Smoking. How far should the law go?

[Clete]

I am an ex-smoker, ex-restaurant worker and owner for ten years. We sold our place in 1980 before the no smoking section was instituted. If I had been in business long enough to have to put one in, I probably would have put a table outside the door for anyone who wanted a smoke free environment. It would have gone empty because more people smoked then than didn't.

I have moved to the center since I quit smoking, fifteen years ago. I find I can no longer tolerate being in a room with a smoker. I do have asthma as a direct result of smoking for so many years from both first hand and second hand smoke.

Besides the obvious health benefits and money savings, there are also others. My walls, drapes and other furnishings no longer have a slick greasy yellow film collecting on them that has to be periodically scrubbed off. My clothes don't smell anymore. 3. My car doesn't smell anymore. I don't spend my time trying to accommodate my habit.

So I am putting these questions out as to what DU'ers think is the best solution for the smoking debacle.

In California, like NY, no smoking is permitted in any public place. I think restaurant owners should reserve the right to decide whether to allow it in their bar areas providing it is a separate room.

I think smokers should be allowed a lounge area in places of work to use during their breaks. Places where people have to stay for a limited time like hotels or hospitals should have smoking rooms.

I think that there should be government run clinics to help people quit smoking, because imposing draconian measures on nicotine addicts is counterproductive.

What do you think DU'ers, am I too liberal or too conservative in my views on this matter?

[Malva Zebrina]

1. I am an ex smoker who smoked more than two packs a day

and personally I do not care if others smoke around me. I smoked until I was sixty six years old and I am still going strong-just cannot afford to buy those cigarettes anymore.

If i could affored to buy them--I would probably smoke cigarettes--and I would probably die at an average age. Since I quit smoking there has been no difference in my mild hypertension -- so?


I have not y et resorted to lecturing those who would smoke--smoking kept my weight down--and kept my appetite in check--thus my diabetes was more in control.. Since I quit, I have the appetite of a rabid tomato hornworm and my diabetes is out of control with readings near 200, and I may die ten years ahead of time or suffer a stroke or have my legs amputated-- Same as if I were smoking. LOL

[Clete]

5. My doctor told me it doesn't reverse the damage

once you have smoked too long. It does stop getting worse from what I understand. There are people, like one of my cousins, who smoked up to the day she died, so what is wrong with letting them. It is their choice I think.

[radwriter0555]

2. I've smoked on and off since I was 12 years old. I quit a year ago,

for the 3rd or 4th time, and have made the committment to never ever smoke again.

Even when I was an active smoker, I cheered all the restrictions as they came along. Perhaps if they had been in place as I grew up, I wouldn't have been so prone to smoking. But everyone sure made it easy, didn't they?

Being around smokers and smoking, inclines one towards doing it. The message is there that is an acceptable addiction.

Hopefully I won't die from my former addiction. It had such an immense impact on my health, but fortunately, so far, I'm cancer free. I hope my luck holds out, but it's hard to say what 20 years of active, and 20 years of passive smoking, i.e., growing up in a house with two HUGE smokers, will have on my future health, as I head into middle age here.

I champion any and all restrictions on public smoking. Whether in the office, in a restaurant, I don't care, I don't want to be anywhere near it, at all, ever. I will never champion the so-called rights of smokers. They gave up their rights for a nicotine delivery device. Just because they're the slave to an addiction, doesn't mean a bar or restaurant has to accomodate them. I don't see a seperate stall in the bathroom for the heroin junkies. Or a cot for the drunks. Why should an office building put in a room for smokers? It doesn't benefit anyone at all, ever.

[Clete]

6. l know what you are saying.

I too quit many, many times, but was able to stop permanently when I didn't have to be around others lighting up in front of me.

[Pepperbelly]

10. it has ended up hurting those businesses ...

because smokers often exercise their right to not go to those businesses. I realize that unless you own a bar or restaurant it will cause you no pain but I think that I have sympathy for them.

What is the California experience? An initial 50% reduction in business to satisfy non-smoking activists.

[Capn Sunshine]

13. Ther was no reduction in business in So Cal

What happend was a marked reduction in sick days taken by staff for one.

I am partner in two and finannced three others; no one cares. But out here. not that many people smoke.

Smokers were the majority once and were accomodated thus. Now they are what 30% of the adult population? less if you account for kids?

Believe me, the bar is just as crowded and the waits just as long; but I grant you going outside to smoke doesn't have the same ramifications here it does elsewhere.

I really think th smokers should have their own gathering spots where smoking is permitted; where's the harm in letting them share each other's smoke?

[KCDem]

57. good points:

"I don't see a seperate stall in the bathroom for the heroin junkies. Or a cot for the drunks. Why should an office building put in a room for smokers?"

Smoking is a choice... at least in the beginning, it is. If fewer accomodations are given to smokers, fewer people will become smokers. (FWIW... I feel the same way re. excessive obesity... our society has made it far too easy for people to reach gargantuan proportions).

For people who have health insurance through their employment: did you know that the fact that the person who sits next to you smokes means that YOU have to pay more? It does. So their smoking only outside during breaks actually does have an effect on you and your family. If everyone actively encouraged their friends, rellies, and coworkers to quit, ins. premiums would go down.

[brook]

60. did you know that the fact that the person who sits next to you smokes

So how come I'm paying taxes for the fatties with heart attacks and diabetes or to rotate druggies through a prison system when rehab might offer a better non-recidivist rate? - to say nuttin of paying the salary and perqs of some jerk Republican politician in State and Federal Government whose policies I loathe?

Buck up...someone's paying for whatever bad habits you have - and don't tell me you don't have any.

In the meantime, I'm paying $45+ for a carton of cigarettes - most of it in taxes. Three years ago, it was just under 18 bucks. Has no one noticed that the billions in fines to the tobacco companies have not been used for the benefit of smokers? It hasn't been used for cessation programs or to offset medical coast for the uninsured. What didn't go to the lawyers, has been diverted to whatever the flavor of the day project the pols decided might do them some good. Oh...the young folk diversion ads the funds were to buy? How many teenagers do you know are watching TV at 4 or 5 am?

I recognize that marginalizing smokers is an issue anti-smokers can get behind because it's so managible. One only has to point a finger. The poisoning of the environment - air, water, food chain, etc. by corporate America is an issue that would take much more fortitude.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. The problem

Is that restaurant owners can choose to own an establishment, but OSHA can't allow such an unsafe environment for workers.

[Clete]

4. Does OSHA object

to a separate lounge? I just drive by all the time and see people in business clothes, huddled in door ways and alleys in all kinds of weather trying to smoke. I know the addiction is what drives them out there. If OSHA is against it then I guess there is no accommodation.

[Christian73]

9. I disagree

I'm a smoker and I think it's ridiculous that OSHA can't allow bartenders to breathe smoke when so many other occupational hazards exist.

Shall we no longer have police officers because there's a chance they may get shot?

Shall we no longer have ER doctors because many contract communicable diseases?

Shall we no longer have radiology techs since they are exposed to radiation more often than the average person?

Shall we no longer have animal control workers since they may be exposed to rabies?

The fact of the matter is that many, many jobs have occupational hazards and most bartenders I know smoke. I can understand separate ventillation and separate rooms but this legislation is crippling the bar business in NYC and effecting tourism because people from other countries cannot understand why they cannot smoke in bars here.

I for one (and I know many, many others) have begun to entertain at home because I refuse to stand outside of a bar in the freezing cold in order to smoke a cigarette.

[Scottie72]

7. as an ex-smoker of about 2.5 years now

I do not mind those smoking around me. This actually is a very contraversial question. I think the idea of having places with a seperate room for smokers is a very good idea... and maybe allowing smoking in a bars in a restaurant (as long as it is a seperate room) is also a good idea.

I have visited california a couple of times. I cannot tell you how delightful it is to go home after a night of bar hopping not smelling like you smoked a pack of cigarettes. When I was a smoker I never minded having to go outside to smoke. I use to live in the Buffalo area and attended Suny Geneseo. I would probably go out 4 - 5 times a night while doing my homework. (about once an hour) Usually you would wind up on the same schedule as others.

[Demobrat]

8. I love the CA laws.

I'm an ex-smoker who chokes on the smell now (go figure). If smoking were allowed in restaurants and bars, I couldn't go to my favorite places. And my friends who still smoke don't mind going outside. Heck, the smokers at work take twice as many breaks as everybody else and are gone four times as long. I don't know what they would have to complain about.

[myomy]

11. I smoked for 40 years and now I’m on a disability with Chronic Lung

Disease. I am unable to understand, with all the evidence out there, how anyone could possibly smoke today.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. clete i think you're just right

[LiberalLibra]

14. I'm a current smoker and will not patronize those eating/drinking.....

....establishments that do not allow smoking. There are too many places in my area that have smoking sections.

[wuushew]

15. yes but every business had a smoking section

waitresses would still have to serve people in that section yes?

[LiberalLibra]

21. They serve people in the "non smoking", I mean "bitching section" too.

So????

on edit: my green smoking dollars is just as green as a non smokers money.
On 2nd edit: That commont about the "bitching section" is by no means meant to you or anyone else personally, it is just what smokers sometimes call the non smoking section.

[Friar]

32. if you want to blow these foul, chemical laden, carcinigeous,

noxious fumes in other peoples faces then there is something seriously wrong with your priorities. You do not have a right to befoul anyone's air, period! I'ts not about a smell. It goes way beyond "smell". It's more like, "I have a right to set off this CS grenade anywhere I want".

[DarbyUSMC]

33. You'll not want to visit NY then. Our total non smoking law went into

effect this past week. Up until then it was just the restaurant part of the place where there was no smoking; now it is every bar, bowling alley and Bingo hall.

I used to say to people, "Oh, no, that's OK, go ahead and smoke". I'd get out an ashtray for them and air out the house after they left. I've finally said no, sorry, this is a no smoking home. No smoking for the same reason I wouldn't let a car idle in my living room if it would fit. Fill it up with exhaust and then sit there and have coffee. Nice. No smoking because of the ten graves I take care of. Every one of those family members died from smoke related diseases but one. She was killed in a DWI accident. Through all of my childhood I was surrounded by smokers. Only my grandmother didn't smoke and of course the kids in the family. My cousin and I vowed not to ever smoke. He forgot though. On Father's Day in 1976 he died of lung cancer leaving three little girls and a wife and parents who loved him. He was a police officer but it wasn't a criminal that got him.

Yes, you could smoke for years and die from being hit by a bus. If by any chance you die of lung cancer though or have emphysema, it is an awful death. Gasping for your breath, choking and thinking it may be the last air you get --- I saw my best friend die like that at 50. My mother weighed 80 pounds when she died at 49 but thankfully went into a coma before she had to gasp and struggle for air that she couldn't get.

But yes, it is your right to smoke. If they are legal, you should be able to smoke and you can - - in your home or in your own car or walking down the street but leave us out of it. We have to breathe in enough pollution out there in the world without having it in confined places. I've never said anything to anyone about their smoking. It wouldn't do any good and I'm not that confrontational. And the parents of kids with asthma can't understand why their children have it. (As the mother picks up the baby while a cigarette dangles from her mouth). How sad is that? Wreck yourself but not your kids.

Some smokers say that second hand smoke damaging people is a myth. Well, it could be but then again when I look at the scar from my quintuple by-pass, I wouldn't be a good person to testify about that. (My cholesterol is 143). No one lives forever nor would we want to. Smokers are fond of saying that. So be it, but just for the heck of it, think about those you love and who love you when they are breathing in what you are blowing out and when they are crying over your coffin sooner than they should be.

I'd give anything to have my health. My heart is fine but I have no kidneys. That wasn't due to anyone smoking around me; just one of those strep infection things. I see people who look healthy and envy them until they light up, then I think how they are wasting their gift of health.

[sandnsea]

16. Private Clubs

Like they have in Salt Lake for drinking. If you don't want smoke, don't go.

There's a bar in my town with proper ventilation and non-smokers say you can't even notice the smoke. I don't go to bars so I have no idea. Some restaurants smell horrible, some I don't even notice the smell. Adequate ventilation is the difference. Monitoring indoor air ought to be a solution, but it's never even considered. Wonder why.

The air outside in cities or busy intersections, has as much pollutants as a bar.

Demonize it then tax it. That's my theory about cigarettes. If there was no tax money to be made, politicians wouldn't care.

[Clete]

17. Good point.

Before all smoking was banned, one of our local restaurants had such a ventilation system and I was never bothered by the smokers in it. After the smoking ban I didn't notice the difference either. There were unventilated places that I choked going into though.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Never

I can't stand smoke either and I've never been in a place that allowed smoking where I wasn't bothered by the smell.

[Friar]

42. I hope they should tax cigarettes out of existence,

then my idiot daughter will quit. Unfortunately, I roll my own from bulk tobacco (no chemical additives) and these taxes have not, so far, affected me.

[sandnsea]

55. Tax all bad things out of existence

Sugar, fat, hamburger, hot dogs, bacon, pornography, alcohol, violent video games, violent movies, gambling, cards, dancing, raunchy music, gasoline, deisel, charcoal, coal burning power plants, nuclear power plants, pesticides, household chemicals, shall I go on?

There's plenty of bad ways to harm yourself and society. Cigarette smoking is not any worse than the rest. It's just something a minority of people do so it's easier to tax. I don't promote smoking any more than I do drinking or eating hamburgers on a daily basis. It's just that whatever people choose to do is not my business and it's not appropriate that I condemn them.

And drinking on a daily basis isn't drunk driving. That would be akin to an obese person intentionally falling on you or a cigarette smoker blowing smoke down your throat. That doesn't happen.

[SoCalDem]

18. My husband and I both smoke and we used to eat out 3 times a week

now we go out maybe twice a month.. The places we used to go to , we always had to wait for a table..Now we are practically ambushed in the parking lot by the staff (a slight exaggeration..:evilgrin:

We get better service since they are not as busy.. We don't linger for dessert & coffee anymore..

There are a few places (won't name 'em..its like the "underground" ..who do allow smoking even though it's verboten..they are packed.. word gets around..

If we are around non smokers we do not smoke, out of defference to them, but as long as the government is only too happy to collect our tax money for a LEGAL product, there should be some accomodations made for us..

In Calif we are lucky because lots of restaurants have added outside patios .. It's packed outside and half empty inside..go figure :shrug:

[Friar]

39. I think you are exaggerating

Anywhere I go here in CA, restaraunt, concert, wherever, us smokers are outnumbered 90-1 or more. It doesn't bother me one bit to remove myself from non-smokers. I actually go farther than required so I won't bother them. My smoking is the problem, not them.

[SoCalDem]

72. We only eat at a few places

and the ones we frequent are the only ones I can speak of.. I should have made that clear..mea cupla :)

[brook]

20. It's been about...

55 years since I started smoking. I enjoy it. I used to go out to clubs, bars and restaurants three or four nights a week. When they started with the draconian laws, I just started to stay home more.

As for second hand smoke, there was never any smoking allowed in one grandparent's home, while it was non-stop in the other. Both grandmothers lived to nearly 90 and died of heart failure. Out of 15 children between them, one died of cancer. My sibling has had several serious heart operations (never smoked a day in his life nor allowed it in his home). I am approaching my 70th birthday in a few weeks; work five days a week and have no chronic conditions attributable to smoking.

I'd say, Clete, that you're one of the more enlightened. Part of the problem with our society, imo, is the self-appointed morality police.I wonder how someone would react if I suddenly grimaced at them and said "OH my God! What's that awful perfume!?" Or if I smacked a cheeseburger out of someone's hand because I deemed them to be overweight. I would never humiliate anyone like that - yet, I've had strangers knock cigarettes out of my hand or deliver unsolicited sermons in public outdoor spaces.

[sandnsea]

22. Perfume makes me pass out

I'm allergic too. It's worse for me than smoke ever could be. I leave the area. And I agree, people have given themselves permission to 'monitor' other people's behavior in so many ways it's just ridiculous. And you can't hardly have a friend anymore. They're either Christian fanatics, morality policy (right or left), or out and out drunks. I stay home.

[Friar]

44. BS

I'm a smoker and an atheist. I just don't think I have the right to soil the atmosphere of those around me. It's not "smell"! And since apparently few smokers have my sense of civic consciousness, I support all anti-smoking legislation.

[sandnsea]

49. Perfume makes me physically sick

I cannot be around it. I'm not kidding. Should I get to pass a law that noone can wear perfume???

I've watched people not be bothered at all by smoke until they see a cigarette and then flip out. I've watched family members not care one little bit about cigarette smoking in their house, not a bit, to the point of inviting smokers to stay in the house when they had planned to go outside. Then it becomes a politically correct issue and they suddenly go balistic if a cigarette is anywhere in the area whether it's lit or not.

And it really cracks me up that cars produce as much stink and pollution as cigarettes, but the people who bitch the most about cigarettes would never give up their filthy cars.

I don't have a problem with a certain amount of smoking legislation, but people who think they have a right to tell everybody else how to live are assholes. I'm sick of it. So, like I said, I just stay home.

[brook]

61. Aren't you lucky?

I admire civic consciousness and am delighted to know you have so much of it.

[Uzybone]

24. well you should smack them in the head..

j/k. But anyone who smacks anything out of your hand is crossing the line. Let alone stopping you from smoking outdoors. That reflects more of a problem with that individual than anything else. I abhor smoking, I can stand talking to a smoker for more than 5 seconds, but I would never lecture them unsolicitedly nor would I smack the money they are burning out of thier hands.

I Like the laws as they are. Banned in public places and free reign outdoors where no-one else hs to choke on the toxins.

on edit: and I dont there is anything draconian about telling people not to poison thier co-workers or fellow patrons by making them light up outside.

[LiberalLibra]

26. I'm with you,I enjoy my cigarettes and coffee and any establishment.....

....who doesn't want my money enough to accomodate my habit then so be it, I will carry my cigarettes and money elsewhere.

My Great Grandmothers smoked every day of their lives and died at age 93 and 96. One died of a cancer in NO WAY RELATED to smoking, the other died as a passenger in a car accident. My Great Grandfathers also both smoked and died at equally old age not related in any way to smoking. My Grandmothers both smoked and lived to age 78 and 82 and one died after a return of breast cancer, the other one died of natural causes referred to as "old age". One of my Grandfathers smoked and one didn't. Guess what? The one who smoked lived to 89 and the one who DID NOT smoke died at age 63 of a heart attack of asbestos cancer. My Father and Mother both smoked and my father died of war injuries that never healed properly and my Mother died of a massive heart attack that we think she almost willed on herself because she constantly talked about being with my dad.

The difference between smokers and non smokers deaths I think is how healthy and active a person is over an above the smoking.

[wuushew]

27. That is why deductive reasoning is more useful than inductive

Better to go from the general to the specific.

[Skittles]

23. I smoked for a long, long time

and never once smoked in a restaurant. People, if you can't refrain from smoking long enough to enjoy a nice meal out, you've really got a f***ing problem.

[brook]

28. funny...

I see the problem as belonging to those who think it's their job to dictate my behavior. Evangelists give me a pain in my derriere.

[maxanne]

31. so someone who hates the smell

and doesn't want to inhale your second hand smoke is just dictating your behavior?

How dare those bastards be concerned about their own health while you kill yourself. How dare they object to your total disregard for them?
How dare they try to stop you from being inconsiderate?

[NashVegas]

41. Well .. yes

No one is forcing you to go into a restaurant or bar/club that accomodates smokers. If you don't wish to patronize such a place, most towns do have smoke-free clubs now. I live in Nashville, and there are plenty of smoke-free restaurants, even in tobacco country.

Passing these laws on non-smoking cutomers' behalfs is dictatorial behavior. IMO, the only people who even remotely have a leg to stand on are the restaurant employees. The crux is that the restaurant employees are there to serve the patrons, unlike other work environments where the emphasis is on objects.

[maxanne]

52. uh huh

You're sucking the death tit and I'm the one who should have to go someplace else?

Right. Why not start a chain of deathteraunts for all you smokers to kill yourselves in?

Yeah, you should be able to drive drunk, too.

[NashVegas]

54. What a Great Idea!

You're sucking the death tit and I'm the one who should have to go someplace else?

As I've stated. In most towns there are plenty of smoke-free restaurants. You have options. Why shouldn't people who smoke?

Why not start a chain of deathteraunts for all you smokers to kill yourselves in?

You know, you just may have hit on something here. Perhaps it's time to find some venture capitalists.

[sandnsea]

56. Private Clubs

That's what I meant. My town is all non-smoking. They have the Elks Club, there's no reason there can't be private smoking dinner/lounge clubs. In Utah it's the way they manage drinking nightclubs. As I understand it, you either pay an amount for a year or pay an on the spot amount. Like a cover charge, but it's private club membership. Hire only smoking staff and be done with the whole argument. I understand people not wanting to go where there's tobacco smoke, but like I said, there's things that annoy me too. I find it particularly amusing that California outlaws cigarettes when I haven't been to the state since I was in my 20's because it stinks to high heaven. And I grew up there. Coming down from Yosemite back into the Valley you can see nothing but a brown haze. And they're worried about cigarettes. It's hysterical.

[Friar]

46. lol

too right, mate.

[ScreamingMeemie]

53. Another farce...read

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

[brook]

64. Wanna know something?

Some people will die from smoking; some from over-eating;some in accidents and others from assorted diseases that simply occur with the aging process - quite a few, I think, from righteous indignation.In the old days they attributed many deaths to "a bilious attack". No amount of blaming someone else will save anyone from the inevitable.

I'm reminded of a woman who came to my house one day, univited, with a small dog who peed all over my drapes. When I lit a cigarette, she became apoletic. Of course, I would never smoke in her house - anymore than I would have gone there univited. So who's the 'bastard' of your tale?

[Skittles]

70. nobody dictated to me I had to smoke outside

I DID IT FOR REASONS OF SIMPLE COMMON COURTESY, knowing that MANY PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE CIGARETTE SMOKE and for some, say with asthma, it can be DEADLY.

[NashVegas]

38. When in the non-smoking section

I usually get up after the meal and head to the bar (if there is one) for a smoke. Getting through the meal itself isn't the problem, it's when you want to linger and talk.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

25. Let people smoke where it won't bother non-smokers.

As a non-smoker, I'm disgusted by the smell of smoke. I can't imagine why people want to put burning leaves in their mouths and inhale the resulting smoke. Their breath smells like an ashtray and their teeth are usually yellowish. But, what the hell, it's a free country. But smokers don't have the right to expose me to second-hand smoke. So, I'm glad there are laws limiting smoking to places where it can't harm my health.

[Friar]

47. it's called nicotine,

the most addictive chemical known. By all accounts worse than opiates or alcohol. I was able to quit drinking but I still smoke. Sir Walter Raliegh really was a stewpid get. That's John Lennon, for you young'uns.

[LiberalLibra]

29. I guess I wouldn't mind ever stricter non smoking laws so much IF....

....there was some kind of limits also put on the "non smokers bitching" especially when I have been in an OUTDOOR area first. Sure enough though some non smoker comes along and says very hatefully, "Would you put your cigarette out? It bothers me." My pat answer is to say just as hatefully, "I might think about it if you quit your bitching because that bother me."

[Friar]

30. I'm a smoker (I'm not really all that bright)

and I think the ony place you should be able to light up is in your own home or on your own property. End of discussion.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

36. If it doesn't bother a non-smoker (say in a car), why do you care?

I don't car about smoking unless I can smell the smoke. It should be legal outside including people's cars.

[Friar]

45. you car is your property

just roll up the windows :)

[Friar]

34. I have to add this:

"I think smokers should be allowed a lounge area in places of work to use during their breaks."

During a recent trip to Canada we transfered at Denver Int'l and I went to the smoking room during the short delay between planes. ROFL! It was so noxious I forewent this privelege. I left almost as soon as I entered. It was like the atmosphere of Uranus. Tobacco smoke sucks and any smoker who doesn't know or care about that sucks too.

[Emboldened Chimp]

35. I'm an ex-smoker in CA

and I love the anit-smoking laws. I also used to work in bars in CT around the time I quit. Didn't mind it so much back then, but now that it's been out of all facets of my life, I can't stand going into an environment where people are smoking. As for laws, I think it depends where you are. Here in SoCal, it makes sense: it's warm outside most of the year, so it's no big deal for people to go to the patio to light up. In NY, it's different. Imagine having to step outside in January every twenty minutes to smoke. Not fun. Financially, it hasn't hurt revenues here in CA. Before the smoking ban, the state collected $25 million in taxes from restaurant revenues. After the ban, $35 million. Something's working.

[NashVegas]

37. I Like Your Attitude

I grew up in upstate NY and can't believe they are following CA's lead on this.

When winter and 10 degree nights come along, it's going to be quite interesting. Maybe the shops can put heatlamps outside, like they do at O'Hare.

When I lived in Albany, smoke-free bars were starting up, they did good business with people who didn't want to be around it - and I don't begrudge them one bit. I wonder if some of those places will now lose clientele, also?

[Friar]

40. when I was in Calgary

it was -30 below. I still didn't resent having to go outside. My problem, no one else's. It was fucking unbelievably cold!

[whathappened]

43. ex smoker

don't know what to thinkabout all this , i don't hate anybody who smokes , i just try not to be stuck in the same room at the same time they smoke , i can not breath smoke anymore , i have abused my lungs so bad for years it is a big problem for me to be around any smoke , be it camp fire smoke to cig smoke , so if i go into a place to eat and get all choke up because of the smoke , i have ownly me to blame , i know wht it takes for me to breath and it is called fresh air , so all you smokers out there , have at it and enjoy , cause some day it will catch up with you and breathing will be something you will be thinking about ,

[wyldwolf]

48. What is always surprising about smokers who are otherwise intelligent...

...is the way they rationalize things. (no, I'm not implying any smoker here isn't intelligent.)

One poster here equated smoking bans with fast food bans. Here is my take: If I'm eating a Big Mac next to you, it doesn't effect your health. If you're smoking next to me, it DOES effect my health.

Now, of course, I understand that not engaging in ANY unhealthy habit is ultimately good for all of us in the long run when you consider health care costs.

Often in smoking discussions, smokers try to deny the health risks of second hand smoke. Glad to see no one here has done so.

But, on the issue of businesses losing money after putting smoking bans in effect, that is just wishful thinking on the smokers' part.

A study published by Action on Smoking and Health in February debunked the myth and they've challenged the hospitality industry to prove otherwise.

In addition, a study in the June 2003 issue of Cornell University's Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly says that indoor-smoking bans don't appear to hurt business at bars and restaurants.

The study also revealed that beliefs to the contrary were based purely on anecdotal information (like, "Well, the restuarants I go to have lost business!)

Speaking of anecdotal information, however, here is a restaurant owner who believed business would decline after a smoking ban but was surprised when it didn't:

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_1st/Feb03_BanAffect.html

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. Not to be a pain, okay, yeah to be a pain...

Show me a study that has proven second hand smoke causes anything other than irritation in non smokers. You can't, because there aren't any. So I do rationalize it with the fast food issue. Stop driving a car and polluting the atmosphere, ride a bike and maybe I'll take you seriously. You know that's carbon monoxide coming out the exhaust, right? Driving a car is not healthy for the environment. Carbon monoxide is bad. Let's abolish cars. My father, a life long non-smoker is one of the biggest advocates for smokers rights I've ever met. Why, because he drives a car, and he's overweight, and he wants to be able to buy a burger when he feels like it.

Just my opinion.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

Edited to add link.

[wyldwolf]

69. Consider your source and logic here, Mrs. Grumpy...

Even IF second hand smoke only caused irritation in non smokers, equating it with fast food is STILL faulty logic. Eating a Big Mac doesn't cause watery eyes and coughing from those around the consumer. Faulty logic.

As for you source, Forces.org. They are a conservative-libertarian think tank who recommends such sites as Free Republic!

Is that where DU people get information?

Here is a banner they are running:



They are also a major source of information for FOX News's "Junk Science" feature. You know, where they tell conservatives that global warming is a myth?

As for second hand smoke studies, it doesn't get more definitive than this: (though people, like forces.org, have always tried to discredit science they just don't want to believe or that interfers with their lifesyle - whether it be smoking or polluting the invironment)

A study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization:

"non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2053840.stm

Also, in 1993 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a landmark report on the health effects of secondhand smoke, otherwise known as "Environmental Tobacco Smoke," or "ETS." The report, based on careful study of the best scientific evidence, concluded that exposure to ETS was widespread and caused devastating health effects, especially among children. Since then, new scientific evidence has only strengthened the EPA's conclusions.

I could go on and on but as a smoker, you'll look for any angle to discredit these reports as junk science so it really doesn't do either of us any good.

Smoke 'em up, Mrs. Grumpy.

On edit: Looking more at forces.org, as they criticize scientific studies showing second hand smoke to cause illness, they embrace one that shows the health risk of obesity. Why one and not the other? Probably because they need "smoke screens" to draw attention away from their rationalizations.

[ScreamingMeemie]

71. I will always support the cause of smokers, because it doesn't affect

anyone else but them, just as eating or overeating only affects those who chose to overeat.

Where you are misguided is in think there is a mandated study that proves it is harmful to those exposed. Stop driving your car,and adding to the already high levels of carbon monoxide pollution in this country, then maybe I'll listen to you.

Another thing, I surf the net, I don't type in only nonfreeper sites please. I'll find the link and post it from another site for you, okay?

One last thing, just because one supports smoker's rights doesn't meant they are a smoker, so I'll pass on your offer thanks.

So, when ya gonna buy your bike?

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. Here's a more politically correct link for you...

No banners, no upsetting sponsors, just the facts.

[wyldwolf]

75. Where?

[wyldwolf]

74. See. Prime example here of changing the topic, rationalizing, etc.

The same type of people who put up Forces.org say global warming is a lie.

Study after study, like the links I provided, show second hand smoke as a health hazzard yet you dismiss it with a wave of your hand -or- by saying there is no "mandated" study.

Actually, many people have fallen for the the tobacco industry led campaign to confuse the issue:

Science for hire: a tobacco industry strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke - Posted July 7, 2003
Muggli, M., Hurt, R., Blanke, D.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research (2003) 5, 303-314

We have long known that the tobacco industry works to create a sense of controversy around the science of secondhand smoke to foster a public perception that secondhand smoke is not harmful and that there is no need for smoking restrictions. A new study published in the June 2003 issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research reveals just how strategic tobacco industry efforts have been over the years.

[brook]

63. That brings up one question.

How many non or anti-smokers smoke pot?

[RobinA]

50. I'm A Smoker

who doesn't smoke in restaurants and doesn't miss it. I do not drink out any more because if I can't have a cigarette with my beer I don't want the beer.

Non-smoking laws are the same BS as any other lifestyle laws. If an restaurant owner wants to prohibit smoking in his place that's his right and I respect it. The government should not be involved. Efforts to keep everyone safe from everything have gotten way over the top. If you don't like smoke stay out of smoky places. The whole thing is pretty hypocritical. More people have been killed by drunks driving home from bars that they ever have from second-hand smoke in bars.

[angka]

58. they can do what they like

as long as they understand that this is a water pipe, not a 'bong.' there's a huge difference.

<cough>

[Ein]

59. I don't know what you are on this matter.

But I do know I don't agree with it. Restaurants should be able to decide whether they want smokers or not, not the state, country etc...

As for public outdoor places, move 4 feet... to any direction, either to get away from the smoke, or out of the direction the wind is blowing. It isn't that big of a deal.

[OrdinaryTa]

62. Quitting Smoking

I was a heavy smoker for years, and I quit when they went up to $1 a pack. Now they're $7 a pack. There are a number of strategies to quitting smoking, including developing the confidence that you can do it. You just have to make the commitment.

My own withdrawal from cigarette smoking wasn't easy. The cravings kept coming back. I learned to associate most of them with certain behaviors and I stopped those behaviors for the duration. I still don't drink coffee at home. The biggest hurdle was recognizing that my non-smoking self was my new real self. What a fuss these smoking cravings can kick up! I gave myself permission to have crying jags when they really got hold of me.

But it didn't last. After two weeks I knew I could beat back the cravings with relaxation exercises. It was over! From time to time I get a weak craving for a cigarette, but it's so mild that I barely recognize it.

I really do encourage smokers to quit. When you learn to live without them, you feel a sense of accomplishment. I don't preach. I'm just saying that it can be done. I am still a smoker, but I don't crave cigarettes anymore. That's good enough for me!

[Aaron]

65. Why can't smokers just smoke smokeless cigarettes or

maybe use chewing tobacco to get their fix?

I've never smoked and I'm not an expert in tobacco products but obviously some people are bugged by smoke, so maybe if smokers are going to be around others, like in a bar or diner or something they should show the courtesy of using smokeless rather than smoke making cigs.

[camero]

66. Seperate rooms

That is the law in MD and it works just fine. The problem of non-smoking waitresses could be solved by the employer asking if the waitress smokes.

If she does, then she can work in the smoking section. If not, then she or he can work in the non smoking section.

As far as government run clinics, wasn't this part of the tobacco settlement? To help smokers quit? In most states that I know of, the money was put in the general fund and not used for this purpose.

I'm actually waiting for a smoker to sue the state for breach of contract on this.

[misanthrope]

67. Smoke free?...

Who cares? Point me to the "child free" restaurant, though. I've had far more dining experiences ruined by tykes than tokes.

[Boreas]

68. Imposing draconian measures on smokers? Not.

Kind of the wrong slant on the issue. Enough is finally known about the effects of secondhand tobacco smoke to have laws which protect innocent passers by from wandering into a toxic blue cloud of the stuff. If people don't smoke, don't force them to.