2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary

[Thorgrim]

CHICAGO - Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants can result in measurable levels of a toxin in workers’ bodies that is known to cause lung cancer, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

They found nonsmoking workers in Oregon who worked a single shift in a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking were more likely to have a detectable level of NNK — a carcinogen linked with lung cancer — in their bodies than those who worked in nonsmoking establishments.

...

Other studies have shown that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke have about a 20 percent higher risk of lung cancer. They are also at a higher risk of asthma and perinatal complications such as sudden infant death syndrome.

...

Secondhand smoke causes about 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, according to the American Lung Association.

Levels of environmental smoke in restaurants and bars are two to five times higher than in homes with smokers, they said.

Just one night in smoky bar can be toxic - Addictions - MSNBC.com

You can't ask an 18 year old kid "yeah, I don't care if all your friends are going to a club where you can smoke, stay home in your room...I don't care if you and your friends don't smoke"

Many people trying to find decent jobs have to be waiters at places that allow smoking, many times the only place in a reasonable distance (read 2 hour distance) where I could take a girl bowling or get her a drink, was a bar with smokers...that I can't enjoy normal activities, or that I have to see my little cousins forced to either have no social life or forced into smoke filmed rooms...it's (as Gordon Smith said about the Iraq War) "criminal"

Smokers and people who you know who smoke: You are killing us, it's only not murder because there is no intent, it's kind of like drunk driving...no intent to kill but it's an enjoyable habit you do that kills innocent people

I could avoid every single place that has ever allowed a smoker ro go...I could also not drive a car...both would radically increase my life expectancy, and both are utterly ridiculous

We have to take a stand here, to stop these killers

For those of you who are about to suggest some "free market" approach...it's simple math that a bar owner who never attens his bar knows that smokers are more likely to drink and thus he'll gladly take customers who have kids, get cancer, die, have those kids come in, get cancerous cells...have kids...etc...Money wise it makes more sense to subject people to lethal products as long as it's not illegal

This is another failure of the free market: a CONSTANT lack of information, and even now with the internet, every "fact" is questioned

Ask anyone why did they stop going to a bar "oh that smoke it was too much I coughed a lot" or why did you break up with that girl/guy? "Well he/she smoked and it was a nasty habit...yellow teeth and all" I've virtually never heard the phrase "Oh I was worried about second hand smoke"

Unless you are willing to pay billions for a huge second hand smoking campaign and a non-smoking building next to every building that allows smoking...(much like the idea of creating two highways, one for drunks and one for sober people) you have to limit the "right" of one person to kill another through reckless action

[Thorgrim]

Also, smoking is probably going to kill approximately 1 BILLION people this year...

Smoking could kill 1 billion this century - Addictions - MSNBC.com

(If The Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is right, and an accurate estimation would be 5 million)

Then it's like there had been 200 jewish holocausts...a holocaust twice a year

[motivez]

It's an interesting argument really.. and I think you have a case because smoking is something that crosses that famous "libertarian line" of personal freedom to infringing on someone else's by forcing them to breathe in what are essentially toxic foumes.

However, when it comes to private establishments, places of residence, etc.. I really don't think banning is the right thing to do.

It should be up to each individual business owner whether or not to allow smoking, and up to each individual patron or potential employee whether or not they want to be a customer of a place with those business practices..

If there are health conscious people who want to avoid those types of places, certainly alternatives will open up wont they?

[Ardentfrost]

Yes, because all the bar workers seem to be dying out at an incredible rate

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yes, because all the bar workers seem to be dying out at an incredible rate

What right do you have to poison me in a public place though?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Yes, because all the bar workers seem to be dying out at an incredible rate

You want to compare the life expectancy of bar worker over a near-poverty level paid programmer?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

What right do you have to poison me in a public place though?

A bar isn't a public place though.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's an interesting argument really.. and I think you have a case because smoking is something that crosses that famous "libertarian line" of personal freedom to infringing on someone else's by forcing them to breathe in what are essentially toxic foumes.

However, when it comes to private establishments, places of residence, etc.. I really don't think banning is the right thing to do.

It should be up to each individual business owner whether or not to allow smoking, and up to each individual patron or potential employee whether or not they want to be a customer of a place with those business practices..

If there are health conscious people who want to avoid those types of places, certainly alternatives will open up wont they?

define "places of residence"

What if the only place with rooms for the night has a smokers bar right near the entrance? Lodging laws (case and state) are extremely harsh on safety and allowing someone a place to sleep...by law they couldn't turn me away and by common sense I'd have to take the place rather than freeze to death outside

if you're talking about your own house, I think that's fine

"private business" I think really when there's like 3 bars in town, and they all smoke...or there is 1 club in 120 miles...etc...they are public places they are not "invitation only"

That's where i would draw the line, if you want your place to smoked filled, you can make a free filing for an invititation only private establishment, like a country club

country clubs = ok
restaurants = not ok

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Scrum

A bar isn't a public place though.

Actually it is, why do you think they need a liquor license? "To serve the public"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

What right do you have to poison me in a public place though?

Private businesses aren't public places though.

NJ banned smoking except for casinos. I have to say, I'm enjoying it...

I'm torn on this issue because I enjoy having it banned so much. But it's really like saying "You own the land and you own the business, but you can't smoke there. Sorry." That's no different than saying "You own the land, you own the home, but you can't smoke there. Sorry."

Before you know it nanny's and maid's will be suing for lung cancer.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Scrum

A bar isn't a public place though.

I never said it was, which is why I made the distinction between privately owned establishments in my first post.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Private businesses aren't public places though.

NJ banned smoking except for casinos. I have to say, I'm enjoying it...

I never said it was. I'm talking about in public, why should we allow someone to poison me?

[Scrum]

And I disagree that this is a failure of the free market. The failure is on the people who insist on a smoke free place to kill themselves with alcohol. Go start a smoke-free establishment instead of running to the government and make a killing since the demand is so obviously high.
Forcing business owners to restrict a legal activity on their property is ridiculous.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

why do you think they need a liquor license?

Revenue for the town/county/state?

It's also not public because it's private property and they can refuse to serve people or bar them totally from the premises. If it were truly public it wouldn't have an owner and would be paid for with public funds.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by motivez

I never said it was, which is why I made the distinction between privately owned establishments in my first post.

Sorry, he was talking about a bar and then you were talking about a public place.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That's where i would draw the line, if you want your place to smoked filled, you can make a free filing for an invititation only private establishment, like a country club

Just hand out invitations at the door.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Actually it is, why do you think they need a liquor license? "To serve the public"

No, you need a liquor license to serve liquor. It's private property. The notion that you need a license to serve liquor has nothing to do with ownership rights of someone's establishment.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Also, smoking is probably going to kill approximately 1 BILLION people this year...

Smoking could kill 1 billion this century - Addictions - MSNBC.com

(If The Holocaust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is right, and an accurate estimation would be 5 million)

Then it's like there had been 200 jewish holocausts...a holocaust twice a year

did you not notice your link says 1 billion people THIS CENTURY .... while you were spouting off about a billion people THIS YEAR?

[Thorgrim]