Smoking Bans are Bull$h!t

Smoking is suicide... Wow. That's... That's... Actually, I can't even attempt sarcasm. That is the stupidest *beep* I have ever heard.

The knack to flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

can me and you run for the office of presidency asn we'll sort out who will be prez/vice prez, b/c i swear to god ppl are freakin idiots and want to be coddled by the gov't.

the fact, and sad fact of the matter is the majortiy of ppl want their will imposed on the majority of country based on their beliefs, that's why they are so ready to elect Clinton, Obama, and worst of all McCain.

I wish this country learned the meaning of "self-sufficiency".

Morality, should not nor ever be a concept of a government body.

[deleted]

We've had a smoking ban in restaurants, bars etc in the UK for only three years and people are already talking about repealing it (including non-smokers). One of the major reasons for introducing it was that more non-smokers would go out and enjoy the smoke-free atmosphere, but now that we have the ban, there are no more non-smokers going to pubs than before, and there are far less smokers going out and as a result, the British pub trade is dying and people are losing jobs and their livelihoods. I'm all for people not being forced to inhale smoke, but there should be places that both smokers and non-smokers can go to, although I would bet my left nut that smoking pubs would be the busiest by far.

As it is, I'd rather save myself quite a bit of money and enjoy a cigarette at home with a drink.

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

There are two truths:

1 - Studies show that second-hand smoke is dangerous. Second-hand smoke is concentrated in confined spaces and we need legislation to correct this problem.

2 - Studies are inconclusive about the effects of second-hand smoke. Lobbyists have influenced legislation and this is BS.

My perspective is that of a non-smoker so take it as that, but is it really such a problem that you have to smoke outside? A non-smoker has no alternative. Go outside to get a breath of fresh air only to come back to a smoke-filled room? Sometimes we fight for rights and freedoms but with little or no consideration for your fellow man.


You forgot the third truth: People have a choice.

I've always supported smoking bans in schools, government buildings and elevators- places where people DON'T have a choice. It's not like you can go down to Larry's Courthouse if you don't like the smoke. You need to go to Traffic Court, there's only one place you can go.
A smoking ban makes sense.

But restaurants and bars are not mandatory. They are not public entities. A person has a choice to go or not go. A business WELCOMES people inside, onto the owner's property. It employs people to work there. It is a choice to enter. It is a choice to stay.

My mother-in-law is a smoker. She also has nurses and therapists coming to her home to provide in-home care several times a week. There is no way in hell she is going to NOT smoke in her own home, regardless that it is also these nurses' place of employment. And she is not going to stop smoking in her home despite how her guests might feel about it. If you don't like it- don't come in.

A business operates the same way. You want to come in, this smoky environment is what we offer. Stay or go. You want to work here, this smoky environment is what you'll work in. Stay or go.


It always amazes me when people support the eradication of freedom and choice from their own lives.





I'm holding everyone to a higher standard- a standard much higher than my own

It takes no small group of people to enact legislation in America. I am not naive and I know that there are factors that corrupt the wheel, but fundamentally it is done for the greater good.

The old "end justifies the means" argument, eh? I can't support that logic when our freedoms to make personal choices are being eroded. Did you know that Congress had been proposed a tax on soda? It was rejected, soundly (I don't believe it even got to the voting process), but the fact that it was proposed at ALL is astounding.

1 - Studies show that second-hand smoke is dangerous. Second-hand smoke is concentrated in confined spaces and we need legislation to correct this problem.

2 - Studies are inconclusive about the effects of second-hand smoke. Lobbyists have influenced legislation and this is BS.

I ask you what I ask everyone else who says this: would you show me these studies? Not regurgitated by the news, but the official studies the journalists and Anti-smokers pull their "facts" from. The most quoted study, which was conducted by WHO or the World Health Organization, didn't show that people were at danger from secondary smoke. Quite the opposite--it showed that children who were exposed to secondary smoke were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.

Dr. Phillippe Even, world-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, has come forward after retiring and stated blatantly there is no danger from secondary smoke. I quote: "There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low." When asked about the 3000-6000 deaths in France from secondary smoke according to the Anti-smokers, he replied with, "I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result."

Fact: In 1992 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.
After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself “Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.
Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

For protecting the workers who "must" work in a smoky environment (aside here: I believe it is there choice to work there, but their opportunities and the economy may force the issue somewhat, and thus is negated for that portion of the argument), there are OSHA mandates about clean air, and how often the air has to be turned over and filtered per hour. With most air ventilation and filtration systems that restaurants and bars pay for, the air is changed over something like 600 times to 1500 times an hour, depending upon the size of the bar and equipment used. Even without the filtration, there is no possible way for secondary smoke to fill an environment like that (unless it was air tight, and then what kind of bar would it be?) for the levels of any sort of secondary smoke to become a hazard. Thus, OSHA has not even bothered to put in any regulations for secondary smoke because they consider it harmless. According to an appendix in "Dissecting Anti-Smoker's Brains", it would take an astounding amount of cigarettes smoked to reach the levels where any of the chemical components of smoke (which is 95% water vapor and air) where it might become hazardous. An example given was that a glass of water contains more arsenic than a bartender would be exposed to in 4 months of working at a bar.

I can go on and on. Suffice it to say that if someone doesn't like the smell, I can understand that. Not everyone does. Not all smokers do. But to say that it is a public health hazard and thus must be banned from all public places, EVEN IF THEY ARE OWNED BY PRIVATE OWNERS, is a complete eradication of our basic right to pursue happiness and personal choice. When it comes to voting, vote with your dollar based on your preferences. If you prefer non-smoking places, go to a non-smoking place. Vice versa for smokers.

I apologize for the length of this, but this is my hot button/passionate issue. The extent that the Antismoking movement has gone to convince people smoking is deadly to them is incredible. It's unbelievable to me, but you see the effects of it every day.