Anti-Smoking Laws

[Norton]

People smoke for the same reason they indulge in any vice (alcohol, junk food, too much TV or internet) - they enjoy it, and it makes them feel good.

Whether someone does harm to themselves is quite frankly none of your business, and not the issue at hand. The issue here is when non-smokers are forced to breathe second-hand smoke.

I will gladly keep the smoke from my cigarettes far away from non-smokers, but I don't need to be lectured about my own health. Hell, the warnings are printed right on the box.

[Darrien]

I have to agree with the few, its not my fault you chose to smoke thus I should not have to put up with asthma attacks just cause you are addicted to that cancer stick.

[rahmota]

I have said it before the rights of the individual to do somethign stupid abusive or self-destructive to themselves is no ones business but their own. the government has no right to tel a person how to live their life so long as they are the only ones who are being really affected by it.

[Sylvia727]

I see no problem with banning a frivolous nasty habit. The idea that it is someone's god given right to destroy their health and impose on others, is incredibly weak.

Is there any solid justifiable reason for people to smoke?

(I struck out part of your quote to emphasize my point.)

Alright, let's ban alcohol. Fast food. Salty snacks. White bread. Anything with sugar in it. After all, no one has the god given right to destroy their own health. Let's ban sports, since there's such a high rate of injuries. Let's ban computers, since staring at the screen is bad for your eyes and using a mouse too much gives you carpal tunnel.

I know I sound abrasive, and I apologize if you take it personally. It's not intention to mock you. But I do have the right to do whatever I want with my own body as long as I don't hurt other people. If I want to kill my lungs or my liver or my arteries, that's my choice. No one has the right to take that from me.

I have the right to light up a cigarette as long as I take reasonable precautions not to "infect" anyone else. This means I only smoke in a public building if it is clearly posted that this is a smoking building. I don't smoke so close to a door that someone has to breathe my fumes in order to get in. I don't smoke so close to a busy walkway that passerby have to breathe my fumes in order to get by.

But I'm not going to apologize for smoking in a gazebo that's 100 feet away from the building. I'm not going to apologize for smoking in a bar with a policy that permits smoking, not even if you have asthma or just got out of surgery. Go drink in a non-smoking bar. (Obviously I wouldn't be so rude if your city didn't have non-smoking bars.) And I'm certainly not going to apologize for smoking in my own home, or in a friend's home if I've gotten his permission.

[Dorath]

How is breathing someone elses cigarette smoke any different than being forced to breathe car or factory exhaust? I'm forced to do those every day and hate it, does that allow me to petition the government to ban those as well? After all, it's certainly having a detrimental effect on my health.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I had parents who smoked and grew up with asthma and allergies. So I was in the same boat as you. I don't believe in the BS about second hand smoke.

...okay. Did you ever stop and think that just maybe the reason you *have* that asthma and allergies is BECAUSE your parents smoked? (Not saying that it is - or isn't - but it's a damn good suspect as far as I'm concerned)

Studies have shown that pregnant women who smoke have a greater chance of having kids with lung-related illnesses (or worse); if the parents started the habit after a child was born, you can still develop breathing problems from the resulting polluted environment. Smoke CLINGS to EVERYthing it touches, and nothing short of a Hazmat cleanup (just about, anyway) will get rid of that stench. If a closed room has had smokers in it for years, you can sometimes literally see the *stains* that the smoke has left behind.

And, sorry, but there have been studies proving that secondhand smoke is at least as dangerous as the shit that the smoker inhales. (As well as studies showing that car exhaust fumes are not peaches-and-cream innocence either - lung cancers are on the rise (and it's either this one, or heart disease, that's currently the #1 killer of women in particular - I forget which now), and it's postulated that the reason is because there are so many air pollutants from various sources - including cars - in the air nowadays; these pollutants get inside the body and get hold through microscopic tears in lung tissues)

I CANNOT stand being in smoke. I WILL start coughing and hacking if I even so much as get a whiff of it. I can't even be in the same car as a smoker with the windows down, because the blowblack smoke from the wind still hits me and triggers my coughing. Thus, the only solution for me is to avoid being around smokers (when they're lit up, unless their personal stink from cigarettes is so bad it overrides everything else, and believe me I've met a few of those kind), inasmuch as this is feasible depending on the circumstances.

But I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't. When the government starts attempting to ban cigarettes in one's own personal home, then yeah, I'd agree with you that it's gone too far.

[Seshat]

How is breathing someone elses cigarette smoke any different than being forced to breathe car or factory exhaust? I'm forced to do those every day and hate it, does that allow me to petition the government to ban those as well? After all, it's certainly having a detrimental effect on my health.

You're allowed to petition about anything you want to.

Factory exhaust is gradually being cleaned up - mostly because of petitions and lobbying from various people. Factories are being required to filter more and more strictly.

Car exhaust is also being cleaned up. I remember when unleaded petrol was pushed through in Australia, because the lead was both a toxin itself, and destroyed the catalytic convertors which were required to clean up other toxins from car exhaust. My next car, if I can possibly swing it, will run biodiesel created from waste oil. Mmm, yummy chips-scented rapidly-biodegrading and/or bio-safe car exhaust.

Air-pollution-intolerant people are not picking on smokers to the exclusion of other sources of air pollution. We're picking on smokers as well as other sources of air pollution.

[ebonyknight]

...okay. Did you ever stop and think that just maybe the reason you *have* that asthma and allergies is BECAUSE your parents smoked? (Not saying that it is - or isn't - but it's a damn good suspect as far as I'm concerned)

Hey, maybe you have something there. Maybe because my mom and dad ate peanuts, I have my peanut allergy, too....

Studies have shown that pregnant women who smoke have a greater chance of having kids with lung-related illnesses (or worse); if the parents started the habit after a child was born, you can still develop breathing problems from the resulting polluted environment. Smoke CLINGS to EVERYthing it touches, and nothing short of a Hazmat cleanup (just about, anyway) will get rid of that stench. If a closed room has had smokers in it for years, you can sometimes literally see the *stains* that the smoke has left behind.

And, sorry, but there have been studies proving that secondhand smoke is at least as dangerous as the shit that the smoker inhales. (As well as studies showing that car exhaust fumes are not peaches-and-cream innocence either - lung cancers are on the rise (and it's either this one, or heart disease, that's currently the #1 killer of women in particular - I forget which now), and it's postulated that the reason is because there are so many air pollutants from various sources - including cars - in the air nowadays; these pollutants get inside the body and get hold through microscopic tears in lung tissues)

Studies are like statistics, you can find one to support anything you want. Besides, it just doesn't make sense.

Smoke is made up of particles of burned matter and chemicals that are in suspension (air being the medium). It's why smoke stains walls (as you said). But paint rather than HAZMAT equipment will cover it nicely, thank you. You inhale the smoke, it sticks to your lungs depositing the tar and other crap that's bad for you (didn't you say it sticks to everything???). For you to say that you breathe out the same stuff you breath in, is just ridiculous. Either it sticks to your lungs or it doesn't. It CAN'T be both ways. By simply inhaling, you don't magically create an equal amount of matter to exhale, thereby "proving that secondhand smoke is at least as dangerous as the shit that the smoker inhales."? Most of that crap, stays in the smoker. Did the people who conducted the study forget about the Law of Mass/Matter Conservation????

That's the problem with today's society. We have lost the ability to reason for ourselves. We see a "study" and it's gospel. We see a statistic and it just HAS to be correct. Ridiculous.

You can find studies that prove anything you want.

I CANNOT stand being in smoke. I WILL start coughing and hacking if I even so much as get a whiff of it. I can't even be in the same car as a smoker with the windows down, because the blowblack smoke from the wind still hits me and triggers my coughing. Thus, the only solution for me is to avoid being around smokers (when they're lit up, unless their personal stink from cigarettes is so bad it overrides everything else, and believe me I've met a few of those kind), inasmuch as this is feasible depending on the circumstances.

So, do we do now tell food manufacturers that they have to have to pay for separate factories to make food that does away with all peanuts, gluten, eggs, etc. since there are people who are deathly allergic to them? Is putting on the food label "Made in a Facility that processes (whatever your particular allergen)" no longer good enough?

I tell people who eat peanuts not to touch me or I leave. I don't tell them they can't eat them or where to eat them. I don't go to parks where dogs play and tell them to leave or tell my friend that he has to get rid of his dog, when I visit.

According to the sentiment here, I have the right to go into Good Guys Restaurant (or any other establishment that servers shelled peanuts) and tell them that if people want to eat them, go outside where the shell dust and peanut skin dust can't waft into my eyes or take it home on my clothes.

It's the same argument as telling a bar owner they can't have smoking in THEIR establishment.

I don't complain that I can't go into Good Guys because of all the peanut dust. Why should anyone complain that they can't go to O'Douhl's bar, because they allow smoking???? It's ridiculous!

But I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't. When the government starts attempting to ban cigarettes in one's own personal home, then yeah, I'd agree with you that it's gone too far.

Somehow hearing your reasoning so far, I would doubt your last statement. I believe you would be cheering.

*sigh*

I really don't even know why I am arguing this since I don't even smoke anymore.

It just incenses me to see people want to censure other people based on what THEY believe is "best for them". And don't say that you don't feel that way "I'm not going to lie and say that I feel bad about Evil Smoking Bans that apply to particular public places - because I just don't."

A bar or business owner should have the right to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment as he sees fit. THEY pays the taxes, overhead and costs, not the government. If these bans don't show how much of a "nanny-state" we've become, I don't know what will.

First it's smoking, now it's trans-fats.

Hey, didn't I hear some of you argue that eating bad food isn't the same?

What's next? Dogs, peanuts and alcohol????? Don't laugh, who thought the local governments would have banned trans-fats a few years ago????

[Colchek]

Yes, some of that stays in the smoker, but you're forgetting one very important detail: The large, very noticeable billow of smoke that is rising off that lit cigar/cigarette/what have you. That's unfiltered smoke, that anyone nearby is going to breathe in, including the smoker. Combine that with the stuff that doesn't stick to the smoker's lungs when they breathe out, and you now have the basis for why its harmful. If you're around someone who's smoking, you can't avoid it.

[ebonyknight]

Yes, some of that stays in the smoker, but you're forgetting one very important detail: The large, very noticeable billow of smoke that is rising off that lit cigar/cigarette/what have you. That's unfiltered smoke, that anyone nearby is going to breathe in, including the smoker. Combine that with the stuff that doesn't stick to the smoker's lungs when they breathe out, and you now have the basis for why its harmful. If you're around someone who's smoking, you can't avoid it.

No I'm not. It wasn't whether the smoke is harmful or not, it was the ridiculous claim that "studies" have shown that exhaled smoke is just as harmful as the inhaled smoke.

Two, the volume of smoke that is coming off the cigarette doesn't compare to the volume of smoke released when a drag is exhaled. Or are you going to say they are the same or are even close?

Now where are these people that they can't avoid it? Are they friends of the smoker sitting in their smoke free homes? Are they people smoking in a restaurant or bar? Most likely the latter.

Now tell me. If I pay taxes, the rent, and the bills at my bar, who is the government to tell me whether I can have smokers or not?

Now if the business owner has no right to dictate that (which plenty here seem to indicate), then what right would you have to say that I couldn't smoke in your home, if I decided to visit?????

Can you not see the fascist view of the imposition upon a legal owner of property? Who is the government to tell me that I can't have a deep fried twinkie in all of it's trans-fat glory or that I can't smoke in my own establishment?

[Greenday]

The reason why smoking is such a huge issue is because it actually directly affects other people who don't do it. Drinking does not. Eating food does not. Those two cannot be compared to smoking.

Who is the government to tell us what we can and cannot do? The government elected by the people to create laws wanted by the majority of the people.

You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.

[ebonyknight]

The reason why smoking is such a huge issue is because it actually directly affects other people who don't do it. Drinking does not. Eating food does not. Those two cannot be compared to smoking.

Who is the government to tell us what we can and cannot do? The government elected by the people to create laws wanted by the majority of the people.

You can do what you want to yourself, but when it affects other people, that's when you cross the line.

Really?

This should be interesting then. Let's see if you really mean that or if you (like everyone else) just want to impose what you believe is best.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=732626

*Children don't often die like this in the United States.

Madeline Neumann died Sunday from an undiagnosed and treatable form of diabetes.

But on Sunday in the Town of Weston, near Wausau, 11-year-old Madeline Kara Neumann died of diabetic ketoacidosis, a treatable though serious condition of type 1 diabetes in which acid builds up in the blood.

Neumann's parents said they didn't know she had diabetes. They didn't take her to a doctor. They prayed for healing.

The common course of medical treatment for the disease involves injections of insulin and intravenous fluids, said Omar Ali, assistant professor of pediatric endocrinology at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Wauwatosa.

"A fatal outcome would be unusual these days in the United States," Ali said.

The death of the girl has shocked the community and raised profound moral and legal questions over when medicine should trump faith, especially when the life of a child is at stake. *

Do you charge the parents with a crime? If so, why exactly?

[Colchek]

Ebonyknight, if you're claiming that exhaled smoke is not just as bad as the unfiltered, or is by itself not harmful, then I quite disagree. In order for all of the toxins, chemicals, particulates, etc to be completely absorbed, the smoker is going to have to hold that smoke in for quite some time. The natural urge to breathe is going to prevent that, and a significant portion of what went in, is going to come out, just the same as the fact that your body does not absorb all of the oxygen in the air you breathe. Unfiltered smoke from the tobacco source is still a significant amount, as is that which is exhaled by a smoker. Discounting studies doesn't make the risks go away.

As a non-smoker, I don't want to breathe any of it, and I should not be forced to. I have a choice to avoid your home. I have a choice to avoid your car. I don't have a choice if I want to enjoy a meal in restaurants that allows smoking, or bowl in a bowling alley that allows it, etc, etc. The smoke is there, it hangs in the air, because in an enclosed space it can not dissipate. Non-smoking sections, as mentioned before, do not work because there is no means to isolate anyone from the smoke, and inside a building, it gets concentrated, especially if there are multiple smokers. Banning smoking in those facilities is the only way to ensure that others who do not want to suffer from it are not exposed to it. They key is the fact that the bowling alley is not there to cater to smokers. The bar is not there to cater to smokers. The restaurant is not there to cater to smokers. The bowling alley is there to cater to bowlers. The bar is there to cater to people wanting a drink. The restaurant is there to cater to people wanting food. Smokers who come in and bring their smoke with them are imposing it upon others there to enjoy what the facility offers, there's no getting around it. Even if it is not intentional on their part, they are forcing it upon others.

[Norton]

I can see that before the bans, there was a need for for more bars and restaurants to accomodate non-smokers. Now in most places all restaurants and bars are non-smoking. It's gone from one extreme to the other.

Why are all the non-smokers against having any smoking establishments? Can we not have both? Again, I say let the owners of businesses decide whether to allow smoking, and let the patrons decide whether they support that decision by either avoiding or patronizing the business.

[Greenday]

Smoke outside, we don't care. Just don't smoke in areas we are forced to pass through to get somewhere.

And ebonyknight, I think those parents were morons. Praying to God is something you do when you already tried medicine and it's proven ineffective and you are pretty much out of options. To not get the girl medical help is a total screw-up on their part. As for how they should be punished, I don't know. I don't study criminal law. I study science and science tells me those people could have actually tried to save their kid but they didn't do a damn thing to try to save her.

As much as I'd like to argue about that, it has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, unless you are trying to get at people should be held responsible for their actions, in which case I agree. Both cases, people are endangering other people's lives. Smoking is not nearly as immediate a problem but it still harms other people regardless.