Smoking discussion part 2

[Irish Beth]

Everytime I post a response on the original site, I get an error message that I am not logged in (which is incorrect) and I end up losing my post. So I am starting this one in hopes of avoiding that situation.

Marcia,
Nope, not going to either concert due to lack of funds and time off - I WISH I could go, but have to settle for the Jan-nic in the Park in August. I don't know why Randy thought I was going - maybe my good friend was just wishing right along with me.

Ryan,

My rights versus your rights - I say yes to both. There are more places that are non-smoking than there are places that allow it. I say you go to those places and I will go to the places that allow it. If you feel that non-smoking sections are not safe enough for you then you can still go to places that are totally non-smoking. Just remember that (as has been previously stated) getting to those places by foot or by car or by subway will force you to expose yourself to some significanly unhealthy air caused by motor vehicles and air pollution.

If someone wants to eat marshmallow peeps and only those every day, I would question their sanity and their tastebuds, but it would not bother me, nor would I feel compelled to pass legislation forbiding this choice, nor would I increase taxes on marshmallow peeps a hundred fold. At most, and only if this is someone I really cared about, I would say, "you know that is not good for you" and if they responded that they did know that, I would stop there.

I don't drink alcohol at all - those who do pose a threat to my life and health. I don't want new legislation - there are already laws about drinking. Just like their are laws about smoking. People who obey them will get no complaints from me. But drinking is not healthy for their brain cells and can have other adverse effects on ones health - but I don't tell my friends who drink that they must stop. I don't believe in the same God that all my friends believe in, but again, I let them choose their own way. Drugs are bad for you, pretty much everyone know that, but I don't seek out people who use Marajuana for pain control or to slow glocoma or even just for recreational use and tell them they are hurting themselves in other ways and that they should stop immediately.

Not eveyone who smokes gets lung cancer and not everyone who gets lung cancer smokes. My parents both smoked, my father died at age 57 from the steroids he had to take to combat his rheumatoid arthritis, my mother died at age 72 from a ruptured aneurism. I'm not saying smoking is not bad for you, but it is not an automatic death sentence either. During the biggest baby boom in this country women smoked and drank throughout their pregnancies. If second hand smoke was such a killer - why didn't all the WWII vetrans die young from lung cancer? There can't be anymore second hand smoke than in a fox hole, airplane, ship's ward room, or barracks.

Lets keep the precious few rights we have left alone.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Thank you Beth, I agree... See you in Chicago and Wisconsin:)

Best to all

R from Pa

[Dee]

Amen! Beth,

I wish I could quit again, but so far not. You know, one thing I am sure of, you cannot explain smoking to a non smoker. They simply can't understand it, no matter how much they want to.

[gisli]

Ok guy´s I have only this to say: If yah want to inhale all that tar and pollute the air with your smoking habits, plus inhale all the dirt in the air that comes out from them car´s, then do so, I don´t mind. I mean if you don´t care about your lives, your lungs, etc. why should I care? I´m all for that complete freed(o)om of everything.

Ps. Heard it on the news that well over 30% of deaths are related more or less to cigarette smoking, not just cancer, it seems smoking affects badly on the immune system causing some of the organs to fail prematurely. Smoking also has much affect on the heart and bloodstream.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Ps. Heard it on the news that well over 30% of deaths are related more or less to cigarette smoking, not just cancer, it seems smoking affects badly on the immune system causing some of the organs to fail prematurely. Smoking also has much affect on the heart and bloodstream.

I heard on the news that certain kinds of music make people turn gay...
I heard on the news that Iraq had weapon of mass destruction
I heard on the news that the great tax break would benefit middle class Americans... The only problem is that all three of our remaining middle class people have moved to Canada
I heard on the news that God loves people, yet every war has been inspired by those that claim to serve the interests of God
I heard on the news that this was a free country
I heard on the news that all of the things Bush wants to give to Iraq is far more then he would give to the homeless of New Orleans

I find lots of things I hear on the news are often one sided and based on which of the "THEY SAID" scientists based in purchased science as opposed to true research.

As a veteran in the Army I remember when with every pack of C-rations we were given to eat had included a four pack of cigarettes inside.

I thank those with the honest concern for my health and well being and in that spirit would gratiously invite you all to follow your hearts and minds regarding your personal actions and allow others to do the same.... Legislation was never intended to be a method of healthcare...

Now again THANK YOU FOR NOT BREATHING WHILE I SMOKE. While around others I respect their wishes not to be around smoke... Just don't follow me into the smoking section of a restaurant...

Best to all
R. (cough cough) from Pa.

Do with what you wish with your freedoms but do not give mine away claiming the best of intentions.

[gisli]

What news station do you listen to Randy??????????? Although I believe Disco may do strange (wonders for some people) things to you.

Please smokers stop smoking I like you so much. (there is no fun comunicating to dead people..........I heard that in the news))

[Dee]

I heard on the news that certain kinds of music make people turn gay...
All true Randy. The worst is prolonged exposure to ABBA (I think). :p

[KarenSews2]

If someone wants to eat marshmallow peeps and only those every day, I would question their sanity and their tastebuds,

I want to sit by THOSE people! Especially when the peeps get STALE!! :p

[gisli]

Legislation was never intended to be a method of healthcare...

Best to all
R. (cough cough) from Pa.


Well...........to try to be serious, this is something I heartfully can agree to agree with you. There is talk in parlament here to ban smoking in all public places and it does not meet much opposition, both with the public or the poloticians. Those who owe bar or pup say it would be a change to the better for buisness. I go to a non smoking bar and like many others found out that I did not have as much hangovers as when I go to a bar where smoking is allowed. This they say is because there is more oxygen in non smoking facilities. So one can drink a little more distilled water.

Legislation or not, that has to be seen if it does any good, but in 1985 a big campaign against smoking started here, then 36% smoked. Today we have 20% that smoke in Iceland. So maybe informing us of the danger is better then legislations. I hate when being told what is good or bad to me by others, usually works the other way.

So good luck to you Randy in trying to stop smoking..............like 5 days from now.

Ps. Ohhh here is my source on the death toll from smoking in my country, go figure. http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/frett.html?nid=1196952

[Irish Beth]

Your hangover was less severe in non-smoking pubs/bars??

Maybe you should not drink to the point of having a hangover.......but just a suggestion. I know not drinking at all in bars/pubs with smoking sections has caused me no hangovers whatsoever.:)

[Dee]

I referenced your link Gisli, but whatever language it was I couldn't read it.

So long as we're comparing the ill effects of smoking to those of drinking:


Because consumers of alcohol are typically ill-informed of the impact of their consumption, and, moreover, that alcohol-related problems impose significant costs on society, government intervention is justified. Although it is often difficult to design policies to change the behavior of these cohorts, the evidence on the efficacy of policy variables, such as tax rates, drunk driving regulations, driving age and advertising bans on alcohol is encouraging. Using these policy instruments, policy makers can effectively target these high risk groups with well-designed policy interventions. Policy makers in developing countries, where many of these policies have not yet been implemented, thus have a baseline of policy options to consider in attempting to reduce the impact of alcohol-related problems within their respective countries.
Worldwide Deaths Attributable to Alcohol (1993)

Death from:

Motor Vehicle Accidents
Esophagus Cancer
Liver Cancer
Alcohol Dependence
Syndrome Cirrhosis
-------------------
Total 2,111,783


Although it is difficult to estimate the real costs of alcohol-related problems in practice, it is clear that the social and private costs are significant. The literature highlights six categories of alcohol related costs that should be considered in cost calculations: (i) reduced productivity, (ii) motor vehicular-related property damage and insurance, (iii) incarceration, (iv) fires, (v) fetal alcohol syndrome, and (vi) child abuse. In the United States, costs associated with alcohol-related mortality were estimated at $9.5 billion or 4.3 percent of the 1980 U.S. personal health care cost expenditures.
http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/hnp/hddflash/hcnote/hrn013.html

[Irish Beth]

Another point,

I started smoking at 13, and unlike my peers who started drinking at 13, I never turned to other stimulants, I did not drop out of high school, I did not turn to prostitution to support my habit, I did not rob or steal to support my habit, I maintained good grades and a good driving record.

Just wanted to pass that along.

Before everyone jumps to the conclusion that I am in any way advocating smoking, smoking at a early age, or am in denial of the health risks associated with smoking, please believe me when I say I am fully aware of all the negatives.

To me this is a discussion about legislation, people's individual rights, and how one's personal choices can effect those around you and what should be done about that.

[gisli]

Your hangover was less severe in non-smoking pubs/bars??

Maybe you should not drink to the point of having a hangover.......but just a suggestion. I know not drinking at all in bars/pubs with smoking sections has caused me no hangovers whatsoever.:)

Dear Irish Beth,
thank you so much for caring about my health, I must surdenly will stop drinking if you will stop smoking, like Randy has promised to do.........until then I will surdenly not go to a bar without me doing some table- or poledancing and most surdenly will I not do that with unsoaked mind................and that takes a bit of drinking.

I regard this as my lawfull and legal rights, so if you don´t like it I would appreciate you all to just blindfold your eyes.

[gisli]

I referenced your link Gisli, but whatever language it was I couldn't read it.

I know Dee, it is in icelandic, a language many canadians read, exspecially around Manitoba........just showing you how my language looks like:o

psst...(wispers).......and of course trying to irritate Randy...don´t let him know.

[hoops]

man it always knocks me out who certain subjects can just seem to get some people jumping. you live and you learn and nobody teaches you the way you do. i don't smoke, never have, but i have a very large chance that i will not only get, but die of cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, esophogial cancer are the big ones in my family, but there are more too. I've got asthma, never had it till two years ago so somehwo my breathing is not up to par anymore. i don't drink, never have, but i have liver disease. and others to boot, but hey that's life it happens. it's like labling HIV/AIDS a homosexual disease... it happens but it certainly is not exclusive or totally inclusive. we're born we live we die, all of us. i always liked that line from shawshank redemption. " I think ya either gotta git busy livin or git busy dyin" but i run on at the hand.
pax
hoops

[Dee]

I know Dee, it is in icelandic, a language many canadians read, exspecially around Manitoba........just showing you how my language looks like :o
I should have guessed it was Icelandic, Gisli. Perhaps my lack of other language skills is showing, or maybe I just need to get on over to Manitoba some day.

[Irish Beth]

Gisli,
No thanks on the offer, I'll keep smoking. But I would like to attend one of the pole dancing sessions you mentioned - what fun. Perhaps if you have enough to drink we can make a toast to personal freedoms and choices - I'll even let you sip your beverage of choice out of my prosthetic leg. I offered it to Redjack last March, but he turned it down - go figure!

[gisli]

Dee you could also go to North Dakota a lot of us are there to. (ahh them wonderful fugutives)

Irish Beth
From what I have witnessed here on this board you are a first class lady and one of a kind. I hope I will someday be able to take you on that drinking offer . Let the drinks be on me since since you will bring the beverage cup....

[Irish Beth]

Since I don't drink, the drinks better be on you :p

[Dee]

CHASING THE CANCER ANSWER
CBC TV - MARKETPLACE

I was just watching this documentary. It covered a lot of ground about environmental causes of cancer.

After Marketplace host Wendy Mesley was diagnosed, she began a long and personal journey. Along the way, she came across disturbing clues about why more Canadians than ever are getting sick.

WHAT CAUSES CANCER? Cancer occurs when cells are triggered to grow abnormally. Triggers include genetics, radiation, and carcinogens.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/cancer/index.html

Every year, Canadians are exposed to potentially-cancer causing chemicals in the food they eat and in the household products they use - often without any knowledge of that exposure. For example:

At least nine different consumer pesticide products contain ingredients listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possible human carcinogens (IARC Group 2B). Another four products contain ingredients listed in California as “substances known to the state of California to cause reproductive toxicity.” None of the hazards is listed on the product labels.

Some leading brands of household laundry detergent contain trisodium nitrilotriacetate, another IARC 2B carcinogen, and also a wastewater pollutant.

Moth balls, widely available in retail stores, contain either naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene, both of which are IARC 2B carcinogens. A recent U.S. study linked moth ball use to an increased incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Spray rust paint, a very popular product, often contains toluene and xylene, two chemicals that can have adverse effects on reproduction or cause harm to the developing fetus.

Many leading perfumes, nail polishes and other cosmetic products sold in Canada contain the endocrine-disrupting phthalates DBP and DEHP, both of which have been banned for use in cosmetic products in European Union countries.

http://leas.ca/CancerSmart-Consumer-Guide.htm

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Does this then mean smoking mothballs is bad for me???

best to all

R. from Pa

[Wildflower Fever]

Dee you could also go to North Dakota a lot of us are there to. (ahh them wonderful fugutives)

Irish Beth
From what I have witnessed here on this board you are a first class lady and one of a kind. I hope I will someday be able to take you on that drinking offer . Let the drinks be on me since since you will bring the beverage cup....


No offense, Gisli, but Dee, don't go to North Dakota. I live in Minnesota, and as crazy as many of you may think THAT is, It looks like Tahiti next to North Dakota. Don't get me wrong, the people are wonderful. But, if you can imagine a northern, frozen desert, your'e picturing ND. It is horribly flat, windy, desolate, unpopulated, and worst of all, NO TREES!!! Even in the "growing" areas like Fargo, all you will find are 4 foot saplings everywhere. There is no "eye candy" like you'll find in major cities, or wooded and beautiful country areas. I don't know how you could survive with that lack of aesthetics, yet the locals say: "forty below keeps the riff-raff out". You can probably insert many groups of people they consider riff-raff. As for Minnesota, Gisli, I don't know many Icelandics, or is it Icelanders, but we do have a "few" swedes and norwegians. How about Bjork, what a beauty!
As for smoking, I do, and we all know how stupid it is, but I agree we need to examine the many factors in our environments that are killing us. My mother is an avid non-smoking activist, and has many sinus/lung related ailments, but I recently got her to see the other side when it comes to her harassment of my smoking (which I never do in front of her). She never really accepted that since she is rarely exposed to 2nd hand smoke, it must be the pollutants in our environment. Car exhaust, factory pollution, chemical pollution from farmers, neighborhoods who overuse chemicals on lawns, etc, and don't understand the impact on rivers, lakes, and groundwater, and indoor cleaners that leave residues that become airborne, I believe are the main culprits. Hoops is right that we are who we are, and what we do will probably only add or detract a few years from our lives, we have a genetic map of sorts, and the only thing to do is keep living, and learn from the consequences. Lets' not judge others for their habits. It's kind of like employers insurance carriers excluding/punishing smokers, but not harassing people who overeat, don't sleep enough, or don't exercise. How dare they single out one group, or drug test for marijuana, and not breathalyze for drunks?:confused:

[Melba]

I believe we all have the right to do whatever want to ourselves...its our body and only we have to answer for it. I am a former smoker so I can relate to the quiting discussion and I can see it from both sides. I don't preach to those who are still smoking..its their business. Recreational or medicinal marijuana is fine by me.....in fact I think it should be legalized. Alcohol is a legal drug and can be as addictive as anything else. Keep in mind not all addicts are addicted to illegal or immediately harmful substances. Example...food. I have seen the devestating affects of all of these things (especially alcohol). Everything that is consumed without regard to moderation will cause some sort of health problem. Some of them just take more time than others. So, I say....drink, smoke, be recreational and be merry. Something is going to kill all of us some day and there is no way to predict what it will be. It might not even be a disease, but rather an accident. Avoiding one thing that causes a certain disease does not mean you won't get it.

P.S....Beth...next time we meet, I will mix a brew of cranberry juice and vodka in your leg and we can toast as well....;)

[gisli]

No offense, Gisli, but Dee, don't go to North Dakota. I live in Minnesota, It looks like Tahiti next to North Dakota. But, if you can imagine a northern, frozen desert, your'e picturing ND. It is horribly flat, windy, desolate, unpopulated, and worst of all, NO TREES!!! the locals say: "forty below keeps the riff-raff out".

(No offense taken, you need to do a lot more than that to make that happen.)

Yeap, sounds just like Iceland, no wonder my anchestors decided to move to that place.

The story is that around 1850-1900 there was a big eruption here in Iceland that made our little island unhabital in many parts of the country, so people moved abroad, mostly to Manitoba and North Dakota. Many scandinavians moved to these places (Canada and USA) around the same time and it is strange (and then maybe not) but they settled in places that had the most simularity to theyre own homeland. The people from Finland habited a land with lot of trees and lakes, icelanders choose to habit rough land with no trees but a lot of rocks and soforth, we like isolation, so stay away "riff-raffs". (whatever that word means)

Why they didn´t go to places that had better weather and more fertile soil remains a mystery to many, cause they had to travel over such land in order to get to them places they settled in.

Well that´s typical "Icelanders" for you.

If you like Bjork, try listening to Sigurrós, Emeliana Torrini (she made a song for Kylie Monuge), Mugison, Hera and Silvia Night, she is our next international superstar. (I just love to brag about my country) Did you know that Led Zeppelin´s Immigrant Song is about Iceland:

I come from the land
of the ice and snow
of the midnight sun
where the hot spring´s flow

Oh have I mentioned that I just love to brag about my country.

Ben dear, you really need to eat more, you are nothing but skin and bones.:o (What happened to your Bill Clinton avatar)

(Moving to Melba) Melba honey, do share with us (for Randy´s sake) the agony of quiting smoking, exspecially them first days.
Actually I believe you are right when you say it is our body and we can do what ever we want to do with it. But......there is a but.........(to be continued)

[Dee]

Dee you could also go to North Dakota a lot of us are there to. (ahh them wonderful fugutives)

I guarantee you, that will never happen Gisli, even if the US would let me in, which they won't. :cool: :o :p

[gisli]

Randy, you smoker, this is what is inside an artery of a 38 year old smoker.

http://www.lydheilsustod.is/media/tobaksvarnir/utgefid//aus03.jpg

It reads....what stands nearest the smokers heart.

Every cigarette harms you.



Thank God you have decided to quit tomorrow, my friend.:)

.....to be continued.......

[hoops]

you know, befgore i write this i'm gonna say, i really hate the way i write posts...anyway. I've developed a "rule of thumb" for choices i make in my life and it's probably come from all the time i spend with childen, haing 8 siblings and 20 neices and nephews...it goes like this
don't do IN PUBLIC what you wouldn't do in front of your children.

[KiwiSoupGirl]

Hey Irish Beth - this is a fabulous discussion, and I SO value it! We here in NZ have just faced the ban on smoking in public places (i.e. pubs,clubs,restaurants, workplaces etc...) and, while I can understand it, I have some reservations.

I am a smoker - something I must admit I am not happy about! I did give up for 6 years, but after a car accident and post traumatic stress, picked it up again 3 years ago. I have a plan to give up again - mainly because my mother suffered heart disease as (apparently) a direct result of smoking for 35 years. I figure maybe I have a genetic predisposition...?

Anyway, the legislation was passed here just over a year ago now. What concerns me most is the statistical "evidence" used to "prove" that smoking causes ex-number of deaths per year. I read with amazement the statistics on deaths from second hand smoke....astonishing! How DO they know that? What about diet? Emissions from fuel powered vehicles? Genetic predisposition to specific diseases? It is astonishing. Another argument is that smokers take up a huge amount of the health taxes here every year in treatment. Bollocks! I pay 30% of the cost of my pack of fags as a direct tax by the government. In return, I expect to get immediate attention should I have any kind of possibly smoking related illness! Though, I betya, at that point in time I will finally get the response...."ah, but there is actually not THAT much evidence that it was caused by smoking...."

Dichotomies rule - thats for sure....!

Onya Beth!

[Irish Beth]

Well said KSG!!

As I said previously, I am not trying to promote smoking by any stretch of the imagination, I just want to make sure that smokers are not run out of every public place on earth. I feel most smokers are willing to smoke in designated areas and play by the rules. I think most of us try to be considerate. But my fear is, if they ban it everywhere - smokers will drop their good humor and start smoking anywhere they want - sneaking smokes everywhere. You want to have the world smelling like High School Lavatories? Then ban smoking in all establishments and see how you like it then. You won't catch us at it, there will be no one to blame but yourselves.

Melba, I'll keep an eye out for you at the picnic so we can do that toast!!

[Rkitko]

Well said KSG!!
smokers will drop their good humor and start smoking anywhere they want - sneaking smokes everywhere. You want to have the world smelling like High School Lavatories? Then ban smoking in all establishments and see how you like it then. You won't catch us at it, there will be no one to blame but yourselves.

So far, here in Washington, there's no indication that any such phenomenon that you described is happening. Smokers generally gripe about the prohibition on their public nicotine addiction, but they respect the new law.

And as for an earlier comment (I think Randy said it)... yeah, as a non-smoker, I will never understand people who smoke. I suppose that puts me at a disadvantage, because I can't understand this as "your right." I think smoking is inherently silly: Here's a toxic stick that requires a filter to make sure you get fewer bad things in you... you light it on fire... and stick it in your mouth. When reduced to that level of simplicity, I cannot understand the act of smoking. Don't suppose I ever will.

[Irish Beth]

Rkitko,

Do you understand putting alcohol in a glass and drinking it - just one glass kills brain cells and done to excess has the potential of hurting or killing yourself or others?

Do you understand putting two sticks of wood on your feet and sailing down a mountain - with the potential of hurting or killing yourself or others?

Do you understand getting behind the wheel of a Nascar and driving at extreme speeds - with the potential of hurting or killing yourself or others? And how much air polution is caused by this "sport" - and how much toxic air do the fans breathe in?

There are a great many things I do not understanc why people do them, but I have no desire to pass laws that forbids them to do so.

IB

[Anna from Dublin]

Ireland brought in the ban on smoking in public places some time back. Before it came in there was uproar from smokers and particularly bar owners about the implications. The kernel of the argument in favour of the ban was the protection of workers rights. While I accept you can argue that smokers can work there if you allow smoke, if you accept the societal goal that every worker's health is of equal value, that argument falls down (it is even more detrimental for smokers to be in smoky bars all day working than just smoking alone).

Once the ban came in, the country at large accepted it and compliance was recently reported as 97% and even higher in city locations. This is extraordinary in a country where a general attitude of being "agin the government" is the prevaling modus operandum. A majority of smokers support the ban in surveys and many have reported it has facilitated some quitting and many smoking less. It is a much more pleasant experience to go out for the night and generally there is an overwhelming majority in favour of the ban.

Before someone tells me that air-purifier etc. can remove smoke, I have a little anecdote to add. One of the side -effects of the ban is that companies who sold such air machines were left with a lot of unused machines which were removed from pubs etc. There are two exemptions from the smoking ban in Ireland - Prisons and Nursing Homes. I was contacted by a company who offered me a very high-tech air purifier for free if I gave them the maintenance contract, which I did. Because I have no choice and because I have some sympathy for the addiction, we have a smoking room in our NH, with this great machine in it. Yet inspite of this, the smoke can very often be smelt down the corridor and it drifts into the bedrooms of non-smoking residents at times - a fact that really upsets me, but there is little I can do. None of the staff work in the smoking room as such, but they do have to go in and assist Residents from time to time and some of them have objected to that and I don't blame them. I hate going in there myself. It is not that I think I am going to get cancer, I just hate the smell and find the whole atmosphere very unpleasant.

In short (short?), I support the ban while having sympathy for anyone who smokes.

[Rkitko]

Irish Beth,

No, I don't understand any of those, but then again I don't drink alcohol, don't ski, and downright hate NASCAR.

I don't think your comparison is valid, though. I can avoid drunks by not going into places that have alcohol licenses (granted, I can't avoid drunk drivers, but there ARE laws against that. So if everyone followed the law, I wouldn't have to face that risk). If I choose not to ski, my risk associated with harm being done to me by another skiier is greatly reduced (I also generally avoid snow. Hate that form of percipitation). As for NASCAR, I don't support it by watching it, don't attend the races, and can't condone their pollution for sport.

Smoking, however, before the ban... I couldn't avoid it unless I wanted to be a shut-in. In the rural/suburban area where I grew up, every restaurant, every bowling alley, every establishment that could allow it DID. How fair is that to someone that wanted to avoid the smoke?

Anna laid out the worker's rights argument beautifully above. If that wasn't part of the reason why the smoking ban passed, then I would suggest setting up a system of smoking licenses. They would be based on population, just like alcohol licenses so that in one community, no matter how rural, there would always be a few locations that couldn't get licenses and would ensure the enjoyment of both camps (smokers and non-smokers).

[Wildflower Fever]

Irish Beth,

No, I don't understand any of those, but then again I don't drink alcohol, don't ski, and downright hate NASCAR.

I don't think your comparison is valid, though. I can avoid drunks by not going into places that have alcohol licenses (granted, I can't avoid drunk drivers, but there ARE laws against that. So if everyone followed the law, I wouldn't have to face that risk). If I choose not to ski, my risk associated with harm being done to me by another skiier is greatly reduced (I also generally avoid snow. Hate that form of percipitation). As for NASCAR, I don't support it by watching it, don't attend the races, and can't condone their pollution for sport.

Smoking, however, before the ban... I couldn't avoid it unless I wanted to be a shut-in. In the rural/suburban area where I grew up, every restaurant, every bowling alley, every establishment that could allow it DID. How fair is that to someone that wanted to avoid the smoke?

Anna laid out the worker's rights argument beautifully above. If that wasn't part of the reason why the smoking ban passed, then I would suggest setting up a system of smoking licenses. They would be based on population, just like alcohol licenses so that in one community, no matter how rural, there would always be a few locations that couldn't get licenses and would ensure the enjoyment of both camps (smokers and non-smokers).


I am a smoker and Minneapolis/St. Paul have a total smoking ban as well. I argued against it at first, but am already used to it, and I just occasionally go outside to have a puff, I smoke less when I drink, I smell better, and my hangovers are lessened. As for snow, you'd think a west Washingtonian would like their precip "solid" once in a while"!:D Just kidding, I don't love snow, but it's raining every day here lately, and I don't know how Seattle folks for example can stand that. Always being wet, your glasses always messy, unpleasant driving conditions. If it snows lightly, you don't really get wet, and driving is easier. As for Nascar, how ironic that a large part of the fans seem to support Bush- who cares nothing about conservation and pollution- and love a "sport" that celebrates wasted resources and pollution. It truly is becoming a idiot nation, and the idiots have control, for now.

[Rkitko]

As for snow, you'd think a west Washingtonian would like their precip "solid" once in a while"!:D Just kidding, I don't love snow, but it's raining every day here lately, and I don't know how Seattle folks for example can stand that.
Haha, true. Though I'm new here. Just moved in from out of state. This winter (only two days of snow... about 2 inches each time) was a nice change from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey winters I'm used to. Yeah, the 37 consecutive days of rain wasn't entirely pleasant, but I've always had an antipathy for snow.

The rain is the pain we put up with here for summers of 80 degree highs (at the highest) with low humidity and gorgeous mountain views.

Minnseapolis/St. Paul, eh? I just passed through there last weekend. Quite a large airport. Almost missed my connecting flight running from one concourse to the other.

[Wildflower Fever]

Minnseapolis/St. Paul, eh? I just passed through there last weekend. Quite a large airport. Almost missed my connecting flight running from one concourse to the other.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, and I'm always on like the G concourse, gate 41, which is at the very end. I think it's a personal curse. And trams, trams, trams!, to every crevice now. The one good thing I can say is I'm rarely delayed there, and even weather is bad- there are less delays as the crews are wonderful. SeaTac can be fun too!

[Des]

Political correctness bill for all SMOKERS

Thou shalt not wave my hand like a fan in front of my face when someone has just lit up a cigarette in a restaurant that is seated seven tables away from me.

Thou shalt not victimise smokers in public and make them feel like scum of the Earth.

Thou shalt not walk into a smoker’s house and mention how stinky it is.

Thou shalt not even pass comment on how ridiculous political correctness is for smokers.

Thou shalt not expect smokers to stop giving kind care and attention in making sure that they don’t smoke around whimpering non smokers.

Thou shalt not question why: when we wake and after we eat, the first thing on our minds is to light up.

Thou shalt not cough unnecessarily and needlessly to get a point across that there is a smoker within 5 miles of the vicinity.



Some things all non smokers should consider in order not to piss us off.

If you want to kiss me, you dirty your mouth with an ashtray and don’t expect me to make mine all minty fresh for you.

We call upon the Egyptian God ‘Shu’, the God of dry winds and atmosphere, to make cigarette smoke travel in the opposite direction away from the non-smoker. Just make sure, that you have the decency to do the same next time you light that BBQ and start up your car engine.

[Irish Beth]

Rkitko,
You actually supported my point, which is that there should be smoking and non-smoking establishments. So that everyone has a choice. Isn't that freedom? Choice.

I detest certain perfumes - but when I am in the vicinity of it, I muddle through as best I can, trying to keep the sneezing to a minimum. Do I want to ban perfume in communal areas? No.

You choose not to ski or go to Nascar races - would it really be all that different to choose not to go to establishments with smoking sections??

[gisli]

Like you know, or should know, then I was in Amsterdam last weekend and there they have one big legislation on smoking and that is the one Des mention in a post here just before.

Well here is my story:

After walking a lot in Amsterdam city I went into a coffeehouse to get a coffee, it was cold so I wanted to be inside, I opened the door and stepped into a wall of smoke....(I was tired and hungry and cold so I just said I can take this..I´ll just do what has been adviced here in this forum: NOT BREATH)...went over to the ordering table and asked for a cup of coffee. Took a while for the guy to notice me..(must have been because it was very foggy inside....(had to BREATH a few times)) He looked at me and without saying a word pointed to a menu at the table. On that menu there was a list of all kinds of organic grown substances, ok I am broad minded person (and still cold, tired and hungry)..so I declined and asked again if I could have A CUP OF COFFEE and maybe a chocolate cake with it (had to take another breath for this one)...........Again no response but now he turned the menu around and this time he tapped his finger on a line that read: Chocolate Cake With Marijuana. I tryed to look him in his eyes (difficult because it was still a bit foggy) I gave him my "angry eye expression" and asked for: JUST A CUP OF COFFEE. Again no responce and again he turned the menu around and tapped his finger on the organic grown substances choices. I knew now and then that it was over for me at this place, so I took a deep breath, (propably sholdn´t have)...sighed and turned around to go outside.

I hadn´t walked for a long time when suddenly I found everything to be very funny and I started to laugh aloud at almost everything I saw and boy did I get hungry. This was a strange feeling and a new one for me.

And the bottom line in this story is: Know I am all for the freedom of the individual to decide if he wants to smoke or not. Just let me know so I can follow and BREATH.:)

(Boy is Amsterdam a nice city for an innocent countryboy like me:rolleyes: )

[Rkitko]

Rkitko,
You actually supported my point, which is that there should be smoking and non-smoking establishments. So that everyone has a choice. Isn't that freedom? Choice.

You choose not to ski or go to Nascar races - would it really be all that different to choose not to go to establishments with smoking sections??
As I've already explained, the rural area where I grew up had no non-smoking establishments. At least not within 45-minute to an hours drive away. There was an absence of choice. Well, not really, I could just choose to be a shut-in and never go out anywhere. But somehow, that just doesn't seem fair.

I'm still kind of wary of saying there should be smoking and non-smoking establishments. As long as you could ensure, somehow, that all employees of said establishment didn't mind it (and wouldn't get fired for opposing it) and that there would still be options for those that want non-smoking establishments, then I'd consider that system. But then the question would be would the places that allow smoking be all the great restaurants and people who want to stay away from the smoke have to settle for a crappy fish place? (I'm speaking, specifically, in places without a large population). It'd be a question of equity of establishments, then.

I still don't understand why it'd be considered a "right" for people to light up in a public place. I don't think anyone has tried to defend that position yet...

Oh, and as for the perfume thing... There are quite a few people out there that are sensitive to such substances. I think it would be common decency to not bathe yourself in perfume/cologne before going out, but some people are just not considerate. It's not as wide-spread a problem, though, as smoking, in my opinion.

[GodSistah]

One day last week I got into my co-worker's City vehicle and she had a big old thing of coffee, stale leftover purple peeps and was smoking away like she always does. I just rolled down my window because although it does bother my asthma to a certain degree, I also enjoy her company and know how she gets when she doesn't have her peeps, coffee and cigs...I also know that even though she is "possibly" contributing to me dying of cancer from second hand smoke, that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that I could get out of my vehicle and be mauled by a Pit Bull or run over by the Rudie bus. Anyway, smoking or not, I enjoy her company!

You all should see the mood I'm in when I forget to charge my mp3 player...or when someone drinks the last Pepsi!

There was no point to this post, but to see myself type, I think...:p

~Andrea~

[gisli]

You all should see the mood I'm in when I forget to charge my mp3 player...or when someone drinks the last Pepsi!

......but to see myself type, I think...:p

~Andrea~

This is a good one, lol.

Well I thought it was a great post and.......I also have to admit......I like to see my self type......

[Irish Beth]

According to many who have posted here, all surveys, charts, and business owners state that going totally non-smoking has not only not hurt their business but has actually led to increases. So your argument about ending up in crappy fish places seems moot to me.

I guess what I want to know is why my habit is the one being picked on. I light up in public places (where allowed) becuase I enjoy it, it is not against the law (yet), and because it is my personal preference.

No matter what options are out there the non-smokers (or former smokers) want to keep adding to the restrictions. Workers should not have to work in smoking sections if they don't want to!! Seriously?? So the ushers at the Nascar tracks should not have to work there. I think the point is - NO ONE IS MAKING ANYONE WORK IN SMOKING AREAS. If that is happening to anyone then they obviously are not bright enough to GET ANOTHER JOB.

I have made a choice that is unpopular with a great many people. However, to the best of that ability I try to live by the laws of my state and my community. I don't practice inappropriate behavior at work, in restaurants, or any public places. I contribute to the community, volunteer, pay taxes, have never been arrested, and am seen by most as a valuable member of society. So why do people pick on me, why do they get so angry by this one part of my life that THEY feel is inappropriate. I guess I will never understand why gblt folks get such a raw deal.

[dutchcloggie]

I used to smoke but gave up in October last year. In the end, I just felt the nagging from Mrs. Cloggie was not worth the 4 fags a day. And I do feel better about it. And I never miss the guilt I felt when lighting in a place filled with non-smokers, even if others were smoking at the other end of the bar.

I fully support a ban on smoking in public places because, as opposed to drinking, my 1 fag can irritate many people who don't know me and are not even part of my party. Yes, drunk people also annoy other people but one drink does not annoy an entire room. 1 fag does.

However!!!!

I feel that the solution is separate smoking rooms in bars/restaurants because I can totally see how peopel like having a fag with their drink. I used to equate one with the other and I still miss my smoke when I am in the pub. So why not have smoking rooms? At the moment, there are special places for non-smokers and smoking is the norm. I feel it should be the other way around. Here in England, the objection to this is that bar staff will still be forced to work in a smokey workplace. And THAT is the root of the ban: the law guarantees everyone a smoke-free workplace. This includes bar staff. Hence the separate smoking room is not a solution.

So they say.

I support a ban on smoking in public but I totally object to the way smokers are made to feel like pariahs who are out to kill people. Smoking is still legal. If the governments have such an issue with it, make it illegal. But no, that would cost them too much in lost taxes.....

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

I'm still (as always) in agreement with Beth... and I still consider this discussion to be about individuals rights as opposed to others trying to legislate my health....

To those that feel they can justify instructing me (or others) about the evils of performing a legal act I would wonder how it feels to have attained such wisdom and perfection? I still believe that smokers should have the same rights as other Americans..... As should business owners have the right to determine if he or she built a business only to have control of his or her dream taken from them.

I make every effort to respect the rights of non-smokers and do not force my habit on them.... All I would suggest in a truely (and reasonably free society) that they in turn respect the rights of others as well... With all the whinning about second hand smoke people tend to support LAWS to control others written with strictly political intent to control by the same people that write laws to EXEMPT the very worst violators to your health... The biggest poluters tend to be governments..... Funny I don't hear the public outcry requiring that government vehicles meet the emmissions control standards that your automobile is subject to.... I could smoke a thousand packs of cigarettes a day and still produce far less V.O.C's (volitle organic compounds) released into the atmosphere then the Presidents motorcade does driving aimlessly around the block on his useless political stops where he tells people we need to conserve fuel.... Oh wait, I forgot,,, Government is exempt... sorry... thats right this is a "do as I say not as I do kind of administration...." I don't recall hearing the outrage about that from those that are so concerned with my or others health about those.

Sooooo to you non-smokers..... Congratualations on having different bad habits then I may have... Now ain't it grand to be perfect :)

Best to (cough cough, gag gag choke...) all

R. from Pa

[Dee]

Diesel Exhaust and Air Pollution
April 2000 - American Lung Association

WHY IS DIESEL EXHAUST AN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM?

Diesel exhaust is a mixture containing over 450 different components, including vapors and fine particles. Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California. Exposure to this mixture may result in cancer, exacerbation of asthma, and other health problems...

WHAT ARE THE HEALTH EFFECTS?

Diesel exhaust has been linked in numerous scientific studies to cancer, the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory diseases. A draft report released by the US EPA in February 1998 indicated that exposure to even low levels of diesel exhaust is likely to pose a risk of lung cancer and respiratory impairment. And in August 1998, the State of California decided that there was enough evidence to list the particulate matter in diesel exhaust as a toxic air contaminant - a probable carcinogen requiring action to reduce public exposure and risk.

Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089

No mention there of upper atmosphere pollution, say from aircraft, which some folks seem to use like taxi cabs. I have no statistics, but I could safely guess there are thousands of flights each day pumping pollution into the skies.

If the problem of lung disease & lung cancer boils down to a control and behaviour issue, I think we need to look at all the facts and not just try to blame these health problems on smokers.


http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d149/danielmarkskelton/Photo%20Shoebox/nosmoking.jpg

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Ahhhhh Alas..... To those that batter smokers with blame for the worlds evils I would suggest they look around the world we live in and even there own home for all the polutents that they find themselves exposed to... Why I would even bet you use them DAILY! You find them in every home and garden.... You find them when you grill a steak in your yard...Lubricants, paints, cleaning supplies, petroleum products such as plastics and vinyls...starches....areosol cans.... fuels....etc etc etc....

That said so I while I can feel sympathy for those that may wish to cast guilt trips on smokers for the worlds polution I can only say with a sincere smile... I won't smoke in public places and beyond that you can BITE ME!

With sincere (but fed up) Respect...

R from Pa

[Eva]

Gisli... Gisli... So you went into a coffeeshop for coffee? Nice, but indeed a place where people smoke a lot. For anyone unfamiliar with the Dutch meaning of "coffeeshop": That is what we call a place where one can buy hasj or marihuana.

So yes, people will probably have a smoke there. The slow service, the your urge to laugh and eat... well... Let's say it's all part of the experience :D In the seventies one would call this place a "teahouse". Again, they did sell cups of tea, but it was not their ehm... focus.

As to all this discussion about smoking with some people even getting angry:
I think I'll go smoke a ciggarette on my balcony. Won't bother anyone, will keep the smell in my house fresh and best of all: I won't be in the crossfire of all this.

Eva

[Dee]

I firmly believe adults can discuss anything, even disagree without being disagreeable, or letting emotions overtake logic.

Probably it's healthier to smoke marijuana, and less addictive, but it makes me go all wobbly. :D LOL

[GodSistah]

I wonder if the burning of incense does any damage to your lungs.:confused:

~Andrea~

[Wildflower Fever]

I wonder if the burning of incense does any damage to your lungs.:confused:

~Andrea~

I think smoke of any kind can damage the lungs a little bit. It depends on the volume, and repitition, but probably is no worse than the other chemicals we ingest on a daily basis, inside and outside.

[Rkitko]

Probably it's healthier to smoke marijuana, and less addictive, but it makes me go all wobbly. :D LOL
Actually, I believe benzopyrene (one of the carcinogens in tobacco smoke) is higher in concentration in marijuana cigarettes than tobacco cigarettes. And the practice of inhaling and holding in the marijuana smoke increases exposure over what one would typically get from a tobacco cigarette. Just an FYI.

[Dee]

Rkitko,

My comments about marijuana were made tongue-in-cheek. ;) However, you raise an important point: carcinogens.

"Hundreds of chemicals are capable of inducing cancer in humans or animals after prolonged or excessive exposure. There are many well-known examples of chemicals that can cause cancer in humans. The fumes of the metals cadmium, nickel, and chromium are known to cause lung cancer. Vinyl chloride causes liver sarcomas. Exposure to arsenic increases the risk of skin and lung cancer. Leukemia can result from chemically induced changes in bone marrow from exposure to benzene and cyclophosphamide, among other toxicants. Other chemicals, including benzo[a]pyrene and ethylene dibromide, are considered by authoritative scientific organizations to be probably carcinogenic in humans because they are potent carcinogens in animals. Chemically-induced cancer generally develops many years after exposure to a toxic agent. A latency period of as much as thirty years has been observed between exposure to asbestos, for example, and incidence of lung cancer." Spooky stuff.

There is also a list a mile long naming known carcinogens on this (http://www.scorecard.org/health-effects/chemicals.tcl?short_hazard_name=cancer&all_p=t) page. The ones we are exposed to daily (often without knowing) is pretty scary.

And on a related matter, that of addiction, there is good info here:

NICOTINE IS MORE ADDICTIVE THAN HEROIN
http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/hening.html

[Rkitko]

Dee, haha, I realized that. Thought I'd just share some info I've learned over the years...

That list is quite long, though they don't seem to break it down by IARC groups or classes of carcinogens:


* Group 1: the agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are carcinogenic to humans.
* Group 2A: the agent (mixture) is probably carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are probably carcinogenic to humans.
* Group 2B: the agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans.
* Group 3: the agent (mixture or exposure circumstance) is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
* Group 4: the agent (mixture) is probably not carcinogenic to humans.

There aren't that many Group 1 carcinogens (what everyone calls "known carcinogens"). I suspect the vast majority on that list are Group 2A or 2B. The only reason most assumed carcinogens belong to Group 2A or 2B is the lack of scientific research directly exposing a substance as cancer-causing. It's hard to prove, there's little funding, and so many chemicals to test. Which brings another point--are we inviting catastrophe by not requiring more extensive testing before some of these products are marketed or used in industry? There's an interesting point that nothing can be "proven safe." That's a misnomer. Safety cannot be proven; the absence of known harmful effects can, however, be determined. Is better regulation the answer? Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a business model the answer? I'd say it's pretty obvious that industries that operate within free-markets with little regulation often don't have the public's best interest in mind (see: Love Canal, New York; Woburn, Massachusetts--A Civil Action; etc.). Is the profit motive for companies (which is supposed to stimulate "progress") incompatible with We the People? Would abolishing corporate personhood create a more sustainable and more equitable world, or would it squash "progress"?

... and finally... Do I raise too many questions and answer none of them? haha

[Eva]

create a more sustainable and more equitable world, or would it squash "progress"?

What is progress? (I am getting philosophical here...)

More testing and tighter regulations would probably be 'unhealthy' to your country's economics, they will tell you. Other countries who don't do all this testing will be able to offer the 'same' product quicker and cheaper. See how well and cheap childlabour sells! :( :mad:

'Progress' eh...?


... and finally... Do I raise too many questions and answer none of them? haha

Is that neccesarily a bad thing? :)

Eva

[Dee]

... and finally... Do I raise too many questions and answer none of them?

To borrow from a great songwriter, Rkitko: You want answers that I can't give, you want words I don't know.

There are just too many unknowns I suppse. No comfort in that, but true nonetheless.

[Rkitko]

What is progress? (I am getting philosophical here...)

More testing and tighter regulations would probably be 'unhealthy' to your country's economics, they will tell you. Other countries who don't do all this testing will be able to offer the 'same' product quicker and cheaper. See how well and cheap childlabour sells! :( :mad:

'Progress' eh...?

Wonderful points! Yep, why do you think Wal*Mart's largest production/manufacturing occurs in China? People (generalizing here) don't tend to care where their products are made or who they're made by, as long as they're ignorant of those facts all they'll care about is the price of the products.

Progress? I'd think what it is and what it's supposed to be are two different things. Progress today tends to be at the price of tomorrow. I would hope progress would mean something that is sustainable and increases health, well-being, or happiness (however defined) without harm to others or the world in which we live. A tall order, but we are speaking philosophically. So truthfully and ideally, no progress has occurred recently--only a series of events that make our lives better today at the cost of the future.

I don't know.... what do you think progress is?