No Smoking

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Smoking should be banned anywhere where people congregate. It's been proven that they kill people. DUH

If you are talking about second hand smoke sure it can kill people after an extremely long period of time being exposed to it. If you spend that much of your time drinking in a bar your liver is going to give out or your life is going to fall apart far before secondhand smoke screws up your lungs.

 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
If you are talking about second hand smoke sure it can kill people after an extremely long period of time being exposed to it. If you spend that much of your time drinking in a bar your liver is going to give out or your life is going to fall apart far before secondhand smoke screws up your lungs.​

Your ability to entirely miss a point is of Olympic standard. Drinking alcohol in a bar is optional for barstaff (or customers), breathing isn't.:rolleyes:
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Your ability to entirely miss a point is of Olympic standard. Drinking alcohol in a bar is optional for barstaff (or customers), breathing isn't.:rolleyes:

I wasn't using that as my arguement against the smoking ban. I was just pointing that out because some people make it seem like if you go into a smoke filled bar you will never make it out. I was just pointing out that it would take a lot more exposure to kill someone therefore making that point not valid. Unless he lives in a bar or something. Then it could be valid I guess but then the really aren't that many people who spend that much time in a bar. Mostly people are in and out within a few hours and not everyday.

 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I wasn't using that as my arguement against the smoking ban. I was just pointing that out because some people make it seem like if you go into a smoke filled bar you will never make it out. I was just pointing out that it would take a lot more exposure to kill someone therefore making that point not valid. Unless he lives in a bar or something. Then it could be valid I guess but then the really aren't that many people who spend that much time in a bar. Mostly people are in and out within a few hours and not everyday.

Really, it seems that way and you have used it several times. I didn't get the impression anyone said entering a smoky bar would result in near instant death....:rolleyes:

It's unclear how much exposure to smoke toxins may result in health effects, as it's unclear how much exposure to alcohol may result in health damage. Your statement that because you believe it may take 'years' to affect someone somehow renders it acceptable is thus based on a weak premise and totally ignores the fact that it can be unpleasant and present a health risk immediately.

the parallel with drinking in this context is weak because it presupposes that anyone in a bar is drinking alcohol in quantity for the entire time does it not? That may not be the case, but we can be sure they're breathing the whole time.

What about bar owners, and waitstaff - they may spend a third of their time in such environments, perhaps more in the case of owners. Even if it resulted in no damage why should people be subjected to such working conditions?
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Really, it seems that way and you have used it several times. I didn't get the impression anyone said entering a smoky bar would result in near instant death....:rolleyes:
It's unclear how much exposure to smoke toxins may result in health effects, as it's unclear how much exposure to alcohol may result in health damage. Your statement that because you believe it may take 'years' to affect someone somehow renders it acceptable is thus based on a weak premise and totally ignores the fact that it can be unpleasant and present a health risk immediately.​

the parallel with drinking in this context is weak because it presupposes that anyone in a bar is drinking alcohol in quantity for the entire time does it not? That may not be the case, but we can be sure they're breathing the whole time.​

What about bar owners, and waitstaff - they may spend a third of their time in such environments, perhaps more in the case of owners. Even if it resulted in no damage why should people be subjected to such working conditions?​


The reason I have used it is because people keep saying it's this huge health risk and being around it for a short amount of time can cause serious damage. It is not mustard gas. I have yet to here of a case where someone was immediately effected by second hand smoke that didn't have respiratory problems in the first place. My grandmother had breathing problems because of secondhand smoke. It took 50 years of living with a heavy smoker to do anything. It may be unclear how much exposure it takes but it is pretty clear that it doesn't take effect immediately with the average person. Bar owners and staff may be smokers as well. That's why I believe it should be up to the owner. For the staff that doesn't smoke the majority outweighs the minority right. There are more customers than workers and I am sure there are more customers that smoke than staff that do not smoke. The fact that people may not be drinking the entire time but they are breathin the enitre time is true. But it is not a reason for all bars to be smoke free. Any reason for a smoking ban that I can think of is not a reason for all bars to be smoke free. What reason do you have that supports the idea that there shouldn't be smoke free and smoke friendly bars?​
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
The reason I have used it is because people keep saying it's this huge health risk and being around it for a short amount of time can cause serious damage.

You keep repeating that mantra that but so far as I can see, nobody else has, why don't you cite one example.:rolleyes:

I watched a show a while back called "Bullshit" (kind of like mythbusters) where they proved that secondhand smoke is not as bad as directly smoking. Therefore people may have heard that the exhailed smoke is a little worse for them than it actually is. Furthermore, it takes years and years of exposure to the secondhand smoke in order for it to have any effects on your health.

I assume these bullshitters were qualified MD's then?:rolleyes:

Do I think the risk is sometimes hyped to make a point, certainly. Do I believe that's a reason to adopt a casual attitude like yours, certainly not.

I have yet to here of a case where someone was immediately (a)effected by second hand smoke that didn't have respiratory problems in the first place. My grandmother had breathing problems because of secondhand smoke. It took 50 years of living with a heavy smoker to do anything.

Well, that makes it OK, it's their own fault for having a pre-existing problem?

Here's some background about the short term effects in children.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/292241/more_findings_about_the_effects_of.html

And, some more general information.

Otsuka, R. Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults:

"Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow"

JAMA 2001; 286: 436-441

Some info on longer term effects:

Passive Smoking: Long Term Effects
Passive smoking - Better Health Channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

I could no doubt find more but truth be told I can't be bothered. The point being that just because the all knowing Ganja4me hasn't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not so.:rolleyes:

It may be unclear how much exposure it takes but it is pretty clear that it doesn't take effect immediately with the average person. Bar owners and staff may be smokers as well. That's why I believe it should be up to the owner. For the staff that doesn't smoke the majority outweighs the minority right. There are more customers than workers and I am sure there are more customers that smoke than staff that do not smoke. The fact that people may not be drinking the entire time but they are breathin the enitre time is true. But it is not a reason for all bars to be smoke free.

No, I was using it as an example to illustrate that your making a blanket statement based on unknowns such as you did was flawed.

What reason do you have that supports the idea that there shouldn't be smoke free and smoke friendly bars?

In principle none, in reality for the reasons outlined in my earlier posts, try reading them, I'm not restating them, which as I recall is what I did with you last time, over and over and over again.:rolleyes:
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You keep repeating that mantra that but so far as I can see, nobody else has, why don't you cite one example.:rolleyes:



I assume these bullshitters were qualified MD's then?:rolleyes:

Do I think the risk is sometimes hyped to make a point, certainly. Do I believe that's a reason to adopt a casual attitude like yours, certainly not.



Well, that makes it OK, it's their own fault for having a pre-existing problem?

Here's some background about the short term effects in children.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/292241/more_findings_about_the_effects_of.html

And, some more general information.

Otsuka, R. Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults:

"Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow"

JAMA 2001; 286: 436-441

Some info on longer term effects:

Passive Smoking: Long Term Effects
Passive smoking - Better Health Channel.


I could no doubt find more but truth be told I can't be bothered. The point being that just because the all knowing Ganja4me hasn't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not so.:rolleyes:



No, I was using it as an example to illustrate that your making a blanket statement based on unknowns such as you did was flawed.



In principle none, in reality for the reasons outlined in my earlier posts, try reading them, I'm not restating them, which as I recall is what I did with you last time, over and over and over again.:rolleyes:

I don't remember you giving me a good reason for there not to be smoking and non smoking bars. You only pointed out why non smokers don't like to be in a bar filled with smoke. When I say people I mean people in general not necessarily on here. You did say yourself that risk is hyped. They don't need to be Md's to be logical. I also think they may have interviewed Md's about this. It has been a while since I have seen it. I would hardly count the immediate effects you described as a serious health issue. I even stated in a previous post I know that the smoke can irritate eyes and people may not like the smell which could cause dizziness, coughing, headache, or even nausea. I have only seen one person who will get nauseous when around smoke though. The effects on children are irrelevant in this case because they don't belong in bars anyway. I never said it was someones own fault for having a pre existing problem but once again that could be fixed with seperate bars for both groups. I hope by now you don't think that I think all bars should be smoking allowed because the problems you are talking about could easily be solved with the solution I am talking about. You have not yet brought up a problem that couldn't be solved by bars for both smokers and non smokers.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
I don't remember you giving me a good reason for there not to be smoking and non smoking bars. You only pointed out why non smokers don't like to be in a bar filled with smoke.

:rolleyes: It was in made in response to a comment you made. But, to make life easier for you here.....

dong20 said:
Businesses will, naturally, want to maximise their customer base hence profit, consequently it's going to be difficult for them to turf smokers out and thus risk losing business. That tends to mean that voluntary non smoking policies drift toward being token gestures. This leaves them open to abuse. Certainly that seems to be the case in my experience. People are often reluctant to ask a smoker to step outside to smoke, or extinguish because. Why? Because they don't wan't to offend, cause a scene or, as I have seen get verbally (or even as I have seen physically) abused.

That, surely is an unbalanced situation, it means that non/ex smokers (the majority) will be tend toward being less inclined to return, hence hurting the business. The alternative is allowing smoking, hence risking alienating non/ex smokers (and, possibly barstaff) and opening the bar up to potential litigation.

Business owners especially bars, clubs and restaurants, are in general driven far more by the 411 that the health and well being of their clientele. This almost inevitably means that such thorns as a voluntary smoking ban will be more likely to be ignored when the need suits. This is an abuse of faith to those inside who entered on the understanding that it would be enforced. Why should they leave or 'suffer' because the proprietor is too spineless or greedy to enforce a ban they themselves advertised? TMM alluded to this profit based motivation earlier so I know it's not my imagination.

The thing is Businesses will, naturally, want to maximise their customer base hence profit, consequently it's going to be difficult for them to turf smokers out and thus risk losing business. That tends to mean that voluntary non smoking policies drift toward being token gestures. This leaves them open to abuse. Certainly that seems to be the case in my experience. People are often reluctant to ask a smoker to step outside to smoke, or extinguish because. Why? Because they don't wan't to offend, cause a scene or, as I have seen get verbally (or even as I have seen physically) abused.

That, surely is an unbalanced situation, it means that non/ex smokers (the majority) will be tend toward being less inclined to return, hence hurting the business. The alternative is allowing smoking, hence risking alienating non/ex smokers (and, possibly barstaff) and opening the bar up to potential litigation.

Business owners especially bars, clubs and restaurants, are in general driven far more by the 411 that the health and well being of their clientele. This almost inevitably means that such thorns as a voluntary smoking ban will be more likely to be ignored when the need suits. This is an abuse of faith to those inside who entered on the understanding that it would be enforced. Why should they leave or 'suffer' because the proprietor is too spineless or greedy to enforce a ban they themselves advertised? TMM alluded to this profit based motivation earlier so I know it's not my imagination.

When I say people I mean people in general not necessarily on here.

That's a cop out of the first order, this is an online forum.:rolleyes:

You did say yourself that risk is hyped.

No, I said it is sometimes hyped. If you're going to misquote me in the very next post......
dong20 said:
Do I think the risk is sometimes hyped to make a point, certainly. Do I believe that's a reason to adopt a casual attitude like yours, certainly not.

They don't need to be Md's to be logical. I also think they may have interviewed Md's about this.

Not to be logical no, but then logic does not necessarily confer correctness. I think they do for the conclusions to be taken seriously by the medical profession or by me. The day I believe a popular TV show called Bullshit (I ask you) over and above the collective views of the medical profession will be a sad day indeed.

I would hardly count the immediate effects you described as a serious health issue.

You don't consider reduced coronary blood flow and reduced lung function serious? What would you call serious...?

The effects on children are irrelevant in this case because they don't belong in bars anyway.

In this case yes, although children (with adults) are allowed in many Pubs in the UK during the day and they are allowed in resturants etc. I wasn't aware that this was exclusively about bars.

I never said it was someones own fault for having a pre existing problem but once again that could be fixed with seperate bars for both groups.

In theory yes, but the evidence suggests that doesn't happen effectively.

[I hope by now you don't think that I think all bars should be smoking allowed because the problems you are talking about could easily be solved with the solution I am talking about. You have not yet brought up a problem that couldn't be solved by bars for both smokers and non smokers.

If you read the citation from my post you will see my views on the reality of this. The reality of choice means businesses will tend to err on the side of profit over consideration. There are always exceptions of course.

This is another circular discussion.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Benzene is emitted in exhaust gases and its side effects include cancer: 90% of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is produced from road traffic emissions: 1,3-butadiene is associated with traffic and is formed when fuels are burned and emitted in the exhaust, side effects include cancer: 46% of nitrogen dioxide is produced by road transport and affects lung function, and approx 25% of particulates in the air are produced from traffic, these causing respiratory problems and cancer. It is a direct analogy to smoking.

I did intend to make a long post but to be honest I can't be bothered, the simple truth is that if many non smokers are presented with a reasonable proposition - namely that we have a right to smoke and that we contribute enough taxes that some of these should be set aside for the provision of proper smoking areas they still can't bring themselves to admit that we do have rights.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Benzene is emitted in exhaust gases and its side effects include cancer: 90% of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is produced from road traffic emissions ...
CO doesn't cause cancer. It can cause asphyxiation. Were comparing outdoors to an enclosed room again. This is circular as dong20 wrote.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
119
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
The outdoors we're talking about is actually the atmosphere - you know, the thing that surrounds us 24/7 from which there is no escaping. And where did I say CO2 caused cancer?
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
namely that we have a right to smoke and that we contribute enough taxes that some of these should be set aside for the provision of proper smoking areas they still can't bring themselves to admit that we do have rights.

Sorry, where in what constitution/bill of rights is the "right to smoke" enumerated? There's no right to smoke crack, brew your own whiskey, or even to drive without a seatbelt, in many jurisdictions. How is smoking different from these things?

Seems to me that proclaiming a "right to smoke" trivializes the concept of rights in general. It's not exactly in the league of freedom of religion, emancipation, and the ERA, is it?

Governments in general have, since the beginning of time, banned things that they consider threatening, dangerous, or contrary to the mores of those comprising the government. On behalf of all the sportscar enthusiasts, recreational pot smokers, handgun club members, kinky sex participants (and in many places, same-sex couples), get over it. I'm pretty sure an inability to smoke isn't going to kill you.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Benzene is emitted in exhaust gases and its side effects include cancer: 90% of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is produced from road traffic emissions: 1,3-butadiene is associated with traffic and is formed when fuels are burned and emitted in the exhaust, side effects include cancer: 46% of nitrogen dioxide is produced by road transport and affects lung function, and approx 25% of particulates in the air are produced from traffic, these causing respiratory problems and cancer. It is a direct analogy to smoking.

I think you're confusing %CO globally with %CO man made emissions, the same with particulates.

About 60-80% of man made CO emissions are from vehicles but the last study I read said total human activity contributed at most 10% of CO levels globally. That's not the same thing, by a factor of at least 10.

Global, ambient average levels are typically 0.09 - 0.11 ppm. In heavy rush hour traffic in cities that can rise as high as 100ppm, well above safe levels but that's a local phenomenon. Cars with Catalytic converters emit minimal CO. Also, the trend is down. For example ambient US CO levels have fallen from about 9ppm to 2ppm since 1986. (EPA)

Man made particulates are a major issue, especially in urban areas. PM10s (10 microns) and PM2.5 (2.5 microns) are the worst and both are components in vehicle exhausts, particularly diesels and are the principal source in urban areas. Unpolluted air can contain 30 micrograms per cubic meter but urban air can be three times this. Recent changes in particulate controls are focusing on reducing PM2.5s. The US contributed about 3 million tonnes of PM10 and PM2.5 particles in 2006 (EPA), the latest figure I can find for the UK is 2005 of about 150,000 tonnes. (Defra) or which vehicles account for about 20%.

Note, that's 20% of man made particulates not 20% of total particlulates - that would imply that all atmospheric particulates are man made which clearly isn't the case.:rolleyes:

UK Defra | e-Digest Environment Statistics, Air quality

UK Defra | e-Digest Environment Statistics, Air quality

Benzene is an acknowledged health risk for petrol station attendents but is rarely present at sufficient ambient levels to present a risk to the general public.

I can't find that study but I did find this.

BBC - h2g2 - Atmospheric Pollution from the Internal Combustion Engine in the Urban Environment

If one spends hours every day with one's nose up an exhaust pipe of a running vehicle or spend your day out in traffic all day one could draw, perhaps a direct analogy with tobacco fumes. That said, CO is not a carcinogen as far as I know and (see above) not generally present in toxic quantities in the ambient atmosphere, nor is NO2. However there is plenty of evidence that long term exposure to CO (and NO2) is causing major health problems.

I don't recall hearing about a cancer say being attributed directly to, say being a car passenger over an extended period. It may well happen though.

As before, you side step questions about your vehicle use, direct or indirect.

In short, there is an analogy for sure, and traffic pollution is a major issue on many levels, as I believe I have already said. But I'm unconvinced it's a directly comparible analogy for most people in everyday life.

BTW, be careful, benzene is also present in tobacco fumes....as well as oven cleaners, detergents, furniture polish, spot removers etc.

I did intend to make a long post but to be honest I can't be bothered, the simple truth is that if many non smokers are presented with a reasonable proposition - namely that we have a right to smoke and that we contribute enough taxes that some of these should be set aside for the provision of proper smoking areas they still can't bring themselves to admit that we do have rights.

Your 'taxes' wouldn't contribute toward the construction of such facilities other than in publicly funded civic facilities. :rolleyes:

In most cases they are funded directly by private business owners. Did you decide to deliberately sidestep my other question about smokers are being willing to pay 'extra' for businesses to provide such facilities or does it hit too close to home?

Where here has anyone, once, said smokers don't have a right to smoke, even though you actually don't per se. You just keep repeating that mantra.....in the hope that someone will believe it?
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Sorry, where in what constitution/bill of rights is the "right to smoke" enumerated? There's no right to smoke crack, brew your own whiskey, or even to drive without a seatbelt, in most jurisdictions. How is smoking different from these things?

The Bill of rights doesn't apply in the UK Rob. But the point is otherwise valid.

Seems to me that proclaiming a "right to smoke" trivializes the concept of rights in general. It's not exactly in the league of freedom of religion, emancipation, and the ERA, is it?

You'd think so.

Governments in general have, since the beginning of time, banned things that they consider threatening, dangerous, or contrary to the mores of those comprising the government. On behalf of all the sportscar enthusiasts, recreational pot smokers, handgun club members, kinky sex participants (and in many places, same-sex couples), get over it. I'm pretty sure an inability to smoke isn't going to kill you.

Logic is often wasted on the addicted. Sometimes it takes a sharp stick.:biggrin1:
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
The Bill of rights doesn't apply in the UK Rob. But the point is otherwise valid.

I was using constitution/bill of rights in the general sense, thus the lack of capitals. Different countries use different names for the pieces of paper that tell their citizens what they can expect to do with only nominal harassment. Point being, I don't see smoking in any of these documents.
 

ganja4me

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Posts
1,276
Media
8
Likes
17
Points
183
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Me. Scroll up. I was surprised that nobody had made that point in this thread.

If cigarettes are legal doesn't that mean that people do have a right to smoke? They can't put everything people have a right to do in the Bill of Rights the list would go on forever.