Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on October 28, 2002, 01:14:22 PM
-
This Nov 5th Florida has amendment 6 on the ballot:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initdetail.asp?
account=34548&seqnum=1
It is like the law in CA which will prohibit smoking inside.
How do you in CA find this law? Any smokers for it?
Myself, I hope it passes here.
-
I'm voting against it. I feel I have no right to tell an owner of a workplace if they can or cannot smoke inside. Especially if I do not work there.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
I'm voting against it. I feel I have no right to tell an owner of a workplace if they can or cannot smoke inside. Especially if I do not work there.
Isn't it the employer's obligation to provide a safe working place for his employees?
-
Originally posted by Nifty
I'm voting against it. I feel I have no right to tell an owner of a workplace if they can or cannot smoke inside. Especially if I do not work there.
Workplace?
you mean bars and restaurants?
the help ain't the ones smoking, its the customers
I would be fine with laws today if a Non smoking section was truly non smoking. Not some half wall at best but a glass box, just like the airports :)
Just because someone doesn't have the self control to wait, why should I have to smell his nasty habit?
you probably votin for ole bill too :)
-
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.
-
If I don't like the smell of old people can we make them all stand in a glass box as well?
-
Originally posted by Kanth
If I don't like the smell of old people can we make them all stand in a glass box as well?
LOL :)
just stay outa the Denny's, Village Inn and Morrisons and you'll be ok. All for smokers only establishments, I'd know where to avoid.
-
Eagler, the amendment you want is one that bans smoking in RESTAURANTS. Not WORKPLACES.
And I doubt I will vote for McBride. His programs will not be paid for by a 50 cent increase on cigarettes and his other little money saving "schemes." McBride's education initiatives are excellent, but expensive with no way to pay for them other than raising taxes. The programs cost more than his plan says, and his plan's way of raising money is not enough for even what his plan calls for, let alone what it will actually cost. I'd love to have smaller classrooms and for teachers to get a $2500/yr increase in average salary. However, I don't think we as a state can afford that, so it would be wrong to vote for him, IMO.
-
I for one love the new laws against smoking in public places.
We don't allow any smoking in any public places here.. period.
It's allowed more of us to go 'out' and have fun.
I actually go to the local bar once in a while now.
-
We have that on most of the job sights I work at. Very limited outside smoking areas.
In some work areas it makes damn good sense. Refineries, and the like where one dipshit could blow us all to hell.
And I can also see it in offices where a lot of the air is recycled through the building. My mother (retired now) has always had really bad allergies, not just cigs but also heavy perfume wearers and the like. In her case she shouldn't have it inflicted on her.
But in my line of work most of our jobs are in paper-mills. Have you ever smelled a paper mill? If you've driven with in 10 miles of one, you've smelt one. We go into these things and we weld and cut steel that has been impregnated with these chemicals. You let your head get into the smoke it will knock the breath out of you, and if you're really careless you'll be coughing up blood. Sometimes you can use a resperator, most of the time you set up ventilation to keep the worst of it away. Anyway most of these are now non-smoking. A guy has a smoke plume so thick you cant see through it, maybe 14" in dia. going 10 ft in the air, and he gets written up because the cig hanging out his mouth is a health hazard.
Then you go into the brake room to rest. There’s maybe a dozen guys in there, I'm the only one who doesn't smoke, and I don't care. The safety guy comes in and writes someone up for it. In some towns a cop could come in and give the guy a ticket (never seen it happen but the laws there.)
Basically if nobody working their minds it should be a non-issue. If even 1 person has a complaint then there should be no smoking anywhere they have to be.
Personally, I'd rather deal with a little smoke in the air then 12 guys on a nicotine jones.
-
Personally, I'd rather deal with a little smoke in the air then 12 guys on a nicotine jones.
lol
they'll get over it!
-
I'm pretty split on this one. I can understand nearly every aspect of these laws, and I have to say, even when I was a smoker, I enjoyed smoke free dining. But a bar without smoke is just wierd.
One note though, I didn't know how much I appreciated the law until I moved to MD, and back into the smoking/non-smoking environment.
-Sik
-
though i am a smoker (first to respond?)
and i will be quitting soon (laugh all u want :p )
my friends and i will not patronize places that forbid smoking around here for the simple fact that the government is trying to tell people how to live their lives.
i am offended by smelly people on the bus... but no law says they have to shower.
the liberals will do everything they can to make me live the way they want... I wont accept "alternative lifestyles" as OK the Bible says they are Wrong. I wont follow many of their ways and this is just another liberal tool to get us all in a marxist society.
-
lemme rephrase this again... If the amendment was to ban smoking from inside restaurants only, I'd probably vote for it. It's not. It's banning smoking from inside of all workplaces.
and by the way, you still won't have a smoke free bar. Stand alone bars are excluded from the amendment.
-
I don't smoke.. I like going to places that are smoke free but...
I can't even believe that people are telling other people what they can do in their own building in regards to smoking.
I say let the owner decide and the rest of us can patronize smoking or non smoking.. the workers can choose where to work.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nifty
lemme rephrase this again... If the amendment was to ban smoking from inside restaurants only, I'd probably vote for it. It's not. It's banning smoking from inside of all workplaces.
and by the way, you still won't have a smoke free bar. Stand alone bars are excluded from the amendment.
I can't think of many busineses, cept for mom & pop, that allow smoking inside today
call it what you want, its about the restaurants.
comparing cig smoke smell to old ppl or B.O. can't be done. Haven't heard of anyone getting cancer from either of those two...
It's stinks and is a health hazard. Make them stand outside. Why should they complain, they get to take smoke breaks thoughout the day. Refusing them those breaks would violate their "rights" but having me smell/breathe their smoke doesn't violate mine?
-
I am a non-smoker and live in CA. I think the anti-smoking laws here are pathetic. Health risks of second-hand smoke are greatly overstated. I realize smoking is bad, but it's not the government's decision to make. The decision should be left up to business owners and individuals.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
but having me smell/breathe their smoke doesn'r violate mine?
No, you are free to leave at any time you like. You are also free to go find another restraunt to eat at.
There is no invasion of your health because you walked into a smokey bar... you wanna risk your health, you are free to eat there... if you don't wanna risk your health, go find a smoke-free restraunt to eat at.
Not that hard, but no... it's easier to make everyone do things your way.
-SW
-
it goes further than that IMO.
IF you could contain smoke (in public places) so that it didn't affect those that don't want to breathe in that crap that's proven to cause serious health issues, then sure, let them smoke.
The problem is that unless you build enclosures to keep the deadly stuff out of everyone elses lungs then you are forcing all those that stroll by to breathe it in.
If it's ok to force other people to breathe it why stop there ?
let's let em put out toxic smoke of all kinds.
how about toxic fumes?
any different ?
-
Originally posted by Nifty
I'm voting against it. I feel I have no right to tell an owner of a workplace if they can or cannot smoke inside. Especially if I do not work there.
Bars and private workspaces are already exempt from the amendment.
I'm voting for it. Most of the major companies already have a non-smoking policy thanks to lawsuits by workers (one of the few times I've been in favor of such things).
I'm particularly interested in seeing what becomes of the proposal to repeal the amendment to build a bullet train from Miami to Orlando to Tampa to Jacksonville. I didn't vote for the bullet train and nobody I spoke with after the results were announced voted for it either. I never even knew it was on the ballot until I sat there punching chads. The whole time I was reading the proposal, I kept having visions of "The Simpsons" episode when Springfield builds a monorail, just to show up its rival, a neighboring town.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, you are free to leave at any time you like. You are also free to go find another restraunt to eat at.
There is no invasion of your health because you walked into a smokey bar... you wanna risk your health, you are free to eat there... if you don't wanna risk your health, go find a smoke-free restraunt to eat at.
Not that hard, but no... it's easier to make everyone do things your way.
-SW
hmm
I wouldn't be in a smokey bar
but what if my family and I are out to dinner & sitting there first and across the half wall in the "smoking section", a chain smokin dragon lady twin of my older sister sits down and starts her endless trail of smoke & coughing
I should leave?
they can smoke, but I shouldn't have to smell/taste it
I can sit there and crap my pants and let everyone enjoy the aroma but I think that's what the restroom is for :)
put them in glass cages and feed them butts...
-
Smoker here,
Just did a bit of research can't find a single instance of someone dying from second hand smoke. Interesting.
I don't go to resturants that don't have smoking sections, my choice. My business there are 6 employees all of which smoke under this law we couldn't smoke. BULLSH#T!
Government so concerned, make it illegal, done problem solved I would have to quit etc. But of course they will never make it illegal they are making too much money from it. Places I eat in NY, are an enclosed area, basically a glass box with ventilation above.
All you non-smokers you get more poisoning from commuting than second hand smoke. Can you say brake dust and fuel emissions yummy.
-
Oregon works it pretty nice. No smoking, except in bars or the bar areas of a resturaunt. I'm a non-smoker who can't stand cigarette smoke, and I have yet to encounter a problem with this. Even as an anal-retentive non-smoker I can't imagine smoking not being allowed in a bar...that's just retarded.
SOB
-
I should leave?
No, but there are things that can be done to remedy the situation. If you haven't gotten your food yet, ask to have your table moved.
If that doesn't work, ask to have them moved further away.
If that doesn't work, politely ask them to not smoke until you are done.
If all of the above doesn't work, complain to the management.
The solution to this situation is not to vote for over-reactionary laws because you can't see the forest for the trees.
A law that would make more sense would be a divider wall or something in which smoking/nonsmoking essentially get their own air supply or are sectioned off better...
Instead you want all smokers to not be able to smoke until they go outside.
Hows about instead of voting for the extreme measures dooche bag laws, go for the ones that will happily satisfy both parties? It is possible, I don't know if you knew that tho.
-SW
-
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.
I don't go to resturants that don't have smoking sections, my choice. My business there are 6 employees all of which smoke under this law we couldn't smoke. BULLSH#T!
Government so concerned, make it illegal, done problem solved I would have to quit etc. But of course they will never make it illegal they are making too much money from it. Places I eat in NY, are an enclosed area, basically a glass box with ventilation above.
All you non-smokers you get more poisoning from commuting than second hand smoke. Can you say brake dust and fuel emissions yummy.
Its rare that we sit down to a meal at the tail pipe of a running auto :)
ain't worried about cancer, grew up in a very smoke friendly household - if I'm gonna get it, I got it already, I just don't like the smell and it irrates my sinuses and ruins the taste f a good meal.
-
Glad I live where I do.. NO smoking allowed in public spaces. Period.
Too bad they can't include the ski hill...
it sucks to make a run in the crisp cold air, feeling awesome at 10k+ only to get on a lift chair behind some ciggie gasping dweeb that thinks it's his right to do whatever he pleases, regardless of how it affects others.
IMO Americans wouldn't have this attitude of 'no harm done' with cigarette smoke if it weren't for the Tobacco companies.
As for the attitude of 'can't prove second hand smoke is harmful'.. get a clue. Just because something is difficult to prove statistically doesn't mean it isn't the truth.
And yeah, some other toxins may be more harmful (I.E. auto exhaust) but so what..?
It's ok to add more toxins just because 'it' isn't 'as' harmful?
lol
-
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.!
Actually I quit almost 3 yrs ago, so I really don't care... isn't that terrible? We have a small bar near our work that is run by the owners. They allow smoking, since thay have no employees. They get a lot of business too.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
IMO Americans wouldn't have this attitude of 'no harm done' with cigarette smoke if it weren't for the Tobacco companies.
That's why there's hardly any smoking in Europe and Asia.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
Too bad they can't include the ski hill...
it sucks to make a run in the crisp cold air, feeling awesome at 10k+ only to get on a lift chair behind some ciggie gasping dweeb that thinks it's his right to do whatever he pleases, ....
Bet he/they just flick the butt right out into their "global ashtray" too
-
Just did a bit of research can't find a single instance of someone dying from second hand smoke. Interesting.
Maybe not, but I do remember my dad telling me about when he used to tend bar. He’d never smoked. He goes into the Drs. office for a lung infection. The Dr. tells him 'first thing you gotta do is quit smoking' he told the Dr he didn't smoke and the Dr says 'roadkill', he didn't believe him till he found out he worked in a bar.
He had all the lung troubles of a smoker. Although that should be taken into account before you decide to work in a bar.
In most other instances a person should be able to be free from smoke if it's a problem for them.
However if nobody in the work area minds the gov't should butt the hell out.
Before these laws came into effect it wouldn't matter if there where 25 guys smoking in the break trailer, if one guy says it bothers him they all put them out, smoke outside, or the company sometimes provides 2 trailers so those who smoke can have their own. Now that’s not good enough. There can be no smoking in any trailers or indoor areas even if all that work there smoke.
Maybe if smokers had been more considerate before it wouldn't be so bad now. But these laws seem to have gone too far to me.
A sad thing when it gets so out of hand that the gov't feels it has to legislate common courtesy
-
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
-
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!!!!!!
-
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;)
-
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 :D
-
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
In other words. The other guys vices are worse then yours.
Your starting to sound like a leftie. :)
-
So judging by this report, I'm perfectly ok breathing all the smoke from the cigarette next to me in a restaurant?
IMO that study is biased to say the least... no cancer risk... any other risks? Does it affect people with asthma? Any other kind of infections that one may suffer from breathing other people's smoke?
Please...
I am a non-smoker, and I would definitely support such a bill if we actually had it :rolleyes:.
In the States you can choose between smoking and non-smoking areas, smonkin or non-smoking restaurants... wish I had the choice here in Spain, where the ratio of smokers is much higher. :(
Daniel
-
Here is another line from that same article. Its funny, in an ironic sort of way.
1. California is not the first jurisdiction to enact such a ban: Iran did so in 1996- but it was overturned as unconstitutional.
-
BTW. On the bias comment.
The world health organization, set out to prove that second hand smoke DID create health problems.
-
thank you easymo
I found that article myself and decided not to post it,
GoFaster I can go grab an article now that says second hand smoke helps alzheimers (sp).
All I am saying is there should be smoking and non-smoking areas, in public places I don't care if it is sectioned off by glass or not. If I want to smoke I should be able to, if you want smoke free you should have that too.
I don't smoke near children, when I take my neices and nephews out we sit in non-smoking. If I am with my smoking friends I should be able to sit in the smoking section.
As far as asthma I think we should out law pollen.
-
sikboy! -
That's why there's hardly any smoking in Europe and Asia.
You have got to be toejamting me!!! I am appalled at the levels of smoking in countries like France, Italy and Spain. Much higher than Britain or the USA. As for Asia, Japan has one of the highest proportions of smokers in the world! Some 78% of Japanese men smoke. Virgin Atlantic Airlines is a non smoking airline like most of the others. But as far as I know, an exception is made for flights to and from Tokyo.
-
Originally posted by easymo
BTW. On the bias comment.
The world health organization, set out to prove that second hand smoke DID create health problems.
I'm wondering how they concluded something different than the American Medical Association.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/375/fundamentalscia.pdf
-
I'm wondering how they concluded something different than the American Medical Association.
LOL. Your kidding, right?
Americans for Nonsmokers rights. Now, there is an unbised group. :D
-
No, I'm not.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v286n4/fpdf/jed10040.pdf
-
Originally posted by beet1e
sikboy! - You have got to be toejamting me!!!
Yes, I am.
I am appalled at the levels of smoking in countries like France, Italy and Spain. Much higher than Britain or the USA. As for Asia, Japan has one of the highest proportions of smokers in the world! Some 78% of Japanese men smoke. Virgin Atlantic Airlines is a non smoking airline like most of the others. But as far as I know, an exception is made for flights to and from Tokyo. [/B]
I agree. I just thought it was funny that ideas about disregarding the health risks of smoking could be attributed to Americans, and that the reason behind those "American" ideas was the American tobacco industry. In reality, other cultures have the same outlook (and even more so). I know that Phillip Morris and friends have international interests, but I think that it's too much to say that they are the cause for: " Americans having this attitude of 'no harm done' with cigarette smoke."
I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that lol. (Most people ignore me :) )
-Sik
-
Sandman.
The world Health Organasation, free of American political pressor (unlike the AMA) Spent 14 years (the only difinitive resurce ever done) trying to prove that second hand smoke causes canser, etc. They could not do it.
You dont have to be a siantist to figure this one out.
-
crap. Now they will want to outlaw booze.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Sandman.
The world Health Organasation, free of American political pressor (unlike the AMA) Spent 14 years (the only difinitive resurce ever done) trying to prove that second hand smoke causes canser, etc. They could not do it.
You dont have to be a siantist to figure this one out.
I'm wondering what the Wall Street Journal is spouting then.
According to the World Health Organization, "second-hand smoke harms and kills non-smokers."
http://www5.who.int/tobacco/repository/stp45/health.doc
The truth is out—tobacco kills. What you now need to know is that tobacco kills non-smokers as well. Let us be clear about it. Second-hand smoke also kills.
The above from: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2001/en/state2001-09.html
-
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
-
Electronic Telegraph October 11, 1998
Suspending the rules of science
Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
SO NOW the facts are out. With the publication last week of the full World Health Organisation report on passive smoking, anyone can check the accuracy of The Telegraph's exclusive story last March, which disclosed that the WHO had failed to find any convincing evidence that passive smoking causes lung cancer.
Yet there has been little of the publicity which would have been expected for so striking a finding from a major study by an official organisation. But this is passive smoking research, where normal rules do not apply, including those of scientific investigation.
Indeed, the most impressive aspect of the WHO study is how the same political correctness has pervaded the organisation's approach to the scientific evidence.
Following our coverage of the study's findings, the WHO immediately issued a press release headlined "Passive smoking does cause cancer", vehemently insisting that it was "untrue" that the study had "failed to scientifically prove that there is an association [with] passive smoking".
Now that the study has been published, it is hard to see what basis the WHO had for making these definitive statements. So unremittingly negative were the study's findings that it is quicker to state the two statistically significant results it did uncover. The first is a hint of increasing risk with a measure of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at home or the workplace. Given all the other negative risk findings, however, quite what this trend means is far from clear.
But the other positive result is a real headline-grabber: statistically significant evidence that childhood exposure to cigarette smoke cuts the risk of lung cancer by 22 per cent. In other words, exposure to cigarette smoke can be protective. Such a finding, while surprising, is clearly intriguing, and the authors of the WHO report made it their principal study finding. But in just the same way that the WHO can see "proof" of an extra cancer risk in statistically non-significant evidence, so it can fail to see anything at all in significant evidence for a lower cancer risk.
In the WHO report, the statistically significant finding on childhood exposure is transformed into evidence that "Exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer". This is Humpty Dumpty science, where words such as "statistical significant" mean what the WHO researchers choose them to mean.
-
Originally posted by easymo
crap. Now they will want to outlaw booze.
is that an admendment too? :)
not booze just drunks
-
People, by nature, are going to make of these reports, what they want. Based on what they have been sold, or what they want to be true. I followed this story fairly closely, when it came out. I am a 40+ year smoker, and I rasied 3 kids. I was concerned what effects my smoking might have had. What all this verbiage from the WHO, and the people that object to their findings, amounts to is this. After 14 years, the percentage of possible harmful effects, was less then the percentage for possible error in the report. After all of that, the worse that they could claim, was that their own findings where inconclusive. Not much to show for 14 years of trying.
(thank god for spellchecker:)
-
Eagler,
Here in CA it has actually increased the business for most bars as people who previously avoided them due to the smoke now see them as viable recreation. That said, your milage may vary depending on the percentage of smokers in your state.
-
READ: It's not a good plan in Virginia. :)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
That's why there's hardly any smoking in Europe and Asia.
-Sik
Huh ? 'scuse me ?
Japan probably had the highest smoking/pple in the 80's. There are cigarette vending machines in the streets every 50 meters.
Try the PRC.
Ever been to France/Italy/Spain ? seems to me nearly everybody smokes there.
In most european countries, you still have ashtrays on pple's desks in their offices.
The only country in Yurop where I've seen a lot less smoking is England. (All those damn veggies too! :mad: )
We don't condone smoking here, we condone advertising about smoking (No more Spa/Francorchamp due to the cigarette adds)
-
I am going to apply for a grant from the World Health Organization to study whether or not bad body odor can be a contributing factor for emphysema... If I gather enough bogus data, I'll bet I could prove it... Better yet asthma... yeah... If I can show that BO hurts our children, I can force the passage of a law that requires people to take supervised showers thrice daily. Supervision would be required to make sure each person was thorough. And the law would say that we have to change our underwear several times a day, and underwear would be worn on the outside, so we could check. (thanks Woody) I'll bet Proctor and Gamble would chip in some of the grant money...yeah...
>edit> second hand BO... that's what indiscriminately kills thousands of underprivileged people in the third world, and the scourge is headed here!
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Huh ? 'scuse me ?
Ooops, time to read all the way through :)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by narsus
All I am saying is there should be smoking and non-smoking areas, in public places I don't care if it is sectioned off by glass or not. If I want to smoke I should be able to, if you want smoke free you should have that too.
There already are such areas. The Fl. amendment would simply eliminate it from work environments, such as offices and employee commons areas, and from indoor areas where such segregation wouldn't be possible, such as hotel lobbies.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
There already are such areas. The Fl. amendment would simply eliminate it from work environments, such as offices and employee commons areas, and from indoor areas where such segregation wouldn't be possible, such as hotel lobbies.
show me place, other than an airport, where smokers have to go into a sealed room to smoke. Ice Palace I think has such a place too. Can't think of a single restaurant..
-
Originally posted by easymo
crap. Now they will want to outlaw booze.
That was already done via the Temperance Movement. Al Capone could tell you all about how successful it was.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
show me place, other than an airport, where smokers have to go into a sealed room to smoke. Ice Palace I think has such a place too. Can't think of a single restaurant..
El Pilon on MacDill is completely smoke-free. So is Hugo's on Howard. Can you tell I like my Cuban food? :)
I guess I should post the relevant text of the amendment:
"WHEREAS, second-hand tobacco smoke is a known human carcinogen (contains cancer-causing agents) for which there is no safe level of exposure, and causes death and disease; WHEREAS, exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke frequently occurs in the workplace; and WHEREAS, ventilation and filtration systems do not remove the cancer-causing substances from second-hand smoke; NOW, THEREFORE, to protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, the citizens of Florida hereby amend Article X of the Florida Constitution to add the following as section 20:
SECTION 20. Workplaces Without Tobacco Smoke.-
(a) Prohibition. As a Florida health initiative to protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, tobacco smoking is prohibited in enclosed indoor workplaces.
(b) Exceptions. As further explained in the definitions below, tobacco smoking may be permitted in private residences whenever they are not being used commercially to provide child care, adult care, or health care, or any combination thereof; and further may be permitted in retail tobacco shops, designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments; and stand-alone bars. However, nothing in this section or in its implementing legislation or regulations shall prohibit the owner, lessee, or other person in control of the use of an enclosed indoor workplace from further prohibiting or limiting smoking therein."
So, if I read this correctly then, smoking would be prohibited inside Bennigan's, Chili's, Outback Steakhouse, Hooters, and other restaurants that have a bar within their eating areas? I'm liking this amendment more and more!
-
let's get this straight.... those who would save us from ourselves ALLWAYS overstate their case. One could say that they allways lie about the truth in order to take away our freedoms more easily.
lazs
-
Oooops Silkboy :o
-
insane!!!
smokers think it's thier right to smoke .. at the expense of others.
Get real.
make a heated smoking area ??
hey it's your right to smoke but it doesn't mean we have to build spaces/enclosures for you, or go out of 'our' way to avoid, etc.
It should go like this:
It's your right to smoke as long as it doesn't intrude on the rights of others to breath fresh air.
Like many other freedoms this country has to offer, it has to have limits.
and to all those that say limiting smoking erodes yet another individual rights.. gimme a break.
So an individual right like say..spraying Chlorine Gas into the air is ok in a public space...I mean.. it's MY RIGHT, right?
-
So why is it, then, that smokers should have to go out of 'their' way just to appease you? Your comparison to spraying chlorine gas in the air is laughable. Chlorine gas is obviously a killer. Its effects are known. Second-hand tobacco smoke, and its effects are unclear.
If I go to a restaurant and find it too smoky for my like, I leave. If a co-worker wants to have a cigarette, by all means go ahead, heck, I'll probably join that co-worker just so I can get outside and enjoy being away from my desk.
You want to smoke while you're pregnant? Go right ahead. It's not my business. When you're on a chairlift and some guy in the chair in front of you lights up, sure, you might have to smell it. You might also have to smell the guy next to you rip one.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
So why is it, then, that smokers should have to go out of 'their' way just to appease you?
Because they're the ones that want to engage in an activity. They initiate the act and therefore bear the responsibility for that act, including being aware of those around them. If you engage in an act that's harmful and disruptful to others, then it is your responsibility to act properly. Not only is that proper ettiquette, its also going to be the law.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
You want to smoke while you're pregnant? Go right ahead. It's not my business.
So who's looking out for the rights of the fetus? Maybe we should abolish the child welfare programs while we're at it.:mad:
-
the parent is/should be looking out for the fetus.
You missed the point. or just want to disagree.
anyone with half a brain can figure it out.
it's your right to do what you want.. just don't force it on me just because you want to smoke.
I'm not saying don't smoke. just be responsible about it.
the comparison to chlorine is right on.. you realize it's one of the components of cigarette smoke right?
-
Chlorine is also a component of salt.
I do agree with most of what you're saying, Wlfgang. I just feel that it isn't my right, or your right, to infringe upon the rights of others. Smoke? Be considerate of those around you. That's all. I know that if I were to light up, the first thing I'd ask would be, "Anyone mind if I smoke?" A single "Yes, I do," and I wouldn't smoke.
A little common courtesy would go a long way....
-
gofaster, the mother should be looking out for the rights of the fetus.
-
A little common courtesy would go a long way....
I can totally agree with that !
IMO that's what it's all about in the first place. The law wouldn't even be necessary if more people thought like this.
It's a sad fact that in my experience, most of the smokers that visit our ski area don't have any courtesy whatsoever. In fact they make it a point to be obnoxious. Often they are trying to prove some point when, in fact, their behavior shows what morons they are.
I don't have a problem with smokers per se..
just the amazinhunks that smoke.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
gofaster, the mother should be looking out for the rights of the fetus.
Check it out and let me know which mother you're talking about.
http://www.itsmyidea.com/sherwin/
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
it's your right to do what you want.. just don't force it on me just because you want to smoke.
Exactly! The person that is doing the action - the smoking - should be responsible for his actions and its effects on others. Its a basic component of tort law. I'd like to see the amendment passed. I think it'd be a great public service.
-
Originally posted by jonnyb
gofaster, the mother should be looking out for the rights of the fetus.
True. But she should not be legally compelled to do so.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
True. But she should not be legally compelled to do so.
Skating real close to a Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice argument here. The basic idea is that laws exist to protect the general welfare of the public. Ensuring citizen saftey by restricting smoking in enclosed public places would fall within that duty that government owes to its citizens.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Skating real close to a Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice argument here. The basic idea is that laws exist to protect the general welfare of the public. Ensuring citizen saftey by restricting smoking in enclosed public places would fall within that duty that government owes to its citizens.
Hell... I thought I skated right over the top of it... :D
-
I'm not a smoker but I do sympathise. Second hand smoke? Hell theres more crap sitting in rush hour traffic on the motoryway.
I work in IT, 50% of my customers are caffeine freaks and smokers. I can put up with it. I know they'll die from lung/throat/whatever cancer. I know they fund our medical system with their ciggy taxes. And I know thats a crapload more stuff out there that will kill me before second hand smoke does.
AND...
... I too have been victimized, I had an official complaint laid against me at my last job, for excessive smelly flatulance. DON'T LAFF! I'm whoopee serious! I was told to "take it outside next time". Can you imagine that? All you smokers standing outside, puffing away, and me with ya riiiiiiiiiiiipping away too?
(no I am serious - this chick really did make a complaint to my boss)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I'm not a smoker but I do sympathise. Second hand smoke? Hell theres more crap sitting in rush hour traffic on the motoryway.
I work in IT, 50% of my customers are caffeine freaks and smokers. I can put up with it. I know they'll die from lung/throat/whatever cancer. I know they fund our medical system with their ciggy taxes. And I know thats a crapload more stuff out there that will kill me before second hand smoke does.
AND...
... I too have been victimized, I had an official complaint laid against me at my last job, for excessive smelly flatulance. DON'T LAFF! I'm whoopee serious! I was told to "take it outside next time". Can you imagine that? All you smokers standing outside, puffing away, and me with ya riiiiiiiiiiiipping away too?
(no I am serious - this chick really did make a complaint to my boss)
I will never recover from this post Vulcan. EVER.
-
Passive smoking cause cancer, maybe, maybe not,
BUT the smoke stinks like hell ! and thats killing enough! ;)
-
it's noxious gas, period.
same for the cigarettes! :eek:
-
You know Vulcan.... I thought I smelled something too.
-
Let's look at that amendment one more time.
Exceptions
private residences whenever they are not being used commercially to provide child care, adult care, or health care, or any combination thereof
retail tobacco shops
designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments
stand-alone bars.
That's it. Those are the only places in Florida anyone can smoke inside if this amendment is passed. That means the little smoking rooms in airports (unless that's considered a guest room at a public lodging establishment, but I think not) are out as well as small businesses (including some that every single person smokes and no one objects to smoking in the break room.) The only way that small business qualifies for the exception is if someone lives there as well.
The spirit of the amendment has merit, I don't discount that. The scope of the amendment is asinine, and as such, I am voting against it.
-
That means the little smoking rooms in airports (unless that's considered a guest room at a public lodging establishment, but I think not) are out as well as small businesses
isn't that what
designated smoking guest rooms
are?
little smoking rooms ?
I think it's fine as described by you.
I simply means Designate smoking rooms/areas.
what's wrong with that ?
-
Originally posted by Nifty
Let's look at that amendment one more time.
Exceptions
private residences whenever they are not being used commercially to provide child care, adult care, or health care, or any combination thereof
retail tobacco shops
designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments
stand-alone bars.
That's it. Those are the only places in Florida anyone can smoke inside if this amendment is passed. That means the little smoking rooms in airports (unless that's considered a guest room at a public lodging establishment, but I think not) are out as well as small businesses (including some that every single person smokes and no one objects to smoking in the break room.) The only way that small business qualifies for the exception is if someone lives there as well.
The spirit of the amendment has merit, I don't discount that. The scope of the amendment is asinine, and as such, I am voting against it.
your splitting hairs
who's going to report a mom/pop biz where they all smoke?
you think the airports are going to get rid of their glass smoking dens? Even CA a/ps have them. they aren't going nowhere.
I think its a dirty habit, right up there with chewing tobacco spit. The more its controlled and placed in the corner where it belongs, the better.
-
Quitting smoking is the single most thing a person can do to improve ones health. Mothers who smoke deliver lower weight babies prone to more complications- children who live in a home with a smoker suffer more colds, bronchial and respatory illnesses than children who live in smoke free enviroments.
Knowing what we know today about the dangers of tobacco use one could conclude that to smoke cigarettes today one would have to be too stupid to understand what they're doing to their bodies or too weak mentally to beat such a nasty addiction.
Personally I view tobacco as Darwinism in action, and I haven't met very many smokers who have impressed me with thier intelligence so as far as I'm concerned puff away- the more smokers who die the less trailer parks we need to house the rest of them. The only sad thing is that behavior is learned, so children of smokers are more likely to smoke than children of nonsmokers.
Instead of banning cigarettes in public I think we should go much further than that and ban the cultivation, sale and distribution of tobacco and tobacco products entirely. Too many people die from tobacco and it's a burden on our medical infrastructure because people who smoke are usually too stupid to afford health coverage so we, the tax payer, gets stuck with the bill.
-
here here!!!
let's ban POT too.. oh.. it already is ..