[quote]Hagar wrote:
On the other hand, the cost of health care for cigarette related illnesses is a drain on our health care and our tax payers. [/quote]
Do you mean from people who have private insurance, or those on medicare or some other gov program?
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
Hagar wrote:
On the other hand, the cost of health care for cigarette related illnesses is a drain on our health care and our tax payers.
Do you mean from people who have private insurance, or those on medicare or some other gov program? [/quote]
Actually I have seen claims that smokers cost less because they die quicker and don’t linger.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
Hagar wrote:
On the other hand, the cost of health care for cigarette related illnesses is a drain on our health care and our tax payers.
Do you mean from people who have private insurance, or those on medicare or some other gov program? [/quote]
All the above. I got this info from my friend’s father who was a doctor and is now a VP at a large heath insurance company.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
Hagar wrote:
On the other hand, the cost of health care for cigarette related illnesses is a drain on our health care and our tax payers.
Do you mean from people who have private insurance, or those on medicare or some other gov program?
Actually I have seen claims that smokers cost less because they die quicker and don’t linger.[/quote]
Your comment makes a lot of sense. I was thinking the same thing but some people survive lung/throat cancer or get emphysema and require lots of therapy. Look at Sigmund Freud. He suffered for many years with throat cancer before he passed on. Lots of smokers die slowly too.
[quote]lil_azn wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills
[/quote]
This is stupid. There is no evidence that second hand smoke cases any health problems but there is evidence to show it doesn’t. Its getting ridiculous. You can’t even smoke outside in some cities. We are slowly losing our person freedoms as more and more and more laws are put on the books. What will our country be like down the road?
On the other hand most smokers brought this upon themselves, by leaving their cigarette butts all over the place. Another pet peeve of mine.
[quote]Hagar wrote:
On the other hand most smokers brought this upon themselves, by leaving their cigarette butts all over the place. Another pet peeve of mine. [/quote]
Seriously, their litter bugs me more than their smoke does outside. What bugs me even more is to see butts everywhere but IN the ashtray at the entrance of a building. I mean, come on, are you that fucking lazy?
However, that’s not an attack on smoking. It’s an attack on people’s “give a fuck” attitude. I see the same thing around any trash bin. Shit all over the ground, but only a fraction in the bin.
[quote]Hagar wrote:
lil_azn wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills
We are slowly losing our person freedoms as more and more and more laws are put on the books. What will our country be like down the road?
[/quote]
But shouldnt non-smokers have the freedom to breathe clean air instead of walking into school through a cloud of smoke or sitting down in a restaurant to eat a meal, while have your lungs filled with other’s smoke? A person should be able to do whatever they want in their own property, but outside of that property things should be done to suit the majority and health of others.
[quote]playmaker08 wrote:
But shouldnt non-smokers have the freedom to breathe clean air instead of walking into school through a cloud of smoke or sitting down in a restaurant to eat a meal, while have your lungs filled with other’s smoke? [/quote] It should be up to the restaurant owner as to which areas are smoking or non-smoking. If you don’t like it you don’t have to eat there.
How did you come to this conclusion? No one is taking away anyone’s freedom to breathe clean air. I’m not saying we should make everywhere a smoking area. Thats ridiculous, but if an establishment want’s to allow smoking with in their walls they should be allowed. No one is forcing you to breath second hand smoke.
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
Does anyone know what smoking bans are like in other countries? UK, Germany, France. etc? I would assume they are far less extreme, but that’s just a guess.
I watch Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares and I’m fairly certain I see someone smoking in almost every restaurante.[/quote]
The UK and France both have public smoking bans, and Germany was supposed to but the government bottled it. In England the ban came in on the 1st of June, but it had already been banned in Scotland for about 18 months prior to that. In the UK it means you can’t smoke in any enclosed public space (i.e. any public place that has a roof, including bus shelters and communal areas of apartment buildings, like hallways etc), and in theory you can be prosecuted for smoking in your car if it can be demonstrated to have affected your driving.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
Thoughts? [/quote]
U want to know my thoughts?
It’s FANTASTIC!!!
[quote]Hagar wrote:
…if an establishment want’s to allow smoking with in their walls they should be allowed.[/quote]
What about the employees? A lot of people have to choose between 40+ hours a week of secondhand smoke and unemployment. The “you can get a job somewhere else” argument doesn’t work for basic safety issues unless the unemployment rate is down to zero.
I haven’t seen any research on the matter, but I suspect that a high-performance HVAC system could provide adequate protection for the workers. If so, then an appropriately equipped private businesses should be able to allow smoking. If the risk can’t be mitigated, I don’t see any choice but to ban indoor smoking where workers are present.
[quote]fleshrave wrote:
Hagar wrote:
…if an establishment want’s to allow smoking with in their walls they should be allowed.
What about the employees? A lot of people have to choose between 40+ hours a week of secondhand smoke and unemployment. The “you can get a job somewhere else” argument doesn’t work for basic safety issues unless the unemployment rate is down to zero[/quote]
I disagree and your logic is flawed. There are plenty of jobs out there. The unemployment rate will never be zero unless you live in a fantasy land (which many people do). Why? Because some people don’t want to work or if they do the work under the table and don’t pay taxes for ex.
many tattoo artists, free lance construction workers, drug dealers, exotic dancers, disability milkers (I’ve met a few) etc. These people are registered as unemployed. As long as there are other jobs out there the “you can get a job somewhere else” argument does work. Unemployment rate has nothing to do with it.
Why ban it when you could just make a law saying you must have a filtering system in your smoking section?
I still think it should be up to the employer. Most will have some compromise but if they don’t want to work there the don’t have to. I see plenty of “for hire” signs. Plus what’s the risk to their health? There is no real evidence that shows second hand smoke to cause any health problems but their is evidence to show it doesn’t.
Look there are health risks on many jobs. I worked as a finish carpenter for many years. You think second hand smoke is bad, you should of seen all the saw dust I’ve hacked up and blown out my nose. Thats the job and I accepted that. If I wanted to I could of worked at a million other places.
Now most employers are going to want their employees happy so I’m sure many would compromise especially with how thing have proper ventilation especially with the recent attitudes towards second hand smoke.
There is no evidence that second hand smoke cases any health problems:
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/health/smoke_free/fact_sheets/041505-tobacco_2hand.pdf
Seems rather convincing to me (and the courts)…
[quote]analog_kid wrote:
Does anyone know what smoking bans are like in other countries? UK, Germany, France. etc? I would assume they are far less extreme, but that’s just a guess.
I watch Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares and I’m fairly certain I see someone smoking in almost every restaurante.[/quote]
A ban on smoking in restaurants, clubs, pubs etc came in to affect recently (july I think) in England. Virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces in England are now smokefree. I know they have the same laws (or very similar) in Italy and New Zealand.
I know in some states in Australia (WA for sure) you are not allowed to smoke within x amount of metres of the bar.
[quote]imoko wrote:
There is no evidence that second hand smoke cases any health problems:
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/health/smoke_free/fact_sheets/041505-tobacco_2hand.pdf
Seems rather convincing to me (and the courts)…[/quote]
I still don’t buy it. 425 deaths a year in Ontario from second hand smoke? I call bullshit.
Don’t believe everything you read.
I try to be pretty John Stuart Mill-ish when it comes to the is anti-smoking law stuff. It’s not any government’s place to institute any laws that are “for your own good.” Smoking should only be banned in places where it directly harms non-smokers. In fact, all recreational drugs should be legal to use and to have in your system except doing so brings harm to someone other than yourself.
As for places where smoking should be banned, that’s really up to whomever owns the property. If it’s public property, the Harm Principle should be used to identify if banning smoking is appropriate or not.
But people putting up smoking bans are really missing the point. If recreational drugs like extacy and coke could be legally used in a system where only the users were harmed, public smoking would not be a problem. People wouldn’t have a half a pack of reds throughout the day to help them cope with their shit. Instead they could just go home and trip balls for 4 hours. America is already a service economy. Let’s just bring it one step further.
Actually not being able to smoke in your own home isn’t that bad. In Georgia it’s illegal for your wife to give you head in your own home.
Horrible idea, how about no cars in public morons
[quote]Hagar wrote:
imoko wrote:
There is no evidence that second hand smoke cases any health problems:
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/health/smoke_free/fact_sheets/041505-tobacco_2hand.pdf
Seems rather convincing to me (and the courts)…
I still don’t buy it. 425 deaths a year in Ontario from second hand smoke? I call bullshit.
Don’t believe everything you read. [/quote]
Yea, i just wanna know how many people in mexico and LA die from truck bus and car polution each year? 20000?
Smoking = Bad.
Its not difficult to understand.
Ban it completely.
Execute all those who have profited from it.
Simple.
This ain’t a question of freedom. You can’t murder people willy nilly and it should not be allowed to sell drugs which are designed to be addictive and harmful.
Oh wait, drugs are illegal. Smoking’s allowed because of all the tax the government makes.
If you want to bitch, alcohol is not addictive to the common person. It also is not manufactured to be deadly.
Smokers are a bunch of wankers.