Arizona is now smoke free

[Treekiller]

Think we've met our objective?

Man I laughed my hindparts of at this. That is perfect.

 

[Desert_Sky]

*looks around*

1000th Post!!!

thats is all, carry on

 

[disaffected]

OK, I didn't finish the article, but I don't see any parallels to my argument.

So you're not interested in understanding the basis for my position. That precludes further discussion then.

Gee, I guess you win.

 

[Yuri_Rage]

I still want a smoke...

The Smoke Shop (yeah, it's really called that) closed before I left work. Dammit.

 

[dantodd]

ACLU and the Kato Institute.

Don't see those guys lumped in together too often.

 

[dantodd]

They can't bring about prohibition all together, but they're trying.

Yeah, The 18th Amendment worked so well too!

If you look at all the research done on second hand smoke the link to ANY disease is tenuous at best and the WHO research actually showed lower levels of tobacco related diseases.

 

[olllllo]

If you look at all the research done on second hand smoke the link to ANY disease is tenuous at best and the WHO research actually showed lower levels of tobacco related diseases.

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report


Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
   • Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
   • Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
   • 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.
3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
   • Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
   • Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
   • Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
   • Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
   • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
   • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
   • Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
   • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

 

[Yuri_Rage]

That's it, I'm locking myself in my house, filtering all the air, wearing a dust mask, turning off all of the power, soundproofing every wall, eating only pasteurized organic food, and drinking only filtered water.

But wait...I could still slip and fall in the shower, drowning shortly therafter...

I guess I can't remove all risk from life. Dammit.

Back to crossing the street, drinking, smoking the occasional cigar, driving too fast, flying, motorcycles, running machinery without reading the instruction manual, welding, loud music, and everything else I enjoy.

 

[dantodd]

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report


Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
   • Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
   • Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
   • 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.
3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
   • Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
   • Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
   • Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
   • Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
   • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
   • Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
   Supporting Evidence
   • Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
   • Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
   • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

the link alone would have sufficed.

I think that Dr. Siegel has a more rational approach. There is a significant difference between living with a 2 pack a day smoker and being exposed to second hand smoke at a restaurant or bar.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

 

[dantodd]

Found the WHO study and a press release explaining that there was NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT increase in illness.

http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Now, do I think that it is appropriate to expose our children, spouses or non-smoking co-workers to smoke 8 or more hours a day? Of course not, but I think that a prohibition on smoking in the guise of preserving the health of someone drinking alcohol or eating big fat greasy hamburgers is at best ignorant and at worst disingenuous.

 

[Pumbaa]

I've been trying to stay out of this debate since it started because when it comes to politics and the government I get worked up very quickly. I dont want to start throw out words like fascist and tyranny and start alienating people here I respect.

Cheesefood related smoking in a bar to a company dumping toxic polution into the air or lake but thats comparing apples to oranges. The difference is if a company did that, the polution would be leaving their property and therefore forcing it onto others possibly causing harm. If a business allows smoking it is pretty much contained within their walls and the only exposure is voluntary.

If you believe it's ok for the government to step in and ban an activity contained with in a private business what is to stop that same government from stepping in an regulating activities that you may or may not do as is contained with in your own home? Someone here posted an article on diactyls the other day and how harmfull they are, should the government ban brewing since it produces diactyles?

The governments ONLY job is to take care of the stuff you CAN NOT and protect you from things you CAN NOT protect yourself from. Notice I used the phrase "CAN NOT" and didnt choose to use the phrase "WILL NOT".

Anyone that walks into a business that allows smoking has made a choice to be a willing participant. If you stay for any reason you have made a choice to be a willing participant. If you leave you have made a choice to remove yourself fom a harmfull atmosphere. Unless these business are neccesities for life or are locking you inside and not allowing you to excersize your choice to particpate or not participate the government has absolutly no responsibility or right to take a stance in the issue.

 

[Cheesefood]

Cheesefood related smoking in a bar to a company dumping toxic polution into the air or lake but thats comparing apples to oranges. The difference is if a company did that, the polution would be leaving their property and therefore forcing it onto others possibly causing harm. If a business allows smoking it is pretty much contained within their walls and the only exposure is voluntary.

OK, but what about the people who work at the bar? Or wait-staff in restaurants?

Question goes back to this: why should non-smokers be the ones to have to stay home?

If you believe it's ok for the government to step in and ban an activity contained with in a private business what is to stop that same government from stepping in an regulating activities that you may or may not do as is contained with in your own home? Someone here posted an article on diactyls the other day and how harmfull they are, should the government ban brewing since it produces diactyles?

Again - I bring it back to pollution. A business can create pollutants that aren't airborne, but they need to be disposed of somewhere, right? Bars that allow smoking can contain the bulk of it, but it still gets disposed of. Butts and ashes aren't safe. Cigarettes don't get safer just because they're not lit.

Anyone that walks into a business that allows smoking has made a choice to be a willing participant. If you stay for any reason you have made a choice to be a willing participant. If you leave you have made a choice to remove yourself fom a harmfull atmosphere. Unless these business are neccesities for life or are locking you inside and not allowing you to excersize your choice to particpate or not participate the government has absolutly no responsibility or right to take a stance in the issue.

No, what non-smokers did was say "We don't think we should be the ones forced at home". It's not the big, ominous, life-controlling evil "Government Monster" that dictated this, it's the people who voted and asked their officials to make this change. The government's job is to do what the voters tell them to do. There's not some conspiracy out there to limit your freedoms and make life miserable, it's there to make sure that we're allowed LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in respect to the majority.

 

[dantodd]

The government's job is to do what the voters tell them to do.

I really don't want to get too far off track into general politics but that statement is offensive in too many ways to enumerate.

 

[Cheesefood]

I really don't want to get too far off track into general politics but that statement is offensive in too many ways to enumerate.

Any official who tried to pass legislation that contradicted the majority of their consituents views would find themselves without a job. While many of us disagree with a lot of the laws out there, the fact is that they are a valid representation of the population. I think that pot should be legal. I don't understand why it is illegal. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way, but there's a majority out there who think it should be illegal. I feel that it's ridiculous to outlaw gay marriage, but I'm not in the majority.

And then there are times when the government steps in to protect us because they have facts that we don't have. Most consumers accept what product manufacturers say is true. Tobacco is a great example. For years, we were told that it wasn't contagious and wasn't dangerous. But when people started saying "Oh yeah, well how come I can't quit? And why am I getting lung cancer?" the government stepped in to investigate. When they discovered that Big Tobacco was marketing to children and being deceptive in advertising, they clamped down. Was this right or wrong?

 

[Pumbaa]

OK, but what about the people who work at the bar? Or wait-staff in restaurants?

Are they slaves, indentured servents or having a gun held to their head? I'm sure it's not the only employer in area, but they mave made the coice to work their for what ever reason. With risk comes reward, every job has it's risks and rewards and they have made the choice the risk of being exposed to second hand smoke is worth the reward of a paycheck from that business.

Question goes back to this: why should non-smokers be the ones to have to stay home?

Who raised this question? Who has told you to stay home? If you see a demand for a product (non smoking bars and eaterys) that is not being fullfilled then fill it and make a good profit off it. There is a smoke free brewpub within 20 minutes of my house and they seem to be doing well enuff, why should all the brewpubs be forced to cater to one group?

Butts and ashes aren't safe.

2 things . . . show me 1 study of ashes and butts leaching into the eco system and killing people and I'll consider that argument, until then I raise the bullsh!t flag.

Cigarettes don't get safer just because they're not lit.

Again please show me one person killed or one fire started by an unlit cigarette

The government's job is to do what the voters tell them to do. There's not some conspiracy out there to limit your freedoms and make life miserable, it's there to make sure that we're allowed LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in respect to the majority.

So if the majority decided to taxe the richest 30% at a tax rate of 95% and then take that money and write out checks to the majority the government is obligated to do so?

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulg-arly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant--society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it--its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with indiv-idual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

I'm not going to discuss it further on this board because thats not why I come here, but America has definetly lost the ideals of men like Geroge Mason ( http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira60a.html ) and the other founders that made this nation so great.

 

[Chairman Cheyco]

Please discuss this elsewhere guys. Thank you for keeping it civil, but I'm closing it anyway.