I saw a very disturbing commercial on TV today. It was a lady talking about how she had some lung disease from smoking. She goes on and on talking about this, then at the end of the commerical a message appears telling how this woman died on such and such a date.
It’s hard to believe that this kind of thing is allowed. What if I made a commercial about a 300 pound man who had a heart attack and died because he ate at McDonalds every day for 30 years. The point being that many things that we do are not good for us, but it’s a free country and anybody can do anything they wish.
I think smoking is one’s choice and it must be a real choice so people should be told about its danger. But on the other hand the ads should be safe for non-smoking people like teens, who often start smoking after seeing and hearing too much about cigarettes. We should find a balance somehow…
Should we outlaw nuts in restaurants, since there is a large section of society who will be harmed by nuts, if ingested? Don’t they have the right to eat what they want?
Bah, I am so burned out on this topic, but anyway.
By law, restaurants must provide a list of ingredients so that this wont happend.
Revrend, I see you point. But what I said dosnt change, your purposley hurting someone. Segregation is considered a harm to liberities, so seperate but equal is not an option. Plus, what bar owner would make his bar non-smoking only? He would only lose money! (I agree with you on the economic reason too) So in the end up the only option is to go and be harmed or stay out of bars altogether.
Its either a harm to liberites or health,(being free from harm is also a liberty) none of which are accessible, if a person is forbidden to smoke, nothing is going to happened to him… bah… you know what I will say, no point in repeating myself.
Anyway…
[size=9] WELCOME ASHLEY!![/size]
Welcome to the forum, enjoy your stay! I am R.beer, the designated forum fool, Rev is the designated cook, Phil is the designated Conspiracy theorist. And Kirupa is the designated unibrow…
I feel it should not be a federal or state descision to ban smoking in resteraunts or bars. It should totally be up to the establishment itself.
There is this Chinese food resteraunt right down the street from my house. Its a dive but I love it there. Its not the kind of place for your granola eating tree hugging crowd.
Its a smoke filled dirty rock/metal juke box blairing biker bar that desperaitly need to re-felt thier pool tables.
There needs to remain places like this. Just somewhere where you can go with your boys get shizzled and smoke up a storm.
On the flipside, I also like to get dressed up and go to nice places. Places without burn holes in the carpet and whatnot. I dont mind smoking outside in nice clubs, just make provisions so that I can get in and out.
*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
**Revrend, I see you point. But what I said dosnt change, your purposley hurting someone. Segregation is considered a harm to liberities, so seperate but equal is not an option. Plus, what bar owner would make his bar non-smoking only? He would only lose money! (I agree with you on the economic reason too) So in the end up the only option is to go and be harmed or stay out of bars altogether.
Its either a harm to liberites or health,(being free from harm is also a liberty) none of which are accessible, if a person is forbidden to smoke, nothing is going to happened to him… bah… you know what I will say, no point in repeating myself.
**
RB - I have given proof of my contention that there is no hard link between SHS and any smoking related disease.
So how can you say this is a health issue?
There is no study, that has held up, anywhere, that links second hand smoke to any health issues. None.
It is just a propaganda campaign, that has spoon fed you for the last 20 years, so now you feel it is your right to not have someone smoke near you.
It is not. Just as it is not your right to make the bus driver move his bus, since his exhaust is in front of your face.
If smokers are not harming anyone but themselves, then why do you have to stick your nose into their business?
Because it is a Temperance Movement, just like the 1890’s, in revolt to the Victorian ideals of excess. Which is also why we have the Prairie School of Architecture, and Art Nuveau & Arts & Crafts movements, but I digress…
I’ve shown the evidence that this is not factual, and shs is not harmful in any measureable amount.
If you can find a study (other than the flawed 1993 EPA) that says otherwise, please show it to me. I’d love to read it. If you can find stats to back up the propaganda, show me. Stats, not estimates…
I can estimate too.
RB - I have given proof of my contention that there is no hard link between SHS and any smoking related disease.
No, you have given a website of questionable credibility.
That is all,
Bah, here we go again in the same circle… I trust opinions of people looking out for our health than some disgruntled smoker with no sientific credibility who just wants to smoke in a restaurant.
Look, I can care less if people are smoking crack as long as they don’t hurt me. But until I see credible info that there is no relation between SHS and health issues, when I do, then I will totaly agree with you. Then I would want smoking legalized in all restaurants, clubs, movie theathers, planes, airports… and the rest…
So go look at the truth about ETS/SHS thread… I have given more info about how there is no correlation whatsoever in any measurable amount, between any disease and SHS.
Will you at least check these out? No, I have shown many links to several studies, carried out all over the world. You have just chosen not to even check those out.
I’m not even including the 1 link I gave to a website which had some good links on it, by impartial people, which you seem to be stuck on, because you think he is biased. No kidding he is biased. All sites on this issue will be biased. That is why I gave links to the actual studies, and their conclusions. The World Health Org even took their report off the web, because it was proven flawed, compared to the study it was based on.
so get ready to agree with me… because in that thread, I have linked to studies from Italy, Germany, etc…
I admit, until I can find sources that say otherwise, which I still beleive the full extent haven’t been figured out, I admit you’re right. If it dosent harm anyone, smoke away in schools, restaurants, movie theaters, airports…
If I do find information stating that it does hurt people’s health, then you are wrong because nothing gives smokers the right to do so , until then, you are right.
Just me 2 cents. Back in the 50’s doctors used to tell pregnant women to smoke because it caused smaller babies. They said that smaller babies would be delivered easier. Take a step back now. That smoked caused babies to develope smaller. You cannot tell me that is a good thing. At the time the doctors were unbiased. They didn’t say smoking was bad then, they just knew that babies came out smaller. To me that is an effect of cigarettes. That shows me that cigarette smoke effects the growth of the human body which to me is a negative.
but, the developement of a fetus to birth is a far cry different than the developement of a person on the park bench next to me. One can choose to smoke away from others, or those others can chose to stand away from the smoker. A fetus has no such choice in the matter. It will ingest the first hand smoke of the mother aquiring all of those effects. Rev is talking about SHS not first hand smoke.
Well first how is the smoke coming out one end of the cigarette any different from that coming out from the other end. I ralize the exhailed smoke may be “less” harmfull, but you still have a smoking cigarette putting out first hand smoke to others even if no one is touching it. If you light one, and leave it in an ash tray, there will be smoke…what hand smoke is that?
again, you pick something, and ride it, rather than actually listen to another side of something, then making a logical decision on that info. Instead, you have an idea, and will continue to argue inane arguments, just to avoid having to acutally look at the facts.
are you saying we should outlaw all things harmful which we do to ourselves? wasn’t that what prohibition was all about?
Take your control freakish ways back to the hills.
liz… I’m not going to disagree with you on that. I do believe that ANY smoke in the lungs in dangerous, regardless of it’s source. However, SHS is very different than first hand smoke.
and yes, the smoke from a cig in an ashtray IS first hand smoke. SHS refers to smoke which has been exhaled. It is different because it is not heated, and it has a different chem composition than FHS. Do I think that SHS is harmful… yeah I still do, even after reading Revs links. You cannot however convince me that FHS and SHS are the same thing. I’ve seen the chem levels of both in experiments and they differ highly. You may be able to argue that the smoke is harmful, but you wont be able to do it by bringing up possible falsities. The ashtray arguement is a good one I think. A lit cig in an ashtray gives off FHS, FHS has been scientificaly determined to cause cancer. I’d say run with that line of thinking. It may be your best bet IMO, to construct a good arguement.
I said in any study to date, there has been no measurable correlation between SHS and any disease.
a cig burning in an ashtray is classified as SHS, not FHS.
just 'cause your Mom worked there does not give you her knowledge… Now if you say I can ask my Mother who is an expert, that is diff… I think that was what you were saying, but this is a tough medium to call… or if you are an expert, which you could be for all I know…
no facts to back up thier claims, no law to ban cig smoking in public areas.
you can’t even smoke a cig in Pac Bell Park, even if you go out on the ramp, and stand in a gale force wind off the Bay… who is that hurting?
oh no… I didn’t mean to say that I was an expert. Sorry it did sound like that. I just meant that anything I didn’t know, I’d be sure to ask her about.
for reference, cancer rates among rats rose dramaticaly when introduced to SHS over those who had a fresh air environment. Yes I also know that rat physiology is not the same as human physiology.
I should think that there is at least enough evidence to commit to another study, complete, and accurate. Likewise, I certainly wont ever complain if someone next to me asks me to stand a little farther away when I smoke (unless I’m already 20 feet from them of course. )
