|
|
| Do you think smoking should be banned from every public place? |
| yes |
|
60% |
[ 9 ] |
| no |
|
40% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:27 am
LucRicher Invictus_88 LucRicher Did you even read what I said? They harm no one?... These people are probably going to die. And sorry, I forgot to leave out that those girls diagnosed with lung cancer have never smoked a day in their lives. Just breathed it in far too long. You can't just generalize and say that the majority of people working at restaurants smoke... Waitresses are usually just college girls trying to pay their tuition fees. It's not hurting anyone? It killed people
Anyway. It increases the risk of death. People enjoy it and they take a risk. What reason have you, or anyone, to prevent that.
I'm generalising because that is generally the case. What else is one to do, lie?
To do outlaw smoking in bars would make it necessary to ban recreational driving, alcohol, contact sports, marriage and horse-riding.
Ludicrous."Health effects of second-hand smoke The hazardous health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke are now well-documented and established in various independent research studies and numerous international reports. The body of scientific evidence is overwhelming: there is no doubt within the international scientific community that second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma and middle ear infections in children and various other respiratory illnesses. Second-hand smoke exposure is also causally associated with stroke, low birthweight, spontaneous abortion, negative effects on the development of cognition and behaviour, exacerbation of cystic fibrosis and cervical cancer. " - http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/"Since January 1, 1998, smoking in bars and taverns in the State of California has been prohibited. In light of the new regulation which eliminated all second-hand smoke from indoor workplaces, a team of researchers from the University of California decided to measure the respiratory symptoms and vital measures of lung function of bar workers before and after the ban was implemented. In the case of non-smoking bar workers, respiratory symptoms cleared up, and depending on the lung measure used, lung function increased between 4.5 per cent and 6.8 per cent after the ban took effect.14 Even more startling, in the case of smoking bar workers, there was the same increase in lung function.14 The study shows that whether one is a smoker or a non-smoker, both a significant improvement in lung function and a reduction in respiratory symptoms will occur in a smoke-free environment." "What is also important to note is that non-smokers, when exposed to second-hand smoke, experience similar physiological effects to those of active smokers: in those studies where "non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke, carotid wall thickening and compromised endothelial function were similar to, but less extensive than, those experienced by active smokers." - Ontario Medical Association Apparantly the actual smoking is not the only danger in smoking? Second hand smoke is actually quite dangerous... and it causes "up to 7,800 deaths in Canada every year" -OMA
I already agreed that second-hand smoke is more than likely to shorten your life, so why throw the the data to support that?
My arguments is that there is no sense in banning something simply because it isn't good for your longevity.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:20 am
*shrug* I guess I'm indifferent, but I really hate it when I'm standing in line somewhere and someone accidentally blows smoke in my unsuspecting face. eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:05 pm
i believe it should be banned, because not everyone wants to breathe in that stale smell of tobacco, and second hand smoke can kill,too.i think its disrespectful to smoke with others around you. it should only be done in your own home, where you can die slowly yourself. this may sound harsh(and im sorry)but if you want to kill yourself slowly, dont drag other people with you...sorry for the harshness again. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:59 am
ami_satome i believe it should be banned, because not everyone wants to breathe in that stale smell of tobacco, and second hand smoke can kill,too.i think its disrespectful to smoke with others around you. it should only be done in your own home, where you can die slowly yourself. this may sound harsh(and im sorry)but if you want to kill yourself slowly, dont drag other people with you...sorry for the harshness again. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:51 am
The government restricts people from doing enough things as is. If people want to smoke, let them. That's their right. Contrary to popular belief, there is no place that says people have a right to breathe clean air. Even if there was, I would say that would put a big damper on these gas-guzzling cars that a lot of Americans love to drive.
I am not about to force my opinions and beliefs one someone else just because I might not like what they're doing. If it bothers me that much, I can ask them to smoke away from me, or at least wait until I'm not around, and usually I've noticed that people will extend that courtesy. I don't like smoking, I don't like being around people that are smoking because it gives me pounding sinus headaches, just like extreme weather changes. I will not, however, get up on a soapbox just because I don't like it. I prefer having smoke all around me than the idea of the government policing and babying people more. "Don't let them do that! They'll hurt themselves!" ******** quite frankly. Smoking sections is realistic, adding air purifiers into places with smoking sections would be good too, but rather than think up potential options that might save someone a bit of liberty, people automatically want to snuff it all out, either because they can't think of the bigger picture in that, or because they want to save people from themselves. If people want to destroy themselves, hey, I'm all for it...as long as it's their decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 3:35 am
Invictus_88 My arguments is that there is no sense in banning something simply because it isn't good for your longevity. Because I should be able to go out into public without killing myself slowly every single time. If you want to destroy your lungs? Fine. Do it at your OWN HOME. Those of us who DON'T SMOKE should not be forced to give up owr own health, just so someone idiot can sacrifice his.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 4:04 am
I think that smoking should be banned from sealed airspaces. Restaurants, planes, office towers. A "smoking section" should be sealed off by glass from the main area. (I've seen that in a McDonald's, so it can't be too hard.) Ideally, it is also kept well ventilated so that servers are not exposed to too much smoke. Designated smoking areas outside should be set at a safe distance from main entrances and exits; if you have to walk right by the chain smokers to get in or out, there's not much point in designating an area. (This should also take into account the smokers' convenience and safety.) All of this, of course, can be covered in the building codes. Invictus You exagerrate, most of the studies indicate that second hand smoke isn't a huge factor anyway. It is almost entirely dependent upon whether the individual smokes or not. Invictus 2 - the return of Invictus That was long, and pointless. I already agreed that second-hand smoke is more than likely to shorten your life, so why throw the the data to support that? Don't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:16 am
ButterBalls Well, I really like to uphold an individual right for the people because I think they have that right. They work all day to make enough money to smoke so they should be able to do that. It's their right and their entitled to that. Their health should be their problem.
The biggest problem that I have with it is a public good issue. For one, what has smoking really done as a positive affect other than hype up teen smoking and addiction? It hasn't really done anything. Then you have the factor of second hand smoke and people die from it. Why should I have to die because you want to smoke? I don't think it's right. I think you can compare that to indirect murder. Little kids and such shouldn't have to die. except that there is no evidence whatsoever that people do actually die from secound hand smoke, and all of the studies that try to prove otherwise, and indeed have stated otherwise in thier press releases have proven the opposite. http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.htmlhttp://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.htmlnekogal2 Invictus_88 LucRicher Did you even read what I said? They harm no one?... These people are probably going to die. And sorry, I forgot to leave out that those girls diagnosed with lung cancer have never smoked a day in their lives. Just breathed it in far too long. You can't just generalize and say that the majority of people working at restaurants smoke... Waitresses are usually just college girls trying to pay their tuition fees. It's not hurting anyone? It killed people
Anyway. It increases the risk of death. People enjoy it and they take a risk. What reason have you, or anyone, to prevent that.
I'm generalising because that is generally the case. What else is one to do, lie?
To do outlaw smoking in bars would make it necessary to ban recreational driving, alcohol, contact sports, marriage and horse-riding.
Ludicrous.so why not legalize cociane,estacy,and lsd? as for cociane there are sevaral other factors associated there, and it has a good chance of causing a rather sudden and massive heart attack, the same with estacy, and LSD. they can kill you immediatly, where as secound hand smoke does not kill you, ever. Quote: I think it should be banned in most public places especially where families go and where little children or where underage people go. I'm really all for people smoking though, or I just really don't care that much if they do it. I'll go to those little get togethers with people and everything. I just don't think I or anyone else that doesn't smoke should have to die because you had to light one up. i will let you respond to the top part before i say anything on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:27 am
Smoking is already banned from public places in Norway, and at work people have to go outside. I think that's a good thing. Astmatic people can't be fond of second-hand smoking, can they? Also there's people who can't stand the smell, and can go ill from it. Besides... It's dangerous, and after that law came and a big anti-smoking campaign A LOT of people quit smoking. Give the smokers less and less to smoke on, and in the end it'll be very few people who smoke, I belive. But of course, you can't constrict it too much, as that will constrict people too, but turn the screw around a little every now and then, and with some big campaigns and it'll be less and less people smoking.
Personally I've never smoked, not even tried it. And I'm quite proud of that. And I've also lost a grandparent from smoking, and that was when I really started to care about it. Before that it was just irritating, now I'm completely against it. But people have the right to smoke, and you can't just make it illegal over the night either. So just constrict it a little bit from time to time and some campaigns and it'll help, mesa belives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:52 am
nekogal2 Invictus_88 LucRicher Did you even read what I said? They harm no one?... These people are probably going to die. And sorry, I forgot to leave out that those girls diagnosed with lung cancer have never smoked a day in their lives. Just breathed it in far too long. You can't just generalize and say that the majority of people working at restaurants smoke... Waitresses are usually just college girls trying to pay their tuition fees. It's not hurting anyone? It killed people
Anyway. It increases the risk of death. People enjoy it and they take a risk. What reason have you, or anyone, to prevent that.
I'm generalising because that is generally the case. What else is one to do, lie?
To do outlaw smoking in bars would make it necessary to ban recreational driving, alcohol, contact sports, marriage and horse-riding.
Ludicrous.so why not legalize cociane,estacy,and lsd?
Ever heard of anyone mugging old ladies to fuel their snuff habit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:55 am
Yondara the ChaosMage Invictus_88 My arguments is that there is no sense in banning something simply because it isn't good for your longevity. Because I should be able to go out into public without killing myself slowly every single time. If you want to destroy your lungs? Fine. Do it at your OWN HOME. Those of us who DON'T SMOKE should not be forced to give up owr own health, just so someone idiot can sacrifice his.
Stupid zealot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:14 am
Wendigo Invictus You exagerrate, most of the studies indicate that second hand smoke isn't a huge factor anyway. It is almost entirely dependent upon whether the individual smokes or not. Invictus 2 - the return of Invictus That was long, and pointless. I already agreed that second-hand smoke is more than likely to shorten your life, so why throw the the data to support that? Don't do that.
#1: Isn't a huge factor in killing you (lung cancer, etc). True point. It is almost entirely down to whether you smoke or not.
#2: It'll shorten your life just like anything else that not good for you. It won't kill you, but after a prolonged period it will start to hinder your fitness and ability to fight off disease. This is why you're likely to have a shorter life through pronged second-hand smoke, but it won't kill you.
Unless I've made a mistake somewhere.
confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:43 am
Wendigo http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835 Quote: More specifically, EPA concluded that ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. Maybe a little?
Well, 3,000 out of probably more than double the number of US smokers (US smokers, all over 46.2million of them). So, of 46.2million smokers they cause 3,000 deaths believed to be because of second hand smoke.
The gives us over 15,400 smokers to give one person lung cancer, one person who could just go to a non-smoking bar anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
