Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

the irony is that we are banning our tax base. We need those smokers to finance schools.

 

And they still do, they just take it outside. No big deal.

 

That smoking is not permitted in most industries already and that it is being curbed in the last few industries not to already have gone non-smoking, shows a trend that denies your position. That Applebee's is going smokeless and is the largest and fastest growing of the type of restaurant/bar you name as conspicuously absent from the list denies your position. That the public already supports banning the practice in bars and restaurants denies your position. That you recognize a ban is not the optimal solution denies your position. That there is a viable alternative to a ban denies your position. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, extremists have begun to experiment with outdoor smoking bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces. The state of California, known to be a leader in anti-smoking policy, has also enacted certain outdoor smoking bans. The advent of outdoor smoking bans has been seen as one of the final frontiers in the tobacco prohibition movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Outdoor_smoking_bans

 

And the irony about irons and smoking is that back in the day you had to put your iron in a smoking fire.

 

It is getting accepted and adopted in more and more places. Obviously there are plenty of people that feel this is the way to go. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

Yep. I understand. That doesn't make it right. Unfortunately there is a better way to go and it is being ignored. You could have what you want - which I understand, and I could have what I want - which you don't understand. It's a shame.

 

Well that is a shame, I do not support that.

Hayes, if Applebees is the fastest growing restaurant in all 49 states, and only 10% of applebees are smokeless, - then what does that prove? 10% of 100 applebees being smokeless is not really any different than 10% of 1,000 applebees being smokeless insofar as that ratio is disporportionately in favor of smokers.

 

Fair enough.

 

this thread proves one thing about american politics, no matter what you claim to be, you are gonna support issues on the side that benifits you personally.

 

Absolutely true. But the best option would be to allow each individual to have as much slack to make his/her own choices as possible.

I hate SUVs. I can't see over them or around them when I'm driving, making me entirely dependent on the driver in front of me to stop in time if there is trouble ahead. Even with a good few car lengths, that's a problem (and not possible in traffic). Most people who drive SUVs have no practical use for them. They're just driving a ridiculously huge vehicle that's going to get them to the same place, in the same time, with much greater expense to the wallet and to the environment than a normal-sized car would. They could be carrying children, but a minivan or reasonably sized car would do that job just as well. There's a myth that SUVs are safer for the occupants - not true, but even if it was true, SUVs are more dangerous to the other driver should a wreck occur.

Now, no one except an employee has to go to a bar. Unfortunately, we all use public roads, even the big 4-wheel monster trucks driving I-10 during rush hour.

It is my choice not to drive an SUV. I don't like them. I think they're dangerous and costly to other drivers. I think they eat up too much fossil fuel for no real benefit.

Why isn't a full ban on SUVs being seriously discussed? Why don't they require some sort of special license to drive? Why should my safety be put at risk because someone else wants to make a status statement with their vehicle?

Here's why: Because we have a society that allows for people to make choices in things like that. Smoking is, for the most part, useless - just like SUVs, just like drinking alcohol, just like any number of things that people choose to enjoy that could potentially cause harm. But I want to be able to choose whether or not I go to a bar that has smoking, or to a bar that doesn't allow it. And everyone who doesn't like smoking is afforded the same choice.

 

95% of all businesses already have smoking bans. This has happened in just the last 20 years. In fact, the ONLY place I can smoke in is a bar. Period.

Allow bar-owners to determine if it is to be smoke free or not. DON'T leave it up to a no-tolerance policy, or a ban. We've all seen how wonderfully no-tolerance policies have worked in the past.

And to people who think they are going to die from second-hand smoke? Even the SG's findings were "worst-case" scenario .02% of the population, or 1 in 5,000. If you take away contributing factors, it's closer to .005-.01%.

AND these studies are looking at second-hand people who dealt with it in the office, shopping, home, etc. NOT just when they were at a bar. So we'll knock that last figure now to .002-.006%.

And THIS is what people keep getting uppity about? Give me a break. People who want a total smoking ban are the selfish ones, not the smokers. We've already let you non-smokers have everything else.

There are far greater pollutants destroying far more lives that second-hand smoking in bars. Why is second-hand smoking trying to get banned everywhere? Simple. People don't like the smell far more than they're worried about health risks.

If this passes, I will be the biggest dick to anyone who tells me to put it out. I will actually start smoking in banned areas. I won't care anymore. I followed all of the previous rules, but if this passes, I won't anymore.

 

It will pass eventually, and I'm sure if you follow through with this threat it will lead to amusing anectdotes of your non-compliance and the consequences, so please Gandhi, I await your civil disobedience with great anticipation!

 

People! People!

How many times must we go through this. It's about the staff at the bars. The ones who must be around the smoke all day. Everyday. You're forcing them into mega-pack-a-day habits. You can choose to come and go. It's their workplace. If you spend as much time at a bar as a full time staff person you probably have other health issues.

We don't allow miners or industrial workers to opt into unsafe work environments. We must protect the bar staff.

Don't these girls deserve healthy lungs???

 

Looks to me like they're already healthy.

A person working in a bar knows beforehand if the bar allows smoking or not, just like I know beforehand how much a job is going to pay, what kind of benefits it has, etc.,. Few people have their ideal job.

The difference is, with non-smoking bars, people would have a choice of which kind they want to work in.

By the way, I worked in bars and didn't know a single person who worked in a smoking bar who didn't smoke.

 

#1 - Please find a job.

#2 - I don't think it will pass, personally. It is a r****ded idea, and one that I know that many establishments will ignore. As I stated, Non-smokers already have bans in 95% of all work environments. That's plenty for the 90% of non-smokers out there. If non-smokers want a non-smoking bar, for the love of God, build it! They already have two in Midtown. Let the owner decide. Not the idiotic Gov't., with a committee run by a woman who has acknowledged her hatred for smoking in one's own household. This woman hates smokers, period, as do a lot of non-smokers. Fine. So be it. But if you ban me and other smokers from everywhere, prepare for a fight.

 

I'm not preparing for a fight. I'm preparing for a laugh, after you and your smoking gang fights for their rights to party.

 

Obviously you don't get it, and now you're being trite.

 

Don't get what? I've put a huge number of postss on this issue in this thread and managed to avoid the using the term Coaseian solution even though I really wanted to. Read them if you like, or don't.

I'd say you're the one being trite given that your sentiment marks the 100th rehash of the same ideas in this thread, with the exception of the possible repercussions that you're threatening, which I find both novel and potentially amusing, which is why I'm encouraging you to employ them.

 

They are smoking.