Smoking, same rights as free speech?

[LAVixian]

Originally Posted by Ansley

LAVixian might have a different answer, but for me, money.

respect

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

And for the record, PJ. I'm Dopey, not Stupid. Pay attention.

Okay, that was a mistake. Sorry Dopey.

[oshins]

A couple of points...
To Am-A-Pleaser: There is a book, "How To Lie With Statistics", good read. It will make you look at all statistics differently form now on. Based loosely on this theory I 'proved' two opposing viewpoints to be statistically correct using the exact same data. Moral of the story, the statistics they show you are to lend credit to their argument, no other reason.

To PJ: When you asked for peer reviewed journal articles showing the dangers of second hand smoke to those who ...what was it ... only occasionally might sometimes be likely to encounter second hand smoke? I offer this, http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf. This is a bibliography with roughly 630 peer reviewed journal articles on the dangers of second hand smoke. Also known as passive, or environmental smoking. The bib also has summaries of each study, one of which addresses your point exactly:

Panagiotakos, D.B.; Pitsavos, C.; Chrysohoou, C.; Skoumas, J.; Masoura, C.; Toutouzas, P.; Stefanadis, C., "Effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on markers of inflammation: the ATTICA study," American Journal of Medicine 116: 145-150, February 1, 2004.
This study sought to investigate the effect of secondhand smoke exposure on inflammatory markers related to cardiovascular disease, and concluded, "Our results suggest that exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke leads to inflammation and
oxidation. Even occasional exposure was related to increased levels of some inflammatory markers, and the effects of secondhand exposure were similar to the effects of active smoking."

I don't actually care where you(anyone) stands on the issue of smoking in restaurants, but I personally don't like to smell it. If I go into an establishment and it reeks of smoke, I'll find another.


peace
-oshins

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oshins

I don't actually care where you(anyone) stands on the issue of smoking in restaurants, but I personally don't like to smell it. If I go in to an establishment and it reeks of smoke, I'll find another.


peace
-oshins

Which kinda makes the market based argument valid.

I don't care for it smoke, don't get me wrong but the real argument in my mind is the one of local control. Do the people that cry for local control want the Fed's to pass a law banning the banning of smoking?

How ironic that would be.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by LAVixian

smoking is 100% banned in all places that serve food so how could I blow it in your face while we are eating???

Uh, the entire point of this 14 page thread is whether or not that (forcing other patrons to ingest 2nd hand smoke) should be allowed. I assumed your point was that it should be. Maybe i was wrong.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by Doove

So to keep saying "just give them a choice" seems like it's little more than to say "let's go back to all establishments allowing smoking".

In Atlanta if you own a smoking bar there are many rules and regulations that have to be met. You can't just open the door and declare yourself a smoking bar. Why is it such a problem to have smoking establishments and non smoking establishments? Let the general public decide where they would rather dine and drink. Most restaurant owners would not like to go back to allowing smoking. Too many rules, regulations and angry patrons.

Originally Posted by Doove

This way, they wouldn't lose the smokers, and since every other restaurant was doing it, they wouldn't lose non-smokers either.

In today's world there are many more non-smokers. There is no way that they would go back to the smoking and non-smoking sections. Smoke will linger into the non-smoking section. I really don't blame non-smokers for not wanting to be around it.

Originally Posted by Doove

This simply puts everyone on a level playing field, and let's the quality of the restaurant determine it's success or failure. Not whether or not it's willing to expose it's employees to a risk it shouldn't have to expose them to.

Why does there need to be a level playing field? A fine dining restaurant isn't at the same level as a greasy spoon joint. It's about choices. Why shouldn't I be able to have the choice of what kind of place I want to spend my money. Oh, then the employees you keep speaking of won't have a choice. If all restaurants allowed smoking, they would have to work in a smoky environment.

Originally Posted by Doove

But it is something that i'm sure some business owners actually appreciate, even if they would allow smoking if they were able/forced to.

I don't think any restaurant owner would want to be forced to have smoking. Owners simply would like to be able to choose what type of clientele they would like to cater to. Smokers or non-smokers.

[oden]

Originally Posted by Doove

Uh, the entire point of this 14 page thread is whether or not that (forcing other patrons to ingest 2nd hand smoke) should be allowed. I assumed your point was that it should be. Maybe i was wrong.

No, the point is whether the owner of an establishment should be the one to determine if it is smoking or nonsmoking. What is being missed here is that there is are two minority groups here, one that smokes and another that gets incensed when someone smokes in their presence. The rest of us deal with it unless it gets out of hand one way or the other. The fact that the extreme nonsmoking minority could not sway the middle to boycott smoking establishments led them to take it to the courts and the ballot box. For smokers to get their rights will probably take the same until we all start paying attention when government starts infringing on our rights that were probably conceived in a smoke filled pub.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Ansley

In today's world there are many more non-smokers. There is no way that they would go back to the smoking and non-smoking sections.

I'll say this. If i thought the 2nd part of your statement was true, i might be willing to change my position. If only 1/2 the restaurants in my area were non smoking, i'd be ok with that. But in spite of the changing times, i don't necessarily believe that is how things would shake out.

The ratio of smokers to non smokers even before the ban locally was skewed far in favor of the non smoker. But nevertheless, there still was not 1 establishment that was strictly non smoking. Maybe you're right, maybe now that people have realized just how much they appreciate it, it would be different. Who knows?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by oden

No, the point is whether the owner of an establishment should be the one to determine if it is smoking or nonsmoking. What is being missed here is that there is are two minority groups here, one that smokes and another that gets incensed when someone smokes in their presence. The rest of us deal with it unless it gets out of hand one way or the other. The fact that the extreme nonsmoking minority could not sway the middle to boycott smoking establishments led them to take it to the courts and the ballot box. For smokers to get their rights will probably take the same until we all start paying attention when government starts infringing on our rights that were probably conceived in a smoke filled pub.

Word! Dopey (and his chorus) still doesn't get it.

[oshins]

To the point of the thread... What should be and reality are rarely the same thing. For example, the seat belt laws. I think all children should be required to be in a seat belt or carseat. Period. Until they reach the age of majority their protection is paramount. As adults, we should be able to choose. The reality is that seat belts do save lives and the insurance lobby has successfully convinced congress that we all need to be protected from ourselves.
I used the seat belt example to illustrate another point, cell phones and driving. A recent statistic (refer to the above comment on statistics) showed that ~80% of all auto accidents are a result of 'distracted driving' the majority of the distractions cited were cell phone use. So using the same logic as that which gave us the seat belt laws... why is texting and driving still legal?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by oshins

There is a book, "How To Lie With Statistics", good read. It will make you look at all statistics differently form now on. Based loosely on this theory I 'proved' two opposing viewpoints to be statistically correct using the exact same data. Moral of the story, the statistics they show you are to lend credit to their argument, no other reason.

To PJ: When you asked for peer reviewed journal articles showing the dangers of second hand smoke to those who ...what was it ... only occasionally might sometimes be likely to encounter second hand smoke? I offer this, http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf.

no-smoke.org eh? Now, given your first paragraph, why would I bother even looking at this drivel?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by oshins

So using the same logic as that which gave us the seat belt laws... why is texting and driving still legal?

Why are three women allowed in a car?

[John Bull]

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Well, once it kills off the old dumbasses, maybe the younger generation will open their eyes and we'll see 10% or less.

You'll have to find a better result than that since the greatest percent of new smokers is young, teen age girls. They think it will help them become thin.

[Willen]

PJ, you're on your own with that last comment.

As someone who lost a close family member to lung cancer, and who grew up in a house with pea soup smke layers, I'm hugely anti-tobacco. But it should suffice that public establishments display whether they allow smoking. Then those of us with any sense will simply stay away.

Cell phones and driving are another matter completely. IF you accept the substantial research that indictes that driving should never be part of a multitasking approach to living your life, then the rest of us have every right to ask that cell phone use should be illegal while driving. Sure, enforcement is a bear and will always be wildly imperfect, but so what?

[petiteassman]

thousands of guys spend time and money in new orleans hoping to get some girls to flash their boobs. if they knew anything they would take every spare dime and second brab lavixian and dallas rain and enjoy every inch of these women in every way possible while they enjoyed each other. while i never smoked ill trade a little ciggarette bu to enjoy vixians but anytime. as for the blowing.. god i gotta get to la. before i die

Originally Posted by LAVixian

Lol, well I for one would love to meet a non-smoker who would DIE to kiss my ass... and I promise that you would LOVE my BLOWING.....