P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[Spidey13]

On the other hand, I do not have the right to dump oil in my front yard, nor do I have the right to burn trash in my front yard, either. If I turn my boombox up to an unacceptable level, the cops might indeed be called and will tell me to turn it down. I could be cited for disturbing the peace.

The problem with these examples is that they are potentially harmful and/or annoying to people who are not on your property. You can't dump oil because it could run off into someone else's yard. You can't burn trash because of the smell or danger of fire that could spread to your neighbor's yard. A loud boombox can be heard next door. These things affect people who have not chosen to visit your property on their own free will.

Smoking in a restaurant/bar only affects people who willingly go there. It's not going to harm the people across the street, like your examples would.

 

[Rockin' Rick]

Do you think that patrons should be allowed to burn leaves and tires in bars and restaurants? I'm not sure I understand your point.

The point is that the smoke haters cite tobacco as the great evil. For those with respiratory trouble all sorts of air-borne contaminates are troublesome, including air-fresheners. The smoke haters leave that part out. That's all I am getting at.

 

[clarsct]

Are you telling me you cannot SMELL the cigarette smoke froma bar from a block or more off?

I certainly can.

As with the good Cpt, your argument can be used to say that no business has to put in any ramps/toliets or such for the handicapped.

I have a condition which renders smoke intolerable. Some people have a condition which renders normal toliet stalls intolerable. Still others have great difficulty with sidewalk curbs.

I see no one arguing for the removal of Braille from a keyboards of ATMs, and I see no one arguing for the removal of sidewalk ramps or handicapped stalls.

But somehow my condition isn't worthy of the same consideration, even though it could be more dangerous for me to be around smoke than for a guy in a wheelchair to negotiate a sidewalk curb. Last I heard, his Bronchial tubes won't swell shut from having to do so.

There are better arguments for why blind people shouldn't use drive up ATMs.

Why is it ok to discriminate against asthmatics? Because our disease isn't visible? I assure you it can be deadly, just the same. Some people are FAR more sensitive than I am.

I am merely advocating a non-smoking section. Ya'll can smoke on the other side of the place, if it pleases you. I would like a wall between us, but I would settle for a couple of really good smoke eaters on your side of the room.

 

[clarsct]

The point is that the smoke haters cite tobacco as the great evil. For those with respiratory trouble all sorts of air-borne contaminates are troublesome, including air-fresheners. The smoke haters leave that part out. That's all I am getting at.

Pot Pouri is EVIL!

Messes me up, literally. I can't stand the stuff. It is AT LEAST as bad as cigarette smoke.

If I was in a restaurant that had pot pourri at the tables, I would ask them to remove it. Same concept. It is interfereing with my breathing.

 

[Rockin' Rick]

If I spend the night among cigarette smoke, I wake up wheezy and congested the next day. There are issues beyond the epidemiological here. One is that tobacco is a drug and it can affect people in the vicinity (the tobacco in the smoke I mean, not some sort of magical tobacco radiation). There's also the smell and the irritant factor.

Actually your conditions can certainly contribute to epidemiology. If indeed it is the toxins in the smoke that causes your reaction that data could/should be tabulated. Studies have looked at those sorts of things.

Smell and irritation are valid points, this why some establishments have chosen to be smoke free. It doesn't take a smoking ban for this, it takes money or the lack of. If enough customers complain the owners will need to react. Because I realize that some people don't like it or have respiratory problems is the reason why I have no problem with any place being smoke free and why I try to be polite when I smoke. My problem with the issue is that it's being driven by a supposed grand scale health risk. And while there is some risk the severity of the danger has been drastically exagerated.

I read a piece this morning and learned that cigar smoke has more niccotine in it than many believe. While cigarettes are much higher and the feeling of some is that cigars are fairly safe, it turns out they do have some impact in certain situations. Other plants have more niccotine occuring naturally than tobacco does, but the fermentation process of some leaves to cigars increases its levels, which I didn't know.

The whole point I think is that there is much more going on and we all need to look deeper at the results of a large number of tests before we build legislation. Using the EPA findings as gospel is irresponsible.

Some Congress members have suggested taxes on various unhealthy foods. What body or whom determines which foods are unhealthy? For years we had the silly 4 squares food chart, then they modified it to the food pyramid which indicates starches and carbs are what we should eat the most of, and now the latest thing is that we eat too much starch and carbs, the all meat high fat diet, and so on, yet the government still hasn't changed its guidelines. What happens when we pass laws based on the wrong information?

 

[Rockin' Rick]

Pot Pouri is EVIL!

Messes me up, literally. I can't stand the stuff. It is AT LEAST as bad as cigarette smoke.

If I was in a restaurant that had pot pourri at the tables, I would ask them to remove it. Same concept. It is interfereing with my breathing.

Maybe we should ban incense?

 

[clarsct]

I hate incense, as well. Same effects. My eyes swell up, my nose runs, my chest gets tight and I have difficulty breathing.

Ban? No. Have it restricted to only certain areas (IE, have an area where it ISN'T), Yes, indeed.

The non-smoking areas should include incense at the very least, and I would like to see it include potpouri(How the HELL do you spell this word?), as well.

But I have yet to see many places have these things. Tobacco smoking is FAR more prevalent, and more relevant to the OP.

But yes, these things would be included, of course. Incense IS smoke, I fail to see why someone would think it would be ok in a non-smoking section. Potpourri is a little shakier on the smoke thing, but I would definately see it removed. If the waitress wouldn't remove it from my table, I would do so myself, though if it were on every table, I would complain to the management and likely not stay there at all. I couldn't.
If the management was very callous, I might sue them for discrimination, but it would take a bit for me to go that far.

I wish I wasn't asthmatic and I wish I didn't have allergies to almost everything. But reality is what it is.

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

There was an incident at TAM3 that showed that even Penn Jillette didn't really buy into the message he was trying to sell. During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

If you saw the Bullsh!t episode on secondhand smoke, then undoubtedly you heard Penn say "Just for the record, neither of us smoke so we both hate secondhand smoke...". Not that the marvelous masters of magical mayhem need an apologist, but I fail to see how Penn's adverse reaction to secondhand smoke at TAM3 says anything about the "message he was trying to sell."

 

[Spidey13]

Are you telling me you cannot SMELL the cigarette smoke froma bar from a block or more off?
I certainly can.

No, I can't. Maybe it's because I smoke, or maybe your condition makes you more sensitive to the smell. I don't know, but I honestly don't remember ever smelling cigarette smoke from that far away.

As with the good Cpt, your argument can be used to say that no business has to put in any ramps/toliets or such for the handicapped.

Actually, I would agree that no business should HAVE to have these things. However, it would be completely stupid on their part not to because they would probably be boycotted and go out of business.

I have a condition which renders smoke intolerable. Some people have a condition which renders normal toliet stalls intolerable. Still others have great difficulty with sidewalk curbs.
I see no one arguing for the removal of Braille from a keyboards of ATMs, and I see no one arguing for the removal of sidewalk ramps or handicapped stalls.
But somehow my condition isn't worthy of the same consideration, even though it could be more dangerous for me to be around smoke than for a guy in a wheelchair to negotiate a sidewalk curb. Last I heard, his Bronchial tubes won't swell shut from having to do so.

I understand you have a serious condition and I don't mean to sound insensitive to it. The main difference between smoking and these examples is that they do not disallow other people from doing something. If an entrance has a wheelchair ramp, I can still walk through that entrance. If there is a handicapped stall in the restroom, I can still poop in it.

There are better arguments for why blind people shouldn't use drive up ATMs.

I can't think of any argument why a blind person can't use a drive up ATM, as long as they're not actually driving which, of course, they're not allowed to do. I've walked to plenty of ATMs.

Why is it ok to discriminate against asthmatics? Because our disease isn't visible? I assure you it can be deadly, just the same. Some people are FAR more sensitive than I am.
I am merely advocating a non-smoking section. Ya'll can smoke on the other side of the place, if it pleases you. I would like a wall between us, but I would settle for a couple of really good smoke eaters on your side of the room.

I'm all for a non-smoking section ,too, and I appreciate the fact that you're not one of those people who want to ban smoking everywhere. We just had a smoking ordinance passed in my city, (guess that's why I'm getting into this discussion so much) which mainly affected restaurants. I have a three-year-old daughter around whom I don't smoke. When I go out to eat, I'm usually with her, therefore I'm usually not smoking in restaurants anyway, so this ordinance hardly affects me at all. It just bothers me when a person who owns a private business is required by law to make certain accomodations for certain people.

Having a non-smoking section will increase the number of people who go to most businesses and most business owners will see it as a wise move to have one. However, if a person owns a business and does not want or does not care about losing customers by allowing smoking, I believe that should be their right. I'm all for not allowing smoking in any place where people are required to go, like a courthouse, DMV, or most government buildings. But when it comes to a private establishment, I just think it should be up to the owner whether to allow smoking in all areas, some areas, or not allow it at all.

 

[clarsct]

Spidey:
Blind people. Drive up ATMs. Cars, traffic, etc. I wouldn't think it would be safe, even for a sighted person. Perhaps I am underestimating the abilities of the blind, but to me it doesn't seem like a safe situation. I could be wrong.

As for the rest:
Well, the fact is that there ARE laws requiring Handicapped access, and once you opened that can of worms, then you leave it open to require non-smoking sections. I imagine soon there will be non-kids sections, too. I hate to tell you parents this, and I understand it isn't everyone, but many of your little cutsie-pies are downright aggravating to the rest of us.

I admire that you are honest enough to say that you disagree with the handicapped access laws. I do not agree with your assessment, per se, but I may agree with the idea that some of the regulations and the enforcement thereof are a little out of focus. If a handrail is 23" above the floor instead of 24" above the floor, I don't see that big a difference, functionally.

The fact is that secondhand smoke can be a real risk factor for some of us. I'm sorry, but my right to breathe and live outwieghs your right to smoke absolutely ANYWHERE you want to. For one of us to have a room to ourselves is a small compromise that seems fair.

 

[Spidey13]

Oh, I understand completely that many people don't like kids. Hell, most other people's kids get on my nerves, too. And if a business owner does not want to allow children under a certain age, then I think they should have every right to do that.

Also, I don't think I should have the right to smoke abslutely anywhere. I believe that anyplace people are forced to go whether they want to or not, such as certain government buidlings, hospitals, etc. should not allow smoking in order to accomodate all the people who are going there and don't have a choice.

Anyway, if I owned a business, I would definitley have a non-smoking section.

 

[ysabella]

I still don't see why it has to be the law of the land in order to satisfy you, clarsct. I'm sure smoke would have kept you out of some restaurants, but not all as there are smoke-free restaurants (and bars) around.

I don't tolerate smoke well either, but I don't see why nonsmokers wanting to be able to eat or drink in every single establishment in the state (without having to be near smoke) should outweigh smokers wanting to smoke at the table right after eating, or smoke at the bar, in some establishments that cater to them.

I have a problem with some of the handicapped-access laws too sometimes, having read articles about that guy Jarek Molski going around suing hundreds of businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

[Euromutt]

The fact is that secondhand smoke can be a real risk factor for some of us. I'm sorry, but my right to breathe and live outwieghs your right to smoke absolutely ANYWHERE you want to. For one of us to have a room to ourselves is a small compromise that seems fair.

I don't think you're going to find many smokers who would assert that they should have the right to smoke anywhere they please. Like Rockin' Rick, I try to be a considerate smoker, and I don't smoke in restaurants (tobacco smoke interferes with my enjoyment of my food as well), I try to stay downwind from non-smokers when I'm outside, etc.

But here in Washington state, as in many other places, the discussion is far beyond the point of providing non-smokers with smoke-free environments. Prior to the passage of Initiative 901, most places open to the public (stores, office buildings, etc.) were already smoke-free, as were 85% of restaurants and bars, as I noted before. Because my wife is a non-smoker, I don't smoke in my own house, and all my friends are either non-smokers or live with non-smokers, so I don't smoke in their houses either. I don't bowl or gamble, so essentially, a number of bars were the only places left where I wanted to go where I could smoke without being exposed to the elements (and remember, this is western Washington; it rains a lot). Now I can't do that anymore either.

I don't care if I can't smoke everywhere, but I would like to be able have somewhere I can smoke and have a roof over my head and, ideally, a pint in front of me, all at the same time.

 

[Spidey13]

I don't care if I can't smoke everywhere, but I would like to be able have somewhere I can smoke and have a roof over my head and, ideally, a pint in front of me, all at the same time.

RAmen

 

[I less than three logic]

A quick note: The braille on drive thru ATMs question is slightly amusing but the reasoning for it is quite obvious. There is braille on drive thru ATMs because they are mass produced, it is more cost effective to make one button design and put it on all of them then to make a special set just for drive thru ATMs.


Arguments over smoking bans seem to quickly degrade into an “us and them” situation. I’d like to state that I do not smoke, I find the stench of tobacco smoke rather repulsive, and I honestly don’t know why there is a debate on smoking bans in the first place. I don’t understand why anyone smokes; the general consensus from my co-workers is that it relieves stress, which, I’ve noticed, seems to be included in a whole slew of woo claims. I’d like to see the day when the idea of smoking bans is moot, not because it has been made illegal, but because there is no longer a desire amongst the public to smoke.

However, I do not support smoking bans. I think it should be up the business owner to decide whether to allow or disallow smoking in his/her establishment. If they find that allowing smoking prevents them from finding employees to work or customers to keep them in business I’m sure they will change the policy. I think they should have to provide a clearly visible sign informing everyone whether or not smoking is allowed, and make sure ventilation is sufficient to prevent nearby business from being affected. I think it has been established that there is definitely a market for catering to non-smokers, and I’m sure that without smoking bans smoke-free business will still exist. I think we should be able to decide for ourselves which business to support.

"In America, through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from." - Peter Ustinov

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

My college has a few designated areas outside and a sign stating that in a few months those will go away. The campus is gonig totally smoke free. I am a non smoker and find that totally stupid.

I dont care if someone smokes in the parking lot there is no reson to go that far. I really dont want to face the wrath of smoking professors that cant get their fix. They are trying to mandate morality for no good reason.

 

[CaptainManacles]

On the other hand, I do not have the right to dump oil in my front yard, nor do I have the right to burn trash in my front yard, either. If I turn my boombox up to an unacceptable level, the cops might indeed be called and will tell me to turn it down. I could be cited for disturbing the peace.

So, apparently, even on private property, the owner can be called upon to give up certain amounts of rights, because it is considered harmful, or even undesirable, to those around him/her.

The point at which you start being intentionally stupid is the point at which I stop debating. I understand that it's hard to admit that you're obviously wrong, but you're just making yourself out to be a fool. I understand that you can drag this debate on forever by ignoring the obvious and making continual irrational statements, but understand that I'm just going to bail and you're not fooling anyone but yourself. I am not going to explain things to you twice, please go back and read what I've already posted because it's an appropriate response, still, for what you just posted. Just to highlight

>>Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street.<<

So did you ignore that or are you just unable to read? What part of "so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street" didn't you understand? Do you need to get your mommy in here to help you with this?

>>By your argument, Cpt Manacles, a businessman would have to make no concessions for a handicapped individual, either. They have no right to be there.<<

That's true, and it's revolting that businesses are forced to take that burden with no rational justification as to why they're the one's responsible for it. Generally skeptics like to have logical justification for things, not just this mob mentality that makes businesses easy targets. Now, I'm not saying handicapped ramps are a bad idea, in the same sense I recognize that smoke smells bad. If business were given the option, I would not patronize a business that refused to put in handicapped access, and there would also be the option of setting up a charity that would provide money for business to make such changes. That's the best way to do things, through arrangements that all parties involved agree are fair, instead of through violence.

Further, I do feel such laws have done damage to handicapped availability and have furthered an attitude of personal irresponsibility. Instead of making personal sacrifices and taking responsibility for making your own moral values a reality, people leave it to the government to make things right. Very rarely do people notice, say, if the house they are buying is handicapped friendly, unless the government tells them it has to be.

 

[clarsct]

I still don't see why it has to be the law of the land in order to satisfy you, clarsct. I'm sure smoke would have kept you out of some restaurants, but not all as there are smoke-free restaurants (and bars) around.

Well, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that the laws are there for just little ole me, nor that they ought to be. A smoke free bar? You MUST be joking. Not in my neck of the woods, anyway. I hear they have such mythical beasts in California and New York, but not in the Midwest.
Besides which, I already posted something about the idea of worrying about your health in a bar, did I not?

Most restaurants have non-smoking sections. I appreciate this. Not all of them here do, and I do not frequent those that do not. I do not live in a state where smoke-free is mandatory.

I don't tolerate smoke well either, but I don't see why nonsmokers wanting to be able to eat or drink in every single establishment in the state (without having to be near smoke) should outweigh smokers wanting to smoke at the table right after eating, or smoke at the bar, in some establishments that cater to them.

I never said it did. I said I was for a non-smoking section, preferably with a wall in between or some sort of ventilation on the smoking side.ANd it isn;t a matter of tolerate, it is a matter of HEALTH. It isn't that I find it irritating, it is a matter of it physically making it hard for me to breathe. If someone was choking you, wouldn't you find it inconvienent?

I have a problem with some of the handicapped-access laws too sometimes, having read articles about that guy Jarek Molski going around suing hundreds of businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I, too, deplore such actions, and have said so. But, as I stated earlier as well, once the door was opened with the AWDA, then you have to make allowances for all disabilities. Asthma was something I was born with. No double standards on which ones count. One will suffice.

 

[clarsct]

The point at which you start being intentionally stupid is the point at which I stop debating. I understand that it's hard to admit that you're obviously wrong, but you're just making yourself out to be a fool. I understand that you can drag this debate on forever by ignoring the obvious and making continual irrational statements, but understand that I'm just going to bail and you're not fooling anyone but yourself. I am not going to explain things to you twice, please go back and read what I've already posted because it's an appropriate response, still, for what you just posted. Just to highlight

No name calling, please. If you wish to resort to Ad Hom, I must warn you that I can hold my own with the best. Bail if you wish, we call this 'running away'. If it is a p!$$ing contest you want, I can direct you to a forum where the rules aren't quite so strict.

>>Your noise ordinance example is a great one. Certainly, everyone in a restaurant could bring in portable radios and turn them on full blast, with the owner's permision, so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street.<<

So did you ignore that or are you just unable to read? What part of "so long as you couldn't hear the noise across the street" didn't you understand? Do you need to get your mommy in here to help you with this?

Is that the best you can do? Hrm. Maybe you better leave this insult business to the professionals. Are you here for a constructive debate? Then drop the name calling. It is not me that looks ignorant because of it. Come at me with a real argument. And learn the quote tags.

>>By your argument, Cpt Manacles, a businessman would have to make no concessions for a handicapped individual, either. They have no right to be there.<<

That's true, and it's revolting that businesses are forced to take that burden with no rational justification as to why they're the one's responsible for it. Generally skeptics like to have logical justification for things, not just this mob mentality that makes businesses easy targets. Now, I'm not saying handicapped ramps are a bad idea, in the same sense I recognize that smoke smells bad. If business were given the option, I would not patronize a business that refused to put in handicapped access, and there would also be the option of setting up a charity that would provide money for business to make such changes. That's the best way to do things, through arrangements that all parties involved agree are fair, instead of through violence.

So, you would not patronize a business that refused to put up handicapped ramps, but protest non-smoking sections?

Further, I do feel such laws have done damage to handicapped availability and have furthered an attitude of personal irresponsibility. Instead of making personal sacrifices and taking responsibility for making your own moral values a reality, people leave it to the government to make things right. Very rarely do people notice, say, if the house they are buying is handicapped friendly, unless the government tells them it has to be.

Personal responsibility? I am responsible for my asthma? A Veitnam vet is respinsible for his leg missing? A old woman is resonsible for her bone cancer? I really hope this isn't what you're implying, but it sounds like it.

Why would they care if their house was handicapped accessable, unless they were expecting handicapped visitors? A business is, implicitly, expecting visitors of all sorts. A business INVITES them in, in order to DO business. Not to mention the idea of Equal Employment, unless you are against that, too. Can't have an employee in a wheelchair if your place of business has only stairs, after all.

In fact, why should a place of business have a seperate ladies room? This is an unecessary expense forced upon the businessman!

There is a happy medium. Such extremism solves nothing and suits no one.

 

[Hittman]

To be honest, I don't look to Penn to evaluate scientific findings such as these. I don't think he can do it any better than I can. Give me six months of concerted effort in the field, and maybe I can evaluate the scientific merit, but other than that, no.

Don’t underestimate yourself. While it might take a lot of research to determine if a study is legitimate, it usually takes very little to determine if it’s Bullstuff. You just need some basic statistics under your belt, and a copy of the abstract of the study.

Shameless Plug: Since I haven’t posted enough here to be allowed to post a URL, Google Second Hand Smoke, go to The Facts (it will be on the first page) and read the pages on epidemiology. You’ll soon be able to debunk bogus studies quickly and easily.

That court found that the EPA testing methods were seriously flawed, thus the results were in question, and the report discounted. That court's decision had nothing to do with the science in particular.

The judge’s decision was 92 pages long, and he quit before he got all the way through it.

The Readers Digest Condensed Version: The EPA announced the results before doing the study, ignored 2/3s of the available data, doubled their margin of error, then doubled that number, to come up with 3,000 deaths (out of 280 million people.)

There are plenty of studies on this issue.

And virtually all of them are paid for by nicotine nannies. They range from the ludicrous to the ridiculous. My personal favorite: SHS Causes tooth decay in children.

I don't think second-hand smokers get much of an exposure. For example, do you know anybody who got hooked on second-hand smoke?

Excellent point, and one I haven’t heard made before despite years of debating this.

Cigarettes are highly addictive. If the exposure were as high as the NNs claim, then wouldn’t those who were exposed to it become addicted to it?

I have a condition which renders smoke intolerable.

If you had tintinus, which can cause days of pain from exposure to loud noises, would you demand that restaurants and taverns be forced to play their music at a whisper?

I'm sorry, but my right to breathe and live outwieghs your right to smoke absolutely ANYWHERE you want to.

I hear this claim from nicotine nannies all the time, yet I have never, ever met a smoker who demands to smoke anywhere they want to. They simply want a place where they can smoke. If that place is clearly marked, then there’s no reason for you to ever go there.

A smoke free bar? You MUST be joking. Not in my neck of the woods, anyway. I hear they have such mythical beasts in California and New York, but not in the Midwest.

Chicago just voted in a smoking ban. This mental illness is not just spreading through this country; it’s a world wide disease. Entire countries are passing laws against smokers.