Why can't they just leave us alone?

[Whosback]

Wow this has gotten interesting.

I've always found it ironic that the law forced smokers outside, when improved ventilation systems could have been an option for places that wanted to keep smokers indoors. Instead now every door has a smoker a few feet away from it and instead of having them able to go to areas where ventilation meets certain specific requirements. It would require admitting some truths about secondhand smoke that make things inconvient for the government, it would slightly less vilify smokers and might make taxation a bit harder.

As far as the work thing goes. I work a job I am not exactly found of, but I also am there because I choose to be. I am one step away from making good money at my job. Is it stressful yes, the last three people who held my job just stoped showing up. I run a vast and complex array of different aspects of my stores biggest sales departments and a simple mistake can cause any range of problems that can cost us big money and take several days or weeks to fix while still keeping ontop of everyday business. Nobody wants my job, they treat it like the worst job in the company(it is one of the hardest). All that considered i could quit, I could go out get a different manager job that pays more and is less stressfull, but i stay.

I might be able to complain about stress, the fact that i handle dangerous chemicals sometimes, but these are KNOWN risk i took when i accepted this job.I do not expect the government to step in and bann the chemicals i choose to work with or regulate stress levels at the workplace.

Also what I learn here I will take with me when I open my BnM vape store. I have a little financial rebuilding to do first, but with my current job I will be able to handle anything.

We all make our choices. I am not some helpless child who can't take responsibility for where I am and what I do.

 

[kristin]

I'll need some time to have a look at figures... But road deaths are quite high on the list I thought, so that's got to be a fairly substantial number.

At the end of the day, it comes down to an acceptable level of risk, which will always be subjective for a given benefit.

I simply don't find it enough of a hassle going outside to have cigarettes to care, given that as a collective action, it saves lots of lives. I have the luxury of being able to smoke outside basically everywhere though, and it sounds like you lot increasingly don't...

(I guess, Iffy, that's my EVIL MARXIST GUBMINT doing me a good turn...)

No, its not a high number compared to overall deaths. Either way, has there been a call to ban driving and cars based on those KNOWN (and not just hypothtical) deaths? Not to mention all of the toxic, carcinogenic fumes cars make that could be causing smokers forced outside to be exposed.

No, the point is, as a collective action it isn't saving ANY lives anymore than does saying "bless you" when someone sneezes.

Now I know how archaeologists must feel arguing against creationists. You are arguing your points already admitting you've done little to no research of your own, so you are basing them on popular belief and ANTZ dogma, while I know I have actually seen the evidence with my own eyes. So, while it is an opportunity for me to get people to open their eyes and stop blindly believing what they've been brainwashed by ANTZ funded school programs filled with images of pigs lungs stained black to scare children, I'm not going to start repeating myself just to change the mind of one person who admits, like the ANTZ say about e-cigs, that they "don't know" enough about them (yet still call for public policy.)

Smoking bans are not really helping save any lives, but the policies based on the lies are destroying many.

 

[Robino1]

Some would rather believe the ANTZ rather than open their minds and possibly learn the truth. It's much easier to think that the political people are working for our best interest instead of for another group that is funding their political ambitions.

I would love to support a politician that is not in politics for the money and supposed power that goes with the positions. Sadly, some start out that way but quickly learn they don't survive if they don't play the game.

Many, many links have been given in this thread. Do yourselves a favor and read them. I'm saddened, after reading all of these, that I let myself be led by the nose ring into believing that my smoking was harming everyone around me. That I didn't argue for my rights as an individual.... Ever...until now.

Before the smoking bans went into effect, we frequented a bar in Delaware. I never left there feeling like I had smoked fifty packs. The owner had 2 very efficient smoke eaters mounted, one in each section. The place was never "smokey". My husband, a non smoker, was never bothered by people smoking in there. It was a very popular place for smokers and non smokers.

I digress.

This is one person and nothing said will change their stance (you can't make me believe it is not an ANTZ simply because of the stance and some contradictory statements he made), how, Kristin, do you keep going? I'm so frustrated right now, because I realize there are thousands more out there just like him?!?? Why do people choose to believe the worse thing instead of the truth?

I won't stop fighting, but damn, I'm getting tired.

 

[generic mutant]

@ Kristin

Let's keep this civil... I respect the fact that you back your points up with data and reasoning, I hope you can reciprocate that. It isn't like I've never looked at data about this, so that was a cheap shot, and missed.

People do argue we should ban cars, it's just extremely difficult. The difference between cars and indoor cigarettes is major economic upheaval versus, for most people, small inconvenience - not to say it wouldn't be possible, but not without huge (unparallelled in peace time) government intervention, or (temporary) economic collapse, perhaps reduced long-term efficiency (I suspect there would be ways around the efficiency problem, but they'd take decades of planning and investment).

You can't say the same about smoking indoors. Perhaps a better comparison is seatbelt laws. It isn't a major inconvenience wearing a seatbelt, but it has required a legal 'nudge' to get people to actually do it; the risks are small per person per journey, so the individual incentive isn't there, but you add them up and you get a lot of unnecessary deaths.

Bar Workers' Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke: The Effect of Scottish Smoke-Free Legislation on Occupational Exposure - bar workers' exposure
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610613888 - estimated 1% of worldwide mortality due to SHS.
PLOS ONE: Impact of the Spanish Smoking Law on Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke and Respiratory Health in Hospitality Workers: A Cohort Study - "In Spain, reported respiratory symptom declined significantly (by 71.9%; p<0.05) among workers in venues that became smoke-free."
Second-hand Smoke Exposure and Blood Lead Levels in U.S. Chi... : Epidemiology - elevated blood lead levels in children
How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke? -- Woodward and Laugesen 10 (4): 383 -- Tobacco Control - "As a cause of death in New Zealand, we estimate that second hand smoke lies between melanoma of the skin (200 deaths per year) and road crashes (about 500 deaths per year)"
Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke - "The effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking."
Second hand smoke, age of exposure and lung cancer risk - "All individuals exposed to SHS have a higher risk of risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that subjects first exposed before age 25 have a higher lung cancer risk compared to those for whom first exposure occurred after age 25 years." That would be the bar workers we're talking about.
Secondhand smoke exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban: an assessment of salivary cotinine concentrations in hotel workers and air nicotine levels in bars -- Mulcahy et al. 14 (6): 384 -- Tobacco Control - "60% [of hotel workers] showing a halving of exposure levels [of cotinine] at follow up [after the ban]"
Secondhand smoke exposure, pulmonary function, and cardiovascular mortality. - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central - "Lifetime SHS exposure appears to result in a greater decline in lung function and risk of cardiovascular mortality, taking into account confounders..."
Second-hand Smoke, Cotinine Levels, and Risk of Circulatory... : Epidemiology - "Second-hand smoke exposure at home was associated with an increased risk of dying from cardiovascular diseases (hazard ratio

---

= 1.38 [95% confidence interval = 1.01–1.90]), all circulatory diseases (1.28 [0.98–1.69]), and coronary heart disease (1.31 [0.83–2.08])"

I don't know how the hypothesised deaths are distributed, and it may be that Quality Adjusted Life Years (or DALYs, or something) is a better measure. Even so it seems second hand smoke is linked to asthma and respiratory infections in children.

I don't dispute that the effect may be exaggerated, I just think the pain the ban imposes is too. But I repeat, I can smoke outdoors, and I do agree that it is logically indefensible to ban that in most places.

@ Robino1 - I smoke, have done for around 16 years. I've also always supported the ban, and always smoked outside in houses with children in. Personally, I simply do not feel I have the right to expose people to known toxins like that, without some kind of implied consent, when it's so easily avoidable. If it makes you feel better to assign some silly category to me, go for it. Reasoning or data are probably better, if you have any.

 

[alisa1970]

Boy, I would LOVE to get into this battle in great detail, but time constraints due to having a job and the lack of patience with closed minds forces me to refrain...I've been through this exercise with more than a few and would love to nail this one to the wall, but I often find that my impatience overrules my etiquette and I end up plastering the board with nothing but rebuttals.

I may however choose to rebut the above links late tonight after taking care of business at work and at home.

 

[generic mutant]

I'm really trying to ignore the cheap shots. I'd like to thank those that have had the maturity to engage in a debate like this without injecting snide comments every couple of lines.

To the rest of you, it just looks like you don't have any proper arguments, to be brutally honest.

 

[alisa1970]

it just looks like you don't have any proper arguments.

Please define your parameters of "proper arguments", as I've seen many--as for yours, I have seen many articles that recycle results from the same few studies, and those have been fraught with flawed protocols. As well as some anecdotal and personal opinion with some leftist political rhetoric.

Again, please define "proper argument".

 

[generic mutant]

Mostly, I'd expect moral / legal arguments, including precedents and thought experiments where necessary, and arguments about the data, including methodology and potential bias in studies...

Just drop the ad homs, OK?


Edit - Also, consider your biases. From Europe, the smoking ban isn't really considered a Left / Right thing by most (at least in my experience). Dismissing my arguments as 'Leftist rhetoric' is no more productive than me dismissing yours as 'Rightist rhetoric'. Either a debate like this is worth having, in which case presumably logic and data can be applied to establish a position, or it isn't, in which case we're just throwing mud at each other.

I personally think we can come up with a reasonable explanation for why there should be a smoking ban in pubs. I am willing to engage with well constructed arguments to the contrary, and I will try to respect the opinions of others, if they are prepared to engage on similar terms.

If you don't think there's any point in discussing these things, and think we're just throwing mud, then kindly don't bother...

 

[alisa1970]

Well we can argue mud-slinging, but I stand by my statements as evidenced by some of your posts (re: labor laws, drug enforcement policies, etc). Leaving that aside, I see no ad-homs present. On this side of the pond, the anti-smoking lobby has plenty to answer for and in the state where I live is now not happy with restrictions in bars and restaurants, but requires smokers to stand 15 feet from any opening to a building (including drive-though windows) and is currently trying to legislate non-smoking in cars where children under 16 are present. Not only this, but outdoor bans in public spaces is also being discussed.

Once they are satisfied (which, based on their own statements, will not be realistically possible), the next move will be to other "bad" things people do, as determined by them. Wait--that's already happening (see NY City bans on salt, large sodas, trans fats, et al.).

I find it completely unjustifiable and quite frankly condescending and will call it as I see it when I see it.

Stay tuned for more specific and debate-friendly rebuttals in about 12 hours, if the discussion hasn't moved on by then.

 

[DeeDee1234]

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[generic mutant]

Well, that sounds like a 'Slippery slope' argument.

No different than me saying that we shouldn't lock people up for selling ...... to schoolchildren, because we might get a taste for it and start locking them up for spilling their beer.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke near buildings, or within 3 kilometres of schools, or without wearing a black hood to hide their shame. I'm arguing that enclosed public spaces, in which people are working (and can therefore be considered from a moral point of view to not be there voluntarily), should in normal circumstances be smoke-free.

The cars with kids in question is an interesting and complex one - I don't really know where I stand on that.

 

[sonicdsl]

Let's keep this friendly folks, or we'll close the thread.

Thank you

 

[zoiDman]

What the heck are you talking about?

Don't feel bad.

I have No Clue what direction this thread is going in. Or even if it has a direction.

 

[Robino1]

New article regarding ecigs by a doctor: Dr. Keith's clinical results of 3 patients who quit smoking with e-cigs | Fox News

Based on common sense. Just thought I would bring some good news to everyone's attention, for a change.

 

[RosaJ]

Let's keep this friendly folks, or we'll close the thread.

Thank you

Please. This thread is not going anywhere.

 

[AngelsBreath]

Hmmmm, I didn't mean to cause all of this.

 

[alisa1970]

Let's keep this friendly folks, or we'll close the thread.

Thank you

Apologies to anyone if I've offended--I tend to be blunt about things, and pretty straight forward. My intention isn't to start a flame war, but it often comes across that way in writing.

 

[zoiDman]

Hmmmm, I didn't mean to cause all of this.

I don't think you did anything wrong. And you should have Nothing to feel sorry about.

Sometimes a thread just gets Wacky. All part of Forum Life.

 

[AngelsBreath]

New article regarding ecigs by a doctor: Dr. Keith's clinical results of 3 patients who quit smoking with e-cigs | Fox News

Based on common sense. Just thought I would bring some good news to everyone's attention, for a change.

Thank you Robin, you are right, I needed some good news

 

[generic mutant]

I apologise too to anyone I've been rude to. The thread did definitely get heated at points - understandable, it's a subject many are passionate about.

I don't see the need to close the thread at this stage personally, and I still think there's an interesting debate to be had, particularly about the medical science of second hand smoke.

I think we are capable of having it politely.