SmokingTarpan

Yes, it's a stretch, and I knew it when I gave the example. But it's also a comparisson of how another legal thing can cause peripheral harm. Honestly, I've got a better chance of a Pepsi truck being my cause of death than second-hand smoke. By the way, that is how I've prophesized my death: Pepsi truck.

I don't recall bars, bowling alleys or the like to be required parts of life. I've never once in my life been "forced" to deal with smokers, there's always a choice to go somewhere else. Plenty of non-smoking establishments around without needing a wide ban.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

BHack

They need to implement that ban in Florida. It has been phased out of restaurants, thank god, but people can still smoke in bars.

I hate it, it's disgusting and rude as hell. These guys walk out into the middle of a tightly packed dance floor, light one up, and then 50 people have to suffer. What possible argument could you make against that?

Too bad for the 50 people? We should all just leave because we made the choice to go to a club/bar? Going to one of these establishments should not necessitate getting that **** in my eyes, smelling like complete ass, and it affecting my health. If your trying to claim slippery slope, well Jesus I hope it is. I hope that anything equivalent to smoking in a place where other people are forced to deal with it, or leave, gets banned as well.

__________________

TheFeniX

With proper ventillation, second hand smoke is not an issue to a non-smoker. I remember smoking in Jillian's. The ventillation system was so good, I could watch my puffs of smoke move straight towards the vent intake and dissapear. The whole place was smoking, and you could never tell unless you saw someone actually smoking.

Even as a smoker, I HATE smoking in places with poor ventilation. I don't like sitting in cigarette smoke anymore than a non-smoker (although, I could probably tolerate it more). This is the main issue with bars and other smoking establishments: it costs money to install and maintain a good ventilation system (not to mention the electric bill).

Of course, even if I didn't smoke: I'd probably still sit in smoking. The smoking section usually has less people, is isolated, and (generally) has less screaming children in it. Hearing a waling child drives me insane.

__________________

Buck Fush

I was offered a job about 5 years ago and wound up not being able to take it because the company did not hire smokers. I don't agree with that policy. I especially don't agree with it when it comes to public service. If someone wants to risk their life to protect ours, who are we to limit their off-duty pleasure?

FYI You should leave the argument that casinos just have more pull in Colorado to the extreme lefties. Its an argument that completely ignores the facts and, check my posts, I'm definitely left of center. The reason for the casino exemption is that we have two gambling cities in Colorado that would loose business to the Indian reservation casinos in Colorado because the reservation casinos are regulated by federal law and not state.

I like the idea of letting the market decide, but that doesn't seem to work in this case. Only ~25% of Coloradans smoke, but I can only name 3 bars in the metro area that are non-smoking. And, coincidentally, the reason I don't like those bars is because they are too freakin' crowded. People do want non smoking bars, but it's easier to compete if you allow smoking. Quite obviously, non-smokers will patronize establishments where smoking is allowed, but, if there's an alternative, most smokers will go only to smoke friendly bars. If you don't allow smoking, you're alienating 25% of the population. This is why it's necessary to ban it outright so that bars can compete and I don't have to inhale your carcinogen. I'm all for smoker's rights and I do believe you have the right to smoke if you choose, but I'm also for non-smoker's rights. I can exercise mine without trampling on yours.

Bommando

When it comes to hiring policy, I personally prefer non-smokers to smokers. Very light smokers also fall into the non-smoking category.

I have found that non-smokers are much more productive than smokers. Most smokers (and I say most, not all) spend the last 15 minutes of every hour thinking about their next cigarette. They then spend the next 10 minutes on a cigarette break gasbagging to other smokers. When they get back to work, it takes a good 10 minutes for them to get back into the groove where they were before. You add into this a lunch break and other 'down time' and it really begins to affect productivity.

When doing an audit on a company's staff break costs and productivity expenses, I worked out that smokers on average spent 2 hours of a 10 hour day either not working or being unproductive. That's 20% extra staffing costs for hiring a smoker. Now technically people are only supposed to have 2 extra breaks on top of their lunch break every day, but you will find smokers in the toilets and sneaking off outside whenever they have to get off their chairs for any task. Someone who smokes half a pack per day falls into this category and heavier smokers will easily hit a packet per day.

When it comes to wage costs, the numbers don't lie. Unless someone tells me it is against the law for me to discriminate based on smoking, I will always choose a non-smoker of equal ability.

CingularDuality

Why would you support that? What's next, no donuts? Then no "extreme sports"? No premarital sex?

What you do off duty is your own business. If you want to institute a lung test, and require all officers meet a certain standard, fine, but prohibiting any legal practice while off duty is complete crap.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

JMJ

Hmm.......actually you make a good point. I'd rather see support thrown against the departments to keep cops within some certain percentage of their "hired" weight. Too many municipals become fat slobs (I see them in every town). It's funny, the MA state police are like military. I have yet to see one who is overweight.

I guess what I support is that cops should be in the best physical shape they can be in. Unless you work in Mayberry, you are going to be in foot chases, physical confrontations, etc. I see too many municipals who wouldn't stand a chance against anyone in a physical confrontation 10 years into their career, but when they were hired they would've crushed anyone.

RE: Buck Fush - It has to do with healthcare costs. A lot of companies are doing this nowadays. They get better rates for healthcare and it gets passed on to the employee. It is that company's right, agree with it or not.

Buck Fush

I think I agree more with the productivity issues than the healthcare issues. Companies may say that, but they could just have a different price tier for smoking employees or not allow them insurance. And of course it's their right to do that for whatever reason they choose, which, as you should have noticed, is why I said I disagree with this policy.

GhostintheShell

The trouble is that they are required parts of life for the people who work at those places and need those jobs to make a living, and thats not right either. It is every persons right to be safe from harm at work, unfortunately they are "forced" to smile and deal with smokers everyday for 8+ hours breathing in second hand smoke the whole time.

It is not always that persons choice to be able to eliminate all "smoking permitted" establishments as possible employers. Think of the bottom percentages of the population that is just thankful to have a meager job, and do not necessarily have the choice to decline an offered job, or to quit because they are concerned about the health implications.

You could also consider the many non-smoking spouses that have died from lung cancer from second hand smoke as a result of their partners addiction.

The social implications here in Canada are quite different as well considering we have public healthcare for everyone. I'm forced to pay tens of thousands of tax dollars on chemo and radiation therapy to try to save people who have carelessly smoked their entire life, all the while ignoring the warnings.

I said it before, addiction is a very powerful negotiator. It causes your brain to rationalise its way around the very real 50%+ chance of a very agonising, painfull death gasping for every last breath as if you were drowning, all in the pursuit of a small temporary pleasure. You wil convince yourself that you are not hurting anyone, not yourself and certainly not your family.

If someone handed you a revolver loaded with 3 bullets and told you to pull the trigger you wouldn't dare because there is no pleasure to be obtained from it...if there was addiction/pleasure attached to it like smoking would you pull the trigger for yourself? your wife? kids?

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

Buck Fush

I'm curious, how many smokers/ex-smokers smoke/smoked in their own house?

Out of all of the smokers I know, only 2 actually smoke inside their houses.

TheFeniX

I always see this arguement, and no one ever backs it up. They never provide any figures about second hand smoke. They always bring up one instance: flight attendants getting cancer from second-hand smoke. I'm not saying that it wasn't an issue (even though no one has ever bothered to post the medical reports), but these were very specific circumstances: sealed cabins they rode in for hours at a time.

Tell that to the guy pumping gas non-stop breathing in fumes from a known cancer-causing agent. Tell that to the construction worker who has to breath in large amounts of concrete dust, some Benzene, and other chemicals day in and day out. Some people just have dirty jobs.

Second-hand smoke has never been conclusively proven to cause cancer in the doses that your average worker is exposed to it in. If it has, please post some links to relevant medical journals. I really want to see them.

Further, second-hand smoke would be the least of my problems at any job. The real killer is a stressful work environment. Good luck getting rid of that in certain jobs.

I would love to see some figures on this.

Then why not cut out ALL unhealthy behavior?

Obese people run through all kinds of problems later on in life: Type II diabetes, cronic joint pains, etc. Why not just outlaw fast food? Why not ban other dangerous activities? Working around the house: banned. It's the most likely place for a person to get hurt/disabled. You have to pay for THAT too.

Where does it stop?

The addiction has nothing to do with that. People just don't rationalize danger when it's so distant in their future, or it hasn't hit them in the face yet. A driver who runs red-lights constantly doesn't think about the impact his actions may have until he gets plowed by a passing car. Should we ban adrenaline junkies from performing stupid stunts?

Addictions generally don't kill you that fast. With this analogy, I could allude eating fatty foods and chocolate to shooting myself in the head.

On a tangent: some people do derive pleasure from attempted suicide.

__________________

GhostintheShell

Cigarrette smoke contains not one KNOWN cancer causing chemical, but ~4000 chemicals many of which are known to be cancer causing.
http://www.ashline.org/ASH/cigsmoke/index.html

Health Effects of Chemicals found in Cigarette Smoke
http://www.smoke-free.ca/Health/Healtheffectssmoke.htm

U of M Researchers Find Cancer-Causing Chemicals in Urine of Infants Whose Parents Smoke
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/news/releases...1206/home.html

Health Effects of Second Hand Smoke Exposure
http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

2006 Surgeon General's Report: "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General"
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm



The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet7.html

"There is No Risk-Free Level of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that breathing even a little secondhand smoke poses a risk to your health.

* Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be harmful to your health.

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer.

* Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen and contains more than 50 chemicals that can cause cancer.
* Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

Secondhand smoke causes heart disease.

* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack.
* Even a short time in a smoky room can cause your blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability.
* Persons who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse affects from breathing secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposure.

Secondhand smoke causes acute respiratory effects.

* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways.
* Even brief exposure can trigger respiratory symptoms, including cough, phlegm, wheezing, and breathlessness.
* Brief exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger an asthma attack in children with asthma.
* Persons who already have asthma or other respiratory conditions are at especially high risk for being affected by secondhand smoke, and should take special precautions to avoid secondhand smoke exposure.

Secondhand smoke can cause sudden infant death syndrome and other health consequences in infants and children.

* Smoking by women during pregnancy has been known for some time to cause SIDS.
* Infants who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are also at greater risk of SIDS.
* Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also at an increased risk for acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.

* The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. standard-setting body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to completely control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
* Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
* Operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building."

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

marstein

That is very true, and there are Dilbert stories about it to prove it.
On the other hand smokers use those 10 minutes every hour for networking. I find that there often is that smoker-bond between people working in different departments that comes from borrowing cigarettes and lights and standing out in the cold together.

__________________
Gigabyte P35-DS3R, 2GB, 8800GTS 640MB, Core2Duo E8400

Buck Fush

So would you summarize your position by saying that you don't believe that second hand smoke has ANY effect whatsoever on a non smoker? I just want clarification so I know I'm not arguing with a straw man.

xTYBALTx

I always smoked in my house back when I was smoking. Hell, I smoked cigarettes in my freshman dorm.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress