Smokers' rights?

[james_t]

1. I am the child of heavy smokers. The scenario you accuse me of, Ebbie? Yeah, I was the kid in that scenario. No adverse health effects here! No asthma. No shortness of breath. I've been active, athletically, for as long as I can remember.

George Burns lived to be 100 and was a well-known smoker, yet no one cites him as proof that smoking doesn't cause health problems. As you note below, anecdotal evidence isn't reliable. To say that you haven't had health issues doesn't mean secondhand smoke doesn't cause them in general, it just means that you haven't had any effects to this point.

2. Impossibility of accurate experiments. How can they? You can't sequester a human, put them in a "average" setting, and give them "average" secondhand smoke. So how do they determine their statistics? Anecdotal evidence, and coincidence. Perhaps someone who never smoked, but lived with someone who does, dies of lung cancer. Do they attribute the death to the secondhand smoke? If so, what of the people who get lung cancer with no secondhand smoke? There's just no proof, its all conjecture.

You're forgetting lab animals, which are used to give a lot of data on medicines, firsthand smoke, fast foods, etc. And there have been a fair number of secondhand smoke studies with lab animals, at least according to what I could Google. Here's a university lab that looked like it had pretty good methodology:

http://www.tsrtp.ucdavis.edu/public/...ngtoExhale.php

[tandjflo]

****MY OPINION IS KEEP YOUR CANCER STICKS AWAY FROM MY BABIES, I.E. ANY PUBLIC PLACE.....MAKE IT LIKE AMSTERDAM WHERE YOU CAN GO TO A HASH BAR AND SMOKE IT THERE WITH LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE..........Also, why don't we ban it in prison, since we as taxpayers will foot the bill for all the smoking related illnesses?? ...... Ireland banned smoking in their pubs over 3 years ago so I think we're a little behind the curve.......HEY, GOOD LIVELY DEBATE, NOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT BANNING PEOPLE FROM TALKING ABOUT STAR TREK IN PUBLIC????

[james_t]

HEY, GOOD LIVELY DEBATE, NOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT BANNING PEOPLE FROM TALKING ABOUT STAR TREK IN PUBLIC????

I dunno, are there negative effects from secondhand Trek exposure? Maybe over time it makes you grow pointy ears, chew scenery while wearing a bad toupee, or spout technobabble in a Scottish accent...

[LuciusBeebe]

George Burns lived to be 100 and was a well-known smoker, yet no one cites him as proof that smoking doesn't cause health problems. As you note below, anecdotal evidence isn't reliable. To say that you haven't had health issues doesn't mean secondhand smoke doesn't cause them in general, it just means that you haven't had any effects to this point.

That's right. I didn't bring up any of my relatives who were non-smokers and developed cancer, and I didn't bring up my relatives who were smokers and didn't get cancer. My point, though, is the same as your point. Just because some people exposed to second-hand smoke develop cancer does not mean that the second-hand smoke gives cancer to everyone.

You're forgetting lab animals, which are used to give a lot of data on medicines, firsthand smoke, fast foods, etc. And there have been a fair number of secondhand smoke studies with lab animals, at least according to what I could Google.

I didn't forget lab animals. I chose to reject them because the impossibility of duplicating the conditions of secondhand smoke that humans encounter. The experiment you linked to, for example, attempts to duplicate the conditions in a bar, and uses mice that have a predisposition to developing lung cancer. In other words, the concentration is much higher, and the subjects are handpicked for the results they usually produce. I call that a dishonest experiment. Come on, who smokes 2 cartons a day? What does this experiment prove? It seems more like a study used to prove that first hand smoke causes cancer.

There's a very easy way to conduct a study that would convince me of the dangers of secondhand smoke. Take normal mice, not mice with a predilection for lung cancer, and put them in the homes of smokers, not in a room that pumps 2 cartons worth of smoke into their cage. What good is an experiment if it doesn't duplicate the conditions its attempting to study?

[ebbieday]

So first i'm a rebellious teenager, and now i'm a bad father?

Nothing burns me more than to see a pregnant woman smoking like a chimney or parents who willingly expose their kids to something that is so dangerous when they don't have a say in the matter. It's wrong and it's extremely selfish. Even when I smoked I never did it in the house and never around my boys. They have never even seen me smoke. My choice.

My point, which you ignored, is that I believe the effects of secondhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Why do I believe this? Many reasons.

1. I am the child of heavy smokers. The scenario you accuse me of, Ebbie? Yeah, I was the kid in that scenario. No adverse health effects here! No asthma. No shortness of breath.

YET. And I too, am the child of two former heavy smokers. Lots of allergies and sensitivities to many different things so I speak from experience.

2. Impossibility of accurate experiments. How can they? You can't sequester a human, put them in a "average" setting, and give them "average" secondhand smoke. So how do they determine their statistics? Anecdotal evidence, and coincidence. Perhaps someone who never smoked, but lived with someone who does, dies of lung cancer. Do they attribute the death to the secondhand smoke? If so, what of the people who get lung cancer with no secondhand smoke? There's just no proof, its all conjecture.

Any second hand smoke is toxic and harmful. That is my believe and opinion. I am not a scientist and as far as I know you aren't either so all we have is our beliefs.

3. Willingness to lie and exaggerate. All my life I have heard the propaganda of people trying to get me to believe the things they say are bad actually are bad. As I said before, the Red Cross blames thousands of cases of SIDS per year on secondhand smoke, despite the FACT that SIDS is a death that is unexplainable. So how can they blame ANYTHING for a SIDS case? You can't. So if they're willing to lie about that, why should I believe anything they say?

You can hardly compare SIDS to slowly dying from other people's smoke. I didn't say I believe every report I read or hear. If that were the case we'd all be dead. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that inhaling and exhaling toxic chemicals is a danger to you and everyone around you. If you choose not to believe it then you are free to do so.

Now, Ebbie, I have provided you with multiple examples of why I don't believe the things i'm told about the effects of secondhand smoke. All without insulting you, as well. Why not give it a try. Why do you believe that it is as harmful as they say?

I believe it because I WAS a smoker and for ME...back when I was smoking, I got sick much more often, coughed up nasty phlegm every morning, my lungs hurt in the mornings and breathing was much more difficult and I didn't even smoke all that much. So for me it's a very bad thing. Even after all of that, I still struggle with the desire to have one now and then. It's definitely a horrible addiction.

And by the way...your last comment WAS a backdoor insult.

[Hawk-64]

Being a non-smoker I certainly do not like to breath second hand smoke. No more than I like to breath gas fumes or exhaust. I also believe that common sense tells us that smoking has implications upon our health. Therfore sencond hand smoke would likley have it as well. The real issue here pertains to smoking in a public enviornment. I agree with Tandjiflo in that keep the second hand smoke away from my children. As a responsible parent, that is simple...don't take the kids to an establishment that has smokers. There has been alot of debate about the smoking issue in public settings and government control over private business in this issue.

If the business takes measures to seperate the smoking side from the non-smoking side then why is government getting involved at all? The answer is obvious...the anti-smoking group will not rest until smoking and smokers are completely wiped out. Proven with their push to seperate smokers with non-smokers and now not being satisfied with that, lets ban it all together. One step at a time lad so they won't see it coming...

Enough already with the government control in the name of protecting me. I am sick and tired of laws being enacted that are to protect me from myself! If I want to operate a motorcycle without a helmet then that should be my choice. Don't tell me it makes my health care cost go up along with everyone elses because I pay premiums and deductables too.

If a person chooses to smoke in a location designated or of their own (eg.-my car or home) then so be it. If the kids get second hand smoke then that is my choice as a parent and no one elses. Is it possible that most smoking parents are aware of the second hand smoke issue and take measures to keep it away? Here we go again with this, "I'm a victim" thing or I know better than you. Life is full of choices and with every one we make there are consiquences both good and bad.

When are americans going to wake up and stop with the constant erosion of our freedoms? Men and women have sacraficed their very lives to keep our freedoms yet we come home and sit down and because it might save lives, we have to have a law. We are somehow not capabale of taking all the warnings and information and making OUR OWN choices and we need groups, organizations, individuals and the governement to do it for us. We live in america...where else can you live where the aweful things that happen to you are always someone elses fault?

I think it all boils down to the fact that those pushing for it to be a law were probably spolied throughout their childhood and have no concept of what it means to take responsibility for your own life! Yes, your own life...not mine! What in gods name has changed to let you believe that you have the right to tell me how to live? Better yet, why is it so important for you to shove your belief down anyone elses throat? I just love it when someone says that they know because they once did it. Last time I checked, that was your choice. Stop with the shoving your consequences from your actions and choices down everyone elses throat!

Imagine what could be accomplished if we put all this energy towards our freedoms?

[ebbieday]

Ummm...was your post directed at anyone imparticular or just in general?

[My2cents]

I know that this is a horribly passionate debate ALWAYS -- employers are starting to fire smokers as it is "against their policy", cities are banning smoking in establishments, parents will soon be facing the DFS because they are abusing their children by smoking, it just goes on and on!!! We ALL have different beliefs -- drinking alcohol vs. not, eating meat vs. not, wheat free vs. not, smoking vs. not, God vs. other -- THIS IS WHY WE ARE A MELTING POT. We don't need to be knocking other people, that's just saying that you are judge and jury. Who made anyone better than the other? Debate nicely, agree to disagree, and walk away. We all strive to make a living, some people by creating establishments for us to eat or drink. If I don't like their food, I don't have to eat there -- If I don't like car because their corporations filters monies down to charity that supports abortion or pro choice groups, I don't have to purchase that brand -- If I don't like a person, I don't have to speak to them -- If I want to support prostitution, I'll move to Nevada.
My point? Be passionate, don't be mean on a personal level -- is this just a small "thing" to focus on? The government needs to do much more than figure out whether we should smoke or not, we don't need to be micro-managed. I agree, let the owner of the establishment choose - patronize them or don't, who cares!! As for children, we ALL have our opinions about that -- no, don't smoke in a car - go outside. BUT>>>there are other things parents do that are just as "abusive">>>WHOLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT, what are they doing in a bar, anyhow?

[LuciusBeebe]

You can hardly compare SIDS to slowly dying from other people's smoke.

I'm not comparing it to anything. I used it as an example of how people lie and exaggerate to push an agenda.

I didn't say I believe every report I read or hear. If that were the case we'd all be dead. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that inhaling and exhaling toxic chemicals is a danger to you and everyone around you. If you choose not to believe it then you are free to do so.

Its a danger... okay. Driving a car is dangerous. Does everyone who drives a car get into an accident? No. Does everyone exposed to secondhand smoke get cancer? No. So where is the logic behind banning one thing because something bad might happen, when we regularly participate in potentially dangerous activities that are completely legal?

As for children, we ALL have our opinions about that -- no, don't smoke in a car - go outside. BUT>>>there are other things parents do that are just as "abusive">>>WHOLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT, what are they doing in a bar, anyhow?

Personally, I'd rather we punish parents of obese children than punish parents who smoke around their kids.

[ebbieday]

My2cents...you had me all the way up until your very last sentence. If I can't judge someone (or simply have an opinion) on their smoking, then you'd better not judge me for having a few social drinks at a bar with my dinner, if I so choose. How is it right for one and not for another? We can go round and round about this for a month.

[LuciusBeebe]

Ah, but the difference is people aren't trying to ban you from having a few drinks.

[ebbieday]

Ah, but the difference is people aren't trying to ban you from having a few drinks.

I have already stated that I do NOT agree with the whole smoking ban. It's about Gvt control and it's WRONG! Period!

[LuciusBeebe]

I have already stated that I do NOT agree with the whole smoking ban. It's about Gvt control and it's WRONG! Period!

As a former smoker (non-smoker for 13 years) I agree with everyone in favor of clean air while dining. Even when I was smoking I hated being in any establishment that allowed smoking, INCLUDING bars, which is why I do not frequent them. It should be done outdoors where we all have the ability to walk away from the disgusting filth and smell. I speak of my former self when I say people who smoke stink horribly. We all have the RIGHT and/or priveledge to dine out when we please and last night it was so nice to eat at Applebees without having to choke on disrespectful second hand smoke. Every person I have ever known who is a former smoker agrees with this philosophy. If marijuana was legal, would smokers who are against drugs like it if someone sat next to you smoking a joint giving you a contact buzz? I think not. Same concept.

Which is it, Ebbie?

[My2cents]

I'm NOT judging you for having a few drinks, I was merely asking what were children doing in bars. It was a joke...ending the whole subject on child abuse from smoking.
AGREE...gov't should stay out of that sort of thing, they have many other things they should be doing.

[ebbieday]

Which is it, Ebbie?

Listen closely. Smokers should have the respect for others to smoke outdoors or away from people who don't care to inhale your poison. I have the CHOICE to either frequent public places that allow smoking or not...and most of the time it's not! People who come to my home will NOT smoke indoors, period. Do I think it's the Gvt's place to tell smokers where and when to smoke? No. I agree that it should be up to each business owner as to whether they allow smoking or not. Should the Gvt tell you that you CAN'T smoke in your home or in your car around your kids, NO. It's simply my opinion that the better choice is to NOT smoke around children who have no say so in the matter. Our Gvt has their grubby little hands in way too many pots in our lives. That is exactly why I said in an earlier post that our Freedoms are being stripped from us one by one and pitting Americans against each other, just as you have seen in this forum. Some ppl love to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ughhh...it's exhausting!

[ebbieday]

I'm NOT judging you for having a few drinks, I was merely asking what were children doing in bars. It was a joke...ending the whole subject on child abuse from smoking.
AGREE...gov't should stay out of that sort of thing, they have many other things they should be doing.

Gotcha. And amen to that!!!

[LuciusBeebe]

Some ppl love to argue just for the sake of arguing. Ughhh...it's exhausting!

This is a joke, right?

[Hawk-64]

ebbieday I get the impression that you are on the defensive? Its just a discussion, dude... nothing personal!

[Copycatted]

57 posts on the subject? T-T-T-T-T M I to go through them all but barging into the topic…heard from an reliable source that it is the intention of the AMA to have an Nationwide (noting Nationwide) smoke ban initiated by 2011. Kind of believe that since after what the City of Fort Wayne did as well,and at the very same time,as an government housing facility did where I currently reside. Then there was the stunt Cameron Hospital did a year or so ago,forcing/hurding (hurding I was told was an illegal act of itself to be doing anyway) but anyway Cameron Hospitals stunt of forcing/hurding people visiting the sick to their enclosed cars in freezing weather just to have a cigarette. Seems to me that is no AMA (American Medical Association) smooth move but more like ANOTHER all to framiliar medical term of AMA (Against Medical Advice). Then imagine a recently returned and wounded Iraqi/Afganistan War Vet with their family waiting for an appointment with the County Vet Rep at the Community Building leaning on crutches 30 foot from the building because there is nowhere for smokers to sit with the Counties recently adopted 30 foot stay away zone from County buildings for Smokers,but notice in the scenario that it was not stated if whether or not it was even the wounded active Military person in full Uniform who was doing the smoking or not…okay,and so I have vented and will there be an 59th post,or not (if another Poster did not beat mine to the 58th position in the time it took to scribble it)?

[LuciusBeebe]

heard from an reliable source that it is the intention of the AMA to have an Nationwide (noting Nationwide) smoke ban initiated by 2011.

This does not surprise me for 2 reasons.

1. People are stupid.

People will vote for something without thinking. All they need is some person to stand up and whip up some tears and tell them about how awful something is and they're sold. Not to mention, we've been here before. Not even a hundred years ago. This same sort of talk and slippery slope thinking led to Prohibition, and we all know how that ended. But does it stop people? Heck no. What is with these folks, really?

I don't understand it. I really don't. When it comes to drugs, our solution to a problem is to ban it. But when it comes to guns, our solution to a problem is regulation. I don't understand, I really don't. Guns are a sacred cow, any discussion of banning them inflames the country. But drugs? Half our prison population consists of people convicted of drug crimes. So what sense does it make to add one more substance to the list?

2. We're heading there already.

I remember the first I heard of New York banning smoking in public places. I remember logging on and hitting the news over the past couple years, and how this law was spreading. Finally it reached Indiana.

This week, California banned smoking in a car with minors. They are the third state to do so. It will reach Indiana.

You just wait. They will ban cigarettes entirely. And while I DO support such a thing to end the hypocrisy of legalized cigarettes and illegal marijuana, the end result is increased crime. Please. Stop banning things. Its juvenile and solves nothing.