Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Anguille]

no, whats truly impressive if that you STILL haven't posted anything that illustrates a viable threat from SHS outside of just saying so. Like I said, read the actual methodology of the shit you think is your evidence.


then again, you know how random forum users are probably in the pockets of phillip morris.

The deal was that I would post links to evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful in exchange for a few explanations from smokers here as to how they are able to justify smoking around other other people knowing that at the very least it might be harmful to them.
I did my part.
I've yet to see anyone hold up their end of the bargain.
Bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Shogun]

oh stop it. The DEAL was that you were supposed to figure out why those stats you are regurgitating are less impressive than you think they are. ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS are not impressive just because you don't like the smell of smoke.



grrrrr, goddammit.

 

[Ravi]

Not to mention I answered her question way back on the thread.

 

[Anguille]

Not to mention I answered her question way back on the thread.

Link, please.

 

[Ravi]

Link, please.

Nope, I'm gonna let you find it.

 

[Anguille]

Nope, I'm gonna let you find it.

That's not nice. After all the linky dinkies I've provided for you.

All I can recall is something you said about wanting and desiring being the same thing. That just because you smoke around someone you aren't actually intentionally wishing to do them harm. It didn't really answer my quest-ion.

 

[ReillyT]

The deal was that I would post links to evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful in exchange for a few explanations from smokers here as to how they are able to justify smoking around other other people knowing that at the very least it might be harmful to them.
I did my part.
I've yet to see anyone hold up their end of the bargain.
Bunch of hypocrites.

I'll give it a shot.

I rarely smoke around others, but this is mostly to be polite. If I do smoke around others, such as when I am at a party, and I ever thought about it, this would be my reasoning.

1. I enjoy smoking at times. I get happiness from it.

2. I have never seen strong evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, although I acknowledge that it is certainly possible.

3. Smoking itself isn't terribly dangerous if only done occasionally.

4. Thus, it seems unlikely to me that anyone is harmed by being occasionally subjected to second hand smoke. I probably wouldn't smoke constantly around my baby (if I had one).

5. 2,3, and 4 are weighed in conjunction with 1, and I evaluate that even Bentham would think I should smoke.

If I was confronted with real evidence that 20 minutes of second-hand smoke is likely to cause harmful effects in others, I would probably stop - although I rarely do it anyway.

 

[Ravi]

That's not nice. After all the linky dinkies I've provided for you.

All I can recall is something you said about wanting and desiring being the same thing. That just because you smoke around someone you aren't actually intentionally wishing to do them harm. It didn't really answer my quest-ion.

What ever made you think I was nice?

My answer was no one wanted to smoke around you. We just wanted a bar that allowed smokers to smoke. It is always your choice to avoid such bars.

 

[Anguille]

I'll give it a shot.

I rarely smoke around others, but this is mostly to be polite. If I do smoke around others, such as when I am at a party, and I ever thought about it, this would be my reasoning.

1. I enjoy smoking at times. I get happiness from it.

2. I have never seen strong evidence that second hand smoke is harmful, although I acknowledge that it is certainly possible.

3. Smoking itself isn't terribly dangerous if only done occasionally.

4. Thus, it seems unlikely to me that anyone is harmed by being occasionally subjected to second hand smoke. I probably wouldn't smoke constantly around my baby (if I had one).

5. 2,3, and 4 are weighed in conjunction with 1, and I evaluate that even Bentham would think I should smoke.

If I was confronted with real evidence that 20 minutes of second-hand smoke is likely to cause harmful effects in others, I would probably stop - although I rarely do it anyway.

When people consider the deleterious effects of secondhand smoke they are often just thinking about cancer and heart disease, an result that may occur down the road and long after the smoker has left the scene of the crime.
It can take far less than 20 min of exposure to your secondhand smoke to cause someone to have an asthma attack or give them a sinus headache. If you truly believe that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmless, then why not smoke around your hypothetical baby?

 

[Anguille]

What ever made you think I was nice?

My answer was no one wanted to smoke around you. We just wanted a bar that allowed smokers to smoke. It is always your choice to avoid such bars.

Sigh, we've been through this before. Why is it considered by some to be okay to smoke around people who work in bars but not those who work in offices, hospitals, airplanes, etc?

And you still haven't answered my question. You just keep avoiding it.

What I am curious to know is how are smokers able to look another human being in the eye and then blow smoke in their direction knowing that they are or may be (in the case of those who deny secondhand smoke has been proven harmful) exposing that person to a serious health risk all in order to satisfy their own cravings and nothing else.

Some people, when asked this question have told me that they have no justification for it, they recognize it is a selfish act but that addiction and lack of will power prevent them from putting out the cigarette or moving to where the smoke won't reach the other person.

 

[Ravi]

Bars aren't those other things. They are recreational facilities. If a person doesn't want to go in one or work in one they need not do so. I submit that you are the one that is being selfish by expecting everyone to give up their vices while it would be extremely easy for you to stay out of a bar that allows smoking.

No one is forced to work in a bar.

 

[Anguille]

Bars aren't those other things. They are recreational facilities. If a person doesn't want to go in one or work in one they need not do so. I submit that you are the one that is being selfish by expecting everyone to give up their vices while it would be extremely easy for you to stay out of a bar that allows smoking.

No one is forced to work in a bar.

So you are saying that when smoking in the bar I worked at started making me sick that I should have just quit my job and looked for some other kind of work instead of expecting to be protected by OSHA as any other working person expects to be? You consider that to have been an "extremely easy" option for me and other hospitality worker to take?

Should all recreational facilities be exempt from non smoking laws because they are recreational and people aren't forced to work there? Should smoking be allowed at DisneyWorld? In movie theatres?

By saying no one is forced to work in a bar you could also say no one is forced to work in an asbestos mine. No one is actually forced to work anywhere, so why have employee health and safety regulations at all?

You don't have to answer my question about how smoking around another person is personally justifiable if it's too painful to think about.

 

[Annie]

So you are saying that when smoking in the bar I worked at started making me sick that I should have just quit my job and looked for some other kind of work instead of expecting to be protected by OSHA as any other working person expects to be? You consider that to have been an "extremely easy" option for me and other hospitality worker to take?

Should all recreational facilities be exempt from non smoking laws because they are recreational and people aren't forced to work there? Should smoking be allowed at DisneyWorld? In movie theatres?

By saying no one is forced to work in a bar you could also say no one is forced to work in an asbestos mine. No one is actually forced to work anywhere, so why have employee health and safety regulations at all?

You don't have to answer my question about how smoking around another person is personally justifiable if it's too painful to think about.

Seriously, if you didn't like the conditions, you should have left.

DisneyWorld should be able to decide whether or not they will allow smoking and where. Just like they decide where and when to sell liquor or not.

I'm very much in favor of allowing the owners of restaurants, bars, businesses, etc., to decide whether to be smokefree, smoke allowed, etc. Same with employees. They should decide where they wish to work, based on the issues they deem important.

 

[Ravi]

So you are saying that when smoking in the bar I worked at started making me sick that I should have just quit my job and looked for some other kind of work instead of expecting to be protected by OSHA as any other working person expects to be? You consider that to have been an "extremely easy" option for me and other hospitality worker to take?

Should all recreational facilities be exempt from non smoking laws because they are recreational and people aren't forced to work there? Should smoking be allowed at DisneyWorld? In movie theatres?

By saying no one is forced to work in a bar you could also say no one is forced to work in an asbestos mine. No one is actually forced to work anywhere, so why have employee health and safety regulations at all?

You don't have to answer my question about how smoking around another person is personally justifiable if it's too painful to think about.

LOL! I never smoke around anyone that doesn't smoke. Yes, working in an asbestos mine is a CHOICE. So is working in a bar. I'm not saying they don't have to follow normal safety regulations, but lets quit pretending everyone is without some sort of choice and that jobs that are dangerous don't exist. No, smoking doesn't need to be allowed at all those other places, just like playing tackle football wouldn't be allowed.

 

[Anguille]

LOL! I never smoke around anyone that doesn't smoke. Yes, working in an asbestos mine is a CHOICE. So is working in a bar. I'm not saying they don't have to follow normal safety regulations, but lets quit pretending everyone is without some sort of choice and that jobs that are dangerous don't exist. No, smoking doesn't need to be allowed at all those other places, just like playing tackle football wouldn't be allowed.

I must say your insistence that working in a smoking bar or in an asbestos mine is a choice is sounding more and more elitist. As if most people have the choice to work for living or not. "If they can't find work in other than a smoking environment, then let them eat cake!", says Ravi Antoinette.

 

[Annie]

I must say your insistence that working in a smoking bar or in an asbestos mine is a choice is sounding more and more elitist. As if most people have the choice to work for living or not. "If they can't find work other than in a smoking environment then let them eat cake!", says Ravi Antoinette.

and your position is sounding more and more fascist.

 

[Care4all]

The deal was that I would post links to evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful in exchange for a few explanations from smokers here as to how they are able to justify smoking around other other people knowing that at the very least it might be harmful to them.
I did my part.
I've yet to see anyone hold up their end of the bargain.
Bunch of hypocrites.

so this is the second time i have posted this and other than you acusing me of being a smoker or making excuses for smokers...which i set you straight on...can you comment on the UCLA school of public health/web md link?

http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html

"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."

 

[Ravi]

I must say your insistence that working in a smoking bar or in an asbestos mine is a choice is sounding more and more elitist. As if most people have the choice to work for living or not. "If they can't find work in other than a smoking environment, then let them eat cake!", says Ravi Antoinette.

Find me a person that can't find work anywhere but in a smoking environment.

These issues could be decided on a case by case basis, there's no reason for wholesale restriction of the rights of people to engage in a legal activity. Especially in light of lack of evidence that shs does harm. That is the definition of selfish.

I'm done with this subject.

 

[Anguille]

so this is the second time i have posted this and other than you acusing me of being a smoker or making excuses for smokers...which i set you straight on...can you comment on the UCLA school of public health/web md link?

http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html

The last sentence of your article says:

"In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease."

Also you are ignoring the fact that secondhand smoke causes asthma, sinus inflamation and other more immediate health problems in people.

Do you honestly think that second hand smoke does no more harm than annoy people who don't like the smell???
Even if that were the case, isn't it's offensiveness enough to make good sense not to smoke around other people?

I wonder, if based on your belief that secondhand smoke does no harm, you think we should go back to allowing smoking everywhere, in nursery schools, hospitals, airplanes, movie theatres, supermarkets. If it causes no harm, why should it be beanned anywhere at all?

 

[jillian]

I think people who think smokers shouldn't have any place to smoke but outdoors, regardless of weather, are silly.

I quit smoking about 2 months ago (thank you acupuncture) but I've always been of a mind that the business owner should be able to make the decision about whether the premises should be a smoking or non-smoking area. I also thought the concept of smoking sections was a very good one. When I smoked (and I NEVER hated smoking... I enjoyed my ciggies) I really missed being able to have a cigarette and a cup of coffee or a cigarette and a drink. And, to tell the truth, if I were capable of only smoking "occasionally", I'd still smoke. I just seem not to be capable of it.

But, anyway, I digress... my point... the argument that the workers' health is a reason to ban smoking to the outdoors (and even then, people are rude, obnoxious and annoying to smokers) is specious. There are many jobs that are ACTUALLY dangerous. If you're asthmatic, perhaps working in a bar/restaurant isn't the job for you... but then again, neither is coal mining or working in an animal shelter.

Just saying....