Surgeon chap says secondhand smoke bad

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
The problem, unfortunately, is that w/o the governmental ban, every bar was a smoking bar. People had to chose between going out and dealing with second hand smoke or not going out.

So? Same can be said for absurdly loud music... which DOES have an effect on the people there (can cause hearing loss).

[chequita guevara]

There are plenty of bars that don't play loud music.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There are plenty of bars that don't play loud music.

And it was your choice to go to those that didn't. If you can't handle everything that happens at a bar... go somewhere else.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Dis


You are wrong Ming. How can a non smoker go out and party without being exposed to smoke?

We are forced to be hermits and not drink.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Snotty
Ive been interested in how far away someone can smell you smoking outside, and its not very far, like arms length (and Ive got a sensitive nose) So anti smoking legislation means Im not going to be able to light up in a park with no-one within 50 metres of me. Thats ridiculous.

It very much depends on the weather. On a humid, windless day, I can smell smoke as much as ten metres away,

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And it was your choice to go to those that didn't. If you can't handle everything that happens at a bar... go somewhere else.

A bar is a business. its aim is to make money from people getting drunk. In order to do so, you must get a license from the State. NO lincense, no bar. The state has every right, since IT, not a businessman, has total control over who gets a license, to place conditions on who can get a license if they want to make a profit. So there is no "personal freedom" issue. The state decides who gets to open a bar. If you want a bar, you follow the directions and instructions laid out for owning one. If the state decides there shall be no smoking in bars, there will be no smoking in bars. SIMPLE. If you don;t like it, DON'T TRY TO OPEN A BAR. Its a choice left ocmpletely open to the individual. And since the state is democratically elected, they can try to change public policy on what the conditions are to opening a bar. And if they can;t convince the polity, well, tough.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Er, actually, Ming, there is. A very, very large body of evidence.

It's epidemiological. No one can say definitively that any particular cancer was caused by smoking. Just like you can't say that any one hurricane was caused by or influenced by global warming.

[chequita guevara]

IIRC, Chicago recently passed a ban on smoking in resteraunts. Before that, however, I really disliked going out to eat when going back to Chicago. The smell was terrible and I always smelled like an ashtray for the rest of the day. Of all the votes I've ever cast, the one banning smoking in resteruants here in Florida is the one of which I am most happy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

It's epidemiological. No one can say definitively that any particular cancer was caused by smoking. Just like you can't say that any one hurricane was caused by or influenced by global warming.

So what? This is true of ANY carcinogenic agent. You can;t tie any cancer to asbestos by that standard. Of course, that standard is absurd.

[Kuciwalker]

I think che was arguing for our side

[chequita guevara]

As Kuci notes, the point I was making is that while Ming is technically correct, it's a moot point.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wezil
There is NO proof that ALL smokers will suffer ailments associated with smoking.

Smoking causes damage to others, that's the issue.

Being fat doesn't. Drinking doesn't. The only one that possibly cause damage to others is speeding.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As Kuci notes, the point I was making is that while Ming is technically correct, it's a moot point.

There are no absolutes like Plato would like you to believe... his whole argument is based on an absolute that just isn't true.

One can not deny the statistics, and I'm not doing so...
However... statistics also point to a lot of other things that will cause health problems. If you are going to pick on just one, that's a very slippery slope. Again, I have no problem if I'm charged extra for health care... but then it's only fair others that choose less healthy activities also do the same.

Plato is trying to make the argument that one is an absolute while the other unhealthy habits aren't. That just isn't the case here and he is wrong. There is no proof to back up his claims of it being absolute or different than the other examples of unhealthy habits.

There might be a difference in terms of "percentages"... but none are 100% or absolute as he seems to believe.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Theseus
all of which have been seriously called into question or even discredited.

By whom? And where were these rebuttals published?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
One can not deny the statistics, and I'm not doing so...
However... statistics also point to a lot of other things that will cause health problems. If you are going to pick on just one, that's a very slippery slope.

2nd hand eating doesn't kill anyone, so far as I know. I'm not even sure it's possible. The Surgeon general did say, however, there is no safe level of 2nd hand smoke.

Though your point about any risky behavior raising costs for all of society is a valid one. Car exhaust too, which is why we need more and better public transportation! (Sez che just before he goes out to buy his 1st car in 20 years).