Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

The burden of proof is on you to support this statement with facts. Can you do it?

 

Bought and paid for? By whom? Big tobacco has been spending billions on bull**** propoganda, advertising, and LOBBYING for decades. Who is buying and paying for all of this bias? Who would it benefit financially because we all know that is what it really comes down to. Money. Who is going to make money on putting big tobacco out of bars and restaurants? Obviously not big tobacco. Or the health insurance industry. Or the medical industry. Or the pharmaceutical industry.

 

I have no problem with that idea - although, as others have said, it would be a b**** to implement.

 

the "its been banned in other places" argument doesn't work. People have no choice but to go to work, to use transportation, even to shop. you have choice to go to a bar.

 

What about the people who work in a bar. You just said yourself that people have no choice but to go to work. Bars don't just run themselves.

 

What kind of logic is this?

His facts are a surgeon general report that came out.

You proceed to indict his source. Now defend your indict and claims of bias....

 

I'm still trying to figure out how the statement, "No safe level of secondhand smoke" is new, profound, or surprising in any way.

See, I knew this already before the Surgeon General released this!!

 

But you know they can choose what bar they work at.

I bum smokes from my bartender.

 

Friends, Romans, Countrymen! Lend me your ears!

IT HAS BEEN SETTLED! ALL HEAR MR. MEOWGI! HIS BARTENDER SMOKES THEREFORE ALL BAR EMPLOYEES SMOKE AND DESIRE A SMOKE FILLED ENVIRONMENT!

 

My facts are peer-reviewed medical journals. Now defend his indict and claims of irrelevance.

 

i think you've had too much law school, man!!

 

It should be settled. Bartenders who smoke could work at the minority of smoking bars.

Duh.

 

4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.

Who the hell was the 5th dentist that recommended gum with sugar in it for his/her patients?

That's what I wanna know.

 

this thread is crossing up all the normal alliances, very interesting..................

 

Don't overstate your case, bigtexx. The way the government has compiled thier data is more than extremely suspect. For instance, if you go to the hospital with a heart problem they ask if your spouse smokes, or if you work in a place that allows smoking - if your answer is yes then its recorded as smoking related heart ailment. The Surgeon General's findings are politically driven drivel. Unless you're allergic to tobacco you don't have a health risk from second hand smoke. Just another example of big brother advancing a moral agenda at freedom's expense using psuedo science to justify the action.

As an aside, no 'second hand smoke' exposure is 'against someone's will.'

If I want to open a bar called Smokers, employ only smokers, and allow smoking - it is ridiculous that I can't considering smoking itself is not an illegal practice. The simple fact is that non-smokers, who are the clear majority find it easier to support total ban than to 'vote with their feet.' Undoubtably if non-smokers stopped going to smoking establishments and let the owners know why, you would have all the non-smoking outlets your facist little hearts desire. It's simple laziness and then you have the pomposity to say smokers are selfish, lol. Like most psuedo science 'health' fads you couldn't be happy with most of the establishments non-smoking - you have to have it all. It's a damn shame.

The same would apply to your acceptance and propogation of the Surgeon General's report. Fill us in on the dates and methods of the Report - or actually did the SG do ANY studies or simply rearrange data from other studies as the government has traditionally done for ETS Reports (see EPA Report on ETS during the Clinton Administration). Since you are a true believer in the SG Report, how do you compensate for confounding factors such as weight, hereditary disease, exercise, diet, stress etc? Why do Western Europeans have lower incidence of smoking related disease while smoking more often and harsher tobacco? Please explain...

Actually its about agenda setting. The American Heart Association, Cancer Association, AMA and others gain more credibility and agenda setting powers when the actions take place. They raise money (and pay their own salaries) by doomsaying. You're making a silly argument that it's all about money and THEN claim there is no money to be gained by this action, lol. You can't have it both ways. You don't think there are BILLIONS of dollars being made by the health/medical and pharmaceutical industry from smoking cessation programs, lol? You need to take a step back and realize there is no absence of lobby on the 'ban side.'

In the end you are more likely to get a smoking related health problem from your outdoor grill than second hand smoke. You are five times more likely to get cancer from drinking milk and more likely to get cancer from eating peanut butter.

 

If they go this far to ban all public indoor smoking, they should enforce emissions standards as a public health issue.

You don't cross a smoker trying or thinking of kicking the habit...

 

I don't think the "voting with their feet" argument, to which I think you're implying that an efficient, market outcome is attainable but for the "laziness" of non-smokers, is that apt here.

I don't think non-smokers in smoking areas correctly value the positive externality benefits of a non-smoking environment.

Speaking from my own personal experience here - I've frequented bars for the last decade plus; when Smoking bans were on the table, I was vehemently opposed to the smoking ban when it was proposed because I, like many posters here, thought it was too big-brotherish.even though I'm a fairly devout non-smoker (have probably had < 25-50 cigarrettes in my entire life).

Pre-smoking ban, even though I hated smoke-filled bars, reeking of smoke the next day, and coughing, I didn't think I had much choice but to keep going, since I had fun in spite of the ban - and there was no such thing as a non-smoking bar in manhattan that I knew of (race-to-the bottom scenario, I think).

After the implementation of the ban, I couldn't believe how much more pleasant it was to be in a bar or restaurant and not deal with the smoke. It was a much better experience than I had anticipated it would be beforehand, and now I value it that much more highly, where if a free-market system existed, I simply wouldn't go to bars as much, or at least find smoke-free bars. Pre-ban, I didn't/would not do that.

I also don't think smokers are as bummed out by it as they initially thought they would be (they overvalued smoking) at least according to many of my friends who do smoke, and aren't as inconvenienced as they thought they would be, though my experience with this is indirect.

I also think there are all sorts of other externality/game theory esque problems here too which I'm not smart enough to identify.

 

I certainly won't attempt to deny your own personal opinion and experience, Sam. However, you are saying that non-smokers can't make this evaluation themselves which I don't agree with and is fairly presumptuous on your part. The fact that bans are widely accepted and supported belies your assertion that the public cannot see your externalized benefits. As such I think it is fair to say that the same people could take another avenue to achieve these externalized benefits without banning the practice that a significant minority enjoys, and that private business owners support. In the end the majority of businesses would be forced to go non-smoking or lose the majority of their revenue. But some wouldn't either to cater to the minority or out of good ol' American stubborness. I think that's the best of both worlds, not the legislation of externalized benefits.

 

Would you agree to the idea of a sin tax (from licencing) for bar owners who allow smoking? It'd likely mean higher prices for its customers, but the bars w/ smoking would be supply limited....

The principle is absurd, but it's better than an outright ban.