If you smoke, your breath smells really bad.

continue.

I don't see how this is a compromise -- I'm being denied my right to pursue happiness, but the smokers can go to any show they want (they just can't smoke at all of them).

And yeah, I'm more of a Benign Dictatorship guy, myself.

It's a compromise between the public interest in smoke free public places and the private interests of club owners in determining how to best run their establishments. It has nothing to do with you, an individual.

it should definitely be the choice of the venue/bar/club.

I'm not exactly big on smoking. But if she paid to see the damned play, she should deal with it or leave.

First of all, second hand smoke has been well-established as leading to cancer. So it's just a matter of "how much", when placed outdoors. I don't think this has anything to do with it. If you have enough smokers smoking in one area outside, the smoke will be denser than in an enclosed club that only has limited smoking. That's why, in the DC area (I think), you're supposed to smoke 30 feet (or is it yards?) away from entrances.

So no, smoking outdoors is no different. In your own home, fine.

i don't personally believe that its nearly as well established as people make it out to be, and there's plenty of legitimate criticism of second hand smoke studies that aren't phillip morris propaganda. for instance, a recent study in the british medical journal didn't find a causal link between second hand smoke and cancer mortality. another recent study of airline cabin attendents on flights that allowed smoking found no statistically significant link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. some have argued that the 1992 epa meta-analysis that is most often cited to prove the second hand smoke-cancer link was flawed. now, i'm not arguing that second hand smoke can't harm your health, but i do think the contention that second hand smoke will kill you is uncritically accepted by far too many people. and yes, the harm is a matter of degree and concentration. but, in my long experience with smoke, it rises, especially when outdoors. i don't think its correct at all to state that the concentration of smoke outdoors can reach anywhere near the concentration of smoke indoors (or the concentrations of smoke in second-hand smoke studies) if the harm to your health is statistically insignificant, or doesn't rise to the level of say, coughing in someone else's direction when you have a cold, then its not sound public policy, and you are infringing on others right to smoke just because you think its a nasty habit. [/url]

Also, before restrictions on smoking, how often did you people actually get bombarded within enclosures with cigarette smoke? I could see if it were a kid who grew up with chain smoking parents in the house, in the car, etc., but an adult who doesn't smoke who goes to smoky establishments for a few hours a week isn't exactly huffing down a pack a day. Chances are, something else is gonna kill you before the smoke.

This is not a right. If it were, silly ass microtype would have disappeared long ago.

You're not a scientist are you, just some dude with an opinion? Because the above statements make about as much fucking sense as tongueless retard.

You're in denial.

First of all, I never said 'kill', although enough, and it will, eventually. I expressed health concerns, and since you're not trying to argue them, why are you even posting?

But it's a chance I don't want to take. Involuntary is my key point here.

Have you forgotten your Constitution? And you are free to pursue happiness, microtype stands not in your way. Just ignore it, and you'll be very happy. Highly recommended.

Ironic that you should mention fine print in a thread that defends smoking, more or less.

:rollseyes:

Whatever, dude. If you're just going to stoop to name-calling, you're just reinforcing my opinion of ye.

there's a world of difference between the contention that "second hand smoke causes cancer" and "second hand smoke can harm your health." there's also a big difference between "second hand smoke can harm your health in high concentrations in a small enclosed space" and "second hand smoke is so harmful that exposure to it in small concentrations outdoors or in a theater is harmful to your health." its possible to accept that a position has a kernel of truth in it without drinking all the kool aid. if i was in denial, i'd be spouting some line about all second hand smoke studies being propaganda, which i'm not. also, seeing as how i'm a first hand smoker, i'm not too worried about second hand smoke. i'm arguing that the harmful health effects are overstated, and while banning smoking in some small enclosed spaces (i.e. airplanes) may be entirely appropriate, banning it outdoors or as part of the performance of a play takes things too far. if it's so evident that me smoking outdoors harms your health, why not try citing some evidence to that effect?
also, i was making the point that a harm to one's health has to rise above a certain level before we can use it as a basis for law. we don't quarantine people that have common colds or stomach viruses, even though allowing them to roam freely could be detrimental to other people's health. in that case, the harm to the health of others doesn't rise to a level that it necessitates infringing on someone's rights.

Most workplaces used to allow smoking by employees INSIDE the building, AT their desks.

Edited to add: not to mention at concerts in clubs where smoking was allowed, which I eventually had to give up on because the smoke in the club made me sick for a couple of days afterwards.


That doesn't make it okay. The point that continues to be ignored here, as usual, is that the people who do not want to deal with other people's disgusting habits are the ones who are constantly being asked to compromise.

To use the food analogy that pro-smokers always seem to use, if every time someone who chose to eat something fatty, say a basket of fries and a cheeseburger, had to shove portions of his meal down your throat without your consent, you'd be mad as hell, wouldn't you? Sure, you might not get cancer from one time, but certainly you'd be made uncomfortable and possibly even sick from it, and over time, there certainly would be a detriment to your health from having to ingest second-hand fat. Smokers do not give non-smokers any options other than not being around them. Smokers have always been the ones that the rules sided with, even if smokers are in the minority. Happily, that is beginning to change.

Answer me this, smokers: since we non-smokers have had to put up with your habit for so long, how come you all can't just give us a break be content smoking where we are not (your home, your car, or in the outdoor designated smoking areas?) If you'd all just been courteous all along and said "Hey, it's pretty disgusting to be smoking while eating dinner in this restaurant among all these other people who don't smoke," we'd never be in this situation where legislation is having to be introduced to MAKE you not do it. You will never win the argument when your stance is that your rights are being stepped on - not when non-smokers have DECADES of being stepped on by you.

Because I don't feel a need to. I did a google search on second-hand smoke, and every single one of the links that I clicked on sided with it being a health-hazard, rather than not. I suspect you had to do some digging to find links that said it was less so than initially realized.

For example, this one states unequivocally that it is a known risk factor for cancer.

This Canadian story states at least one professional opinion that the dangers of outdoor second-hand smoke are underestimated.

One particular point in this VOA article indicates that smoking bans in San Francisco caused a lowering of the lung cancer rate by 6%. That includes people quitting, but still...some of it has to be from second-hand smoke.

This EPA page indicates that, among other things, 3,000 of us (us==non-smokers) have died from lung cancer. Now, I realize that not all of those may be second-hand smoke from smokers, but you know what? I can do something about that one, so I will. I will continue to vote for an endorse any bill that reduces smokers ability to smoke anywhere in public.

Because there's no point to it (exposing me to second-hand smoke). Smoking can be done in such a way as to not expose me to second-hand smoke.

And if you are a smoker and you feel your blood-pressure rising as a result of this argument -- do yourself a favor and do a google on smoking and blood pressure -- there's a correlation there, too.

Actually, I do voluntarily quarantine myself when I have a cold or flu or something. And if I could trust cigarette smokers to do the same (I don't have a cold or flu 365 days a year -- bit of a difference), this wouldn't be an issue.

Look, this smoker/anti-smoker argument is typically a polarizing one, just like abortion, religion, and sports. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I know that's about as pointless as you convincing me of anything. I'm just not swallowing it.

The fact that you think this way demonstrates what is so dangerous about this movement. You envision a country where the default is that there is a law/rule favoring one "side" of some battle you've imagined. In fact, the law has been silent on a relatively minor issue, preferring instead to let people do as they will. The law has never been about outlawing "disgusting habits" and has never been written so as subject you to them. Any argument in favor of a ban is completely incredible until harm is brought up - regulation of "disgusting habits" should be left to social norms.

When you have harm, it is appropriate for the law to act (at least, this is the slant of modern liberal thought). The law almost never (ever ever ever) banned something because of a little harm. This is why we have worker's comp instead of halting building projects, and why we have regulations that allow some pollution as opposed to no manufacturing. "But those things are beneficial and smoking is only harmful!" Personal freedom is valuable, though - probably the most valuable social good. So how much harm is too much? Only in the view of the most selfish non-smoker should the answer be "any smoking in any bar under any circumstance." Smoking at bars you choose not to frequent does not harm you. Smoking on the stage at all but the teeniest playhouse does not harm you more than a vehicle's exhaust on a PUBLIC STREET.

You have no right to be free of discomfort, and it's only selfishness that tells you otherwise.

Did you read the fucking story?

"The governments have acted although there is little published research on levels of outdoor second-hand smoke or its health implications."

Your blathering and endless "research" on this topic only reinforces my opinion that you're a hopeless hystrionic.

I did. And your reaction only reinforces my opinion that you read what you want to read. "Little research" defends neither of our positions, it does not reinforce yours. I went on to find (google) what little research I could find, and found quite a bit.

hey let's ban cars!

edit - dammit haq.

See, this is why it was a good idea for mom and dad to continue to have children after I was born. You have the ability to sum up in a few sentences what would take me four or five 8.5 x 11, 1" margin, 12-point Arial font pages to say.