Hayes First of all, I think Jeff is right--this isn't going to go anywhere, especially if you insist that second hand smoke isn't harmful to people. That, I think, is the crux of the argument. Now, I am not calling you a liar or anything, as you seem pretty confident in your knowledge about the subject. However, do you know where I could find some of these studies that support your argument? I am not asking this to call you out, I just simply would like to see some of this info, because I think it is contradictory to what the general public's perception is, whether that perception is founded or not. As far as the "me walking on campus" thing goes...that is just a matter of asking yourself, at what point does your rights infringe on the rights of others? That is something that none of us really have ever been able to answer, and I think I can maintain an objective enough viewpoint to tell you that my dislike of smoking shouldn't be enough to ban it or prevent people from smoking it in public places. When I said I would like it to be banned, I was talking from a purely selfish viewpoint that would be best for my particular fancy...not that I think that we actually should ban it from a constitutional viewpoint. Bottom line--you assume that I am the one that should change my behavior (i.e. walk out of my way, sit there and hold my breath, etc.) to cater to your habits, while I assume you should just quit smoking around me to cater to my wishes. I guess there is a middle ground in there somewhere, but hell if I know where it is. Until we find it, I will just continue to give you dirty looks when you light that "cancer stick" up.
The fall before the last (2000), I went out to a public bar/lounge to watch a PPV event. At the time, I was lifting weights three times a week, jogging about twice a week and playing badminton every other day. Needless to say, I was in pretty good shape. Anyway, the section of the club with the big screen TV was very poorly ventilated. About 30% of the patrons in there were smokers (approx. 10 people) and it didn't take long for the air to become thick with second-hand smoke. I sat there for three and a half hours until the event was over and during the last forty minutes my eyes became watery and my throat became sore. I had breathed in a <b>ton</b> of smoke, but hey, I was young and healthy so I figured I would be fine the next day. I was wrong. The next day, I discovered that I had a constricting feeling at the base of my throat and top part of my lungs; it felt like someone was pushing down on my chest. My throat also felt rather raw, and it was painful to swallow. I thought to myself, "Hmm, this isn't right.. it must have been because of all that smoke last night. Hopefully, it will clear up in a couple of days." A week and a half later with no marked improvement, I started to become seriously worried. The feeling of pressure in my chest had made exercise a chore, so I stopped. It also interfered with my sleeping; I would lie in bed for hours, tired but unable to get to sleep because of the discomfort. Eventually, one evening I just said "to hell with it" and went to the hospital to see what the heck was wrong. Well, after the obligatory four hour wait, I finally got to see a doctor who ran some tests which basically determined that (i) it wasn't emphezema or bronchitis, (ii) it wasn't pneumonia, (iii) it definitely wasn't a bacterial infection, (iv) it probably wasn't asthma, but the symptoms were similar. Anyway, I ended up being prescribed two inhalers (one filled with asthma medicine, the other with some funky kind of steroid) and scheduled for a pulmonary function test and appointment with the head breathing specialist six weeks down the road. The inhalers did nothing. The feeling of pressure remained for the next month and a half. It was a major pain in my life. I couldn't lift weights or run anymore and I was generally annoyed all the time. Finally, I did the pulmonary function test which determined that (i) it definitely wasn't asthma, (ii) it wasn't an allergic reaction of any kind. The specialist's opinion was that it was either some weird type of virus, which I would have to wait out, or that some outside stimulus (the evening in the club) had caused some serious irritation to my airways, but which would clear up in time. Since the inhalers didn't help, I would just have to wait it out. The feeling of pressure continued for about a month and a half, during which time I couldn't exercise, lift weights or sleep properly. Eventually, it went away and hasn't been back since, thanks be to Jesus. Total time out of action: around three and a half months. HayesStreet & others: Don't you <b>dare</b> try to tell me that second-hand smoke isn't damaging.
First off, thank GOD we live in a democracy (republic really) and the majority rules. If we (the non smokers) make rules that smokers don't like....TOUGH !!! DEAL WITH IT !!! MAJORITY RULES !!!!! DaDakota
WTF? Just about every car I know has an ashtray. But yet people continue to throw them out the window. Don't give me that crap about adding more public ashtrays. They wouldn't be used. It think its disgusting to pull up to a stop light and see layers of butts strewn about for yards. Anyone that gets caught littering butts ought to be senteced to picking that crap up off the road. As for restarants, how hard is it to go w/out a cig for an hour? I don't have a problem when they seperate non smokers and smokers, as long as its walled or shielded off. As for bars, I don't think they should ban smoking there. If they do, then its all that much better As for workplace, I don't care what the circimstances are. There should be a legal ban regardless. Second hand smoking IS bad for people. THere has to be something wrong with anything that burns my eyes and makes me choke. How is it that the FDA practically regulates everything that is sold off the shelf but cigs and alchol isn't? Admit it, if it was, then they wouldn't be on the shelf. Most smokers I know are inconsiderate. (not assholes, just inconsiderate). I hate being around smokers because they breath the smoke straight out, in front of everyones face.
<b>HayesStreet</b>: I guess you are a helluva smoker, huh?! AS a nonsmoker, why should I have to inconvenience myself one iota when you are the one polluting the air? That's back-asswards. BTW, I never go to bars and certainly not at 2 AM, so your caricature of the predicament is ridiculous. Who is without logic? My right to clean air is superior to your right to pollute it. How can anyone even argue that? Your analysis of second hand smoke is ludicrous. What has made it not harmful since it last burned? How is it any different from the smoke inhaled--- with no filter at my end no less!!!! Smoking is not a "point of view," it is an obnoxious behavior. You should be the one huddling in special places-- not making the rest of us suffer with your miserable habit.
I think everyone should go read fadeaway's post if you haven't already. Anyhow, it's always interesting to see people try to defend something they probably know deep down they shouldn't do.
This is the way I feel about smoking, if you want to do it then do it but do it where it affects nobody but you and other people who don't mind being affected by smoke. I think smoking bans in public places is a good thing because smoking can and does cause serious physical problems (scientific/medical fact) no matter if it's the smoker or a non-smoker inhaling second hand smoke, which has scientifically/medically been proven to be more harmful than first hand smoke. Now I do not think smoking should be illegal, given the number of people already addicted to it. The same thing happened with alcohol when Prohibition took place in the early 1900's. A substance which many people were addicted to was banned and gave illegal crime a HUGE boost. (That's how the mob scene exploded so quickly and became so large.) By the way, how long does it take for your lungs to recover from smoking? I have heard if you quit smoking your lungs can recover from the damage. I have never smoked but maybe this will give smokers a little boost to try to quit such a (IMO) nasty habit.
I think I would support a ban on public smoking in bars and restaurants if the people responsible for "thetruth.com" are publicly hanged, and quartered. I HATE THEM ARGGGGGGGGGGGGG. When their commercials come on, i just want to capture some of them and tie them up and light about 20 cigarettes in my mouth and just start smoking it up.
Smoking has been banned inside restaurants in Melbourne, so if you want to smoke you must go outside. Which is great! The thing I hate about smokers (like most posters on this board) is breathing in the second hand smoke. Besides the smoke that is damaging my precious lungs, I can't stand to think of the germs that are entering my body. Urgh, disgusting! Oh, and I also hate getting home at 4am, and the next morning I have to try and convince my mum I don't smoke because my hair, skin, and clothes have a real foul stenche on them (because of the smoke....).
GetSmart, My wife makes me strip and put the clothes immediatly in the washing machine, and then go rinse off in the shower. Makes going out with the boys for a few pints less appealing...well....not that much less appealing. DaDakota
Attention all smokers: YOUR BREATH STINKS YOUR HANDS AND TEETH ARE STAINED YOU ARE SLOWLY LOSING YOUR ERECTION More Power to ya!
Well mainly my argument is that proprietors of restaurants and bars can decide what kind of clients they want and what kind of atmosphere they want. If you don't want to go somewhere that allows smoking, either while eating or while getting a drink, then you should go to a restaurant that tailors to your point of view. Certainly there ARE restaurants that would (even if not forced by a ban) maintain a non-smoking environment. Just as a Tex-Mex restaurant might not appeal to someone who does not care for Tex-Mex, a smoking establishment would not appeal to someone who does not like smoke. So they go to one of all the places that cater to their consumer dollar. What you're saying is that you should have zero inconvenience and I should have 100% inconvenience. I think smokers compose a suprisingly large minority in this country and we shouldn't be virtually banned from public assembly in even open air areas and restaurants and bars and other venues that WOULD choose to cater to our consumer dollar. Especially since so many of you non-smokers are so torn up about it, there should certainly be MORE restaurants and bars that cater to YOUR preference of no smoking. Add in that your core evaluation is heavily weighted by your incorrect assumption that scientific proof has validated second hand smoke as a threat to the health of the general populace, and it is you who are overstepping reasonable limits to government action and making no attempts at TOLERANCE as a majority. Well, generally a club or bar is super smokey when the band is playing which is at night a lot so it was a caricature but its not that far off. My right to assemble with other citizens that agree with my point of view should be paramount. Your philosophical position is untenable. For instance, I don't drive. You better not drive. My right to clean air is superior to your right to pollute it. I don't barbeque. You better not barbeque. My right to clean air is superior to your right to pollute it. I don't have a fireplace. You better not have a fireplace. My right to clean air is superior to your right to pollute it. All of these are ways you can pollute that are damaging to the environment we all share. Smoking is much less pollution that all of these. And you do not have to give your consumer dollar to any establishment that does not cater to you. You shouldn't, in fact. You should get the most ideal service for you. I certainly would frequent non-smoking restaurants. No, Jeff said he was sure I wasn't a tobacco researcher nor did I work for the tobacco companies, and he was right on both counts. But what I have done is write my masters thesis on second hand smoke and public policy. So I have gone through thousands upon thousands of pages of congressional testimony, studies, court cases, executive branch (EPA etc) findings, and all the published (books and journal) sources I could get through. I think because public perception is so heavily weighed against tobacco that the claims are exaggerated and not supportable. So I believe the rights of the minority are worth supporting in this instance. Your Current Affair science is interesting but incorrect. Let me give a simplified example. Not everyone who is what we'll call a regular smoker. We'll say a one pack a day smoker is a 'regular smoker.' That's a little more than one cigarette per hour. Now plenty of regular smokers do not get emphysema or cancer, but lets assume that was the threshold at which it would be reliable to conclude there was a significant risk of a smoking related illness. Now that person smokes 140 cigarettes a week 7280 a year 145600 in the twenty until they go down to an illness, maybe. Now most of the cigarette smoke, through a filter, goes through my mouth and throat and then in my lungs, which act as a second filter (hence damage to my lungs), then out into the general air. Now the concentration that is going out into the general air is not the same concentration that originally went into my lungs. Its been filtered twice and then dispersed. Non smokers are also in a smoking environment much less time than a smoker (since they are not smoking about one an hour as a 'regular' smoker). With eight hours sleep we'll say a smoker is inhaling concentrated smoke every hour on the hour sixteen hours a day for twenty years (its actually a little more). Now you average I don't know how much time in a smoking restaurant or bar but lets say one hour a day. Now you spend seven hours a week in that environment, and you never take one single cigarette at full concentration. You also being outsmoked by the smoker twenty to one each day. Compare that with sixteen hours with at least one full concentration. Now add in variables like how well ventilated the environment is and the risk goes below the standard that is used by policymakers to justify action. The science just does not support a conclusion that justifies inhibiting the rights of a significant minority because of public opinion that says 'I don't want you around because you have bad breathe, and your teeth are stained, and you smell,' by a public that has been under a deluge of propaganda from one side of the argument. Listen to what you're saying...that we should be 'huddled in special places.' You're a fanatic. An ideologue. You are not seeking to just protect yourself. You are seeking to control my choice. You are seeking to oppress. I am not making you suffer at all. You can choose where you go. You are having a typical knee jerk reaction and screaming for the government to come protect you. You're a baseball owner. 'Help me, I can't stop myself.' GO WHERE THE ENVIRONMENT SUITS YOU. Why do you get to tell the OWNER of a particular property that they must CONFORM to YOUR WORLDVIEW? 'Hey buddy, I don't like your restaurant. You need to change it...' This is exactly like prohibitionists saying 'I ought to be able to go into any establishment, and not be offended by the foul drinkers.' If you don't like the environment I do, then you should go somewhere that you like. That would be good for you. You could enjoy your time and I could enjoy mine. And some people would crossover. I would go to nonsmoking restaurants, and some of you might have friends who smoke and you aren't fanatical about it so you could come to smoking restaurants too! Jeff, we can certainly agree to disagree. I do agree it sucks you have such a bad physical reaction to smoke. I find that much more reasonable than those with the 'smell and others' arguments. However, in the end, I do also feel that the market provides its own solution, by offering places that are non-smoking. If you feel there are not enough of those places, then you should be spending your time convincing companies to change instead of outright banning an action of a minority group.
Your affliction is most unfortunate. Presumably you were tested to see if you are allergic to tobacco and apparently you are not or they would have said it. In fact they said it was a virus, or something else. That's pretty much a smoking gun! But what if it was a particular mold in the air ducts, what if it was something like asbestos from the insulation or dust mites in the carpet or maybe even a virus, which is what they said? This is certainly not the reaction i've ever seen watching thousands of people light up. AND you can correct me but you've probably gone out plenty since you've recovered and maybe you even found places you LIKE that cater to you with the environment you want. Prempeh: I would start with Congressional Hearings first. There are people who testify from both lobbies and enter a lot 'evidence' into the record. You'll see the outline of the arguments from both sides. Any public university will have a Government Publications Depository or Congress may have some online.
<b>HayesStreet</b>: Are there more smokers or non-smokers? Why should the minority control the marketplace. The marketplace is only fearful of an irritated public. To compare tobacco rights with civil rights is extreme. The minority with the obnoxious behavior should not be coercing the majority; it should be the opposite, of course. You should bear the inconvenience, you are the polluter. You are not banned from public gathering, you are simply banned from putrifying the air for the majority of people. I don't think that the Founding Fathers had nicotine addicts in mind when they drew up the Constituion or the Bill of Rights. I'm looking at this microscopically. The lady smoking 2 seats away from me with her smoke drifting into my face is not an "environmental" problem, she is "my" problem-- and everyone else around who is bothered. The issue is not the air quality index its the sh*t in my eyes, nose and throat that wafted my way from her burning cigarette. We don't just have to talk about cancer to be talking about smoking as a public health issue. Why do you not see the current predicament as "catering to the smokers," but you are so willing to criticize me for expecting the world to "cater to me?" Not smoking is the norm, the natural. The odd intrusion of the nicotine fiend is what is demanding to be catered to not the norm, the non-smokder. The INTOLERANCE begins/began with the smokers. Inconsideration is a better word but in the end it is just intolerance. You can chide my "Current Affairs" science if it makes you feel better but, actually, my take on this has <b>no basis in science whatsoever.</b> I don't need science to tell me that smoking is obnoxious; I have a brain. That's good enough for me. Smokers are so paranoid that they think my opinion is informed by propoganda. My rejection of smoking is so natural, smoothe, and complete that you would probably be surprised!! Who needs propoganda? I truly wish this problem would solve itself. However, when smokers paint themselves as civil libertarian victims, hope is lost I'm afraid. If your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, why not your right to stink up the air with noxious chemicals and pollutants?
Why should the majority get to ban the minority? That's not the way our democracy is supposed to work. No one should CONTROL the market. It will function perfectly without your interference. You can go to a non smoking restaurant, and I can go to a smoking one. I've already said some specifc public areas, such as libraries and schools, could be restricted, as there is less choice involved for non smokers. And you'd be suprised what the 'majority' has found 'obnoxious' in the past, and its not a position I would advocate. You are wrong. Many of the Founding Fathers grew and shipped tobacco and hemp. They would laugh at you. You can go somewhere else that is non smoking. You could even ask them to put it out. Most smokers won't intentionally blow at you if they know you've got some tear duct problem and are about to cry. I think for you to go somewhere and say 'I know you allow smoking here, but I don't like smoke, so stop,' is an unwarranted intrusion. I do not ask for Kielbasa at a Mexican restaurant. I do not go and demand that a lesbian club gives me membership. I do not go to AA and demand that I be allowed to drink. There ARE places that cater to both YOU, the non smoker, and to ME, the smoker. Why do you insist that you must come a place you don't want to be and change it, when there are OTHER PEOPLE who come there because they like it? I am not saying there can be smoking everywhere. That I can light up in a non smoking restaurant. YOU are the one advocating reducing MY rights. As a smoker it is a fact that I smoke. To assemble with people like me there will be smoking. To ban that in public places, or in locations specifically built to allow it, is ludicrous and overreaching. No, smoking used to be acceptable. Intolerance began with those who didn't like it. Most smokers will put their cig out if it bothers you, so you're exaggerating the inconsideration, in fact, most are pretty damn tolerant. Yes, I no it doesn't. Nice point. Yes, that it good. Who needs a REASON to take a position? Any time we're trying to decide if a particular public policy should be enacted, we should FEEL our way along. The Maharishi Rich Rocket will show us the way... Rights do not include just voting. I am a minority. I seek to assemble with people like me for many reasons. I accept that some places will not want us to assemble there. I want to have places we CAN assemble. You want to prevent that. You are restricting my basic right to assemble. If I'm a boxer, you can't come stand in the ring when I'm fighting and expect not to be at risk of getting hit. If you are a non smoker, and you come into a place that allows smoking, you should expect to be 'irritated' by the smoke. The funny part is that if we allowed NO SMOKING accept in one club per town, we'll call it the SMOKING CLUB. Privately run. No litter problems. I guarantee you within a year max, a non smoker would sue for membership. And then demand a non smoking room. And then demand smoking be banned. You guys are crazy. I'm glad we've had this discussion. It goes to show how little the public cares about liberties of others when that perspective is unpopular.
