Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

This from the guy that thinks global warming's a made up thing and scoffs at regulations to protect the environment.

You keep framing this as smokers wanting to smoke around non-smokers. I don't want to do that. Would you be okay with me smoking around other smokers in public? Or is your spite toward smokers so extreme now that you would deny us even that?

When I was in high school we had an enclosed, outdoor smoking area (yeah, it was a long time ago). It was the smaller and less pleasant of two enclosed, outdoor areas. But we had a rabid anti-smoking kid on student council who said it was unfair to non-smokers that there be a place on campus where they were unable to enjoy themselves without being bothered by smoke. The smoking area became non-smoking and no one hung out there the rest of my time in school. After all, the other outdoor area was much nicer. The net result was not one more place for non-smokers to enjoy -- it was just making sure that smokers couldn't enjoy themselves anywhere.

 

Heck, I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything posted by bigtexxx in this thread. Once again, bigtexxx is presenting himself as a closet libpig.

Kudos to batman too for his recognition of the harmfulness of smoking and his willingness as a smoker to sacrifice his convenience/freedom for the well-being of the nonsmokers.

 

No... we ban drunk driving. Your extreme analogies aren't very responsive.

Think about why we have laws banning driving while intoxicated and laws prohibiting drinking while driving. They infringe on basic liberties to consume whatever the hell you want, but we do it for safety and public health reasons, to protect another from injury. Your rights only extend as far as they don't infringe on another person's rights.

Remember when you used to be able to smoke on planes in the smoking section in the back. Well, a bunch of stewards and stewardesses starting getting cancer and sure enough that got banned. The same thing can be extended to workers in bars who are exposed to more smoke in an unhealthy work environment. Paternalistic justifications for legislation forms the basis of so many laws in society from drunk driving, seat belt laws, etc...

Every employee is guaranteed by law to have a safe working environment and open smoking in bars is a direct affront to that right. Now if seperate smoking areas were established, then I suppose I could see a way to get around it. But as it stands now, I wouldn't mind a ban on smoking in bars.

 

I used to drive the Holland Tunnel every day on my way into the city and there were often workers in the tunnel. Even after the smoking ban passes all over America (and it will soon) there will be hazardous work places that far outpace the risk to a bartender that smokes working in a smoky bar.

I'm willing to give you 99% of bars. Can you really not give me the other 1%?

 

what if your bartender smokes at work?

 

I never smoke inside of a bar anymore.. not that I smoke often (maybe once every couple of months I'll have a cigar).. if you're going to smoke in a bar, go outside on the patio, etc. If the bar doesn't have an outside area, well tough nuts.

 

Only problem is every barowner wants to be in that 1%.

 

I hate knowing I'm putting my health at risk when I have to perform in a bar that allows smoking. Often times, I wake up coughing and feeling like dog ****. It is an INCONVENIENCE for smokers to smoke outside. It is a HEALTH HAZARD for non-smokers to breathe secondhand smoke. If my behavior put others at risk, I would gladly inconvenience myself for their benefit. Many smokers, obviously, don't feel the same.

 

Dear whiney b****es,

I will give up smoking in public bars, if you give up driving SUVs on public roads.

Thank you,
thadeus

 

lol, bigtexxx is a liberal.

 

No, sorry. It's relevant to this thread.

You may be pro-environment, just as I am pro-business and free markets. Sometimes the two are in conflict. In those cases, it has historically been your wont to side with business over environmental concerns, which translate directly to public health issues. I question the depth of your commitment to public health.

The study you posted to start this thread is compelling. There have been multiple studies, from various sources, citing the incredible long-term public health risk posed by global warming as well -- and virtually none that still seek to debunk those risks. Maybe I just haven't read enough of your posts over the last year, but I really don't recall you expressing concern over this serious health issue. Please correct the record if I'm wrong about that.

 

I'm part of the problem here as I do smoke in bars that allow smoking. But I would be happy to see a ban extend to 99% of bars. Can I get your take on that, Jeff?

 

I don't smoke, I don't really like being around smokers. It's annoying when I go out, especially.

That said, the negative health effects of second hand smoke, at least as far as cancer is concerned, are negligible. It's amazing that people will believe everything that they read.

 

I think someone needs a cigarette.

 

bigtexxx is only in it for bigtexxx. Don't mistake the arguments he posts here in favor of the public health for anything other than his preference to not be around smoke.

He opposes public transportation initiatives that would reduce pollution in favor of building bigger highways, he opposes national health care, he opposes regulations and legislation to combat global warming, he opposes Kyoto, he favors elective wars... I'm pretty sure he also opposes gun control, aggressive sex education and condom distribution, access to safe and legal abortion and stem cell research. In all cases but this one, he sides with big business and the religious right over public health concerns.

He's not a liberal, he's just selfish.

 

I think they should stop serving alcohol at bars. Alcohol makes people drunk which means they can be more prone to getting into fights, and increases the number of drunk drivers on the roads. This causes a higher propensity for drivers on their way home from drinking Shirley Temples and Roy Rogers to get hit by a drunk driver.

Ban alcohol at bars. It is selfish and dangerous to those around them as well as for the patrons and workers or the bar.

But then we should probably ban driving at night as well. Driving a car when there is less light out is selfish and increases the risks of accidents, hitting pedestrians and damaging property.

The government should dictate that we all just stay in homes built with no sharp edges and no glass. They should be made of foam and rainbows so no one can ever ever get hurt again.