I agree. He should have just shot you.
Is it right to discriminate against tobacco smokers
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
I agree. He should have just shot you.
Instead, he stammered a bit and threatened to call security. I told him to indulge himself. Nothing came of it.
Clear the smoke from your eyes...
An example...
U.S. Details Dangers of Secondhand Smoking
'Serious Health Hazard' Is Cited
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700710.html
Here are 92 pages of annotated bibliographies of studies
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf
An example:
Alsever, R.N.; Thomas, W.M.; Nevin-Woods, C.; Beauvais, R.; Dennison, S.; Bueno, R.; Chang, L.; Bartecchi, C.E.; Babb, S.; Trosclair, A.; Engstrom, M.; Pechacek, T.; Kaufmann, R., "Reduced hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction after implementation of a smoke-free ordinance — City of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002–2006," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(51 & 52): 1373-1377, January 2, 2009.
This article reported the results of the continuance of a study into the effect of Pueblo, Colorado's smokefree ordinance on heart attacks. The report stated that, "The Pueblo Heart Study examined the impact of a municipal smoke-free ordinance in the city of Pueblo, Colorado, that took effect on July 1, 2003. The rate of AMI hospitalizations for city residents decreased 27%, from 257 per 100,000 person-years during the 18 months before the ordinance's implementation to 187 during the 18 months after it (the Phase I post-implementation period). This report extends that analysis for an additional 18 months through June 30, 2006 (the Phase II post-implementation period). The rate of AMI hospitalizations among city residents continued to decrease to 152 per 100,000 person-years, a decline of 19% and 41% from the Phase I post-implementation and pre-implementation period, respectively. No significant changes were observed in two comparison areas. These findings suggest that smoke-free policies can result in reductions in AMI hospitalizations that are sustained over a 3-year period and that these policies are important in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with heart disease."
I think it is funny when you look back at when we (or at least I ) was a kid.
Parents and company that came over used to smoke in the house without giving it a second thought. People used to actually have ashtrays in the house. Are they antiques now?
They used to smoke in the car on long trips with the kids in the back seat. My friends dad smoked so much the windows in the car were yellow and sticky....YUCK! His ashtray used to overflow and there were cigarette butts on the floor mats.
You rarely see that anymore. Everybody I know that smokes, goes outside.
They do not smoke in their houses at all. My Neighbor calls me out to chat, while she is having a smoke on the porch. She usually has a few before going back inside. It gets a little chilly in the middle of winter.
I don't know anybody who uses their ashtray in the car, unless they put spare change in it.
I have never been a smoker and from a non smokers point of view it is nice that it has been ban in restaurants. If I am around too much smoke I get a wicked headache. I can see from a pub/restaurant owners perspective that it wouldn't benefit his business though.
Times sure have changed.
Parents and company that came over used to smoke in the house without giving it a second thought. People used to actually have ashtrays in the house. Are they antiques now?
They used to smoke in the car on long trips with the kids in the back seat. My friends dad smoked so much the windows in the car were yellow and sticky....YUCK! His ashtray used to overflow and there were cigarette butts on the floor mats.
You rarely see that anymore. Everybody I know that smokes, goes outside.
They do not smoke in their houses at all. My Neighbor calls me out to chat, while she is having a smoke on the porch. She usually has a few before going back inside. It gets a little chilly in the middle of winter.
I don't know anybody who uses their ashtray in the car, unless they put spare change in it.
I have never been a smoker and from a non smokers point of view it is nice that it has been ban in restaurants. If I am around too much smoke I get a wicked headache. I can see from a pub/restaurant owners perspective that it wouldn't benefit his business though.
Times sure have changed.
Last edited:
You need to get out more...
Theis, R.P.; Dolwick Grieb, S.M.; Burr, D.; Siddiqui, T.; Asal, N.R., "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study," BMC ancer 8(1): 387, December 24, 2008.
C
This study examined the role of secondhand smoke exposure on renal cell cancer (RCC) using cases from Florida and Georgia. The study found an association between RCC and home secondhand smoke exposures for never-smokers.
Pierce, J.P.; Leon, M.E., "Special report: policy — effectiveness of smoke-free policies," Lancet Oncology 9: 614-615, July 2008.
This report summarized the findings of an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group on the effectiveness of smokefree air laws. Among other findings, the group concluded that, "there is sufficient evidence that implementation of smoke-free policies substantially decrease second-hand smoke exposure" and "there is sufficient evidence that smoke-free workplaces decrease cigarette consumption in continuing smokers," as well as decrease adult smoking prevalence. The study found no negative economic impact for restaurants and bars, and that the laws resulted in fewer respiratory symptoms in workers and that there is strong evidence that these laws resulted in decreased hospital admissions for heart attacks.
Slattery, M.L., "Active and passive smoking, IL6 , ESR1, and breast cancer risk," Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 109(1), May 2008.
This study examined White, Latino, and Native American women in the Southwestern United States and found that secondhand smoke exposure increased risk for pre- and post- menopausal breast cancer.
Gorini, G.; Moshammer, H.; Sbrogio, L.; Gasparrini, A.; Nebot, M.; Neuberger, M.; Tamang, E.; Lopez, M.J.; Galeone, D.; Serrahima, E., "Italy and Austria before and after study: second-hand smoke exposure in hospitality premises before and after 2 years from the introduction of the Italian smoking ban," Indoor Air [Epub Ahead of Print], April 21, 2008.
This study compared nicotine concentrations in the air of hospitality establishments in two Italian cities, covered by Italy's smokefree air law, to those in Vienna, Austria, where no smokefree law existed. The authors found that nicotine levels in the Italian venues dropped, but not in the Austrian venues. The authors concluded that hospitality workers exposed to secondhand smoke had a much greater lifetime risk of dying from lung cancer, but that, "The drop of second-hand smoke exposure indicates a substantial improvement in air quality in Italian HPs even after 2 years from the ban."
Ramroth, H.; Dietz, A.; Becher, H., "Environmental tobacco smoke and laryngeal cancer: results from a population-based case–control study," European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology [Epub ahead of print], April 1, 2008.
This German study used 257 cases and 769 controls to examine secondhand smoke exposure from spouses/partners, work, and childhood. Controlling for tobacco use, alcohol use, and education, the researchers found that the odds ratio for secondhand smoke exposure for all individuals was 1.2 percent. The odds ratio for twenty thousand lifetime exposure hours for spouses and partners was also 1.2 percent, and the study's findings were in line with the hypothesis that secondhand smoke exposure increased
the risk for laryngeal cancer.
Peppone, L.J.; Mahoney, M.C.; Cummings, K.M.; Michalek, A.M.; Reid, M.E.; Moysich, K.B.; Hyland, A., "Colorectal cancer occurs earlier in those exposed to tobacco smoke: implications for screening," Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology [Epub ahead of print], February 9, 2008.
This study found that active smokers and nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke were likely to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) at younger ages than nonsmokers who are not exposed to tobacco smoke. The authors stated, "The implication of this finding is that screening for colorectal cancer, which is recommended to begin at age 50 years for persons at average risk should be initiated 5–10 years earlier for persons with a significant lifetime history of exposure to tobacco smoke."
Asomaning, K.; Miller, D.P.; Liu, G.; Wain, J.C.; Lynch, T.J.; Su, L.; Christiani, D.C., "Second hand smoke, age of exposure and lung cancer risk," Lung Cancer [Epub ahead of print], January 7, 2008.
This study found that, "All individuals exposed to SHS have a higher risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that subjects first exposed before age 25 have a higher lung cancer risk compared to those for whom first exposure occurred after age 25 years."
I could go on but my fingers are getting tired. Oh. fyi radon is extremely dangerous as a carcinogen in its own right.
The Breaker
Registered Member
It's ridiculous that the government should be able to tell people where they can and can't smoke. It should be up to the bar owner whether or not to allow smoking in THEIR establishment. If you think that their should be a bar that doesn't allow smoking, then you should be allowed to start a bar where smoking is banned. A global ban on tobacco would be ineffective, just look at the drug war. It would be also be a severe violation of human rights in the same way as the war on drugs. Why should the government be able to tell me what I can and can't do to myself?
They don't... unless what you do might cause physical harm to others. You can get drunk and waste yourself. No one else is harmed. Others health are not in danger unless you are a maniac who love to stab a few people every time u get drunk.
Smoking in public is like spraying poison all around a public place and hoping that others will have to tolerate it. I personally think that someone should beat up a random smoker and sue them for attempted murder as well. If i was in US, i would have done it years ago.
People should be granted the freedom to smoke provided they smoke only when a non smoker is not present in near vicinity and they wont be in close proximity to a non smoker while exhaling for the next one hour after they have smoked. In precise, its better to build up smoking booths all around the country and letting people smoke only inside those designated booths. So we would have fresh air to breath.
Instead, he stammered a bit and threatened to call security. I told him to indulge himself. Nothing came of it.
I wouldn't push that. Last guy that back chatted me over smoking in a non smoking area got his ciggies crushed. It's not open for negotiation.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well, in my opinion, they should either globally ban tobacco or shut up about it altogether.
It's about worker's rights too. If you deny bar staff the right to work in a smoke free environment, you'd be paving the way to undo all workplace health and safety legislation.
But you know, if you want the right to smoke in public places, I want the right to punch smokers in the face. Quid pro quo, and all that.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
This is a non-argument. Any bar workers were well aware of the fact that people smoke in bars, before they took the job.
You can't first take the job and then afterwards start whining about the smoke. Same with smokers.. we are well aware of the fact that smoking can cause lung cancer, so we can't sue the cigarette company when we finally get it.
Rules are rules, if that's their policy then it's tough. Personally I don't care what people do if it's a situation not harmful to others(ie you're outside). Of course I'll bet you had to put your beer down to light up, and stop jacking off too. Did you have to hide your needles as well? I mean who else is being discriminated against that doesn't(debatable) harm anyone else?
I'd rather not risk other people's health no matter how small the risk, just because a few smokers don't want to go outside. Must be all the sand in their vaginas.
They might not whine, because they need the money. Those of us on the outside however, can support legislation to bring their working conditions in line with what we enjoy ourselves.
Like I said, not supporting their right to work in a smoke free environment is a slippery slope towards suspension of ALL health and sfatey in the workplace. Next, people like Baron Max will be saying miners shouldn't expect to survive whilst digging coal, ... and we slip further from civilisation.
Exterminate!!!
Registered Member
I think that smoking in bars and clubs is just about the headbutting point where workplace safety meets personal rights and what bars were supposedly used for in the first place. Maybe barkeeps should wear gas masks, eh? Kidding. But there's got to be a third option to this, or its going to end up like WWI: thousands of square miles torn apart fighting for no man's land.
The biggest unforeseen consequence, at least in the US, is a big uptick in drunk driving. What happens is that the people who don't stay home to smoke end up driving farther away to bars that allow smoking (either by crossing into a different state or county, or going to a big enough bar to have a ventillated smoking room).
It is not at all clear that the benefits of shielding bar employees from secondhand smoke offset the extra drunk driving fatalities and injuries.
The second hand smoke issue is their excuse to make you do what they want you to do. The assumption is that you hurt others when you smoke, which is totally ridiculous of course.
I finished my beer in my car on the way there. I think the point here is that the situation is becoming silly. Smoking outside is now becoming a crime--all because of a little smoke.
Maybe I'm too young to understand, but I was pretty sure bars are for drinking, anything else is secondary. Banning drinking at a bar would violate what the bar was for in the first place.
Your disregard for drug safety hurts my heart, unless you weren't driving then my heart doesn't hurt.