CDZ Smoker's Rights

[9thIDdoc]

Are they forced to work there?

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

Why does your economic advancement trump someone else's right to engage in an activity of their choosing? That's not what this argument is about anyway. This is about property rights and the rights of a business to choose whether or not to allow a perfectly LEGAL activity in his establishment. You, as the employee, don't have a say in that. You can choose not to work there if it bothers you that much. You're not entitled to a job there or anywhere, for that fact.

No one has a "right" to smoke. Tobacco is a regulated substance. Sale of it is prohibited to minors. And smoking is intrusive. A smoker has no "right" to impose second hand smoke on anyone.

We do, however, have a right to breathe clean fresh air.

If you choose to patronize a business that allows smoking, then no one is imposing second hand smoke on you, you are exposing yourself to it voluntarily.

Here's the problem. Let's say restaurants permit smoking. Well, one restaurateur sees that his sales are up because his patrons just cannot wait to light up in their cars on the way home. Other restaurateurs take his example. Soon, every restaurant smells like an ashtray and there are no restaurants accommodating non smokers. Where can the non smoker dine without smelling like trailer trash? Where can a non smoker eat without the intrusion of cigarette smoke?

What if my favorite restaurant permits smoking? Am I to be shut out of it? What if the restaurant that treats its employees best and gets consistently high tips accommodates smokers? Should my daughter be exposed to the second hand smoke of its patrons simply because they can pollute the air inside? Should she be excluded from making the best money she can simply because smokers cannot wait until they leave the establishment before lighting up?

Absolutely!

 

[JoeMoma]

If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.

Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.

Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

Once again, there is NO RIGHT TO SMOKE. There is, however, a right to breathe clean fresh air. But a "right" to smoke does not exist.

Actually as long as smoking is legal, adults have the right to make that choice and smoke. If you are for banning smoking altogether by making it illegal, well fine! But as long as smoking is legal, those that do smoke should be able to run restaurants that allow smoking. If you don't like the smoke, then you don't have to be there.

You should be happy, the nonsmokers have won. When I was a kid during the seventies, probably more than 90% of the adults smoked. Now most smoking is regulated to outdoors and most adults don't smoke.

 

[Bonzi]

If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.

Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.

Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

Once again, there is NO RIGHT TO SMOKE. There is, however, a right to breathe clean fresh air. But a "right" to smoke does not exist.

Actually as long as smoking is legal, adults have the right to make that choice and smoke. If you are for banning smoking altogether by making it illegal, well fine! But as long as smoking is legal, those that do smoke should be able to run restaurants that allow smoking. If you don't like the smoke, then you don't have to be there.

You should be happy, the nonsmokers have won. When I was a kid during the seventies, probably more than 90% of the adults smoked. Now most smoking is regulated to outdoors and most adults don't smoke.

And in certain cases even outdoor smoking is NOT permitted!

Like on hospital grounds or in outdoor sporting event venues!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

 

[Bonzi]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

Yeah but the questions is, why are you not permitted to start a business that clearly states smoking is allowed. Non smokers can just stay away. Go elsewhere. I think the laws are ridiculous. I don't believe non-smokers should have to be subject to it (the harmful effects) but the smell? Are you going to keep people that fart excessively or have BO out of places as well?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

Yeah but the questions is, why are you not permitted to start a business that clearly states smoking is allowed. Non smokers can just stay away. Go elsewhere. I think the laws are ridiculous. I don't believe non-smokers should have to be subject to it (the harmful effects) but the smell? Are you going to keep people that fart excessively or have BO out of places as well?

Kinda like those that would be against serving gays though. "Can just go elsewhere" is their arguement as well. A business is supposed to serve anyone and everyone with money. Not just those who comform to some arbitrary set of conditions which would vary place to place. If you wanna go to a restaurant as a non-smoker, or gay person, you shoudl be able to regardless of the owner's view of the world. Shouldn't have to conform to their worldview, or toelrate their wanting to smoke where they eat.

 

[9thIDdoc]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

 

[Bonzi]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

Yeah but the questions is, why are you not permitted to start a business that clearly states smoking is allowed. Non smokers can just stay away. Go elsewhere. I think the laws are ridiculous. I don't believe non-smokers should have to be subject to it (the harmful effects) but the smell? Are you going to keep people that fart excessively or have BO out of places as well?

Kinda like those that would be against serving gays though. "Can just go elsewhere" is their arguement as well. A business is supposed to serve anyone and everyone with money. Not just those who comform to some arbitrary set of conditions which would vary place to place. If you wanna go to a restaurant as a non-smoker, or gay person, you shoudl be able to regardless of the owner's view of the world. Shouldn't have to conform to their worldview, or toelrate their wanting to smoke where they eat.

It's not like you are turning down non-smokers. That is their option. To deal with the smoke or not. Smokers right now are being discriminated against. I don't think it's asking to much to enact a law that would permit AT LEAST small business owners to allow smoking at their option.....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

 

[Bonzi]

It's okay to be offended by smokers and smoke -
But it's not ok to be offended by homosexuals and gay marriage -

So your physical being is more important than your spiritual and being?

Offensive is offensive, and, I have read mixed articles on 2nd hand smoke. In fact, I believe that it's only prolonged exposure to 2nd hand smoke that puts you at risk, if even then. Not a 2 hour meal at a restaurant or a 20 minute visit to a store....

I'm offended by a lot of things, but, we live in a world where people are different and do all kinds of different things... the state and federal government needs to butt out.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Smokers who wish to be allowed to smoke (so long as it doesn't bother others) should be especially polite and courteous around non-smokers. It's the pissed off non-smokers who're getting no-smoking laws passed.

 

[Bonzi]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

No one's ever died from smoking. Would be banned overnight if that were true.

With literally thousands of carcinogens in our enviroment, the ones that actually start a cancer is impossible to determine. You'd have to eliminate everything else then expose someone to tobacco smoke and see if they get cancer to say with certainty, smoking causes cancer. Lots of of things cause cancer. Flame retardants in our clothes and furniture are huge causes as well. Lot of our food cause cancers as well. Tobacco use is 1 risk factor among thousands of others.

For 'smoking causes cancer' to be true, every smoker would have to get cancer. In fact according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. And whether it was the smoking, or some other combination of things that caused it can't be determined.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

Then you would agree that I have a right to demand that you stop wearing your favorite after-shave or eating liver in public if I don't like the way it smells?

 

[paddymurphy]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

No one's ever died from smoking. Would be banned overnight if that were true.

With literally thousands of carcinogens in our enviroment, the ones that actually start a cancer is impossible to determine. You'd have to eliminate everything else then expose someone to tobacco smoke and see if they get cancer to say with certainty, smoking causes cancer. Lots of of things cause cancer. Flame retardants in our clothes and furniture are huge causes as well. Lot of our food cause cancers as well. Tobacco use is 1 risk factor among thousands of others.

For 'smoking causes cancer' to be true, every smoker would have to get cancer. In fact according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. And whether it was the smoking, or some other combination of things that caused it can't be determined.

Smoking causes cancer and exacerbates a ton of other illnesses. That is not even subject to debate. Saying that since only 40 % of smokers get lung cancer proves there is no causal relationship cause the other 60 % don't has to be about the silliest thing I have read. How many people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Not many. If you want to smoke, go right ahead but do not lie and claim there is no connection between smoking and serious health problems and early death. That is offensive.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

A smoker's rights end where a non-smoker's rights begin. As with the non-smoker not having to breathe in smoke from another.

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

No one's ever died from smoking. Would be banned overnight if that were true.

With literally thousands of carcinogens in our enviroment, the ones that actually start a cancer is impossible to determine. You'd have to eliminate everything else then expose someone to tobacco smoke and see if they get cancer to say with certainty, smoking causes cancer. Lots of of things cause cancer. Flame retardants in our clothes and furniture are huge causes as well. Lot of our food cause cancers as well. Tobacco use is 1 risk factor among thousands of others.

For 'smoking causes cancer' to be true, every smoker would have to get cancer. In fact according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. And whether it was the smoking, or some other combination of things that caused it can't be determined.

Smoking causes cancer and exacerbates a ton of other illnesses. That is not even subject to debate. Saying that since only 40 % of smokers get lung cancer proves there is no causal relationship cause the other 60 % don't has to be about the silliest thing I have read. How many people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Not many. If you want to smoke, go right ahead but do not lie and claim there is no connection between smoking and serious health problems and early death. That is offensive.

"Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70."
What are the key statistics about lung cancer

Given the median life expectency is 70-80, you were going to die anyway. So really, did smoking kill you, or did you just hit your avg life expectency where you were going to die from something regardless.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My stepdad died a few years ago having smoked several packs a day much of his life. Was 83, significantly exceeding his life expectency. While he died from lung cancer, so what? What if he'd died at 75 of heart failure? Would we blame the smoking then? Probably not since heart failure isn't one of things associated with smoking. But while he smoked a bloody lot, and died from something linked to smoking, he also lived longer than the avg so what should we say about his smoking? Did he live longer for it, or die younger because of it?

 

[paddymurphy]

And the truth is you have no such right. You might as well claim that no one has a right to drive a car or bus or heat their homes or grow plants that produce pollen or wear perfume. "Second-hand" smoke has not been proven to be more dangerous than any of these.

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

No one's ever died from smoking. Would be banned overnight if that were true.

With literally thousands of carcinogens in our enviroment, the ones that actually start a cancer is impossible to determine. You'd have to eliminate everything else then expose someone to tobacco smoke and see if they get cancer to say with certainty, smoking causes cancer. Lots of of things cause cancer. Flame retardants in our clothes and furniture are huge causes as well. Lot of our food cause cancers as well. Tobacco use is 1 risk factor among thousands of others.

For 'smoking causes cancer' to be true, every smoker would have to get cancer. In fact according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. And whether it was the smoking, or some other combination of things that caused it can't be determined.

Smoking causes cancer and exacerbates a ton of other illnesses. That is not even subject to debate. Saying that since only 40 % of smokers get lung cancer proves there is no causal relationship cause the other 60 % don't has to be about the silliest thing I have read. How many people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Not many. If you want to smoke, go right ahead but do not lie and claim there is no connection between smoking and serious health problems and early death. That is offensive.

"Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70."
What are the key statistics about lung cancer

Given the median life expectency is 70-80, you were going to die anyway. So really, did smoking kill you, or did you just hit your avg life expectency where you were going to die from something regardless.

Great source. Here is something else from that website:


Are any types of cigarettes safe to smoke?
What kinds of illness and death are caused by smoking cigarettes?
About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 480,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Cancers caused by smoking
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers:

• Lung
• Larynx (voice box)
• Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips)
• Nose and sinuses
• Pharynx (throat)
• Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach)
• Stomach
• Pancreas
• Cervix
• Kidney
• Bladder
• Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer)
• Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum)
• Acute myeloid leukemia

 

[paddymurphy]

My stepdad died a few years ago having smoked several packs a day much of his life. Was 83, significantly exceeding his life expectency. While he died from lung cancer, so what? What if he'd died at 75 of heart failure? Would we blame the smoking then? Probably not since heart failure isn't one of things associated with smoking. But while he smoked a bloody lot, and died from something linked to smoking, he also lived longer than the avg so what should we say about his smoking? Did he live longer for it, or die younger because of it?

Your stepdad's experience is wholly irrelevant. But, yes, his smoking shortened his life and likely made the end painful. Smoking causes and contributes to serious health problems. On average, smokers like shorter and less healthy lives.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Asa lifelong smoker (who still smokes,) I respect a non-smoker's right to not breathe in another person's smoke. Whether it's harmful or not is moot as it doesn't smell good to a non-smoker. Or, interestingly a smoker if not actively smoking.

As a pipe smoker I can't stand catching a whiff of a cigarette. It's positively disgusting. And even when smoking cigs myself af ew years ago, I had a similar aversion to other people's cigs. Think when we smoke, our olfacotry senses get muted or suppressed.

I quit 10 years ago. I'm pro smoker all the way. My dad died from smoking Camels. Still, I'm all for it if you like it. This is just silly ...

No one's ever died from smoking. Would be banned overnight if that were true.

With literally thousands of carcinogens in our enviroment, the ones that actually start a cancer is impossible to determine. You'd have to eliminate everything else then expose someone to tobacco smoke and see if they get cancer to say with certainty, smoking causes cancer. Lots of of things cause cancer. Flame retardants in our clothes and furniture are huge causes as well. Lot of our food cause cancers as well. Tobacco use is 1 risk factor among thousands of others.

For 'smoking causes cancer' to be true, every smoker would have to get cancer. In fact according to the CDC itself, only about 40% of smokers develop lung cancer. And whether it was the smoking, or some other combination of things that caused it can't be determined.

Smoking causes cancer and exacerbates a ton of other illnesses. That is not even subject to debate. Saying that since only 40 % of smokers get lung cancer proves there is no causal relationship cause the other 60 % don't has to be about the silliest thing I have read. How many people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Not many. If you want to smoke, go right ahead but do not lie and claim there is no connection between smoking and serious health problems and early death. That is offensive.

"Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70."
What are the key statistics about lung cancer

Given the median life expectency is 70-80, you were going to die anyway. So really, did smoking kill you, or did you just hit your avg life expectency where you were going to die from something regardless.

Great source. Here is something else from that website:


Are any types of cigarettes safe to smoke?
What kinds of illness and death are caused by smoking cigarettes?
About half of all Americans who keep smoking will die because of the habit. Each year about 480,000 people in the United States die from illnesses related to tobacco use. Smoking cigarettes kills more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Cancers caused by smoking
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It’s linked with an increased risk of these cancers:

• Lung
• Larynx (voice box)
• Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, and lips)
• Nose and sinuses
• Pharynx (throat)
• Esophagus (tube connecting the throat to the stomach)
• Stomach
• Pancreas
• Cervix
• Kidney
• Bladder
• Ovary (a type called mucinous ovarian cancer)
• Colorectum (the colon and/or the rectum)
• Acute myeloid leukemia

Gotta die from something eventually. Think the impression people try to push that if you don't smoke, do exercise and eat well you'll live forever is so we are more blaise' about death. Think instead we should accept death as a necessary and inevitible result of having been born. If not preparing ourselves mentally for the deaths of loved ones, when that happens, and it will, it's just gonna negatively efect more than if we'd prepared ourselves for it by accepting it.

Death of people who live beyond 80 isn't an 'oh what a horrible tragedy they died' but a 'hurray they exceeded their life expectency!'