The truth about 2nd hand smoke..

#51
#51
jaybird_1981 said:
Unfortunately I think you may be wasting your time trying to get him to understand your points.
Click to expand...

No. I am open to points and ideas at any time. I have yet to see why it is the government's business to step in and tell a business how to operate in relation to adults that are free to choose. I prefer to let the economy work these things out.
 
#52
#52
How about the freedom for people who don't smoke to breathe clean air?

If smokers had been respectful of non-smokers to begin with there would have never been any need for legislation. If they would have simply stepped outside when they needed to smoke there would have never been any laws addressing it.

It's not like people are asking for it to be illegal to smoke. They simply want people to not smoke around people who don't want to breathe 2nd hand smoke. Seems reasonable to me.
 
#53
#53
allvol123 said:
Fair points on the harming yourself as opposed to harming others. So if a child is repeatedly given the choice of eating fast food by their parents this is OK with the government? The child really has no say so in whether they have lazy or "too busy" parents. In other words, parents that don't provide enough quality meals. So the government will not protect the children from this harm, but feel it necessary to step in and mandate adults, who by the way have options, have safe non-smoking places to eat?
Click to expand...

Well, we have to eat to survive, even if it's not healthy. We don't have to smoke. So I can't really make that leap.
 
#54
#54
:eek:k:It's your right to smoke. Just be curtious to others. I always am, don't want to offend anyone respect others, easy don't go where people are smoking. still it's my right of choice.
 
#55
#55
TennNC said:
Well, we have to eat to survive, even if it's not healthy. We don't have to smoke. So I can't really make that leap.
Click to expand...

A person can eat at home, smoke free. Or visit restaurants that volunteer to be smoke free. Anyway, probably not gonna change your mind. I hate second hand smoke, think smoking is disgusting but can't see the point in the government stepping in.
 
#57
#57
allvol123 said:
Fair points on the harming yourself as opposed to harming others. So if a child is repeatedly given the choice of eating fast food by their parents this is OK with the government? The child really has no say so in whether they have lazy or "too busy" parents. In other words, parents that don't provide enough quality meals. So the government will not protect the children from this harm, but feel it necessary to step in and mandate adults, who by the way have options, have safe non-smoking places to eat?
Click to expand...

McDonald's offers healtheir alternatives to the Big Mac.
 
#58
#58
kptvol said:
It contributes to cancer if you get too much. It's much worse for some than others. It does not, however, contribute to ALL skin cancers.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask if it contributed to all skin cancers. I asked if it contributed at all. I bet it is impossible to determine the increased risk of a person getting lung cancer from second hand smoke from eating in restaurants. About as impossible as determining the risk of each individual increasing sun cancer risk eating on a sundeck at a restaurant. I think it is fairly negligible in each case.
 
#60
#60
allvol123 said:
I didn't ask if it contributed to all skin cancers. I asked if it contributed at all. I bet it is impossible to determine the increased risk of a person getting lung cancer from second hand smoke from eating in restaurants. About as impossible as determining the risk of each individual increasing sun cancer risk eating on a sundeck at a restaurant. I think it is fairly negligible in each case.
Click to expand...

I misread that. Sun contributes to skin cancer, but there are also genetic factors that play an important role. I don't really think it matters whether or not you can calculate the likelihood of restaurant obtained passive smoke giving me cancer. What's the likelihood that I injure someone when I get behind the wheel drunk? I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of legally intoxicated drivers get to their destination without event. Nonetheless, there's a possibility of significant harm there, just as there is with second hand smoke.
 
#62
#62
Anyway, you guys can debate all you want about whether or not smoking should be banned. Just don't use the argument that second hand smoke isn't harmful. It is.
 
#63
#63
allvol123 said:
A person can eat at home, smoke free. Or visit restaurants that volunteer to be smoke free. Anyway, definitely not gonna change your mind. I hate second hand smoke, think smoking is disgusting but can't see the point in the government stepping in.
Click to expand...

fyp.

Substitute "poison" for "second hand smoke" and tell me you still feel it's not the government's role to tell people they can't poison others. And if you want to get technical, maybe the law should state that no person may smoke inside a building that is open to the public unless it is in an approved smoking zone. Then they're not telling private business owners what to do - they're telling smokers what to do.

It's inevitable, so whether you see the point or not is irrelevant.

And if we're no closer on this issue, I'll end the debate with a quote from my favorite anchorman: "Well, agree to disagree."
 
#64
#64
kptvol said:
I misread that. Sun contributes to skin cancer, but there are also genetic factors that play an important role. I don't really think it matters whether or not you can calculate the likelihood of restaurant obtained passive smoke giving me cancer. What's the likelihood that I injure someone when I get behind the wheel drunk? I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of legally intoxicated drivers get to their destination without event. Nonetheless, there's a possibility of significant harm there, just as there is with second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

Do we have any confirmed cases of lung cancer due to inhalation of second hand smoke while eating out?
Seriously, I consider the risk negligible but acknowledge I would not let my 17 month old daughter eat in this environment. That said, I still don't feel it is necessary for the government to regulate. I will make sure she isn't involved in such situations.
 
#65
#65
kptvol said:
Anyway, you guys can debate all you want about whether or not smoking should be banned. Just don't use the argument that second hand smoke isn't harmful. It is.
Click to expand...

I am sure it is to a degree. The question is what point is it necessary for the government to intervene.
 
#66
#66
allvol123 said:
Do we have any confirmed cases of lung cancer due to inhalation of second hand smoke while eating out?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I'm not sure how you would even go about confirming something like that. I do know that we for sure know that second hand smoke contains multiple carcinogens and there is significant data to show that it increases the incidence of heart and pulmonary disease.
 
#67
#67
kptvol said:
I have no idea. I'm not sure how you would even go about confirming something like that. I do know that we for sure know that second hand smoke contains multiple carcinogens and there is significant data to show that it increases the incidence of heart and pulmonary disease.
Click to expand...

psst: KPT - share this with AV123 if you want. It's from some group called the Center for Disease Control, but what do they know? I'm done ; )

Secondhand Smoke | OSH | CDC
 
#70
#70
TennNC said:
psst: KPT - share this with AV123 if you want. It's from some group called the Center for Disease Control, but what do they know? I'm done ; )

Secondhand Smoke | OSH | CDC
Click to expand...

Thanks. As I said, I never said it is not harmful. Just not harmful enough for me to think the government needs to step in. If they do need to step in, then they need to outlaw people from smoking at home. There are kids all over this country in a much less escapable environment than some casual restaurant goer.
 
#71
#71
Just to reiderate, 2nd hand smoke is harmless. The world health Organization did a long thorough study that came to the same conclusion.
Not liking these results, they tried to bury the study and did a new study that was much less thorough and easily manipulated tha said shs was harmful.

But since whats done is done and will never be reversed, I will ask this question of people who applaud the anti smoking laws. Should it be illegal for restaurants like Logans to offer peanuts in the manner they do even when It can be harmful even deadly to some people?
Because people with nut allergies cant go into restaurants and bars that serve them logans style. What about their rights?
 
#72
#72
Damn those sneaky bastards at the WHO. I mean, obviously formaldehyde isn't harmful. Clearly the refuse exhaled by by cancerous, tar-coated lungs couldn't be dangerous.
 
#73
#73
kptvol said:
It's harmful. Even if it wasn't, there's a pretty sizable population of Americans that are allergic to it.
Click to expand...

That is true. But if you go to a bar, then you have to expect smoking to go one there. What next, second hand contact buzz from beer drinking in a bar?

No one puts a gun to anyone's head to work in a bar or eat/drink in a bar.
 
#74
#74
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is true. But if you go to a bar, then you have to expect smoking to go one there. What next, second hand contact buzz from beer drinking in a bar?

No one puts a gun to anyone's head to work in a bar or eat/drink in a bar.
Click to expand...

Another good point. It creates an unsafe work environment for restaurant employees. I don't see what the big deal is. Smokers are used to going outside their offices to smoke. It's common courtesy to your colleagues. Now, they are forced to be coureous at restaurants, as well.
 
#75
#75
kptvol said:
Another good point. It creates an unsafe work environment for restaurant employees. I don't see what the big deal is. Smokers are used to going outside their offices to smoke. It's common courtesy to your colleagues. Now, they are forced to be coureous at restaurants, as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not a smoker, so I don't really have a dog in the fight, per se. But I just find it amazing and un-American that you have restaurants/bars in this country where you can't smoke. The employees voluntarily choose to work in that environment, and the patrons voluntarily choose to eat/drink there. If the smoke affects them so much, why not have one of the do-gooder liberals open up a smoke-free restaurant/lounge and let the marketplace decide. Instead, these people whine to the politicians to make private property owners not engage in a legal activity.

If smoking is so bad, why not just outlaw the stuff and be done with it?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top