F
fusion
Guest
And you ACTUALLY THINK you somehow got damage to your lungs because you snorted 10 seconds of smoke on your morning run, while outside in the fresh air?
Last edited by a moderator:
Smoking Ban?? Update??
- Thread starter bryan t
- Start date
And you ACTUALLY THINK you somehow got damage to your lungs because you snorted 10 seconds of smoke on your morning run, while outside in the fresh air?
I'm not sure, but I think you are confusing "environmental whack-nuts" with bad engineers.
No. It doesn't change the fact that it was inconsiderate of these 2 morons. I'm not an idiot, thank you very much.
can some one show me the data that occasional breath of 2nd hand smoke will give you cancer I doubt it.for the 6 times or less I am in a bar a yr and some one is smoking next to me I think I will be ok and if not oh well.It cant be worse than tuning in the pits at the grass drags or Ice drags or snow cross and I am sure all you would not think twice about walking around the pits and sticking your head right down under the hood with the exhaust coming up the side of the pan in to your face.I have news for all of you no one lives for ever and you are going to die of something. old age is not all it is cracked up to be do you really want to be the last living person you know? funerals suck nursing homes suck worse I assume ****ting your pants sucks. forgetting who your family is prob is not so bad but still not fun.
Last edited by a moderator:
700classic
New member
Now that's just plain stupidity there!
Sure, no problem....
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/netsexec.html
Concerning your question about "occasional breath of 2nd hand [sic] smoke" this is the summary from the Surgeon General's report:
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.
Supporting data is in the report.
mezz
Well-known member
I reluctantly agree with the law to ban smoking in resturants & bars from the aspect of protecting the workers from the dangers of second hand smoke, also the non-smoking public, however, I am not an advocate of government dictating what can or can't be done, this should be the choice of the business & the public.
I am a smoker, not proud of it. I do not & have not smoked in my house or office, it's outside, or in my shop. I can't stand to eat with smoke hanging around. I frankly can't stand the smell of them, period. You would think this would lead me to quit with ease, NOT! Easier said than done. I have alway's tried to be respectful of others around me when it comes to second hand smoke. I also find smoking rooms in hotels repulsive, so I choose non-smoking rooms & treat them just like my own house. I know there are other smokers out there that have the same sentiment. I can wait until later to light up.-Mezz
I am a smoker, not proud of it. I do not & have not smoked in my house or office, it's outside, or in my shop. I can't stand to eat with smoke hanging around. I frankly can't stand the smell of them, period. You would think this would lead me to quit with ease, NOT! Easier said than done. I have alway's tried to be respectful of others around me when it comes to second hand smoke. I also find smoking rooms in hotels repulsive, so I choose non-smoking rooms & treat them just like my own house. I know there are other smokers out there that have the same sentiment. I can wait until later to light up.-Mezz
Last edited:
Coming from a smoker, you are definately in the SMALL MINORITY with this statement.
t660redrocket
New member
John I respectfully disagree completely! There have been times when you've deleted posts and/or edited things on this website. It usually is for a good reason and usually beneficial to the membership of the site. Besides that YOU OWN IT! RIGHT?
Well, let's say the government now steps in and tells you that because the Bill of Rights protects free speech that you as the owner no longer can delete threads or edit posts. How would you feel? That is exactly what is happening to the owners of these bars. They've taken a business and personal property that THEY OWN only to have the government come in and trample on their rights.
If the government forced your hand in your business by limiting what you can or can't delete how would you feel? Apply that to the owners of bars and restaurants.
By the way I'm not a smoker and can't say that I go to the bars very often but what the government is doing here is wrong, wrong wrong!
t660redrocket-
I was really hoping to stay out of this, but since you asked...
You sure are welcome to disagree, but your comparison is more like apples to basketballs.
First off, no one is saying that smokers can no longer go into a bar. They are still welcome, they just cannot bring harm to others by smoking in a confined space.
Second, the government does have rules on what I can allow to be said on this board. I take it a step further by imposing rules to keep some from bringing harm to others. It is a level of responsibility and respect for others that I feel is just. If the smokers would have had that same level of respect and responsibility for others, this thread would never have had to happen. All of you that are against this law should really be mad at some of the smokers as it was their disrespect for others health that brought about the law.
The example you give would be more comparable to the government saying who and when ANYONE could enter a bar.
-John
PS- I got a kick out of the poster saying it was a "ban" and not a law. Here in Michigan it is a LAW and not a ban. Not 100% sure about cheesehead land, but pretty sure it is a law there too.
I was really hoping to stay out of this, but since you asked...
You sure are welcome to disagree, but your comparison is more like apples to basketballs.
First off, no one is saying that smokers can no longer go into a bar. They are still welcome, they just cannot bring harm to others by smoking in a confined space.
Second, the government does have rules on what I can allow to be said on this board. I take it a step further by imposing rules to keep some from bringing harm to others. It is a level of responsibility and respect for others that I feel is just. If the smokers would have had that same level of respect and responsibility for others, this thread would never have had to happen. All of you that are against this law should really be mad at some of the smokers as it was their disrespect for others health that brought about the law.
The example you give would be more comparable to the government saying who and when ANYONE could enter a bar.
-John
PS- I got a kick out of the poster saying it was a "ban" and not a law. Here in Michigan it is a LAW and not a ban. Not 100% sure about cheesehead land, but pretty sure it is a law there too.
booondocker
New member
Red...it is easy to confuse this issue...and I doubt there is anyone on this board that doesn't agree that government is probably a little too close to intruding in private business, as I know I sure don't like it.
But....
This law was not intended to define what you can do and not do as a business owner, but what type of air quality you afford the public who you invite into your establishment while tryin to make a profit.
Suppose you were any other establishment that set to work making widgets, and in the process you smuck up the air so bad that everyone in the town you live in, got sick.
Wouldn't you WANT the government to crack down on that polution? Your arguement here suggests that they don't have to live there, or could drive up wind all the time.
This law benefits everyone including the smoker who may not be able to understand, or control his own exhaled smoke and causing others who either work there or live in the area to suffer.
This seems like a business owner should be able to do whatever he wants whenever he wants for as long as he wants.
But the fact is that he IS dealing with the public. We lay certain safeguards down to "do business" in public, and that means if you throw knives at people coming thru the door, spread bacteria around where food is being prepared, or have fire hazzards which could endanger the public, our society has decided to dictate to those owners a certain level of safety that we all must subscribe to if we intend to do business.
If everyone smoked, including new born babies, maybe this law would be unnecessary. But since they don't and we have determined as a group of people who live together that smoking is harmful to people...then it is our duty to elect representatives to study the problem and pass laws which are for the good of everyone, and then to put teeth into the law so that law enforcement can enforce the law we had our representatives inact.
Pretty much if you don't like it you always have the option of moving to a small island somewhere and setting your own rules....just so long as your smoke doesn't float over to my island and keep me from sleeping.
There ya go! Is there anyone here that doesn't find this absolutely revolting?
Click → CBS News: Smoking Baby is Real!
still don't buy it if so why do Japanese live so long 50%of Japanese men smoke do not know how many women but from what I saw allot.life expectancy in japan is around 85 in USA home of the smoke paranoid is 79 if fact we are like 35th on the list under a bunch of heavy smoking Indore smoking country's .not saying it is great but get over it OH no I just had to walk buy some one was was smoking what ever get over it
TOKYO —
The smoking rate among men in Japan has fallen to a record-low 36.8% since the survey of its kind was launched in 1986, while the rate among women stood at 9.1%, dropping below 10% for the first time since 2001, the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry said Monday. The rate among the men and women in total was 21.8% in the survey conducted a year ago, down 5.9 percentage points in five years
*******
There are several possible explanations for higher smoking-related risks in the United States than in Japan, beginning with the observation that mainstream smoke from American cigarettes may contain higher concentrations of toxic and carcinogenic compounds than that of Japanese cigarettes (34) . Measurements made in our laboratories have found that the leading brands of United States cigarettes deliver 35% more benzo(a)pyrene and 170% more NNK than do the leading Japanese brands when measured in mainstream smoke under standardized experimental conditions (i.e., the United States Federal Trade Commission machine-smoking protocol; Ref. 35 ) despite similar deliveries of nicotine (34) . This marked difference in delivery of two major classes of lung carcinogens is probably partly attributable to differences in the tobacco blends used in the manufacture of American and Japanese cigarettes and partly to the much wider use of charcoal filters in Japanese cigarettes. Samples of American blended tobacco contain 2.6 times the concentration of NNK and 1.4 times the concentration of nitrate as do samples of Japanese blended tobacco (36) . Furthermore, for the past two decades, more than two-thirds of cigarettes purchased in Japan have had charcoal filters, compared with <1% of cigarettes purchased in the United States (34) . Charcoal filter tips selectively remove certain gaseous/volatile compounds (e.g., hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein) in mainstream smoke that are known inhibitors of lung clearance; charcoal filters also have a tendency to selectively retain benzene and toluene (37 , 38) . Doses of carcinogens “presented” to Japanese and American smokers may also differ because of differences in smoking topography (inhalation, puff volume, and so forth). We have found that American smokers of low- and medium-yield cigarettes (≤1.2 mg nicotine) inhale more than twice as much nicotine, “tar,” and NNK as predicted by the United States Federal Trade Commission protocol (35) ; such measurements have yet to be made for Japanese smokers.
Both genetic and lifestyle factors may modify smoking-related lung cancer risk. A higher prevalence has been reported in Japanese of genetic polymorphisms in some P450 enzymes that catalyze activation of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as those found in cigarette smoke (39 , 40) . Tyndale et al. (41) recently found the prevalence of the (protective) *2 and *4 null alleles of CYP2A6 to be 21.2% in Japanese compared with 2.6% in Caucasians; this enzyme is one of several that metabolically activate N-alkylnitrosamines such as NNK (42) . Polymorphisms such as these may be associated with as much as a 2-fold risk of lung cancer in both white and Japanese populations (12) , but many other factors may also be needed to explain the 10-fold differential in relative risk observed by us. Marmot and Smith (43) have pointed out that Japanese in general have a longer life expectancy than people in England, and possible explanations for the lower mortality in Japan could be the effects of different aspects of Japanese lifestyle. Wynder et al. (13) have suggested previously that differences in diet, particularly dietary fat, may also contribute to the differences in lung cancer rates. Gao et al. (4) , using data obtained earlier from a Nagoya hospital population, reported a protective effect of fruit and vegetable consumption on risk of lung cancer. Ohno et al. (20) also reported a protective effect of tea consumption against lung cancer in residents of Okinawa. All of these factors may be considered as candidate effect modifiers of smoking-related lung cancer risks in future studies.*
*Excerpted from: Smoking and Lung Cancer Risk in American and Japanese Men: An International Case-Control Study http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/10/11/1193.full
booondocker
New member
Nice work DC...sort of blows EzRA's premise right out of the water, doesn't it??
F
fusion
Guest
Very happy the board mods missed the edit of the response so at least I know you got the original intent of the message. If you are complaining about two guys smoking while outdoors, in close proximity to you, whether that would be 2 meters, 10 meters or 100, I still stand by my original assessment. I'd say you have way too much time on your hands to find things to complain about in life.