Study Says Smoking Ban In Bars And Restaurants Is Better For Health And No Harm On Business.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

BTW - I am not saying cig smoke is not a carcinogen... I am saying you cant be allergic to smoke.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

No kidding?

I've been going regularly to several hundred docs for over 30 years, but that doesn't negate the fact that it totally sucks to be trapped at home because other people feel the need to blow smoke AND chemicals in the smoke, in my face. I'd outlaw the rest if any of them were blown in my face by other people, sure. Most clubs I've been to though don't have salted fish flying through the air.

How do you deal with cars, factorys, wild fires, and generally breathing? I mean, you exposed to things everydasy that are as bad or worse than cig smoke.

[amalthea23]

The issue isn't allergies or carcinogens. It's unnecessary irritants in the air. Irritants, by the way, are known causes of cancer, as is seen in acid reflux patients who develop esophageal cancer. Regardless, saying that just because you're not technically (and you're being purposely obtuse by clinging to that semantic point) "allergic" to smoke so it's ok would mean that there's no real reason to deal with industrial pollution in places like Beijing, where you can clearly SEE the air. I mean, it's just an irritant, who cares?

[amalthea23]

How do you deal with cars, factorys, wild fires, and generally breathing? I mean, you exposed to things everydasy that are as bad or worse than cig smoke.

For the most part, I stay inside in a house with a really expensive hepa filter built into the ventilation system. I also live right on the water which allows for more airflow and a little bit less pollution. I don't live near factories and avoid cities whenever possible. However, for the 2 or 3 times a year I might want to go see a show, it's nice to not end up in the hospital because someone else is having a nic fit.

[Fierce Critter]

We are not insisting you put up with it...unless your in a SMOKING area.

Agreed. I already said elsewhere that if a non-smoker is somewhere in a smoking area, they need to shut the fuck up.

Which REALLY comes down to the point that non-smokers are trying to BAN smoking areas. Thats not fair and is one sided.

Not non-smokers, though I'm sure most non-smokers would love to be able to ban smoking altogether. We're talking government.

Which also brings me back to another thing I said earlier - that I don't necessarily agree with governmental bans on smoking areas where the proprieter of the establishment chooses to have one available. I'm a militant anti-smoker. But I don't think this should be up to the government.

This doesn't, however, change my stance on truly public areas. Again, if the government can say "you can't dump toxic waste into this river" etc., they should be able to say, "you can't smoke in this public park." Unless total libertarianism existed where NO such laws were enacted, I might feel differently. But I'm kinda 50/50 on whether or not it's o.k. for the government to "take care" of the general public by enacting such laws.

Nutshell: I think it should be up to business owners themselves when it comes to businesses. I'm for the government controlling other areas. With reservations.

How long until they try to tell us we can't even smoke at home, that they are outlawing cigarettes?

This will never happen. The government makes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money off of the sale of cigarettes to ever ban them completely. You need to stop using this extreme example to back up your point - all of you. Because it will never, ever happen. The government is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too greedy to let that tax revenue go *poof*.

If you don't want to be around it go somewhere non-smoking. Don't walk into somewhere it's ALLOWED and cause a scene over it....

Totally agree. And vice-versa - don't walk into somewhere where it ISN'T allowed and cause a scene.

[Shade Everdark]

So smoke is only carbon?

From the US Dept. for Health and Human Services:

The National Toxicology Program estimates that at least 250 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer causing).

Secondhand smoke contains a number of poisonous gases and chemicals, including hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners).

Some of the toxic metals contained in secondhand smoke include arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries).

There are more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals in secondhand smoke that fall into different chemical classes, including:

o Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (such as Benzo[a]pyrene)

o N-Nitrosamines (such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines)

o Aromatic amines (such as 4-aminobiphenyl)

o Aldehydes (such as formaldehyde)

o Miscellaneous organic chemicals (such as benzene and vinyl chloride) and

o Inorganic compounds (such as those containing metals like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, nickel and radioactive polonium-210).

Eleven compounds in tobacco smoke (2-naphthylamine, 4-aminobiphenyl, benzene, vinyl chloride, ethylene oxide, arsenic, beryllium, nickel compounds, chromium, cadmium and polonium-210) have been identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as Group 1 (known human carcinogen) carcinogens.

Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

Secondhand smoke is composed of sidestream smoke (the smoke released from the burning end of a cigarette) and exhaled mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker). Because sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and under different conditions than mainstream smoke, it contains higher concentrations of many of the toxins found in inhaled cigarette smoke.

Damnit, man, stop talking like that--you're making me crave a smoke.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The issue isn't allergies or carcinogens. It's unnecessary irritants in the air. Irritants, by the way, are known causes of cancer, as is seen in acid reflux patients who develop esophageal cancer. Regardless, saying that just because you're not technically (and you're being purposely obtuse by clinging to that semantic point) "allergic" to smoke so it's ok would mean that there's no real reason to deal with industrial pollution in places like Beijing, where you can clearly SEE the air. I mean, it's just an irritant, who cares?

It's not that I am trying to be obtuse or throw up, excuse the pun, smoke screens. I would rather have people say "Smoking irritates my lungs/asthma/other medical condition, could you please not light up?" or "I really can't stand the smell of cigarettes, could you not smoke?" than throw out bullshit to make me feel guilty. I mean... if you throw bull shit at me, I am going to throw it back.

I don't smoke around people that it bothers. I just gave a ride to a co-worker yesterday. I asked if she minded if I smoked. She was truthful and said "I quit smoking 20 years ago... now the smell drives me crazy with cravings." I took my ashtray out and put it in my the bed of my truck and refrained until she was out of my truck.

I haveg no problem respecting other peoples.. well.. space. I have problems when people use bullshit, lies and junk science to try to get their way.

[amalthea23]

How is saying that an irritant causes damage or exacerbates an illness "junk science" or "bullshit?" They're both the case. And, while it's nice that YOU don't smoke around people it bothers, the same cannot be said of most, and there's no way in a concert setting, or movie theatre, to get everyone to stop lighting up without passing such an ordinance.

[odims_sphere]

It's not that I am trying to be obtuse or throw up, excuse the pun, smoke screens. I would rather have people say "Smoking irritates my lungs/asthma/other medical condition, could you please not light up?" or "I really can't stand the smell of cigarettes, could you not smoke?" than throw out bullshit to make me feel guilty. I mean... if you throw bull shit at me, I am going to throw it back.

I don't smoke around people that it bothers. I just gave a ride to a co-worker yesterday. I asked if she minded if I smoked. She was truthful and said "I quit smoking 20 years ago... now the smell drives me crazy with cravings." I took my ashtray out and put it in my the bed of my truck and refrained until she was out of my truck.

I haveg no problem respecting other peoples.. well.. space. I have problems when people use bullshit, lies and junk science to try to get their way.

This has to be one of the best posts I've seen in this thread.

I, (as a non-smoker), don't complain when I go to places that allow smoking, that was my choice.

I will throw a fit it's a NON smoking area and there is someone smoking.

I hate the smell, if I wanted it in my lungs I would be a smoker. I have no science. No Facts other than I don't like it and don't feel that I should have to deal with it when I've made the concious effort to go somewhere where it's not allowed.

Again I won't complain if it's in a bar, unless you're blowing it directly in my face in which case you should be prepared for a fist right to the mouth.

*** my "you" and "you're" is generalizing, not specific to anyone. ***

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I don't think that people that say "it irritates me" or "it exacerbates an existing condition" are junk science and bullshit. I think people that say "I am allergic to smoke" are spewing bullshit and junk science.

[amalthea23]

If they were to phrase it properly, would it make you feel that much better?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

yes.

I call bullshit when people say they are allergic to sunlight too. I know that what they are allergic to is Vitamin D in large quints, not light. I know this.. because it's one of the few things I am allergic too and have had a doctor explain to me why I break out in a rash when I get too much sun.

You can have a negative reaction to something and it not be an allergic reaction. Allergic reactions are kinda specific in what happens in your body.

[Destroit]

I actually make a point of eating only at establishments that allow smokers, even though I am now a non-smoker.

I believe that non-smoking establishments are a violation of what America should stand for. If it's that huge of a problem, why not actually DESIGN the smoking areas in restaurants to be efficient in keeping smoke out of the non-smoking areas?

A better room design for example, better ventilation, etc. Those types of things.

So yes, I boycott non-smoking establishments.

[Destroit]

Also, for the record, the smoking ban is hurting bar business. Maybe not restaurant business, but definately bars.

I won't drink unless I have cigarettes, period. Many of my friends are exactly the same way.

When Raven was in Illinois for a week, he was in some kind of hick town, and there were bars that used to be CRAWLING with patrons. What did he find when he went there? An empty bar strip, and one of the lonely looking bars had a sign that said, and I quote: "Okay non-smokers, you won. You got your ban. Why are you nowhere to be found?" because they were nearly out of business due to the ban.

In this recession, it's hard enough for bars to stay open because it's definately cheaper to stay home and drink. Now that I can't have cigarettes at a bar? You'll see me in my backyard with some beer...what the fuck is the point of going to bars anymore?

[freydis]

It's medically impossible to be allergic to smoke (of any type). Smoke particles are too small for an allergic reaction. All smoke does is irritate existing conditions.

....tell that to my nose.

Although, i will admit, some brands make me sneeze more than others. Perhaps it's the ingredients in an airborne form (smoke) making their way into my nose? Heh.... So perhaps the brands that are more likely to make me sneeze are higher in somethingorother.....

[sass_in_the_pants]

Okay, so I just did a search on pubmed to see if I could find any published paper which gave a nod to smoking, and I couldn't find a one.

Am I missing something?

Every study that I just looked at on pubmed were all very clear that smoking is detrimental to your health.

Again, where are these studies which say differently? (By the way, I didn't look at any studies before 2005)

[Destroit]

really? so its something else that causes my room mates husbands lungs to bleed when he get a whiff of smoke... I have to smoke outside because of this... so explain this to his doctors that told him that he is allergic to ANY kind of smoke.

...how the hell does he know his lungs are bleeding? Does he have some special x-ray glasses that none of us got the offer on or something? If somebody is holding out x-ray glasses on me, I wanna know, dammit!

[Destroit]

We've had this for a few years in NY and it's absolutely fantastic. I can actually go out now without ending up on antibiotics for the following two weeks. We haven't had issues with bars or restaurants shutting down because so many people who otherwise stayed home due to the fumes can go out now, and the smokers haven't stayed away either, they've largely just adjusted.

The only reason you'd need antibiotics is because of a bacterial infection, not inhaling smoke.

[amalthea23]

Often, irritants cause inflammation and a build up of mucus which subsequently becomes infected, thus needing antibiotics. Happens almost every time I'm in a smokey room.

[GothicRavenGoddess (3)]

...how the hell does he know his lungs are bleeding? Does he have some special x-ray glasses that none of us got the offer on or something? If somebody is holding out x-ray glasses on me, I wanna know, dammit!

he had what he thought was an asthma attack.. inhailer didn't work, and he started to "drown" on nothing... went to ER, and his lungs had perforated. all from the smoke. ( and i know someone who's gonna see "asthma" and sun with pre-existing ailment BS.... i don't wanna hear it.. la la la la... i'm not gonna argue with you, either...)

[xbittergracex]

We've had this for a few years in NY and it's absolutely fantastic. I can actually go out now without ending up on antibiotics for the following two weeks. We haven't had issues with bars or restaurants shutting down because so many people who otherwise stayed home due to the fumes can go out now, and the smokers haven't stayed away either, they've largely just adjusted.

--smashing head into wall--

You can't catch a virus/bacteria from smoke in the air....so antibiotics would do absolutely nothing and wouldn't be prescribed.

[xbittergracex]

I actually make a point of eating only at establishments that allow smokers, even though I am now a non-smoker.

I believe that non-smoking establishments are a violation of what America should stand for. If it's that huge of a problem, why not actually DESIGN the smoking areas in restaurants to be efficient in keeping smoke out of the non-smoking areas?

A better room design for example, better ventilation, etc. Those types of things.

So yes, I boycott non-smoking establishments.

thanks for your support.

[amalthea23]

--smashing head into wall--

You can't catch a virus/bacteria from smoke in the air....so antibiotics would do absolutely nothing and wouldn't be prescribed.

Again, as I said before:

Often, irritants cause inflammation and a build up of mucus which subsequently becomes infected, thus needing antibiotics. Happens almost every time I'm in a smokey room.

So, yes, they would do something and yes, they are prescribed.

[amalthea23]

I actually make a point of eating only at establishments that allow smokers, even though I am now a non-smoker.

I believe that non-smoking establishments are a violation of what America should stand for. If it's that huge of a problem, why not actually DESIGN the smoking areas in restaurants to be efficient in keeping smoke out of the non-smoking areas?

A better room design for example, better ventilation, etc. Those types of things.

So yes, I boycott non-smoking establishments.

Places had that option in NY before the ban. They all opted out because it was far too cost prohibitive to have effective enough ventilation and it was decided that it wasn't fair to force people in the service industry to enter the cloud chambers.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The 1993 WHO study on second hand smoke