Is it right to discriminate against tobacco smokers

[Repo Man]

Huh ? Is it unfair to expect truck drivers to put up with exhaust fumes ?
The way it used to be (for ages), bars were places where people smoked. Now if you can't stand cigarette smoke, why on earth would you want to work in a bar ?
You are getting this backwards.

Why should (for one example) musicians have to contend with second hand smoke? And if not a musician, what if working in a bar was the only sort of work you could find?

For ages everywhere was where people smoked. Times change as new information becomes available. I can still remember seeing my aunt smoke when she was pregnant, and there is a good possibility that was a contributing factor to my cousin being born prematurely. The standards from a more ignorant time no longer apply.

 

[Nasor]

So far as I know, no studies have shown a statistically significant correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Has that changed? If so, I would e curious to see a reference to a study.

 

[Enmos]

Why should (for one example) musicians have to contend with second hand smoke? And if not a musician, what if working in a bar was the only sort of work you could find?

For ages everywhere was where people smoked. Times change as new information becomes available. I can still remember seeing my aunt smoke when she was pregnant, and there is a good possibility that was a contributing factor to my cousin being born prematurely. The standards from a more ignorant time no longer apply.

If you can't stand the conditions don't work there.
But I agree.. tobacco should be banned.

 

[Enmos]

So far as I know, no studies have shown a statistically significant correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Has that changed? If so, I would e curious to see a reference to a study.

No, it hasn't changed. Last I heard of research in that direction they were saying that radon gas (from concrete) causes more cases of lung cancer than secondhand smoking.

 

[phlogistician]

Huh ? Is it unfair to expect truck drivers to put up with exhaust fumes ?

Since when did truck pipes vent into the cab?

The way it used to be (for ages), bars were places where people smoked. Now if you can't stand cigarette smoke, why on earth would you want to work in a bar ?

At one time, offices were places where people smoked, and so were aeroplanes. Gradually, sense has prevailed. It's just taken a while to get around to levelling the playing field. Why should you have to stand cigarette smoke to be a barman or waiter? You shouldn't, clearly. We do not expect other professions to put up with it, and we cannot make a special case for bar staff.

You are getting this backwards.

No, it's simple. Bars are workplaces. We are not allowed to smoke in our workplaces anymore. Why should bar staff put up with other people's smoke?

 

[Repo Man]

If you can't stand the conditions don't work there.
But I agree.. tobacco should be banned.

Then why should any workplace be protected from smokers?

Talk of banning tobacco is a red herring.

 

[phlogistician]

So far as I know, no studies have shown a statistically significant correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Has that changed? If so, I would e curious to see a reference to a study.

How about Heart Disease?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3850083.stm

 

[Liebling]

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/may9/smoking-050907.html

http://exposurescience.org/OSR96

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es960067f

http://exposurescience.org/pub/reprints/Ott_EHP_1999.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=e7ebc79b59ab822a2ed922a2fad4e64d

http://www.springerlink.com/content/975w1136u5008x74/

http://news.bio-medicine.org/medici...egative-Health-Effects-Later-In-Life-11073-3/

http://exposurescience.org/pub/proceedings/Klepeis_etal_IA02_2B3p4.pdf

Above are examples of actual scientific data and reports instead of conjecture and opinion of two or three reports that you two are using to justify your smoking.

And here is the BMJ article that all of your websites are citing which states that ETS is not AS harmful as once believed but it never rules out or dismisses second hand smoke as safe or NOT harmful. Only that the risk of morbidity was overstated.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

I understand that you would love for second hand smoke to be not harmful to others, and that the few more public reports (not studies, but reports) have been proved to be inflated in their information, but none of you can even prevent studies... scientific studies that say that second hand smoke is SAFE and NOT HARMFUL as you claim. Unless of course, you are smarter than Standford, Oxford, Ohio Univ, a few PhD's and other scientific research done in countries across the globe.

Seriously. We understand that you want the right to smoke, and I don't deny your right to smoke. I object to your harming others with your behaviour, and you have no proof what so ever that it is safe and not harmful. All you have is opinion on a few reports that you just keep citing over and over and wasting time with no argument at all.

 

[phlogistician]

The fact that second hand smoke is harmful is only part of the picture. It makes my eyes sting, my throat hurt, and my clothes smell.

I don't want to smell like an ashtray, and a trip to the pub is now a far more pleasant experience.

Maybe there could have been a compromise solution, had the tobacco industry cared for their customers enough, and offered to help with air purification and monitoring equipment. Except they didn't care, they sell an addictive product, and new they would lose few customers, so why go to the expense? Maybe if customers only smoked cigarettes purchased from the proprietor of the pub, the pub would have had the revenue to install air purification, but customers took their own tobacco, so there was no revenue from that for the pub. That said, people go to pubs to drink, not smoke. Selling booze if their core business, not running s smoking club.

 

[Nasor]

Above are examples of actual scientific data and reports instead of conjecture and opinion of two or three reports that you two are using to justify your smoking.

Am I supposed to be one of the "you too" that you're addressing? I just said that I hadn't seen any studies showing a statistically significant correlation between lung cancer and second hand smoke. So far I still haven't.

 

[Liebling]

No, I was speaking to Buff.

As far as I can see, there is no evidence relating it to lung cancer, any more than other environmental pollutants (car emmissions, smog, manufaturing plants). But, there is significant evidence that it effects heart disease, blood pressure, brain function, circulation and other heart related problems. The risk factors of second hand smoke on the heart is far mor significant than it's effect on the lungs. It does increase the risk to children of developing ear infections, sinus infections, chronic bronchitis and asthma, as they are in a much higher percentage than others who live in a non-smoking home. At least according to the studies I've posted so far.

Yes it's not as harmful as once reported, but that doesn't mean it's harmless or safe and there is zero scientific evidence to the contrary being returned by any of it's supporters.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

I agree. But it isn't banned..

Yes it is, here (California). You can't smoke inside anywhere.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

You have never seen the smog that hangs over LA. I posted a picture of it on this thread, but somebody removed it. That's a shame because it illustrated a perfect point regarding the crap we breath in each and every day. How do we survive?

I honestly think that if I were locked in an enclosed space full of tobacco smoke, I would be perfectly fine. I'm willing to assume that I wouldn't suffer any physical illness as a result.

Yes, I have silly. I'm looking at it right now, it's beautiful, not a cloud in sight just blue sky. I live in LA, so yeah I know about it's smog and like I said smog makes it hard to breathe, but surprise, surprise, LA's air quality actually isn't that bad compared to where I came from. The central valley or Fresno, CA has terrible air quality, but you can't see it. It's so bad that anyone who didn't have asthma before gets it after living there for a few years. On really bad days the kids can't even go play outside or have P.E. When you go from there to LA it's like heaven. You're skin clears up, you can breathe again, you can run without having an asthma attack... And if your complaining about not being able to smoke indoors, then it's good you don't live in Fresno. All of the anti- air pollution ordinances that are in place there would make you go insane. It's a little annoying sometimes, but I don't mind the sacrifice because it improves the air quality even if only a little bit.

 

[Roman]

You have never seen the smog that hangs over LA. I posted a picture of it on this thread, but somebody removed it. That's a shame because it illustrated a perfect point regarding the crap we breath in each and every day. How do we survive?

I honestly think that if I were locked in an enclosed space full of tobacco smoke, I would be perfectly fine. I'm willing to assume that I wouldn't suffer any physical illness as a result.

Smog isn't carbon monoxide. Smog is potpourri of photochemical reactions creating NOx, VOCs, and ozone.

Carbon monoxide is dangerous because it has about 200x the affinity for the heme groups in your red blood cells, which means that once it binds, it gets stuck. You slowly suffocate as all your red blood cells become irreversibly filled with CO.

 

[Anti-Flag]

It's disgusting to discriminate against smokers in such a way. They have every right to smoke wherever the hell they like, and if you don't like it then clearly you're in the wrong place aren't you? I mean who on earth do you think you are? Of course you don't have any right to be in a smoke-free public place! OR to actually frequent a bar or restaurant with your friends and you should stay at home if you don't like the smoke.
I don't care about your asthma because secondhand smoke is harmless anyway and I should be able to blow it in your face.

 

[PieAreSquared]

Please keep your California air pollution in Cali. , because ever since you leaned out your cars to clear the air... so successfully?? .. your neighbors have been getting it

Been to the Grand Canyon lately?

That's it... I'll work with my legislators here to impose fines on Cali. because of them dumping their catbox on us.. maybe a increased DMV fee, or some higher property/ gas taxes

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Please keep your California air pollution in Cali. , because ever since you leaned out your cars to clear the air... so successfully?? .. your neighbors have been getting it

Been to the Grand Canyon lately?

That's it... I'll work with my legislators here to impose fines on Cali. because of them dumping their catbox on us.. maybe a increased DMV fee, or some higher property/ gas taxes

They'll just send you an IOU.

 

[Bowser]

Well I looked it up...

Regarding auto emissions, No. 1 to No. 3 following, are harmful components discharged from gasoline engines:


1. HC (unburned hydrogen carbon)

2. CO (carbon monoxide)

3. NOx (nitrogen oxide)

4. SOx (sulfur oxide) would be generated when sulfur (S) in fuel is bound with oxygen (O) in air by burning, if the fuel contains sulfur. However, since current gasoline is desulfurized almost completely, SOx is not measured as the component of the auto emissions now.

5. As for soot, not only soot but also micro particles (PM), which are even smaller than soot, are regulated for diesel engines; however, they are not regulated for gasoline engines. Although I think that the soot might be discharged from gasoline engines as well, it is one of the components which are unregulated.

In addition,

6. CO2 (carbon dioxide)

7. H2O

are also components discharged from gasoline engines.

 

[Bowser]

It's disgusting to discriminate against smokers in such a way. They have every right to smoke wherever the hell they like, and if you don't like it then clearly you're in the wrong place aren't you? I mean who on earth do you think you are? Of course you don't have any right to be in a smoke-free public place! OR to actually frequent a bar or restaurant with your friends and you should stay at home if you don't like the smoke.
I don't care about your asthma because secondhand smoke is harmless anyway and I should be able to blow it in your face.

That's pretty much what I told the guy who stopped me on the hospital grounds today and told me it was a smoke free campus. Get a life.

 

[swarm]

Global ban on tobacco.
I bet you didn't see that one coming..

Bans don't work.

Taxing it, making it unpleasant to use and education do work on many.

Letting the others die could certainly wake some up.