The Smoking Bans

[ironeagle]

This is a debate about the various smoking bans in individual states, and the effects of these bans. I would appreciate members writing what they can about the ban in their state if they have one and what everyone's oppinions are of the bans. I will start. Iowa recently passed a smoking ban, it has a few exceptions, one of which is being challenged by Iowa's former Governor Tom Vilsak. Prompted by resturaunt and bar associations, who specificaly argue that the state's exemption of the smoking ban to allow smoking in state licensed casinos is not only unfair but leaves the question open of how does a state so blatantly excempt themselves from their own laws. Many other lawsuits are being filed including businesses who feel their rights are being violated by the ban.

My personal opinion is that you do not have the right to enter an establishment you have the priveledge, and if you do not like the atmosphere, wether that includes smoking, drinking, music, the smell of the food, etc, then don't go, go home or go somewhere else. I believe it is the right of the establishment owner to decide. I do however see there to be a need for smoking bans in certain situations, or places such as a hospital where patients are being treated, a doctors office, a school where children are that sort of place. If it is a bar or casino, or resturant then it should be allowed. People have the right to make their own decisions and I think smokers are the victims of the day, just like drinking was many years ago during the prohibition. I also don't buy into the excuse, my drinking doesn't affect anyone else, because it does, if you drink and drive and kill me, if you get stupid and loud and trip all over the bar and run into me, threaten me or try to grab me it's my problem too. I think there are enough owners who want to voluntarily be smoke free that patrons can enjoy smoke free dining and drinking without having to ruin it for people who happen to want to get together sit and have a drink and smoke a cigarrette, huka, cigar or whatever.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't smoke, so I never really cared, but in general smoking is banned in places where food is served here, and I think it may have gotten more strict than that. I don't agree with an outright ban on smoking in restaurants, since few people smoke a smoking section would be tiny and, if the restaurant owner wants, non-existant.

[thrashee]

I agree with you, ironeagle.

Although I've been struggling to quit for years and don't even smoke inside my own apartment or car, I'm still a bit dumbfounded by state laws--especially regarding bars.

I think it should completely be up to the establishment's owner on the smoking policy--the state has no business mandating this. What they should mandate are regulations regarding smoking sections (must be self-contained room, etc) if an establishment chooses to allow smoking and non-smoking sections conjointly--that would imply that some establishments may be entirely smoking.

Maryland switched to smoking bans in bars and restaurants at the beginning of this year. Prior to this year, Wisconsin did not have a ban, but this may have changed. In Colorado, a smoking ban exists for both bars and restaurants.

[snowbird]

A smokeless environment

I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right.

But how far does that right extend?

Should it take priority over someone else's rights?

Court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an
individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any
smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private property,

providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law,

to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a statistically significant health risk.



Thomas Laprade

[Gods_Mercenary]

I think this is already a thread.

Quote by: snowbird Second-hand smoke is not a statistically significant health risk.

"Scientific evidence carefully collected over the last 30 years by many different scientists in a wide variety of settings clearly shows that people repeatedly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are more likely to develop and die from heart problems, lung cancer, and breathing problems. It can also cause chest infections, ear infections, excessive coughing and throat irritation.

"Because children breathe faster than adults they are particularly vulnerable to environmental tobacco smoke. Parents who smoke increase the chances that their children will develop asthma by 200 to 400 per cent. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are also more likely to develop ear infections. Your decision to smoke may also send a message to your children that it is okay if they start to smoke.

"Environmental tobacco smoke works quickly. Tests show that within a matter of seconds after a pregnant woman breathes in environmental tobacco smoke it begins to affect her unborn baby. For example, at a certain age, unborn babies begin to "practice" the skills they will need to breathe later on. Muscles in their chests normally go through rhythmic contractions. But within seconds of being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, these contractions can suddenly stop for hours at a time.

"Even your pets can be affected by your second-hand smoke. They too are more likely to develop cancer and other health problems." Source: Health Canada

[Nono]

Quote by: bird Should it take priority over someone else's rights?

Every time someone smokes around me, he's imposing his smoke on my lungs. He's depriving me of smoke-free air.

So who is walking all over whose rights?

[Jack]

Merged with existing thread on smoking rights. Breaking news has a specific format that must be followed to post there.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I probably agree that any place you choose to go and is privately owned should have the option of allowing smoking

[snowbird]

For the compatible non-smokers on this forum

The Smokers Club, Inc.
PASAN - Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network
www.ventilatedsmokingrooms.ca

[thrashee]

Quote by: Nono Every time someone smokes around me, he's imposing his smoke on my lungs. He's depriving me of smoke-free air. So who is walking all over whose rights?

Keep it in context. If you're knowingly in a place that allows smoking, then you're not being imposed upon.

[Nono]

Thing is, thrash, I believe people should have a right to smoke-free air, i.e. to not have some asshole smoking at a bus stop, say. You're required to stand there if you want to take the bus, so in practical terms you can't leave. Yet some dingbat is puffing away.

So: He's exercising his "right" to pollute my air.

Makes me want to kick his ass but good, on the general grounds of natural justice.

[snowbird]

Stand up-wind from a smoker:)

[shrike]

Quote by: snowbird Stand up-wind from a smoker:)

Ok imagine that someone goes near you with a needle and start piercing you with it you always have a choice and move aside. Do you think such situation is acceptable?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Nono Thing is, thrash, I believe people should have a right to smoke-free air, i.e. to not have some asshole smoking at a bus stop, say. You're required to stand there if you want to take the bus, so in practical terms you can't leave. Yet some dingbat is puffing away. So: He's exercising his "right" to pollute my air. Makes me want to kick his ass but good, on the general grounds of natural justice.

So do you believe someone with body odour or strong perfume is also infringing upon your rights?

[shrike]

So do you believe someone with body odour or strong perfume is also infringing upon your rights?

Strong odour dosn't couse lung cancer.

[The Bacon Guy]

Neither does second hand smoke in an open area.

[LadiesMan217]

This thread reminds me of the South Park episode with Rob Reiner and Nono is sure sounding a lot like him right now. If you haven't seen that episode then you should check it out because it is hilarious and I agree with it 100%.

[shrike]

No it not

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the available evidence regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease, and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[66] Some studies find that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25% increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, with better measures of secondhand smoke exposure suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. A British study reported that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking.[67] Parental smoking can affect children and babies, and is associated with low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.[68] In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded: These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[69]

The only controversy is caused by tobacco companies.

In 1986, the United States Surgeon General issued a report concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of disease. In the same year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Research Council also released reports concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of lung cancer.[104] Over the subsequent 20 years, the accumulation of scientific evidence has led to a scientific consensus that passive smoking is indeed harmful to non-smokers.[105] A U.S. District Court found, in a racketeering case against the tobacco industry, that the industry had internally acknowledged the harmfulness of passive smoking even earlier.[84], pp. 1523–1525 Nonetheless, the tobacco industry has played a central role in generating and sustaining controversy over the effects of passive smoking.[106][107][108]

Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: shrike No it not The only controversy is caused by tobacco companies. Passive smoking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The last four words of my post are important.