CDC Predicts Smoking Bans in Every State by 2020

[onehandle]

Source: AP/New York Times

ATLANTA (AP) — By 2020, every state may have bans on smoking in restaurants, bars and the workplace, federal health officials predicted Thursday, based on the current pace of adopting anti-smoking laws. The number of states with comprehensive indoor smoking bans went from zero in 2000 to 25 in 2010.

"It is by no means a foregone conclusion that we'll get there by 2020," said Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health. But the success of the smoking ban movement has been astounding, and seems to be accelerating, he added. "I'm relatively bullish we'll at least get close to that number."

Nearly half of U.S. residents are covered by comprehensive state or local indoor smoking bans, the CDC estimated, in a new report. Another 10 states have laws than ban smoking in workplaces, bars or restaurants, but not in all three venues.

Some other states have less restrictive laws, like requiring smoking areas with separate ventilation. Only seven states have no indoor smoking restrictions, although some of their cities do: Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/04/21/health/AP-US-MED-Smoking-Bans.html

[Arugula Latte]

1. Great. Long overdue for many states, though. nt

[Arctic Dave]

2. Good.

Heck, they've stopped smoking in public places in Alaska for a while. That's something, in the olden days babies were given a carton as soon as they popped out of mama.

[jerseyjack]

3. Casinos are the last bastion of smoking.

I have seen people at slots and at tables smoking, carrying an oxygen tank.

[totodeinhere]

7. And that's why as a Nevada resident I won't go in a casino. n/t

[former9thward]

20. And that is why as a non-Nevada resident I go to Nevada casinos.

[totodeinhere]

26. The time will come when you won't be able to smoke in casinos in Nevada.

That is my opinion. And I hope it comes soon for the sake of the health of the casino workers.

[former9thward]

46. You may hope that but it will never happen.

BTW if you ever find yourself in the company of a casino worker ask who tips better -- smokers or non smokers. They will tell you at the rate of 100% that smokers tip more. They are happy and relaxed and having fun in the casino and non smokers are uptight. There are sections in many casinos where non smokers can gamble with any of the games and machines. I have walked through those areas and you could set off a bomb and not hurt anyone. It must be hell for you to be around people that are having fun.

[ronnie624]

52. Smokers are "happy and relaxed"

No they're not. They're miserable. They have little cardiovascular endurance and they're more susceptible to upper respiratory infections. During flu season, they pray for the strength to quit smoking.

[former9thward]

91. Dream on. I feel great. Don't you just hate it when others are enjoying themselves?

[ronnie624]

124. You don't feel great.

I smoked for thirty years. You can't bullshit me about this.

[Kurska]

54. More tips or being barraged by cancer causing second hand smoke daily.

I'd take my lungs over the tip.

[former9thward]

92. Second hand smoke is the biggest myth of the last 100 years.

Do you hold your breath when you are on the street exposed to car exhaust which is 1000 times more poisonous than cigarette smoke?

[Kurska]

103. Go look at the science, it isn't a myth.

It is honestly pathetic how people make statements like that about data they don't like.

[former9thward]

108. You look at the science. I doubt you have.

Virtually every study on the subject has found no direct relationship between second hand smoke and other heath problems. I'm sure you will say this study by the UCLA School of Public Health is part of the big tobacco conspiracy. http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf

"Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

[DeadEyeDyck]

141. I have never smoked but I have to agree with you....

I have just finished an internship at the CDC. I was assigned to infectious diseases for a period where I learned about airborne vertical half-life (the Efficacy of an airborne threat limited by diffusion).

When I asked about all the bad press of 2nd hand smoke and how it contradicted the VHL calculations, I was told that any oppossition to smoking was good propaganda and they were definitely not doing to stand in the way.

[Kurska]

144. One correlation study such as that isn't how we determine the effects of second

hand smoke. I'm a psychologists who spent an assload of a time studying research methods. One study isn't going to convince, for instance that "Confidence interval of 95%" means that is there is a 5% chance the results were not representative of the population even being studied. You'd have to show me A LOT more studies showing the same thing to convince me, plus second hand smoke DOES cause cancer in laboratory animals, you can't deny that, which proves CAUSATION between second hand smoke and increased cancer in living beings, which is a lot stronger than correlation studies.

There is a good reason people who claim second hand smoke isn't dangerous are laughed at in serious discussion, there is overwhelming consensus that it is and a few studies here and there doesn't turn over the majority of better evidence.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sudopod]

97. And that's why, as the operator of casinos in Nevada, I like tobacco. nt

[ixion]

4. And the police state marches on...

Advancing one extremist agenda or another. Land of the Free and the Brace? Hardly.

This is precisely the same type of issue as the anti-abortion whackos or the gay marriage crusaders. Just another group of extremists ramming their agenda down everyone's throat. Congratulations on your capitulation as a cog in the Police State machinery.

[kurtzapril4]

5. Yep. n/t

[truthisfreedom]

6. The smoking ban in Minnesota facilitated my quitting smoking.

I appreciate it. I really appreciate not having to be murdered by other people's second hand smoke, too, and not coming home stinking of cigarettes.

[ixion]

12. Good for you... what I don't understand is how you feel enttitled

to force your views on the general public.

[uppityperson]

29. Really, how DARE anyone feel SO entitled to force others to not commit murder!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

34. False analogy. I am a live human and you are killing me with your smoke.

A fetus does not hold the same status as I do, neither does my dog or the cow I ate for dinner.

You truly believe that any law is extremism? Any rule?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zoeisright]

48. Exactly. Thank you.

But militant smokers, who think they have the right to sicken others, don't respond to logic.

[frylock]

41. self delete

you are fucking amazing. just wow.

[Bandit]

78. How do you feel entitled to force your poison upon the general public?

:shrug: I can NEVER understand how smokers feel they have a RIGHT to force others to endure their filth....Want to smoke..fine, just do it in your own home please...

[totodeinhere]

8. Is it extremism to want to protect innocent bystanders from second hand smoke?

I think not.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Travis_0004]

42. What innocent bystanander?

Maybe things operate differently where you live, and you are forced at gunpoint to go to a bar, and suck in second hand smoke.

At least where I live, I can freely go wherever I want.

Before there was a smoking ban, I choose to go to places that were smoke free. Any employee could choose to work at a place that is smoke free. As a non smoker, I love the effects of the smoking ban, but if there was a chance to overturn it, I would vote yes. I don't think the government should be telling people how to run a business.

[Kurska]

55. Tell that to the unemployed person who can't work in that bar.

Unless they want a constant intake of other people's smoke. It isn't just about giving people more smoke free entertainment options, it is about protecting employees who in this day in age are going to have to take any job they can get.

[trud]

58. Travis

Both grocery stores near my house often have clusters of employees smoking near the entrance. It is impossible to enter the store without walking through that smoke. The next closest grocery store is 15 miles away.

[onehandle]

9. Really? Protecting non-smokers is 'extremism?'

'Precisely' the same as 'anti-abortionists' and 'gay marriage crusaders?'

Really?

[ixion]

10. Yes, it is...

despite whatever perceptions you may harbor, you are inflicting your will on another group of people.

[onehandle]

13. Please PM me your address.

I will come right over with a few bug bombs for us to open and enjoy.

[ixion]

14. Spoken like an extremist

you should be so proud.

[Kurska]

17. It is just as wrong for you to inflict your smoke on others.

IF you want to do it, do it at home. No one is going to tell you not to masturbate at home either, but don't it in public. Oh and masturbation doesn't give anyone cancer either.

[ixion]

23. You are an extremist imposing your will on others.

that is the truth, whether you like it or not. It is just that simple.

[uppityperson]

28. It is extremism to not let you hurt me? Thanks for making your position so clear.

[ixion]

30. The only dangers to you are the ones you imgine

which is why you feel compelled for force others to accept your morality.

[uppityperson]

37. My asthma is from second hand smoke. Extremists never think their views are extreme.

[Kurska]

44. The dangers from second hand smoke are not "Imagined" they are real and you subject EVERYONE

else to them when you smoke near them. You can do it in your home, but not in public.

[Kurska]

43. Projecting much? Ever notice how when someone say "It is just that simple" it is never that simple.

Society has to choose between you being able to smoke wherever YOU want and nonsmokers being able to go wherever they want without breathing smoke.

[ixion]

112. we are all a part of society. and no one group has a right to reign over another group.

I'll accept smoking and non-smoking areas, but a total ban is intolerable.

[Kurska]

145. No one is advocating a total ban, just a PUBLIC BAN.

Just because YOU are part of a group doesn't mean your groups rights are supreme. The right of smokers to smoke has to be balanced against the right of nonsmokers to not breath smoke.

[trud]

59. "you are inflicting your will on another group of people. "

No shooting, no robbing! Darn will-inflicters.

[ixion]

113. You seem to find humor in doing so... interesting.

Humans are a cruel species.

[Kurska]

16. My gay marriage doesn't give you lung cancer.

Nor would it give someone who is smoke sensitive constant coughing attacks like I've seen.

[Ter]

51. Neither does second-hand smoke

Well, it does, but only if you're really exposed to it daily. Car pollution worries me more. Personally, I would just support a total ban. I'm not worried about second-hand smoke, but I'm worried for the smoker. It's so sad what they are doing to themselves.

[Kurska]

53. Thats the point, bars, casinos, restaurants.

A lot of non smokers will visit one of those places a day, and employees sure as hell will. You don't have to be related to someone to get near constant daily exposure to some asshole's second hand smoke.

[Ter]

118. How about just having a separate smoking casino?

There are so many different ones, just add one or two for smoking. Workers would have the choice. If they smoke, go for it. If not, stay in the other places.

[Kurska]

143. With the economy the way it is, do you really think it is going to be that way?

People can't just pick and choose jobs, so many people don't even have one. There won't be two separate casinos, there will be one and if you want a job you'll have to breath the smoke.

[Ohio Joe]

18. Those are some really bad comparisons

Abortion is between a woman and her doctor and has no impact on anyone else.

Gay marriage is between a loving couple and has no impact on anyone else.

Second hand smoke has an impact on everyone in range.

Those are simple facts. Smoking bans in restaurants and bars is in no way advancing a police state. It is putting into law what should be common courtesy but unfortunately there are a lot of assholes out there that feel their rights extend to infringing on other peoples rights.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

24. Complete non-sense

It is not a "belief", it is a fact that second hand smoke is a danger... which makes the rest of your rant untrue. There is also no absolutist agenda going on, we smokers (yes, I smoke) are free to smoke all we want. We just can't do it where it will have an impact on those that do not wish to smoke. Again, if there were fewer assholes and more of us that had common courtesy, these laws would not be required. Blame the assholes.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

36. Do you deny climate change as well?

Should we be teaching the "controversy" in science class?

The science is clear, second hand smoke is a danger.

Also, to be honest, you are the one being the extremist in the same vein as the anti-abortion crowd. You wish to force your way of living on others. We ask no one to change how they live, we just stop them from being assholes.

[nebenaube]

89. Well,

Know one has a right to force others not to smoke while they ride around in their cancerous producing hydrocarbon exhaust generator pumping gazillions of gallons of toxic fumes into the air.

[uppityperson]

38. You do not believe second hand smoke has any physical impact on anyone?

Extremists never think their views are extreme.

[trud]

67. no rational thought

I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you, ixion, so I understand your point of view.

So far what I get is: I, ixion, prefer to ignore all the scientific evidence that second hand smoke harms other people.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. I remember all those people dead from secondhand abortions and gay marriages.

:rofl:

[ixion]

33. Yes, hyperbole is the extremist fail safe

how very predictable.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

40. You bring out "police state" and accuse me of hyperbole?

:rofl:

I'd ask if you understand irony, but how can you when you don't even understand hyperbole? :rofl:

[trud]

57. ixion

Hardly. Your right to smoke stops where my lungs begin.

Even with these laws, I still have to walk the gauntlet of employees smoking outside stores but near the entrance.

[ixion]

63. Therein lies the rub

It's your imagination that a smoker 25 yards away from you is polluting your lungs. Seek help.

[trud]

66. imagination?

I can smell and see the smoke. That's not imagination.

Try again.

[ixion]

83. what you have is phobia similar to a germaphobe

seriously, get help.

[Kurska]

105. Under your logic telling people not to take shits on streets and in bars is germaphobic.

There is such a thing as a bathroom that is where you shit, there is such a thing as private property and the home, that is where you smoke. People MIGHT even be nice enough to set up areas in public where you are allowed to smoke without spreading your poison.

[ixion]

114. And there are bathrooms in restaurants and bars and airports and malls and offices

and using YOUR logic, there ought to be smoking areas as well. I appreciate you proving my point. Thanks.

[WatsonT]

74. Many smokers, in an enclosed space, with recirculating air, over years

yeah, definitely no collateral damage there.

Smokers are their own worst enemies. I have no problem with people picking their poison of choice and running with it. Tobacco, alcohol, even heroin. Whatever, so long as assurances are made that it won't affect me.

People can drink as much as they like, but not while sharing the road with anyone else. People can smoke as much as they like, but not while sharing the immediate air with non-smokers. Etc.

By opposing reasonable restrictions with such tenacity you just make the majority of non-smokers care even less what you have to say because you clearly don't give a damn about us.

[One_Life_To_Give]

80. Reasonable Accomodation was tossed long ago

When smoking restrictions first started they were needed. Smokers and non-smokers alike supported restrictions. But in the years since the idea of making reasonable accommodation for others has been thrown under the Bus. It's no longer about how we can protect the rights of both smoker and non-smoker alike. But a contest where no prisoners or quarter is allowed.

[WatsonT]

82. And what reasonable accomadation is there

for something that A)readily diffuses through the air and B) leads to death?

If I wanted to shoot my gun wildly in a crowded mall because I thought it was fun would reasonable accommodation have to be made? They might say: well you can shoot it at a range where it's safe. But of course I don't want to do that, I want to do it in a crowded area because it's more convenient for me. Who should win out?


Of course any such restriction are proof that people are mean to be me for no reason and that we are heading towards a fascist police state.

[One_Life_To_Give]

84. False analagy

Nobody is claiming a right to open up in DC with a rifle. And most smokers aren't looking to light up in the Theater anymore either. But banning someone from smoking in their own private car while on Company Property or within the Towns Borders is absurd.

There is somebody smoking in China right now. If I can detect 1 part per billion of his smoke. Should we throw him in jail? Or just castrate him? And what is next Perfume? Peanut butter? Flatulence? How does that compare to the 20,000 Heart Attacks this year caused by Coal Fired Electric generation? Should we turn off the electricity?

[WatsonT]

122. At what point does point does arsenic in the water become an issue?

One part in a trillion, a billion, a million, etc? Clearly there is no exact line before which it is harmless and after it is deadly. So why bother to restrict that at all?

It's not like water moves around and affects everyone, it's not like it's something we need to survive. So why bother to punish anyone who bothers contaminate it with something that may not even kill anyone directly for a while.

And if we start banning arsenic dumping then what next? Banning people from washing their hands or flushing dental floss? Those are totally comparable so it's reasonable to make that comparison.

And if we ban dumping arsenic why shouldn't be likewise ban hydro-electric power?


Again these are totally reasonable arguments and make complete sense and are in no way insane reaches and attempts to derail the conversation.

Totally.

[ixion]

85. Total Bans are not 'reasonable' in the least

which is why I hold the position I do. I'm all for accommodating all parties. But a total ban is not such an accommodation in any sense.

[Kurska]

101. No one is saying ban all smoking, that is idiotic.

They are saying you can't do it in public.

[ixion]

111. public is any common area. That is a defacto total ban.

And even at that, apartment buildings are already tearing down that last vestige of which you speak: the home. This is the problem with such movements. They start small, and wind up all-encompassing. I understand that people want non-smoking areas. What non-smokers need to accept is that smokers have just as much right to experience life as they see it in those common areas, just like non-smokers do. It amounts to segregation, but I would accept smoking and non-smoking areas. But that's not good enough, apparently. It has to be all the way, and that's what I simply cannot abide.

[Kurska]

100. How bout at a resturant at a table right next to me? Or an employee in a smoke filled bar.

Are they just IMAGINING the damage their possible DAILY exposure to your toxic crap is doing to them.

[ixion]

127. As someone who worked in a smoky bar all through college

I can say that if you don't like that environment, why would you work there?

It never bothered me, but then, I'm not an extremist.

[WatsonT]

72. This isn't really the defnition of a police state

Also abortion doesn't cause secondhand abortion. And gay marriage isn't the leading cause of lung cancer.

[ixion]

86. Well, yeah, it is actually

it's a series of ridiculous laws designed to keep a certain subset in check. It's about control, at the government level, and control is an element of the police state.

[WatsonT]

96. It's not about control

it's about public healthy.

Unless you're the type who doesn't "believe" in the myriad studies proving a link between tobacco use and cancer.

Just like you can't sell rotten food to the public. It's not about fascism, it's public health.

[ixion]

115. No, "public health" is the ruse

at the heart, it's a control issue. You are decreeing that a certain subset of our society will live the way you tell them, under penalty of law.

It's that simple.

[WatsonT]

121. Right because smokers were picked at random and their habits have absolutely

no negative health effects.

Other groups being unfairly picked on by the fascists: drunk drivers, incompetent restaurant chefs, those with dangerous mental illnesses, factories who wish to dump waste in to rivers, normal folks who want to discard their used motor oil and batteries down the storm drain, people with severely contagious and lethal diseases, and so on.

The only common factor there is the desire to control people. Clearly no regulations could possibly exist for everyones benefit.

[ixion]

125. No, they were picked because they're an easy, visible target

but nice try.

[SpartanDem]

128. BS second hand smoke is a public health hazard

That is a FACT. You can act like those idiot climate change deniers all you want, that doesn't change facts about second hand smoke.

[ixion]

133. No, that is anti-smoking propaganda touted as fact.

there's a BIG difference.

[WatsonT]

136. Does smoking cause cancer?

Obviously yes.

So is it the physical act of putting a cigarette in your mouth that does it, or inhaling carcinogen laced smoke?

Obviously the smoke.

And does that immediately disappear after inhalation and do cigarettes not emit smoke other than what the smoker inhales?

You're coming across as a nut here. Might want to tone it down a bit. The link between second hand smoke and adverse health affects is well established.

You can do what you want with your lungs, just please leave mine alone. Likewise when I go enjoy a beer I promise not to hook an IV drip up to your arm and force alcohol in to your blood.

Deal?

[WatsonT]

129. Yep, just like blacks and homosexuals and ethnic jews

and oh wait .. . none of those groups are voluntary and none cause a public health risk to others.


I guess this isn't like Nazi Germany.

Let me know when we start rounding y'all up in to camps.

Let me ask you something upfront: do you believe second hand smoke has any adverse affects whatsoever?

[ixion]

134. Your wealth of ignorance is astounding

One of the things used to demonize both black people and jewish people and (still to this day) homosexual people, was/is their uncleanliness. Nice try at revisionist history, though.

[WatsonT]

135. Right right

that's exactly the same.

There were many peer-reviewed scientific studies linking proximity to blacks and jews to cancer.

You can no doubt produce such studies that are comparable to the work done for second hand smoke?

BTW: you forgot to answer my question: does second hand smoke, in your opinion, have any negative affects?

/nice try at making smoking bans equivalent to the holocaust though. I guess some people really lack perspective.

[ProudDad]

142. Nasty old police state -- protecting us against

smokers spreading their poison where ever and whenever THEY want...

Nasty, nasty, nasty... :rofl:


Lemme' guess, you're a smoker...right? :eyes:

[Kolesar]

15. Democracy on overdrive

Sometimes democracy needs a check to protect the rights of the minority.

In this case, I voted for the ban on smoking in public places in Ohio. Count me with the horde.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurska]

45. Nope, just feed your habit at home.

You have every right to smoke at home.

[former9thward]

21. Smoking bans will be reversed eventually .

Declining revenues means that governments are even more dependent on cigarette taxes. If all smokers stopped tomorrow morning many state and local governments would grind to a halt. In Illinois some areas are reversing smoking bans because of loss of business.

[totodeinhere]

25. But think of all the money government would save from health care costs.

This is just my opinion. I haven't seen any studies on this but I'll bet you that if everybody in the country stopped smoking today it would save the Medicare and Medicaid programs billions.

[onehandle]

39. $70.7 Billion in 2010. The average annual household share was $619.

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0096.pdf

[former9thward]

47. Non smokers die too! And they cost a hell of a lot of money when they do.

That is what these agenda driven "studies" never bother to calculate.

[Zoeisright]

50. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Do a little research before you post such tripe.

Cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in this country. PERIOD. Denial and false equivalencies (look it up) will not make your case.

[former9thward]

93. I'm not trying to make any "case".

I feel people should be allowed to drink and smoke if they choose to. Smoking and drinking is enjoyable to many people and leads them to have a far less stressful life. There are just some people who hate to see others enjoying themselves. They think their lifestyle choices should be forced on everyone else. Not me.

[totodeinhere]

94. So people should be allowed to enjoy themselves even if such enjoyment costs the taxpayers billions?

In an organized society we can't always get to do each and every thing that we might personally enjoy since sometimes our own personal desires might conflict with the greater good of society. I might enjoy driving my car 100 MPH on the freeway but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it. And I might enjoy smoking, but is it fair for my enjoyment to cost the taxpayers a lot of money if I get sick and foot the bill on Medicaid or Medicare? And should my enjoyment excuse my getting someone else sick through my second hand smoke? No, it should not.

[former9thward]

95. By your logic the rich should be allowed to smoke but not the poor.

Because the rich can afford any health care issues so the taxpayers will not be burdened. What are your vices? Have any? Drink? That can health problems. Are you going to pay for it? What are you going to die from? Is is preventable in any way at all. How are you going to burden the taxpayers?

[totodeinhere]

104. It's just a fact of life that the rich will always have it better than everyone else. It is the

job of a civilized society to try to mitigate that as much as possible and provide for the less fortunate among us. But there have always been both rich and poor people and there always will be.

As far as my own vices go, of course I am human and I have them just like anyone else although I don't drink alcohol. But smoking is such a glaring example that it is just in the best interests of our society to regulate it and control it as best we can. And as far as drinking goes, it is already controlled and you can't just drink alcohol anywhere just like you can't smoke anywhere. And that's as it should be IMHO.

[former9thward]

106. Drinking is a health risk and you can drink it almost everywhere.

Your can drink at home, ballparks, restaurants, no end of bars, concerts, etc. Children are exposed to all of this except maybe bars. Since it can cause terrible health problems should we ban it and if not why not? After all this second hand exposure to alcohol is going to cause many if not most children to begin drinking at some point. I still want to know what you are going to die from. I guarantee you that some study will show it is preventable and it will cost us a bunch of money at the end.

[totodeinhere]

107. The difference is that second hand exposure to alcohol won't make children sick unless

someone actually allows them to consume it, which of course would be a crime. On the other hand, second hand exposure to tobacco smoke is a very real and documented health hazard.

I don't advocate banning either drinking or smoking because they case health problems. Prohibition proved that it won't work to do that. We need common sense regulations and controls on both of those vices however. And it is just common sense to restrict where people can smoke. We also restrict where people can drink. I am not allowed to drink alcohol in a moving vehicle for instance.

And yes of course I will die from something one day. But I sure hope it's not a painful long suffering death from lung cancer.

[former9thward]

109. The UCLA School of Public Health showed seond hand smoke

does not cause serious health problems. "Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed." http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf But I know you will believe what you want to believe no matter if it is junk science or not.

[totodeinhere]

110. That's just one study and you are taking it out of context. I would point you

to what the National Cancer Institute has to say about it.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent.)

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.

But even if it didn't cause cancer, which it does, I still shouldn't have to be exposed to nasty smelling tobacco smoke that gets all over my clothes and makes me feel sick to my stomach. If I am forced to associate with a client who smokes, the first thing my wife says to me when I get home is that she can smell cigarette smoke on me.

[former9thward]

119. No I didn't take anything out of context if you bothered to read it.

I printed in my post every single word of their conclusion. And no that is not the only study. There are dozens of them which have shown the same thing and they are easy to find if you want to look at the science. I think your real reason is at the end of the post. You don't like the smell. If you travel internationally much, and I have, you will soon learn Americans are the biggest complainers in the world. And your post reminds me of that fact. Some people complain about perfume. Should we ban that? Some people complain about peanuts. Should we stop those at the ballparks? Soon you will not be able to go out of your door because of some imagined offense to your body.

[trud]

71. former9thward

Yes, non-smokers die too. On average, we live ten years longer than smokers, though.

[Hannah Bell]

56. because non-smokers don't get sick, get old & die? because non-smokers all die instantly

in their beds after a robustly healthy life?

i work in a hospital & it just ain't so.

"moral panic"

[Zoeisright]

49. I very much doubt that.

And if it starts to happen, I, along with other militant non-smokers, who value our lungs, will fight it tooth and nail.

Even though smokers would wish this to be true, the overwhelming numbers of death and illness caused directly by cigarette smoke will never overcome the money grubbers.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

99. Some non-M.D. in the first thread told me that lie.

They said that my parents' smoking when I was a kid did NOT cause my scar tissue in my lungs which can be seen on an x-Ray.

Wonder how he got to be such an expert?

When I was a kid I had constant sinus infections, runny nose, allergies, sneezing fits, etc. We had an unairconditioned dirty house and a few pets and my parents smoked.

I'm grown and now I have allergies, runny nose, sneezing fits, and now allergic asthma on top of the other stuff.

If I am around a smoker, I will get sick in 48 hours. Guaranteed.

According to the dirty house theory, you are supposed to build antibodies if you grow up in a dirty environment. Didn't happen to me. I have had tons of allergies my whole life and acquired more as I grew up,

This is because my mother's family suffers from auto-immune disorders like Hashimoto's thyroiditis, rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases. I have a low-functioning immune system. Has nothing to do with the dirty house.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

60. For all the smokers out there who insist that second hand smoke is harmless,

you might want to read some of these links. I realize that your need to justify your own personal weakness will cause you to invalidate these studies, but I think that I'll believe the research done by medical professionals. The one constant conclusion from all of these studies is that second hand smoke DOES KILL people and that there is no such thing as a "safe" level of exposure.

You can continue to try to defend your position as being correct, but science shows that you are "dead" wrong. What I won't tolerate is the fact that you're also making innocent victims of your weakness physically dead also. Unless I'm mistaken, most people here at DU believe in science, so why don't you believe in this science?


From the Surgeon General
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/tobaccosmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf

Excerpt:
But the harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. Every year, thousands of nonsmokers die from heart disease and lung cancer, and hundreds of thousands of children suffer from respiratory infections because of exposure to secondhand smoke. There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and there is no safe tobacco product.


http://www.mdsmokefreeapartments.org/docs/ADA_Effective_Legal_Protection.pdf

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the
American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization and other leading public health and medical organizations.
Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. For millions of Americans, secondhand smoke has the potential to cause immediate, life-threatening asthmatic attacks.

[stockholmer]

61. "There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke" is a false statement

This would mean that every time, without exception, that any smoke from tobacco products was exposed to any person, that there was damage done that secondary person that would lead, very time, without exception, to that person being harmed to the point where they will, every time, without exception, get sick from at some point.

Logically and in practice this is ludicrous.

[ixion]

64. Anti-smoking zealots live on false statements

it's the only way they can advance their extreme agenda.

[trud]

69. stockholmer

I have bronchiectasis, a lung disease. Any amount of second hand smoke will start me coughing.

[WatsonT]

77. I believe the stock response is:

"F*** you, smoking never hurt anyone". And then they call you a fascist and maybe stab you with a pen when you start coughing.

I had no issue with smokers, so long as they are kept distant from me. But the more I read from them the more they're starting to annoy me. We all have our guilty little pleasures, our sins. But they seem so aggressive in pushing it and so indifferent to the affects they have on others that I am getting a little pissed off with them.

[trud]

88. epiphany

I just had a little epiphany about trying to reason with our friends. I know a bit about alcoholism, having that in my family. Addiction affects the brain, so that it impairs the ability to reason. That's why someone so drunk that if you lit a match you'd both be blown sky high can insist he's not drunk and apparently believe it. So, no use wasting time arguing with most smokers.

[WatsonT]

132. Yeah

and it is kinda sad that they don't see it.

They scream and rant about how everyone is picking on them when really most of us could care less if they smoke. I know I don't. I just don't want to have to breathe it.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

75. As I said; I will choose uncounted scientific studies and medical professionals

over people who will not or can't see the truth. The absurd generalizations about police states and what about our freedoms posts have grown very old and tiresome.

When smokers can show scientific proof done by non big tobacco interests that smoking is indeed harmless, they are free to post it. Good luck on them finding any credible studies that agree with their selfish point of view.

Until that time, maybe they should actually study the science of being exposed to over 4,000 chemicals that are released by burning tobacco including hundreds that are known carcinogens and toxins. However, as the old saying goes; there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I'll be anxiously awaiting those scientific studies that verify their view.

Until then, I have better things to do than waste my time on people who refuse to believe the truth simply because it is something that they don't want to hear.

I'll leave you one more link that will no doubt be ignored since it also contains scientific facts about the dangers of tobacco and the chemicals in tobacco smoke.

http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/harmful-chemicals-in-cigarettes.html

I'll be waiting to read the results of all of the studies posted that show tobacco smoke to be a panacea for the human race. Until then, I've wasted enough of my time here.

[WatsonT]

76. No, it means that at every exposure there is a chance of developing cancer

Consider Russian roulette. Every time you play you are putting yourself at risk. Does that mean every time you will lose?

For your statement to be consistent you'd have to say that calling Russian roulette dangerous is a false statement because it isn't fatal every single time.

And to be more accurate you're holding two guns, one to your head and one to the head of the person next to you who really doesn't want to play.

[stockholmer]

79. following this logical line, every single activity in one's life is unsafe

we all die, and dangers need to be mitigated as best we can, whilst balancing individual rights and autonomy. Smoking in public places here in Sweden has been illegal for 5 years now. Soon it will be in the US too.

But, given the propensity there for extremism, I fully believe that eventually no smoking tobacco of any kind will be allowed anywhere. That (and maybe before that absolute) is where a pandora's box of tyranny is opened up. Once that standard is codified and accepted, it will be applied to a multiplicity of other activities, some vital to maintaining a healthy (pardon the pun) public sphere of civil life and discourse. The police state is always gradualist in its approach, and always paved with 'good intentions'. I am not arguing against a ban of smoking in restos, etc. I am warning of step-by-step continuation down a path of tyranny.

[WatsonT]

81. What other activity is as dangerous as smoking that:

A) affect those not involved in it who just happen to be nearby B) is being performed correctly according the accepted protocol and C) is legal.

You could reduce every argument to the point of absurdity. Sneezing here might start a cascade of events leading to a fatal forest fire in the neighboring state.

Of course the string of events there are impossible to attribute to any one person.

However in smoking it's pretty clear cut: cigarette smoke causes cancer. It does so whether you are smoking the cigarette or simply breathing in some else's exhaust.

By the logic that A) everything carries some danger and B) we can't control all of it so we might as well legalize everything then we would have no laws or health regulations ever.

[stockholmer]

87. I guessed you missed the word 'balance' in my post, plus, driving meets your requirments

pollution, accidents, etc. So does factory farming, legalized GMO food (unlabeled), and WAR.

[WatsonT]

98. No it doesn't

Driving, when done properly, is safe.

There is no *safe* way to smoke. There is a *safe* way to drive.

Industrial pollution is heavily regulated, so I'm not sure you want to use that comparison. Likewise it is a necessity of modern life. Smoking isn't.



Also, if you decided to wage a war within city confines you'll like be prevented from doing so.

[KillCapitalism]

65. Good, get them smokers

Better yet, make cigarettes just as illegal as crystal meth

[stockholmer]

68. how's that 'war on drugs' thing working out for you?

:mad:

[trud]

70. stockholmer

Drugs are illegal everywhere. So the price goes up and crime rises.

Smoking is only illegal in some public places. Cigarettes are readily available legally. You can smoke your head off at home, and only endanger yourself and your family members and pets.

[stockholmer]

73. I was responding to the poster advocating making tobacco as illegal as crystal meth

Also, drugs are not illegal 'everywhere'. Here in much of the EU, many types are not. My country, Sweden is very strict, others, not so much, some hardly at all. This applies to other parts of the world as well.

[ixion]

116. Double Plus Good, Citizen!

Extra choco-rations for you! Make sure and report any suspicious activity by your neighbors!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

90. While coal plants cause air quality alerts and radiation encircles the globe

:eyes:

[Kurska]

102. Smokers arguement=I'm better than a coal plant? n/t

[ixion]

117. a coal plant, or any other of the number of chemicals you breathe on a daily basis

that's what makes this so ludicrous. It's simply visible, so therefore becomes stigmatized.

[ronnie624]

131. Machinery is a necessary element of modern human civilization.

Obviously, society has decided that the benefits offered by the utilization of such technology outweigh the inherent risks. Smoking tobacco doesn't have a lot to offer, it seems, so there isn't much political incentive to continue the practice.

Gone are the days when tobacco companies could convince the public with their advertising propaganda that cigarettes are good for you. You might as well get used to it.

[Old Troop]

120. As a smoker I'm conflicted about this. I have no problem with my workplace

being smoke-free - I find that I don't smoke until I get home and really don't miss it (maybe that makes me even crazier for not quitting). I think it would be interesting to see what the "market" would do if bar and restaurant owners had the choice to go smoke-free or not in their establishments. I think, without any empirical data, that most high-end bars/restaurants would remain smokeless and we might see some niche locations that allowed smoking.

[Hestia]

123. So, what do we tax now that people have quit smoking? What's the new model?

[ixion]

126. They'll find some other sub-group to demonize and exploit

that's they way they work.

[ronnie624]

130. There, there. You'll be alright.

We promise not to round you up and put you in concentration camps or anything like that.

[WatsonT]

138. Well not yet

first we'll pass a bunch of restrictions then start rounding them up.

Because this is exactly like Nazi Germany and they are being picked on for no reason like the Jews.

/yeah he actually made this argument earlier.

[ronnie624]

139. Addiction tends to cloud one's judgment.

It makes rational assessments difficult.

[WatsonT]

137. I think we should tax drunk drivers

that's a sub-group that likewise harms no one but is distinct and easily picked on for no reason other than to be mean to nice folks just trying to have a good time.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

140. I'm ALLERGIC to tobacco, and thus cigarette smoke,

I WILL get sick EVERY SINGLE TIME I am around a smoker. I will cough, and if I am exposed to it for a couple of hours, then I will get bronchitis in 48 hours. Guaranteed. I have had to stop being friends with some people because I got sick after I went to their houses and they smoked.

I am allergic to tomatoes. The last time I ate some accidentally, I was in great pain and in bed for two days with intestinal distress.

Tomato allergy is what is called a deadly nightshade allergy. Several plants are related to deadly nightshade, known as belladonna because women used to put it in their eyes in the Renaissance to dilate their pupils. It is the source of atropine, which is what the eye doctor will dilate your eyes with.

Some of the other plants in the nightshade family are: bell peppers, sweet peppers, eggplant, potatoes
and TOBACCO.

It's not my imagination. Second hand smoke makes people sick and endangers public health.

[Kurska]

146. I'm sure someone will come in here and berate you that people should have the right to burn tomatoes

right in your face, otherwise you are just a tyrannical majority and no better than the nazis.

[Endangered Specie]

147. Ah, nothing like a good smoking thread on D.U.

it never disappoints! :)