2nd hand smoke...lets be clear you indocterated stupid fucks

[ChrisL]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill but it makes it quite unbearable to be around smokers.

To some, that's a fact. But a pretty bad reason to create law taking property rights from business owners

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

 

[ChrisL]

Smoking has become a secular "sin" to the Left, and the predictable result has been a mountain of "studies" "proving" that second-hand smoke causes all sorts of problems. This is a common phenomenon on the Left, but I won't go into other examples as they will simply be a distraction.

SHS is unpleasant in a number of ways, and it seems that former smokers are most susceptible to the petty irritations. Understood and agreed. It is rude to smoke in places where other humans cannot avoid the smell, etc., and considerate people do not do so.

In order to "prove" scientifically that SHS causes one or more diseases, it is necessary to compare the general population with the population that is regularly exposed to SHS, and to compare the incidence of the target diseases between the experimental group and the control group. What you are looking for is a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between, say, the lung cancer rate of those exposed regularly to SHS and the lung cancer rate of the GENPOP. There have been many broad studies that have tracked, for example, the non-smoking spouses of heavy smokers vs the GENPOP, and as a general proposition, the lung cancer, emphesema, and other expected diseases are no more prevalent in the non-smoking spouses than they are in the GENPOP.

Of course, some non-smoking spouses do contract lung cancer, just as some non-smokers in the GENPOP contract lung cancer, for reasons that are not entirely understood. The assertion that, "My Aunt Sadie got lung cancer," is not proof of a statistically significant difference in society. In fact, it is a pointless, irrelevant observation.

The CDC has been preaching for decades the "fact" that SHS causes cancer and a number of other diseases, while the relevant studies have NOT SHOWN that this is a fact. In fact, they are inconclusive at best. Pregnant women shouldn't smoke if there is even any question that the carcinogens in cigs can get into the baby's bloodstream. Easy enough.

But the fact is that smoking in public is no more harmful and no more irritating than someone passing gas in an elevator or a bus. Less harmful than teenagers dropping "F-bombs" is a crowded theater. Some people are rude, and sometimes we have to take action to avoid various sorts of unpleasantness. Deal with it. The Gub'mint needs to stay the fuck out of the discussion until it is scientifically proven that SHS causes diseases. Which it isn't yet.

The fact is, that even the best studies never include the fact that many of those within those studies live in areas with high radon concentration. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer and other lung problems. The second hand smoking nazis would rather that fact kept buried

Oh yeah, that must be it! Could not possibly be the gray unhealthy smoke that turns your lungs black! Nope! Smoking is healthy.

 

[martybegan]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill but it makes it quite unbearable to be around smokers.

To some, that's a fact. But a pretty bad reason to create law taking property rights from business owners

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

 

[DGS49]

Amid all of that bullshit and verbiage, please extract the ONE study that supposedly proves that SHS causes lung cancer and/or heart disease. I see the assertion, but for the one pdf that looks like it would contain the actual data, the link doesn't work.

This is my point. Lots of inflammatory and definitive conclusions, but weak or non-existent hard data.

 

[ChrisL]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill but it makes it quite unbearable to be around smokers.

To some, that's a fact. But a pretty bad reason to create law taking property rights from business owners

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

 

[ChrisL]

Amid all of that bullshit and verbiage, please extract the ONE study that supposedly proves that SHS causes lung cancer and/or heart disease. I see the assertion, but for the one pdf that looks like it would contain the actual data, the link doesn't work.

This is my point. Lots of inflammatory and definitive conclusions, but weak or non-existent hard data.

Did you miss Jillian's links?

Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and can cause coronary heart disease and stroke.2,4,5

• Secondhand smoke causes nearly 34,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.4
• Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25–30%.1
• Secondhand smoke increases the risk for stroke by 20−30%.4
• Secondhand smoke exposure causes more than 8,000 deaths from stroke annually.4

Breathing secondhand smoke can have immediate adverse effects on your blood and blood vessels, increasing the risk of having a heart attack.2,3,4

• Breathing secondhand smoke interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of having a heart attack.
• Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can damage the lining of blood vessels and cause your blood platelets to become stickier. These changes can cause a deadly heart attack.

People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse effects from breathing secondhand smoke and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposures.1

Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer
Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked.4

• Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%.2
• Secondhand smoke causes more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.4
• Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers.2,3,4
• Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.4
• As with active smoking, the longer the duration and the higher the level of exposure to secondhand smoke, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer.4

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is no evidence and never will be one that 2nd hand smoke will kill you before you stuff your face with pizza to death..dumb fucks.

That is all...oh wait and this

Study Finds No Link Between Secondhand Smoke And Cancer

A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement.

The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers.

Ah, so there's no evidence, so it doesn't happen? Is that your argument? There's no evidence that if someone falls into the sun they'll die. Are you willing to fall into the sun?

Put a sign in space warning that the sun is hot. You want to jump in? Be my guest

Well if you had actually bothered responding to the point, instead of getting sidetracked by the analogy, you might have had something worth responding to....

 

[Agit8r]

I have severe asthma. Nothing more absurd than people walking up next to me thinking they can smoke right beside me. I have no duty to retreat in this state, so y'all better heed my first warning to get the fuck lost

 

[martybegan]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill but it makes it quite unbearable to be around smokers.

To some, that's a fact. But a pretty bad reason to create law taking property rights from business owners

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

 

[ChrisL]

Second hand smoke doesn't kill but it makes it quite unbearable to be around smokers.

To some, that's a fact. But a pretty bad reason to create law taking property rights from business owners

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

 

[martybegan]

To some, that's a fact. But a pretty bad reason to create law taking property rights from business owners

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

 

[ChrisL]

Again poppy, when you open a public accommodation business, you have to follow the rules!

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is with blanket regulation like this, is if I want to open a bar that caters to smokers, and is staffed by smokers, I have to go through with some bullshit "private club" rigamarole. if everyone in there wants to be around smoke, why go through the hassle of this, and just let a business decide its a smoking business?

And even dumber is the recent attempt to extend anti-smoking rules to vaping, which has NONE of the effects you get from combustion of tobacco products.

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

or you can go to another bar. The question I ask is why is your butt hurt more equal than the smoker's butthurt?

 

[ChrisL]

Then open a smoking bar or something. Smoking is on the decline anyways with what we all know about how bad it is for us.

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

or you can go to another bar. The question I ask is why is your butt hurt more equal than the smoker's butthurt?

Who is the one spreading unhealthy smoke? Give it up.

 

[martybegan]

Actually in NYC the prevent you from doing that as much as they can. Most of the smoke shops have been grandfathered in, or are "private clubs", and even those are under attack.

And in most smaller bars, once it hits 1 AM or so, the smoking lamp gets lit again anyway. All this does is erode respect for the law.

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

or you can go to another bar. The question I ask is why is your butt hurt more equal than the smoker's butthurt?

Who is the one spreading unhealthy smoke? Give it up.

Why do you have to be in the bar then?

The people who advocate laws like this would normally not set foot in the place I am talking about, i.e. your dingy neighborhood dive bar, no food except the bags of pretzels and the candy machine, and a place that smells BETTER with cigarette smoke, as opposed to the smell of stale beer, vomit, and the whiff of urine coming from the bathroom.

 

[ChrisL]

So? Go smoke outside then. Nobody wants their health jeopardized so that you can suck on your cancer stick and/or you are too lazy to get up and go smoke outdoors.

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

or you can go to another bar. The question I ask is why is your butt hurt more equal than the smoker's butthurt?

Who is the one spreading unhealthy smoke? Give it up.

Why do you have to be in the bar then?

The people who advocate laws like this would normally not set foot in the place I am talking about, i.e. your dingy neighborhood dive bar, no food except the bags of pretzels and the candy machine, and a place that smells BETTER with cigarette smoke, as opposed to the smell of stale beer, vomit, and the whiff of urine coming from the bathroom.

Maybe I want to have a couple of drinks with my friends!?

Now you are just grasping at straws. Second hand smoke IS unhealthy.

 

[ChrisL]

 

[martybegan]

I've actually never smoked a cigarette in my life. My tobacco use is limited to about 2-3 stogies a year.

My issue is that if non smoking bars were such a wonderful idea, why did government have to force it. Why not let bars decide?

Going to a bar and getting hammered isn't a constitutional right.


Note that I mean "bar" bars not restaurants, where I can see the benefit of no smoking regs.

The issue is government tries to make 1 size fits all laws for situations that don't call for it.

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

or you can go to another bar. The question I ask is why is your butt hurt more equal than the smoker's butthurt?

Who is the one spreading unhealthy smoke? Give it up.

Why do you have to be in the bar then?

The people who advocate laws like this would normally not set foot in the place I am talking about, i.e. your dingy neighborhood dive bar, no food except the bags of pretzels and the candy machine, and a place that smells BETTER with cigarette smoke, as opposed to the smell of stale beer, vomit, and the whiff of urine coming from the bathroom.

Maybe I want to have a couple of drinks with my friends!?

Now you are just grasping at straws. Second hand smoke IS unhealthy.

But it is not the instant death you allude to it. I have an Aunt who has emphysema from it, but it took 40 years of her being exposed to my chain smoking uncle to do it.

Again, why does your ability to go once or twice into a bar and have it be smoke free override a regular's ability to have a smoke with his pint, when no one else has an issue with it?

 

[martybegan]

Define "high exposure"

 

[ChrisL]

Going to an enclosed area and smoking isn't a constitutional right either . . .

The point here is that nobody is stopping smokers from smoking. They only have to get up off their "butts" and go smoke their butts outside so that no one else has to be exposed to their air pollution.

or you can go to another bar. The question I ask is why is your butt hurt more equal than the smoker's butthurt?

Who is the one spreading unhealthy smoke? Give it up.

Why do you have to be in the bar then?

The people who advocate laws like this would normally not set foot in the place I am talking about, i.e. your dingy neighborhood dive bar, no food except the bags of pretzels and the candy machine, and a place that smells BETTER with cigarette smoke, as opposed to the smell of stale beer, vomit, and the whiff of urine coming from the bathroom.

Maybe I want to have a couple of drinks with my friends!?

Now you are just grasping at straws. Second hand smoke IS unhealthy.

But it is not the instant death you allude to it. I have an Aunt who has emphysema from it, but it took 40 years of her being exposed to my chain smoking uncle to do it.

Again, why does your ability to go once or twice into a bar and have it be smoke free override a regular's ability to have a smoke with his pint, when no one else has an issue with it?

Lol! So what? People now know that second hand smoke is not good for them! There is no NEED for you to smoke indoors. Go outside.