went up almost 5 times. Most of my fellow-students quitted smoking. I switched to "Galouises caporal" in soft packs from "humanitarian aid" - they were so strong that noone asked me for a cigarette twice :) Most of the people didn't last for more then a month, and started smoking again. After 1998 "crisis" when prices went up 2 times in one month I only switched from "Mild Seven" to "Apollo-Soyuz" that were 3 times cheaper, and then to "XXI Century" that are much better then most of the imported cigarettes and cheaper too.
I am sure people will find the way to get tobacco at reasonable price in any case. Not letting people to smoke can lead to social disasters. You can ban alcohol, have problems with food on ration cards, but taking away tobacco will make people crazy.
-
loser... I understand about people and common sense and such but... who cares? My arguement is that a bar or resteraunt is NOT a public place.. it is privately owned. If there is a big sign on the entrance that says there is smoke in there then if you enter to drink or eat junk food... things you do willingly and really have no real NEED for... then hell with ya.. quit yer whinning or... tell the owner yu won't come back... public places? let the voters decide.
curly... even if the junk science of 40% health risk for second hand smoke was correct (and I have seen nothing that proves that)... so what? see above. If you want to ban smoking in private places then simply ban it all together. If it is that evil then by all means... protect that smoker and willing participants from themselves. it is exactly like a seatbelt or helmet law. yu restrict freedom to save a buck... or... to keep people from hurting themselves.... sorta makes you a female accountant liberal.
There are ways to make it so we don't pay for smokers. Let the insurance companies make them pay a preimim they do allready BTW on car and home and life insurance... they pay extra taxes just as sportsmen do.
I can't believe that curly goes to so many bars that his chance of cancer is increased 40% because of the smoke. Hell.... can anyone go that much? living by a street is a real danger tho. What kind of "scientist" would say that breating bus and jet fuel was perfectly healthy but getting a wiff of burning tobacco was instant cancer?
silly... more nanny crap. the only reason that flaming liberal rpm isn't on board is because it is his ox being gored this time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly... even if the junk science of 40% health risk for second hand smoke was correct (and I have seen nothing that proves that)... so what? see above. If you want to ban smoking in private places then simply ban it all together. If it is that evil then by all means... protect that smoker and willing participants from themselves. it is exactly like a seatbelt or helmet law. yu restrict freedom to save a buck... or... to keep people from hurting themselves.... sorta makes you a female accountant liberal.
There are ways to make it so we don't pay for smokers. Let the insurance companies make them pay a preimim they do allready BTW on car and home and life insurance... they pay extra taxes just as sportsmen do.
I can't believe that curly goes to so many bars that his chance of cancer is increased 40% because of the smoke. Hell.... can anyone go that much? living by a street is a real danger tho. What kind of "scientist" would say that breating bus and jet fuel was perfectly healthy but getting a wiff of burning tobacco was instant cancer?
silly... more nanny crap. the only reason that flaming liberal rpm isn't on board is because it is his ox being gored this time.
lazs
The Montana incident wasn't junk science. It was far too pervasive (entire town was a smoke free environment.) The rest of the first two paragraphs, yeah, I agree with the spirit (except for the liberal female accountant label) :) BTW, the risk noted in Montana wasn't cancer, it was heart attack. Good that you read the article you labeled as junk science. ;)
The difference between fuel and cigarettes is a simple one for me.
When you are confronted with a dangerous environmental issue, you have three choices:
1. Accept the health risk and make no changes.
2. compromise in some manner until the health risk is decreased.
3. Make a drastic change (for example, eliminate hydrocarbons as a fuel source.)
It's impossible to chuck hydrocarbons as a fuel overnight. But, there are acceptable alternatives that we can move towards which are pollution free (hydrogen/fuel cells.) With fuel, I believe we are currently using #2 and moving towards #3.
It's easy to eliminate second hand cigarette smoke as a hazard. There's no economic pain involved whatsoever.
curly
-
hmmm... what about obesity? That is also a MAJOR health problem. Should we ration food? Or maybe we should put a large tax on food instead?
;)
I like the idea of making smokers and obese people pay more taxes or more for health insurance (think they already are doing this arent they?). Really. They can still do it..... but it's gonna cost them more and the rest of us less.
-
Physically obesity affects just that one person. When he eats, it doesn't force food down anyone elses throat.
When someone smokes in the vicinity of others, he forces secondhand smoke down their lungs.
Quite an obvious differance. I am surprised you didnt pick up on that.
dago
-
I was focusing more on the health care costs. Not the physical health effects on others.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I was focusing more on the health care costs. Not the physical health effects on others.
The health care costs from smoking related ailments (including second hand smoke) are going to put a serious dent in the medicare bank in the next 10 years or so. Tobacco related ailments are estimated by the year 2010 to cost the US taxpayer $800 billion / year.
And we continue to subsidize the American tobacco farmer.
curly
-
curly.. my concerns are not for cost but for goverment intervention in peoples private property. How is it a health risk for non smokers to read a sign and not enter a privately owned bar or resteraunt?
Also... how is one study in one town conclusive? What kind of science it that? that is like saying that some tibetian area that has smoking and 120 year lifespans proves that smoking increases lifespans... junk science is making conclussions without taking the variable into consideration.. The study may or may not be accurate but... what do you do about it?
Either make the product illegal based on the extreme expense and danger or allow people to do whatever they want on their own property about it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly.. my concerns are not for cost but for goverment intervention in peoples private property. How is it a health risk for non smokers to read a sign and not enter a privately owned bar or resteraunt?
Also... how is one study in one town conclusive? What kind of science it that? that is like saying that some tibetian area that has smoking and 120 year lifespans proves that smoking increases lifespans... junk science is making conclussions without taking the variable into consideration.. The study may or may not be accurate but... what do you do about it?
Either make the product illegal based on the extreme expense and danger or allow people to do whatever they want on their own property about it.
lazs
Concerning restaurants, do you think we should have health standards? Do you think the restaurants should be inspected? Do you think restaurant owners should be permitted to employ folks who have hepatitis? If not, why not? The restaurant is privately owned. If you think health standards should not be imposed, well, we have no common ground and the discussion is pointless.
Concerning: "Also... how is one study in one town conclusive?" Because they weren't studying towns, they were studying people.
But, the study needs to be repeated in other towns too. I suspect in large cities with significant air pollution, the hazard of second hand smoke will be decreased (compared to the Montana study.)
curly
-
Originally posted by lazs2
boy... you guys are sure quick to ban what other people do so long as you don't enjoy it.... The best excuse is that it saves you money...
How much money would we save if we banned swimming? Or rock climbing... how bout parachuting or scuba diving? maybe overeating? or simply ban some types of foods?
lazs
None of the activities you suggest banning create a health hazard for others...except for skydiving and rock climbing...:lol
Tax...tax..TAX the smoking bastages tax them back into the stone age.......I don't feel like seeing my healthcare spike because someone cant control their niccotine habit.
As I recall, lazs, you were rather adamant about not wanting to pay a surcharge for visiting mountain resorts where people have to be rescued from extreme climbing. I believe the thread had to do with mountain climbers having to be rescued...
Maybe it wasn't you who mentioned it, if it was, sorry for confusing you with someone else.
-
curly... are you seriously comparing unclean kitchen practices with smoking? If a sign is posted that states that the place is a smoking bar then anyone who enters is putting himself at risk of his own free will. No one is forced to drink in abar last I heard and... if smoking is so abhorent then non smoking bars will make a killing.
as for health standards and disease control in privately owned resteraunts... I am of the opinion that if you simply made it voluntary with no inspections except for those in the program and... made it mandatory that non members of the program post as such.... most would voluntarily comply... those who didn't would also be prone to lawsuits since they could not prove a safe product (food).
As for rock climbing... no redtail... I felt that if was worth the expense of rescuing them to allow for the freedom to do it but... they should have to foot the bill themselves if they were negligent.
obesity kills far more and... it affectds us all with the medical expense. It will be the next great nanny plan for limiting freedom.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curly... are you seriously comparing unclean kitchen practices with smoking? If a sign is posted that states that the place is a smoking bar then anyone who enters is putting himself at risk of his own free will. No one is forced to drink in abar last I heard and... if smoking is so abhorent then non smoking bars will make a killing.
lazs
Both are examples of government intervention for the common good. For me at least, that's one purpose of a good government.
Posting signs does little good. All to frequently, folks are coerced into events offered by the public (restaurants/theaters/& etc). In many cases, the unwilling participant has no choice.
curly