Smoking Laws

[BBatesokc]

I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.

[Maynard]

I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.

"Cherry-picking" data [paragraphs] just like the EPA, eh?

[betts]

I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.

Agree. It's an opinion piece, not a scientific document. Also, medicine is still in the dark ages regarding vulnerability of different individuals to different diseases. In general, doctors and scientists have no idea what dose creates disease in different people. There are definitely people who are genetically more vulnerable than others to a variety of diseases. One person might develop cancer or emphysema at a very low dose and someone else might have lifelong exposure without problems. It's almost assuredly a genetic difference between those two people that explains the difference. Until we are sophisticated enough to test people at birth to determine what their risks are, we have to assume that everyone is at risk at the lowest possible dose that is known to cause disease. That's the only way to knowingly prevent disease. With some drugs we recognize they will cause disease in some, but the benefits justify the risks. I don't see any benefits to smoke exposure that would justify taking the risk of disease. The personal freedom of a smoker stops where he or she infringes on the rights of others to be free of disease.

[Larry OKC]

Agree. It's an opinion piece, not a scientific document. Also, medicine is still in the dark ages regarding vulnerability of different individuals to different diseases. In general, doctors and scientists have no idea what dose creates disease in different people. There are definitely people who are genetically more vulnerable than others to a variety of diseases. One person might develop cancer or emphysema at a very low dose and someone else might have lifelong exposure without problems. It's almost assuredly a genetic difference between those two people that explains the difference. Until we are sophisticated enough to test people at birth to determine what their risks are, we have to assume that everyone is at risk at the lowest possible dose that is known to cause disease. That's the only way to knowingly prevent disease. With some drugs we recognize they will cause disease in some, but the benefits justify the risks. I don't see any benefits to smoke exposure that would justify taking the risk of disease. The personal freedom of a smoker stops where he or she infringes on the rights of others to be free of disease.

Hmmm, not the same thing of course but we have taken the same approach when it comes to a few other things (protecting the most vulnerable in society, be it underaged etc), be it alcohol, content of popular media etc. Some folks can be exposed to the same book, program, movie or song lyric and not be effected, while it just might be the trigger that sets some other person off. Not for or against, just an observation.

[Dubya61]

Hmmm, not the same thing of course but we have taken the same approach when it comes to a few other things (protecting the most vulnerable in society, be it underaged etc), be it alcohol, content of popular media etc. Some folks can be exposed to the same book, program, movie or song lyric and not be effected, while it just might be the trigger that sets some other person off. Not for or against, just an observation.

What a slippery slope! and now you've put on your teflon-coated skis! Are you saying that if only certain books, movies or songs were outlawed, that certain murderer wouldn't have gone all psycho and killed that poor innocent who wasn't as susceptible to the devil's handiwork. Don't get me wrong. I'm an ex smoker who can't stand smoking. I just think you derailed the process here.

[Larry OKC]

Not me, but that is what some have argued...just noting the similarities

[Questor]

I only have to read a couple of paragraphs of that article to be convinced I don't take that MD seriously. "The church of the smoke haters"? Yeah, lots of credibility there.

The guy's a toxicologist, not an oncologist, and certainly not a scientific researcher, so that explains a lot.

[Bellaboo]

"Cherry-picking" data [paragraphs] just like the EPA, eh?

Listen, smoking sucks. It's about the most nasty god awful intrusive habit a person can inflict on someone.......there is NO 'public place' smoking justification.

[Maynard]

[Maynard]

I think I suddenly want to become a butcher. Except I wish to butcher my animals wherever I wish. Sorry if I get any blood on you. And don't worry about that puddle, just walk through it. Statistically speaking, you are not likely to die from walking on blood. You might smell funny for a while but hey, don't you dare trample on my rights!


How's that for hyperbole?

"Vote with your feet". Don't like smoking at a particular place? Don't go -- simple!

Business owners should have the choice, but there will always be those who try to usurp private property rights.

[BBatesokc]

"Vote with your feet". Don't like smoking at a particular place? Don't go -- simple!

Business owners should have the choice, but there will always be those who try to usurp private property rights.

Nah...... we did better, we still go to those places..... you just can't smoke there!

Business owners don't get to choose if they put in fire suppression, follow health codes, abide by handicap access regulations. This is a health and safety issue and obviously those with the power to implement agree.

[Maynard]

Nah...... we did better, we still go to those places..... you just can't smoke there!

Business owners don't get to choose if they put in fire suppression, follow health codes, abide by handicap access regulations. This is a health and safety issue and obviously those with the power to implement agree.

They do have the right to refuse service to anyone, including non-smokers.

[Bellaboo]

They do have the right to refuse service to anyone, including non-smokers.

And smokers too. So ?

[Maynard]

And smokers too. So ?

Exactly. So, "vote with your feet".

[BBatesokc]

Exactly. So, "vote with your feet".

Why? When we can do better than that - and did.

Again, its not a customer rights issue or a business owner rights issue - its a health and safety issue. Like it or not. Personally, I really like it!

[Bellaboo]

If you are out and need to smoke, just go to your car, as long as it's not on state property that is, and keep the windows up too, it's a better effect, that way your entire body will stink like an old ash trey.

[Larry OKC]

BBatesokc: isn't there an exemption for smaller businesses? And IIRC the legislature exempted their own offices. If it is a health/safety issue, what about the health/safety of those folks?

[Sheetkeecker]

The government should outlaw all bad habits and seize control of all grocery stores and food production facilities, nationwide.
Control all farming and food products of any kind whatsoever.
The FDA will set menus and quantities for all citizens.
Committees will be formed to oversee this, a Food Czar named.
Eliminate obesity as Mrs. Obama says.

[Bellaboo]

The government should outlaw all bad habits and seize control of all grocery stores and food production facilities, nationwide.
Control all farming and food products of any kind whatsoever.
The FDA will set menus and quantities for all citizens.
Committees will be formed to oversee this, a Food Czar named.
Eliminate obesity as Mrs. Obama says.

Does this have something to do with this topic ?

[Sheetkeecker]

Does this have something to do with this topic ?

"Yes"

[Dubya61]

Does this have something to do with this topic ?

See posts #108 and #123. Both are absurd. One was sarcastic (I suspect). Not really this topic, unless you're trying to save the defenseless from the vices of others. Public health can be stretched so far to rally your cause. If the topic is that second-hand smoke is a public health issue, both posts are tangential absurdities that demonstrate the danger of running with a precedent to further your cause. I don't favor public smoking and DO favor outlawing it ... so long as that's the last time we step on some people's toes in defense of public health.

[Bellaboo]

"Yes"

Right, you've taken a public health issue all the way to extreme Communism.

[TaoMaas]

Anyone who chooses to live in a metropolitan area where you can actually see the dirty air from a distance has forfeited their right to complain about damage to their lungs from other sources, IMHO.

[Sheetkeecker]

Right, you've taken a public health issue all the way to extreme Communism.

"Slippery Slope"

[oneforone]

When smoking is gone what will be next? Will vegans start telling everyone that eating meat hurts their feelings so eating meat in public will be banned. I say we get the ball rolling now. People that annoy me drive my blood pressure up and high blood pressure can kill me. Therefore, I should be able to catapult anyone who annoys me.