Smokers Stink (AET) thread made me think

nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
edited February 2010 in A Moving Train
Whenever there's a thread on this board about smoking people leap up and down saying how disgusting it is. It is, but are there double standards? In the UK we have do gooders complaining on the radio that smokers shouldn't be able to get free health care on the NHS, but they never say the same about drinkers or the obsese. When someone starts a thread saying they are typing this while pissed out of their brains the subject becomes a big joke. If I started a thread saying I was typing this while smoking a huge cigar there would be yuk yukking etc.

Some will say that smoking can cause secondary illnesses but in the UK without anyone being able to smoke in public places this must be getting extremely difficult to happen. And is it just smoking that causes secondary problems. A mate is an alcoholic... so was his Dad. Did the father's drinking make him the same way? And what about the woman that gets beaten up by the drunk husband, or the innocent cyclist that gets mown down by the drunk driver? Obesity is another major problem and when I see hugely fat kids 9 times out of 10 the parents are as well.

Despite this cigarettes can't be advertised but alcohol and junk food can. Tobacco products have health warnings but a McD crap burger doesn't.

I don't know what the figures are in the US but figures I found for the UK are:

Obesity
Cost to NHS in 2007 - £4.2 billion set to rise to £6.2 billion by 2015 if we take no action

Alcohol
Cost to NHS per year - £3 billion

Smoking
Cost to NHS in 2008 - £2.7 billion

What's worse?

And as a side note the tax revenue raised on tobacco related products in 2008/2009 was £10 billion. The only figures I could find for alcohol were app £6 billion per year. In the UK people should be grateful to smokers. They are making the country a fortune.

I'm not defending smoking just wish some would look at other problems as well.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I agree with your notion that the health risks are no better/worse than things like obesity or alcohol. But the one main difference with smoking is if done around others, it is harmful to those people. If I have a drink, you won't have an effect from it unless I drive and cause an accident or something like that.. but if I smoke around you, you could have a negative health effect if it is done enough or smoking is allowed everywhere. Many smokers say they feel harassed or discriminated against because of seclusion or similar, but that's pretty much a selfish reaction. If we had things like smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants/areas in public, that's one thing, but if we do not, it is no different from polluting a river in small amounts and then saying it's not your problem that the river/ocean gets polluted as a result.

    Also, in terms of costs and healthcare, smoking has far worse results than the other two... in fact, people who smoke have higher chances of other non-cancerous diseases like heart disease or many others.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • flywallyflyflywallyfly Posts: 1,453
    I read an article the other day about how much it costs Britian's healthcare service just for fights with broken pint glasses by drunks in the pubs ! It was an outstanding figure just for the stabbings! (The article was about a new shatterproof pint glass that is being tested in some pubs)

    Found it ---> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... e5b0e.html


    LONDON – The government unveiled a shatterproof pint glass Thursday that could save billions in health care costs by not doubling as a lethal weapon in pub fights.

    There are about 87,000 alcohol-related glass attacks each year, with many resulting in hospital visits, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said. The government estimates that alcohol-related problems cost the National Health Service $4.3 billion per year.

    THE SOLUTION

    Two types of shatterproof technologies are in the works. One has a thin bio-resin coating on the inside that strengthens it, and the other bonds two thin layers of gas together in the same way as car windshields. Both are difficult to break, and they keep the shards together if they do fracture, rendering them useless as weapons.
  • nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I agree with your notion that the health risks are no better/worse than things like obesity or alcohol. But the one main difference with smoking is if done around others, it is harmful to those people. If I have a drink, you won't have an effect from it unless I drive and cause an accident or something like that.. but if I smoke around you, you could have a negative health effect if it is done enough or smoking is allowed everywhere. Many smokers say they feel harassed or discriminated against because of seclusion or similar, but that's pretty much a selfish reaction. If we had things like smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants/areas in public, that's one thing, but if we do not, it is no different from polluting a river in small amounts and then saying it's not your problem that the river/ocean gets polluted as a result.

    Also, in terms of costs and healthcare, smoking has far worse results than the other two... in fact, people who smoke have higher chances of other non-cancerous diseases like heart disease or many others.
    The figures cover related illnesses so smokings is not just cancer but includes heart disease etc. Obese people don't cost the NHS for just being fat, it's the heart disease, diabetes etc. Alcohol's costs are for liver problems, driving accidents etc.

    As I said, in the UK people can't go out anywhere and smoke near people, unless it's in a park. We don't have smokers bars or smoking areas in restaurants. We just can't smoke in any building with 3 closed in sides. That includes stadiums. Some pubs even stop you smoking in the garden.
  • nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
    I read an article the other day about how much it costs Britian's healthcare service just for fights with broken pint glasses by drunks in the pubs ! It was an outstanding figure just for the stabbings! (The article was about a new shatterproof pint glass that is being tested in some pubs)

    Found it ---> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... e5b0e.html


    LONDON – The government unveiled a shatterproof pint glass Thursday that could save billions in health care costs by not doubling as a lethal weapon in pub fights.

    There are about 87,000 alcohol-related glass attacks each year, with many resulting in hospital visits, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said. The government estimates that alcohol-related problems cost the National Health Service $4.3 billion per year.

    THE SOLUTION

    Two types of shatterproof technologies are in the works. One has a thin bio-resin coating on the inside that strengthens it, and the other bonds two thin layers of gas together in the same way as car windshields. Both are difficult to break, and they keep the shards together if they do fracture, rendering them useless as weapons.
    Thanks for making me feel better about living here. And I bet of the 87,000 alcohol-related glass attacks each year most of the fuckers smoked. :lol:
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I don't argue the hypocrisy, but I guess it comes down to mob rule and cause/effect.
    nuffingman wrote:
    The figures cover related illnesses so smokings is not just cancer but includes heart disease etc. Obese people don't cost the NHS for just being fat, it's the heart disease, diabetes etc. Alcohol's costs are for liver problems, driving accidents etc.

    As I said, in the UK people can't go out anywhere and smoke near people, unless it's in a park. We don't have smokers bars or smoking areas in restaurants. We just can't smoke in any building with 3 closed in sides. That includes stadiums. Some pubs even stop you smoking in the garden.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    To play devil's advocate, one might argue that genetics play a part in alcoholism and obesity, but smoking addiction was caused 100% by choice.

    Personally, I think everyone should have free healthcare... especially preventative healthcare, which could help with these problems before they got out of hand.
  • dustinparduedustinpardue Las Vegas, NV Posts: 1,829
    there isn't anything more whiny, depraved, and childish than a complaining non-smoker with the fake ass coughs. give me a fucking break. :lol:
    "All I Ever Knew" available now in print and digital formats at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and iBooks.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    I think my thing about smoking is that a smoker is enforcing their actions upon their kids... the amount of idiots I see in cars smoking away while they have 2 little kids in the back seats just soaking up their cancer is fucking infuriating..

    I'm with you on the obesity thing as well... if i ruled Scotland, which technically i do but thats a whole other thread, then morbidly obese people would have to pay for their own health care... same for alcoholics... plus i'd ban liver transplants for anyone who is an alcoholic.

    I'd also make it legal to kill bus drivers... again.. a whole other thread.
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Are you seriously downplaying the long term effects of second-hand smoke or similar?
    there isn't anything more whiny, depraved, and childish than a complaining non-smoker with the fake ass coughs. give me a fucking break. :lol:
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Are you seriously downplaying the long term effects of second-hand smoke or similar?

    Here's what I learned in class last night: 3000 people per year in the U.S. die as a result of second-hand smoke. :evil:
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    If it is 1 person, it is too many.
    scb wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Are you seriously downplaying the long term effects of second-hand smoke or similar?

    Here's what I learned in class last night: 3000 people per year in the U.S. die as a result of second-hand smoke. :evil:
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    FiveB247x wrote:
    If it is 1 person, it is too many.
    scb wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Are you seriously downplaying the long term effects of second-hand smoke or similar?

    Here's what I learned in class last night: 3000 people per year in the U.S. die as a result of second-hand smoke. :evil:

    I wholeheartedly agree. :thumbup:
  • JD SalJD Sal Posts: 790
    scb wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Are you seriously downplaying the long term effects of second-hand smoke or similar?

    Here's what I learned in class last night: 3000 people per year in the U.S. die as a result of second-hand smoke. :evil:

    What is the source for this information? Frankly, I don't know how anyone can accurately calculate the number of deaths due to second hand smoking, but a quick google search turned up multiple sources that claim the average is around 50,000 deaths per year (this is included in the 450,000 annual deaths of Americans due to smoking).
    "If no one sees you, you're not here at all"
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    JD Sal wrote:
    scb wrote:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Are you seriously downplaying the long term effects of second-hand smoke or similar?

    Here's what I learned in class last night: 3000 people per year in the U.S. die as a result of second-hand smoke. :evil:

    What is the source for this information? Frankly, I don't know how anyone can accurately calculate the number of deaths due to second hand smoking, but a quick google search turned up multiple sources that claim the average is around 50,000 deaths per year (this is included in the 450,000 annual deaths of Americans due to smoking).

    It was in my environmental health textbook, which I don't have with me right now to be able to cite. I'll try to remember to look into it when I get home.
  • dcfaithfuldcfaithful Posts: 13,076
    I read an article the other day about how much it costs Britian's healthcare service just for fights with broken pint glasses by drunks in the pubs ! It was an outstanding figure just for the stabbings! (The article was about a new shatterproof pint glass that is being tested in some pubs)

    Found it ---> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... e5b0e.html

    That pint glass is going to cause one hell of a shiner. :shock:
    7/2/06 - Denver, CO
    6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
    8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
    9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
    9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
    9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
  • There has been a smoking ban put in place in all the bars and restaraunts where I live about 2 years ago,and I specifically remember a local radio talk show host being against the whole thing. He also said that there was no proof that 2nd hand smoke has been linked to any deaths. He was also a non smoker.But I guess he waas wrong.
    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... or_Air.asp

    Secondhand smoke causes cancer

    Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

    Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.

    Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths

    Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

    an estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
    about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
    other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
    150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations annually
    increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
    more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children
    Pregnant women exposed to secondhand smoke are also at increased risk of having low birth- weight babies.

    Secondhand smoke may be linked to breast cancer

    An issue that is still being studied is whether secondhand smoke increases the risk of breast cancer. Both mainstream and secondhand smoke contain about 20 chemicals that, in high concentrations, cause breast cancer in rodents. And we know that in humans, chemicals from tobacco smoke reach breast tissue and are found in breast milk.

    But a link between secondhand smoke and breast cancer risk in human studies is still being debated. This is partly because breast cancer risk has not been shown to be increased in active smokers. One possible explanation for this is that tobacco smoke may have different effects on breast cancer risk in smokers and in those who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

    A report from the California Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 concluded that the evidence regarding secondhand smoke and breast cancer is "consistent with a causal association" in younger women. This means that the secondhand smoke acts as if it could be a cause of breast cancer in these women. The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, found that there is "suggestive but not sufficient" evidence of a link at this point. In any case, women should be told that this possible link to breast cancer is yet another reason to avoid being around secondhand smoke.

    Secondhand smoke kills children and adults who don't smoke, and makes others sick (Surgeon General's report)

    The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report reached some important conclusions:

    Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.
    Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes breathing (respiratory) symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
    Secondhand smoke immediately affects the heart and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over a longer time it also causes heart disease and lung cancer.
    The scientific evidence shows that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
    Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control.
    The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to secondhand smoke indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to secondhand smoke.

    I don't think the government has any right to come into anyones place of business,especially a bar for gods sake and tell them no one can smoke in there anymore.If an employee doesn't like it,they should have never started working there in the first place. What's next my house ? My car Not to mention a lot of these businesses have lost money because of this law.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    I cannot believe that after posting that whole article you actually made the concluding statement you made. Are you fucking serious??? Please tell me it was sarcasm.

    Employees have the right to have protections in place for all kinds of workplace hazards; secondhand smoke is no exception.

    And I'd love to see the studies that conclude that banning smoking indoors causes businesses to lose money. None of the businesses where I live seem to be going under since they enacted such laws. Even if they did lose a little money by not putting their employees at risk, I would argue that having them work in an environment that creates adverse health outcomes was costing me (the taxpayer) extra money for their medical care.
  • First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    prfctlefts wrote:
    First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.

    thank fuck we banned smoking in bars here... idiots who smoke and quite happily pass their smoke onto bar staff are no better than those nazi doctors who injected chemicals into the eyes of twins.

    sometimes people take a job because they have to... some people take on a job in a smokey bar because they have food to put on a table...

    and if it means smokers have to walk 8 feet to the door so they can smoke outside then its a good thing for everybody... not only are smokers selfish, but they are too fucking lazy to walk to the bar door for a ciggy?... might help cut the obesity problems at the same time...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
    I don't think the government has any right to come into anyones place of business,especially a bar for gods sake and tell them no one can smoke in there anymore.If an employee doesn't like it,they should have never started working there in the first place. What's next my house ? My car Not to mention a lot of these businesses have lost money because of this law.
    prfctlefts wrote:
    First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.

    You should chill, if you don't think the gov't has a right to come into someone's business. Please get over your fear of the government, they WILL be part of our lives whether we like it or not. Then I gather you must like someone taking a puff, blowing in your face, breathing it on your clothes, hair smelling like you just put out house fire. That's what I have to deal with when I go dancing when I choose to and you would too if you chose to go for a dance.

    Those businesses may lose money but IF they want to keep those smoking customers provide an area/room/booth inside for them to smoke, better ventilation systems to keep and hold unto non smoking customers. I don't see the difficulty in walking outside to take those precious drags and therefore saving those who wish NOT to inhale the toxins that may lead to death from second smoke as you first posted.

    Peace
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I don't know why the police and others want to cut down on drinking and driving.. It only inconveniences a few others and most don't interfere with the vast majority of drivers.. What's people's problem - damn nosey bodies and stupid government infringement laws.
    prfctlefts wrote:
    First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    dunkman wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.

    thank fuck we banned smoking in bars here... idiots who smoke and quite happily pass their smoke onto bar staff are no better than those nazi doctors who injected chemicals into the eyes of twins.

    sometimes people take a job because they have to... some people take on a job in a smokey bar because they have food to put on a table...

    and if it means smokers have to walk 8 feet to the door so they can smoke outside then its a good thing for everybody... not only are smokers selfish, but they are too fucking lazy to walk to the bar door for a ciggy?... might help cut the obesity problems at the same time...

    WOW.... crap ! I would like to award you with the flying fickle finger of faith award.
    your post is just bull shit...fuck you, remind me to put my cig out on your forehead asshole.

    Godfather.
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I agree with your notion that the health risks are no better/worse than things like obesity or alcohol. But the one main difference with smoking is if done around others, it is harmful to those people. If I have a drink, you won't have an effect from it unless I drive and cause an accident or something like that.. but if I smoke around you, you could have a negative health effect if it is done enough or smoking is allowed everywhere. Many smokers say they feel harassed or discriminated against because of seclusion or similar, but that's pretty much a selfish reaction. If we had things like smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants/areas in public, that's one thing, but if we do not, it is no different from polluting a river in small amounts and then saying it's not your problem that the river/ocean gets polluted as a result.

    Also, in terms of costs and healthcare, smoking has far worse results than the other two... in fact, people who smoke have higher chances of other non-cancerous diseases like heart disease or many others.

    On the flip side being a smoker significantly reduces someones life expectancy. So if the life expectancy of a smoker is like 10 years or more less than a non-smoker, that is 10 less years where the smoker won't be able to collect any old age security, or in the case of the US things like medicare. Not to mention that a smoker who dies at say 60 instead of living to 70 wont have to be treated for any diseases or conditions that are attributed to the very old. So I think in the end the costs probably even out.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Godfather. wrote:
    dunkman wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.

    thank fuck we banned smoking in bars here... idiots who smoke and quite happily pass their smoke onto bar staff are no better than those nazi doctors who injected chemicals into the eyes of twins.

    sometimes people take a job because they have to... some people take on a job in a smokey bar because they have food to put on a table...

    and if it means smokers have to walk 8 feet to the door so they can smoke outside then its a good thing for everybody... not only are smokers selfish, but they are too fucking lazy to walk to the bar door for a ciggy?... might help cut the obesity problems at the same time...

    WOW.... crap ! I would like to award you with the flying fickle finger of faith award.
    your post is just bull shit...fuck you, remind me to put my cig out on your forehead asshole.

    Godfather.

    you dont get to award me fuck all... :thumbup:
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Well if we're simply worried about costs and the old, we can just start euthanasia - people past a certain age or with any medical issue too costly. The slippery slope is fun ain't it.
    On the flip side being a smoker significantly reduces someones life expectancy. So if the life expectancy of a smoker is like 10 years or more less than a non-smoker, that is 10 less years where the smoker won't be able to collect any old age security, or in the case of the US things like medicare. Not to mention that a smoker who dies at say 60 instead of living to 70 wont have to be treated for any diseases or conditions that are attributed to the very old. So I think in the end the costs probably even out.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    prfctlefts wrote:
    First off you need to chill chic,and yes Im serious.If some one started working in a bar or restaraunt before these bans and didn't like people smoking than they should have never started working there in the first place.smoking goes hand in hand when drinking for a lot of people.I also know several bar owners who have lost business because of this new law.Not to mention most smokers are considerate of non smokers.

    1. I and I alone will decide what my "chill" level will be at any given moment so you can keep your opinions about what I need to do to yourself, boy. Besides, I thought you didn't believe in people telling others what to do. (Oh wait, I forgot - that only goes for smokers and business oweners but not for pregnant women or women on message boards, right?) :roll:

    2. As has already been stated, people take jobs where others are allowed to smoke because they need job to feed their families - not because they don't have a problem with being constantly subjected to carcinogens. Same with musicians - should only those who enjoy breathing cigarette smoke get to play in public venues? Simiarly, people take jobs in coal mines because they need jobs - not because they like to take risks of being trapped and killed underground.

    Are you saying you don't support any workers' rights, safety regulations, etc? Are you just totally against OSHA altogether? Do you think people should still be able to smoke in all workplaces??

    Are you a smoker? How would you like everyone around you in your office to constantly be smoking?

    3. I don't give a flying fuck if smoking goes hand in hand with drinking, eating, watching movies, or anything else. That's irrelevant.

    4. The bars around here are still packed. In fact, I know plenty of people who go out now who wouldn't go out before because they didn't want to be around the smoke.

    5. How in hell are most smokers "considerate" of non-smokers?
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    scb wrote:

    Employees have the right to have protections in place for all kinds of workplace hazards; secondhand smoke is no exception.
    .
    Let them wear ventilators. Yes, I'm serious.
    People do unsafe work all the time, within the law, provided the right PPE.
    I don't agree with banning smoking everywhere. It should be up to the business owner to decide if they want to allow it. If they do...sure...regulate partition walls, patios, ventilation, whatever....but blanket bans are bullshit. Hell, a bar in my city put a bus in their parking lot for smokers to sit in when it's -40...they made them get rid of it. HOW does that bus infringe on ANY non-smokers rights?
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    scb wrote:

    Employees have the right to have protections in place for all kinds of workplace hazards; secondhand smoke is no exception.
    .
    Let them wear ventilators. Yes, I'm serious.
    People do unsafe work all the time, within the law, provided the right PPE.
    I don't agree with banning smoking everywhere. It should be up to the business owner to decide if they want to allow smoking. If they do...sure...regulate partition walls, patios, ventilation, whatever....but blanket bans are bullshit. Hell, a bar in my city put a bus in their parking lot for smokers to sit in when it's -40...they made them get rid of it. HOW does that bus infringe on ANY non-smokers rights?

    So do you think people should be able to smoke indoors at every workplace?

    Also, I find your qualifier of "within the law" to be somewhat contrary to your argument. The law regulates workplace safety measures, and removing the risk is always more effective than wearing personal protection equipment. Why should the law be able to regulate other health and safety issues but not secondhand smoke?
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    scb wrote:

    So do you think people should be able to smoke indoors at every workplace?

    Also, I find your qualifier of "within the law" to be somewhat contrary to your argument. The law regulates workplace safety measures, and removing the risk is always more effective than wearing personal protection equipment. Why should the law be able to regulate other health and safety issues but not secondhand smoke?
    No, not every workplace. Public places; specifically adult-only places, where it is an adult decision to be there.
    Within the law is not contrary at all. Just walking around a construction site is dangerous...just about every action has a potentially unsafe consequence. OHS DOES regulate these actions to minimize the risk, as they could with smoking. Instead, it's mob rules, fuck the minory. I think if a smoker wants to open a smoking bar, make his hires aware of the dangers via an orientation, protect them with ventilation, provide PPE, whatever...why can't he?

    To me, the contrarian issue here is not allowing people to do something that is perfectly legal anywhere but in their own homes. I can't think of a single other product or industry that has that strict a regulation implemented.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I'm gonna start a new awesome habit... I call it Monkeying around. I'm gonna throw my feces around in public places. If people don't like it, they can go else where... and don't tell me about the health risks or issues for myself or others - I do not care and those who are bothered by my habit can just accept it and alter their ways for my habit which could effect them.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
This discussion has been closed.