Not analagous. Asthma is far more common, and increasingly so because of environmental conditions.
Hittman: I was unaware of the Chicago smoking ban.
Non smoking areas are all I'm asking for, and areas that are truly smoke free. If the non-smoking area is on the second floor of your establishment, especially where the second floor is more of a 'balcony' type...then it isn't a non-smoking area. Yes, I have seen this. The Par a Dice Casino in East Peoria is a particular offender that is near me. Third floor, no smoking. Right.
Sushi: I do not go into pet stores, and actually cats are one of my worst allergies. Being around a cat long enough WILL send me to the hospital. However, I might ask that you not take your cat everywhere with you. Or, if it became the custom that many people did, I would ask to be seated in a non-feline area. I would also cite health reasons for this, as well.
As for the tintinus: What ReFlex said, as well as asking whether or not this is a chronic, degenerative disease? (Asthma will probably kill me. I already know that. The type I have will get worse with age.) Oh, and tintinus is a discomfort level. DISCOMFORT and NOT BREATHING are seperate items. Tintinus seems less deadly.
Smoke doesn't make me 'uncomfortable', it makes it damned hard for me to breathe. Until you've experienced an asthma attack, I'm not sure you will understand that, but an effort could be made.
For some people this can be a matter of life and death. I am fortunate I have the tolerance(physical, not mental) that I have. But I realize some are not so fortunate. Human empathy is not a foriegn concept to skeptics. I am amazed that some people here feel so little for the suffering of others.
Non smoking areas are all I'm asking for, and areas that are truly smoke free. If the non-smoking area is on the second floor of your establishment, especially where the second floor is more of a 'balcony' type...then it isn't a non-smoking area. Yes, I have seen this. The Par a Dice Casino in East Peoria is a particular offender that is near me. Third floor, no smoking. Right.
Sushi: I do not go into pet stores, and actually cats are one of my worst allergies. Being around a cat long enough WILL send me to the hospital. However, I might ask that you not take your cat everywhere with you. Or, if it became the custom that many people did, I would ask to be seated in a non-feline area. I would also cite health reasons for this, as well.
As for the tintinus: What ReFlex said, as well as asking whether or not this is a chronic, degenerative disease? (Asthma will probably kill me. I already know that. The type I have will get worse with age.) Oh, and tintinus is a discomfort level. DISCOMFORT and NOT BREATHING are seperate items. Tintinus seems less deadly.
Smoke doesn't make me 'uncomfortable', it makes it damned hard for me to breathe. Until you've experienced an asthma attack, I'm not sure you will understand that, but an effort could be made.
For some people this can be a matter of life and death. I am fortunate I have the tolerance(physical, not mental) that I have. But I realize some are not so fortunate. Human empathy is not a foriegn concept to skeptics. I am amazed that some people here feel so little for the suffering of others.
Hittman
Scholar
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2005
- Messages
- 117
It doesn’t matter what is more common. What matters is that tintinus is a very real illness that can cause very real pain, for days, for someone exposed to loud noises. If you’re going to legislate against SHS because some people have allergies, you should legislatate against noise for tintinus sufferers.
Side note, which might make an interesting different thread: Back when smoke was everywhere, and buildings weren’t nearly as clean as they are now, asthma was far, far more rare. Now that things are squeaky clean, and smokers aren’t even allowed to smoke in a bar in most places, asthma is very common, but only in developed nations, where things have been sanitized.
I don’t have a problem with that, although I don’t think using Big Brother is the best way to go about it. A private business that is open to the public is not a “public place.” The owner should be able to cater to their clientele however they want to. I have left many venues because the music was too loud for me, and found another place more suited to my place. I didn’t look down my nose at those who were there enjoying it, nor demand that Big Brother pass laws about the volume, I dealt with it as an adult and found a place that would cater to my tastes. That’s the way adults behave. (And I can make a far better case for loud music being harmful to health than anyone can make about the dangers of SHS.)
There are air filter units which will make the air inside an establishment, even one full of smokers, cleaner than the air outside. The anti-smoker movement refuses to even discuss them, other than to lie about how well they work. Business that want to cater to the few people who really are sensitive to smoke (as opposed to the multitudes who claim to be sensitive to it) would be able to install such filters, (they cost about three grand, so are affordable) and everyone would be happy. Except for the small, very well funded, very loud anti-smoker crowd.
Their real goal is to eliminate smoking entirely, and any ends justify their means.
It can make the sufferer unable to function, often for days. In other words, it makes people ill, so the analogy isn’t flawed.
I guess you've never been to Utah or a dry county in Missouri (or Kansas).
Yes! Damn those hand washing requirements! And why do they FORCE businesses to buy refrigerators to store meat?
Laws are political and need not have any basis in science. Of course many attempt to use science (rightly and wrongly) to support their view but it isn't neccessary. Although I do think outright smoking bans are wrong, I can't bring myself to oppose them that much because second-hand smoke really annoys me and reduces my enjoyment of a venue. Not because I think I'm going to get cancer in 20 years, but because I know I WILL get a headache in a couple of hours.
I would approve removing a smoking ban if replaced by a mandate that any advertising indicate if the event were smoking or non-smoking. Also signs be posted at entrances indicating the smoking/non-smoking status. Then I would know before showing up or buying tickets what I was in for.
Smoking/Non-Smoking areas do not work at bars (unless there are 2 seperate bars -- talk about unfunded mandates) or concerts or any venue where lots of people are mingling.
Leaving early, which is what I usually do at smoking bars (there goes that extra alcohol bill for the owner) isn't an option at concerts where I'd like to get the whole concert I paid for.
Just as your right to throw punches ends at the tip of my nose, your right to smoke ends at the tip of my nose. The individual rights in this instance balance out. Generally when this happens the majority will when. The majority of America is now non-smoking. Doesn't make it right, just makes it democracy.
Ah, but MOST people aren't allergic to dogs.
Whereas most people are non-smokers, at least in the UK. I don't know the stats for the US but here I think it's something like two thirds of the population are non-smokers.
So, why should the minority dictate where the majority can go?
Can you be noised to death with tintinus?
Stats? Cites? Evidence?
Then make a case that loud music is more dangerous than SHS is for asthmatics. I'd like to see it.
I have said I am very happy with the "smoke eaters". I've been in bars whose filtration and ventilation were good enough that I barely noticed any smoke, unless I happened to pass by a smoker. I've also been in bars where the only ventilation happened when someone walked in or out of the door. Then again, I suppose you weren't limiting it to my specific case. Well, >I< am anti-smoking, and I endorse the use of filters. The newer ones are very, very good. Fair enough?
For some, I suppose you might be right. But please don't paint us all with the same brush. I think I'm fairly moderate about my views. Smoke away...just not in my face. (I have had someone blow smoke in my face...once....I had to leave quickly before the cops showed up. That I will not tolerate.)
Yes, but could it be FATAL?
Just asking.
kevin:
Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the US?
TKingDoll: Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the UK?
A few numbers on the boards will make discussing the issue clearer. Thanks.
(BTW, It seems to me I am in a minority. I seem to see more smokers than non. Confirmation bias? Or am I right? This is the basis of this question.)
Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the US?
TKingDoll: Do you have stats on smokers vs non-smokers in the UK?
A few numbers on the boards will make discussing the issue clearer. Thanks.
(BTW, It seems to me I am in a minority. I seem to see more smokers than non. Confirmation bias? Or am I right? This is the basis of this question.)
I less than three logic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,463
I feel that non-smokers are the minority in my area as well.
I don't think you meant it this way, but I'd also have a problem with the majority dictating where the minority could go.tkingdoll said:
I believe it should be up the the businesses to decide whether to cater to smokers or not. I don't think the government should choose for them. However, I think there should be standards for the non-smoking areas of businesses. If your going to try to provide for both you'd better make sure the area you call smoke-free truely is.
According to the CDC 20.9% of adults in US are smokers (adult is 18 and above in the report.) They have a break down by year here:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/adults_prev/prevali.htm
According to that smokers haven't been a majority in the US at least since 1965 (earliest they list a percentage of overall population) and haven't been a majority of the male population since 1970.
Obviously as averages these can vary a great deal by region and by occupation. My own state (Missouri) is higher than average, but still not a majority, and had a spike in the late 90's. But that was still below 30%.
Certain industries may have higher percentages of smokers. You may be in such an occupation and that's why you see more smokers than non-smokers, but it doesn't hold up for the overall population.
Here's numbers for the UK. Not sure of the source, it's from their national statistics department.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=866&Pos=6&ColRank=2&Rank=1000
They consider adults 16 and above. 25% of their adults smoke. They had a majority of males smoking in '74.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=866&Pos=6&ColRank=2&Rank=1000
They consider adults 16 and above. 25% of their adults smoke. They had a majority of males smoking in '74.
LawnOven
robot
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 1,308
Maybe you people with asthma should just learn to smoke cloves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kretek
See if it is good enough medicine for a 19th century indonesian villager; then it is good enough for you.
Plus they actually taste good...
And smell better...
And enhance alchohol...
and crackle when they burn.
Not to mention that cloves make you cool.
I like Djarum 'Black', rolled in black paper, then no one is fooling anyone about what you are getting.
Plus I think you would really have to try to get addicted to cloves.
And thus ends my essay entitled "Why people with asthma should stop whining and just smoke cloves".
*Note most of this was a joke; with exception to the parts that are true.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kretek
Nevermind the rest of that sentence
See if it is good enough medicine for a 19th century indonesian villager; then it is good enough for you.
Plus they actually taste good...
And smell better...
And enhance alchohol...
and crackle when they burn.
Not to mention that cloves make you cool.
I like Djarum 'Black', rolled in black paper, then no one is fooling anyone about what you are getting.
Plus I think you would really have to try to get addicted to cloves.
And thus ends my essay entitled "Why people with asthma should stop whining and just smoke cloves".
*Note most of this was a joke; with exception to the parts that are true.*
Err. Yeah, it really does. Some people are seven and a half feet tall. Most doors are too small for them to go through without ducking. They represent such a small fraction of people, however, that it isn't seen as practical to make all doorways eight feet high. It absolutely matters how common they are.
I don't see any source saying that tinnitus causes pain. Rather, it's hearing damage caused by loud noise that leads to a usually subjective ringing sound. Unforunate, but it is acquired, much more than is the case with asthma.
As clarcst mentioned, you'd have a tough time showing that asthma is more common now that things are "cleaner".
"Big Brother" always tends to be an exaggeration by people who have not read 1984, and it is one here (an exaggeration).
I don't think you can show support for either of those clauses.
You do know how many obscure conditions there are that aren't specifically catered to by businesses, right? You've just picked one. Asthma is a growing health problem that genuinely needs to be addressed. Wikipedia cites this study for a figure as high as 1 in 4 urban children.
Thanks Kevin, you saved me a task.
I agree that business should be allowed to choose whether or not they allow smoking, but I believe that the only reason pubs and restaurants do allow it is because of tradition. Once, smokers were a majority group, and as smoking and drinking went together, pubs catered for their largest market. Now, they are afraid of driving paying drinkers away if they ban smoking. But of course, there are many people who don't go to pubs because they can't stand the smoke, and in the UK, finding a non-smoking pub is like finding a decent pizza. It simply doesn't exist.
What would be interesting is some stats on what percentage of pub-goers on, say, an average Saturday night are smokers. Smokers have claimed pubs as their own, and some smokers argue that if you don't like the smoke, don't go to pubs. Well, if they are only representing 25% of the potential customer base for an establishment, then they are ones who should put up with other people's standards.
If/when the UK smoking ban comes in to play, I am willing to bet that few, if any, pubs claim a drop in custom in the long term.
TheChadd
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 414
I support the anti-smoking laws which are occuring all over my country/state. During my law study I have looked at several cases to do with smoking/second-hand smoking/asbestos'/chlorine...etc etc etc.. In all of these cases the various companies have managed to come up with wild confabulations to dismiss the test results. In all of these cases the earliest results that showed detrimental effects were done some 20-30 years before the government (at least my government) began to deal with the issue. It's very, very hard to prove causation in these sort of cases and often by that time it's often too late.
So we need faith-based measures to protect us? If there is not strong enough evidence are we supposed to speculate?
Last edited: