P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[Blue Mountain]

Bars? If a bar goes under because it can't get smokers in, it sounds like it was a pretty borderline business to begin with. Also, if smoking is banned in all bars, then no one bar is at a disadvantage.

Actually, I bet in a lot of places right now a smoking bar would be a pretty popular place - standing room only. Ever been to the smoking bar in the Denver airport? They have a drink minimum for a given period of time (1 drink per 30 mins?) JUST TO BE THERE. And it's ALWAYS full! Impossible to find a seat most of the time, and those folks are paying inflated airport bar prices for drinks they probably don't care much about, just for a place to smoke......

More to the point, possibly any place where a smoker can be to smoke freely would be popular. However, drinking and smoking are very closely connected, so I can see that a bar that allows smokers would be very popular.

What I see here from the smokers is a lot of "But ... but ... but ...". These are the same arguments I've heard voiced (or heard about being voiced) in debates to end slavery and segregation, and they were also trotted out when we were debating extending the vote to women and giving women access to abortion. I also see them in debates over things like workplace safety and health acts and minimum wage.

Smoking is certainly lower on the scale of social wrongs than slavery, but for the most part we've dealt with those now. So now people are looking for other ways to improve society. I agree with the efforts to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke we're subjected to. It's understandable that smokers don't. But in my opinion society will be a better place when disgusting, stinking habits like smoking are given less tolerance than they are now.

damn... the first paragraph above was a quote from a previous post. I'm new here. How do I quote from a previous post (in part only) and have it in the little blue box?

Format it like this, but replace "{" with "[" and "}" with "]", and the word "QUOTE" must be all uppercase:

{QUOTE=George Bernard Shaw}All great truths begin as blasphemies.{/QUOTE}

becomes:

All great truths begin as blasphemies.

And remember to use the Preview Post button when posting; it can save you some grief.

 

[Topspy]

Ah thank you Blue Mountain.

as for your obsevations, comparing smoking to slavery has me a bit....... under-enthused. My smoking when you are not present affects you not at all, and if you are present and object (say in my house) you are free to leave. Slaves couldn't just say "hey this sucks!" and leave.

You agree with the efforts to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke we're subjected to? Car exaust is something that you are exposed to every day, in much larger amounts (unless you're a bartender or such) but I don't see your thread on this. Get off your high-horse. Smoking is BAD. I'm a smoker, and I agree. But you inhale many more airborne pollutants every day (as a non-smoker that is not a bartender) than you do from cigarrette smoke.......) save your outrage for that. And leave us unrepentant smokers a place to go. You can stay away.

 

[Blue Mountain]

I'm a chain smoker and I'm uncomfortable being placed in situations where I can't smoke (airplane flights and such.) It causes me stress that is obviously not good for me either. I'm not happy that I smoke but I'm realistic enough to realize I probably will never quit. Although I was initially chagrined when smoking was banned on airlines, restaraunts (most states, I think,) and workplaces among others, I will NEVER agree on a global ban in bars. NOTHING makes a smoker want to smoke more than having a drink. That's probably why bars were so smokey in the first place.

I won't deny this is so, but since I'm not a smoker, you'll have to fill me in as best you can on why this is so. Does drinking seem to trigger the urge to light up a cigarette? Or it it more of a psychological association with the bar and the drink? Does having a drink at home trigger the same urge?

Why not a compromise? Let those who want to have smoking bars put a big sign up outside that says "SMOKING ALLOWED HERE!" and leave it up to the customers to decide whether or not to enter? There seems to be a demand for non-smoking bars, so there should be plenty of alternatives for the non-smokers. Make it mandatory that employees are smokers also. Can't you say? Sure you can. Just change the laws yet again.

That could work, although given your previous comment that smoking and drinking are powerfully connected, a non-smoking bar would be at a significant disadvantage. There might be a demand for only one non-smoking bar per some large number of smoking bars, so in smaller communities there would not be enough demand to keep a non-smoking bar open.

Another compromise: smoking is not allowed in the bar proper. A small room could be set aside for people who wish to light up. Nothing fancy, but would require the installation of special equpment (ventilation to the outside.) The room should be kept small and designed to discourage social interaction so it doesn't become the focal point of the bar.

"What?" I hear pipelineaudio say. "ANOTHER facist dicatorial directive on how a bar owner should run his business!" But I sumbit to you that every bar in North America already has not one but two rooms in them similar to the one described above, as required by law. And I've heard of no bar that went out of business because they were mandated to be there.

I don't think second hand smoke, in passing, is even 10% as bad for you as all the crap spewing out of car exausts, smokestacks, forest fires, coal-fired power plants, and the like....... so don't come whining around me till you get rid of your SUV

In fact, that's the point of this whole thread: the evidence for health harm caused by second-hand smoke is poor. Therefore it is nearly impossible to make an argument for a ban on smoking in public places on the basis of health issues.

So we're trying to determine if there are other reasons for doing this. My argument is one of personal discomfort for the non-smokers. Smokers don't believe this is a sufficiently strong reason.

PS: I don't have an SUV, and I ride my bike to work when weather pernits.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Ah thank you Blue Mountain.

as for your obsevations, comparing smoking to slavery has me a bit....... under-enthused. My smoking when you are not present affects you not at all, and if you are present and object (say in my house) you are free to leave.

But what if I'm present in a public place and you still want to smoke? Like at a bar? (Which I admit don't go to, but I'm sure there are lots of non smokers who go to bars.) Why should the rules be different for bars than they are for restaurants?

You agree with the efforts to reduce the amount of cigarette smoke we're subjected to? Car exaust is something that you are exposed to every day, in much larger amounts (unless you're a bartender or such) but I don't see your thread on this. Get off your high-horse. Smoking is BAD. I'm a smoker, and I agree. But you inhale many more airborne pollutants every day (as a non-smoker that is not a bartender) than you do from cigarrette smoke.......) save your outrage for that.

Indeed, I agree with you that the health effects of exhaust, smog, and industrial pollution are more serious than second hand smoke, making attempts to regulate smoking in public places on the basis of health claims untenable.

And leave us unrepentant smokers a place to go. You can stay away.

Maybe the bars can be smoke-free and entrepeneurs could start up a new type of establishment: a smoking-house. As much as a bar is a specialized place of business where the patons get together to socialize and drink, so a smoking-house would be a place where the patrons could get together to socialize and smoke.

But I don't know what the difference would be between a smoking-house with a liquor license and a regular bar. (Restaurants and even some theatres [stage theathres, not movie houses], after all, can get liquor licenses.)

 

[Topspy]

Since you are a non-smoker let me inform you that yes! drinking, not the circumstances one is drinking in, triggers the urge to smoke. Once you have been trully addicted. smoking leaves a "flavor" in your mouth that you become habituated to. Eating or drinking removes this and re-enforces the need to smoke (ask any smoker if they like a cigarette after a meal.) Alcohol seems to make this need more urgent, perhaps because the solvent effects of alcohol remove the "taste" that cigarretes leave. Non-smokers would find this taste repugnant. Smokers find it irresistable.
I quit once for 3 months, and the smell of tobacco smoke after that smelled better than steak, sex, or whatever odor you define as pleasruable. Do what I say and instead of trying to legislate smoking try to eliminate it......without shutting down existing smokers

 

[Topspy]

But what if I'm present in a public place and you still want to smoke? Like at a bar? (Which I admit don't go to, but I'm sure there are lots of non smokers who go to bars.) Why should the rules be different for bars than they are for restaurants?


Maybe the bars can be smoke-free and entrepeneurs could start up a new type of establishment: a smoking-house. As much as a bar is a specialized place of business where the patons get together to socialize and drink, so a smoking-house would be a place where the patrons could get together to socialize and smoke.

But I don't know what the difference would be between a smoking-house with a liquor license and a regular bar. (Restaurants and even some theatres [stage theathres, not movie houses], after all, can get liquor licenses.)

Duh........ what have I been saying? why rename it? THIS IS A SMOKING BAR< ENTER IF YOU WISH.

same thing.....

 

[rockoon]

There's a huge difference between lighting up or splashing on, and walking around with invisible proteins. That difference is choice.

Bull.

Its a CHOICE to own an animal.

I call for the immediate ban of all pets nation-wide.

I will accept no excuses. Your rights end where my nose begins. I don't care if the pet is in your private home, because you drag that dander wherever you go.

I suppose we could have "Dander Friendly Businesses" - but only if you allow "Smoker Friendly Businesses" - since you are unwilling to allow that, I am unwilling to allow your Dander being shoved up my nose without my permission.

Hyprocritical jerks.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Its a CHOICE to own an animal.

I call for the immediate ban of all pets nation-wide.

Strawman argument. I never called for the banning of cigarettes nation-wide. That's a stupid approach, and liquor prohibition in the 1920s showed definitvely that it would not work.

I'm supporting the right of non-smokers to enjoy an atmosphere free of cigarette smoke when they're out in public. Even in bars.

 

[Topspy]

Strawman argument. I never called for the banning of cigarettes nation-wide. That's a stupid approach, and liquor prohibition in the 1920s showed definitvely that it would not work.

I'm supporting the right of non-smokers to enjoy an atmosphere free of cigarette smoke when they're out in public. Even in bars.

Yeah - But: Some places are more public than others. If you are a man, you really shouldn't go into women's public bathrooms. If you are a non-member, you shouldn't go into a health club even tho it's a publicly operated business. etc, etc. If you are a non-smoker and object to smoke, you don't belong in a SMOKING ALLOWED BAR. Very simple.

I agree that you should be able to enjoy smoke-free atmosphere when you are out in public. I just don't think that that means you are entitled to your expectations EVERYWHERE, just because that's how you want it. If we did things that way, people would be pitching crying babies out of airplanes too.

 

[varwoche]

Here are some recent studies that indicate that 2nd hand smoke is harmful:

miscarriage risk
respiratory health
bad for your heart
heart disease & lung cancer

 

[rockoon]

Strawman argument. I never called for the banning of cigarettes nation-wide. That's a stupid approach, and liquor prohibition in the 1920s showed definitvely that it would not work.

I'm supporting the right of non-smokers to enjoy an atmosphere free of cigarette smoke when they're out in public. Even in bars.

Anti-smokers call for the ban of smoking anywhere near where they might potentialy be.

I am calling for the ban of pet dander anywhere I might potentialy be.

I don't see the difference....


Obviously one way to accomplish this is to ban pets nationwide. I propose to relieve the burder on pet owners somewhat by allowing tax dollars to be spent on the destruction of existing pets.

Are you willing to make sacrifices for the greater good? Are you willing to give up your rights to own a pet because I am discomforted by your selfish act of pet ownership?

If anti-smokers aren't willing to do that, then they are selfish morally corrupt hyprocritical bastards.

 

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, but there is no pet dander at the bar.

Paul



Smoking just plain sucks, I will ask Randi when I see him.

 

[Jeremy]

This forum thread is for deciding if Second-Hand Smoke is harmful, not if it should be banned in public places. This is the Science forums, not Politics and Current Events.
Or, in other terms, this is supposed to be a level discussion, not a pissing match.

 

[Paulhoff]

It's the forum police.

Paul

 

[rockoon]

Sorry, but there is no pet dander at the bar.

Its unavoidable. The pet owner was in a place with billions of bits of dander dust floating around in the air. It is not possible for him/her to dodge them all. Everything in the pet owners home is covered with it. Removing something from the home (such as a human being) amounts to dragging the dander everywhere it goes.

I can pick out most dog owners in the rain simply by their smell, thats not even counting my alergic reaction.

Selfish hypocritical smelly bastards!

I wont even mention the evil bastards who eat peanuts and then dont bother to wash their hands of the leathal peanut oil.

 

[Paulhoff]

Vance DeBar "Pinto" Colvig (born September 11, 1892 in Jacksonville, Oregon, USA – died of lung cancer on October 3, 1967 in Woodland Hills, California, USA) was a vaudeville actor, radio actor, newspaper cartoonist, prolific movie voice actor, and circus performer whose schtick was playing clarinet off-key while mugging. He graduated from Oregon State University in 1911.

Colvig is probably best known as the voice of Disney's Goofy and the original Bozo the Clown, a part he played for a full decade beginning in 1946. He also provided the voices for Sleepy and Grumpy in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Colvig worked for not only the Disney studio, but the Warner Bros. animation studio, Fleischer Studios, and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, where he voiced a Munchkin in The Wizard of Oz.He also was cocomposer of the well-known children’s song "Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" in "Three Little Pigs," in addition to being the voice of Practical Pig in that film. Other roles at other studios included Gabby in 1939’s "Gulliver’s Travels," the Grasshopper in 1934’s The Grasshopper and the Ants" and Bluto in the Popeye cartoons.

He was also one of the pioneers in advocating warning labels about cancer risk on cigarette packages in the United States.

Paul

 

[Phaycops]

Ok....two things.

1. Drinking and smoking. I don't have time to track down the info referenced in this article, but since people were asking about drinking and smoking...From Seed Magazine:

...Not only might cigarettes prompt more drinking by lowering blood alcohol levels, said psychologist Saul Shiffman of the University of Pittsburgh, but drinking actually seems to spur smoking.

"When people are drinking," he said, "they're more likely to smoke."

Some of that association, Shiffman said, is psychological—resulting from lowered inhibitions and a conditioned association between cigarettes and bars or drinking—but some is pharmacological: A 2004 study from Duke University suggests that even small amounts of alcohol can intensify the pleasurable effects of nicotine.

"There's some evidence that smoking is more rewarding when you've had alcohol," Shiffman said. "It's a self-perpetuating phenomenon."

2. New York State banned smoking in bars not too long ago. I realize in places like NYC this is not so widely enforced, but I live in Syracuse, where it is. Anyway, in no time at all, people had adjusted to walking outside to smoke. In nice weather, you can sit at tables outside at bars with sidewalk cafe permits, eve. You can't neccesarily take your drink with you. However, considering all the sturm und drang before the ban was effective, people adjusted extremely quickly and with a minimum of fuss. People have a real talent for making things "normal."

By the way, it was nice when my good friend was preggers that she could come with us to quiz night to drink sodas and have a good time without damage to her or her unborn baby.

 

[Topspy]

Ok....two things.

1. Drinking and smoking. I don't have time to track down the info referenced in this article, but since people were asking about drinking and smoking...From Seed Magazine:


2. New York State banned smoking in bars not too long ago. I realize in places like NYC this is not so widely enforced, but I live in Syracuse, where it is. Anyway, in no time at all, people had adjusted to walking outside to smoke. In nice weather, you can sit at tables outside at bars with sidewalk cafe permits, eve. You can't neccesarily take your drink with you. However, considering all the sturm und drang before the ban was effective, people adjusted extremely quickly and with a minimum of fuss. People have a real talent for making things "normal."

By the way, it was nice when my good friend was preggers that she could come with us to quiz night to drink sodas and have a good time without damage to her or her unborn baby.

Actually that was the whole point of this thread as I saw it: Some people believe that second-hand smoke causes some provable harm to others as well as unborn children, and others DON"T. While I think it's laudable not to take chances with your pregnancy, some people are aghast at the prospect of eating irradiated tomatoes or geneticly altered corn as well. But those same people are not often adverse to say, having a fire in their fiireplace, breathing smoke from other sources (cooking food perhaps) eating other foods that they just don't think about as much (artificial flavors, colors, all sorts of additives,) and hundreds of other environmental variables. They just object to SMOKE, because it's annoying. The studies that show harm are far from conclusive, show bias, and are sponsered by/run by groups whose conclusions are reached BEFORE the testing is done. Any wonder that they find the results they expect?

 

[CaptainManacles]

But what if I'm present in a public place and you still want to smoke? Like at a bar? (Which I admit don't go to, but I'm sure there are lots of non smokers who go to bars.) Why should the rules be different for bars than they are for restaurants?

A bar is not a public place in the context of such an arguement, neither is a restaurant, it is a private business who can eject or admit people as they like. A hospital or a courthouse is a public place, feel free to ban smoking there.

Maybe the bars can be smoke-free and entrepeneurs could start up a new type of establishment: a smoking-house. As much as a bar is a specialized place of business where the patons get together to socialize and drink, so a smoking-house would be a place where the patrons could get together to socialize and smoke.

Or maybe, and this is a really crazy idea, so be prepared, just maybe, people don't need you to tell them how to run their lives.

Here are some recent studies that indicate that 2nd hand smoke is harmful:

I read some of those links. Part of the problem being that hundreds of such studies have been done. Yes, you can find one or two that show effects, but that's all. There are an equal number of studies that show smoking reduces cancer. It's just statistical deviations.
Also, if you read some of those studies, it would be impossible for them to double blind, which completely invalidates any results they got.

 

[Paulhoff]

In 1962 and 1964 the Royal College of Physicians in London and the surgeon general of the United States released landmark reports documenting the causal relation between smoking and lung cancer.1 2 During the next quarter century, extensive research confirmed that smoking affects virtually every organ system. By 1990, the surgeon general concluded that "smoking represents the most extensively documented cause of disease ever investigated in the history of biomedical research."

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/961

This stuff has been know for years, so anyone that is young now and smokes, I'm sorry, but I don't in anyway feel sorry about the ban on smoking in many public places.

Paul