I have been a smoker for about 16 years now. I have become accustomed to not smoking in non-smokers homes. Not smoking in cars of non-smokers. Eating at restraunts in non-smoking section. If anyone smokes they should consider the harm they maybe doing if not the smell they are waffing around in the air of non-smokers.

Let me see a show of hands of who is a smoker and deny any health risk what so ever to people who don't smoke. Let me also see a show of hands of those of you who enjoy driving behind a car which has a 20 year old muffler and burning oil. Or better yet driving behind a hot tar mixer before it is ready to be applied to a roof. Do you wish you could drive behind it all day? That is second hand smoke. In the cases above most states if one has a car like that that person gets a ticket and told to fix it before court date. Why a ticket? It is a public health hazzard. Cigarette smoking is unhealthy for smoker so doesn't it stand to reason that the air doesn't get any purer after be exhaled from the smoker.

Who is going to fund major studies for these tests? Tobacco companies? Nope
Governmental agencies? No, thanks to the tobacco lobbyist lining the pockets of candidates.

Besides something of the magnitude of second hand smoke from everything eg. fires, auto emissions, industrial exhaust and cigarettes, there would be no definitive distinction in coming to a conclusion.

Mr. B,

Thank you for being one of the few honest smokers that
I've come across here at A.D.

The bottom line is that second-hand smoke causes numerous
health conditions.

It is not necessary for smokers to light up every which way.
If they cannot sit through dinner at a restaurant without
feeding the monkey then they should order in!

It is an insidious addiction because the harmful effects
do not show up for years, sometimes decades,
but when they do, it's goodbye to you (so to speak).

A appreciate your honesty, bluiis.

Your bottom-line is under dispute. Non smokers don't have to eat and drink wherever they wish..feeding their monkey. They don't have to force their opinions on others.

Smokers do not have to force their second-hand
smoke on folks who are trying to get a peaceful meal.

Perhaps the waitress could inquire, "Would you like
an order of second-hand smoke with that ceasar
salad? This gentleman, Hugo, in the next booth,
has some he can send your way."

We are supposed to be debating the dangers of second hand smoke here. Not your little pet peeve which you think allows you to violate the rights of property owners.

Truth be told, I do not have a problem with
conscientious smokers who understand that
their addictions need not interfere with innocent
lives. Those kind of people know when and
where to light up.

It's the smokers that take it upon themselves
to deny the existence of health-related illnesses
caused by second-hand smoke, who have become
my pet peeve..

I believe in the right to smoke. I do not believe
in the right to smoke EVERYWHERE! Second-hand
smoke is a health hazard, and it needs to be dealt
with as such.

bayside Posted: Sep 5 2003, 02:57 AM



So the evidence that ETS is a danger is mute. When something is mute why would you waste your time worrying about it?




Then buy the chemicals, or buy an adequate filtration system to remove the arsenic. Surely turning from a place that has smoking inside is far easier.



Are you mad because you "chose" to stay in that environment? Why be mad at yourself?



Guess we have never heard of ozone depletion. How do I disconnect the ozone problem from my property?



So you don't drive in public. How bout drink? Bars are public, at least local governments that seek bans think they are. OBTW, the alcohol served in those bars, by the employees that these bans seek to protect, is twice as likely to kill and cause great bodily injury outside the bar, then the second hand smoke can cause within it.



Did they report that none of these effected people are FORCED to be around ETS? Did they also report as to why asthma and other lung afflictions are rising at the same time the amount of smokers, and the amount of area that smoking is allowed has decreased (-75% since the EPA study was released)?



You seem to. We know that alcohol's second hand effect kills, most of which have no control over the environment the substance was consumed in. Wheres the outcry to KNOWN health risks. We would rather control the unknown, maybe bogus danger of ETS.

Alcohol continues to be regulated, the drunk driving limit lowered, the age for legal consumption raised and the fines for its misuse increased, yet it's innocent victim count rises year after year.



BAN CANDLES! BAN INDOOR GRILLS! BAN McDONALD'S



Anyone who has been a County deputy can tell you the dangers of alcohol! (hint, we are the ones that take care of the victims at the initial site, much worse then at the emergancy room. Try cutting a severely mangled child out of a car that was just t-boned by a drunk driver, while the dieing Mother begs you to save her baby, then tell me the sad emergancy room story, OK!)

Wheres your outrage about alcohols KNOWN danger!



The public focus should be THEN and NOW about what is KNOWN, not "feelings and beliefs". WE KNOW ALCOHOL is a KILLER OF THE INNOCENT. Yet no public call for it's ban? The person drinking a martini is not called names?

The public sets the standard as to what they feel is an acceptable health risk for consumables. The health risk from alcohols second hand effects is greater, and sets the standard.

I thought I cured you of your fallacious reasoning re: second-hand smoke.

Let's leave alcohol, and it's harmful effects out of this debate. If you
want to compare the two, open a thread about it.

Why should an addicted smoker have preferential treatment over someone
who is trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle? It's like rewarding a junkie.

If you want to assume that second-hand smoke is not dangerous
that is your choice. Light up a cigarette, and breathe in the side-stream
smoke that floats off the end. Take a real deep breath of it, and
tell me it's not unhealthy.

Second-hand smoke is a very obvious danger. Most people with
a fair amount of intelligence can see that it is not beneficial to
inhale S.H. smoke.

The world is filled with dangerous things. Don't use that fact as an
excuse or justification for subjecting innocents to yet another danger,
second-hand smoke.

LOL......NOPE!!!!

It is an excellent comparable. You have failed, in each and every debate to separate the two.

Why, if you are so worried about your health, and the health of others, do you not rage about a consumable product which has KNOWN risk factors! Alcohol produces effects far greater to it's "second hand victims", yet you don't mind the restaurant serving this? It's insane using your logic. No you choose to vent about what the customer brings in, creating zero profit for either the customer or the facility. No, I like my "cocktail", and since I like it, leave it out of the debate.

We are debating public health risk of a legal consumable product. Worry about the known, not the "I think it does".



Addicted? It is said that anyone who works in a restaurant or bar inhales as much as a pack of ciggs per 8 hour shift. If this logic is sound, and ciggs are as "addictive" as the goody two shoes want us to believe, NO restaurant employee would be a non-smoker, would they?

Besides, it is not the customer that determines the atmosphere of the facility, it is the Owner of the facility. It is always the ones that refuse to take the risk of investment that complain the loudest. Why? They want TO BE SUPPLIED.



OK (puff), It's not un-healthy.



I disagree. It may be for some, but for most, it actually has no adverse effect at all, at least that can be proven. According to most experts, the effect of exposure to second hand smoke has about the same danger level to drinking 6 glasses of city water. I have better things to waste my time worrying about.



I sure will doomed, that is unless you, the complainer, volunteer to rid me from the dangers that YOU cause me.

You may feel comfortable worrying about such puny environmental effects, but again, I "choose" not to.

The evidence is clear about only two things in this debate. No one is EVER forced to eat or drink in one of these facilities, and that alcohols "second hand" debate in not disputable.

Red,

The reason I am not categorizing alcohol with second-hand smoke is this
simple fact. Alcohol consumption is an individual's choice. I do not
want to take away a person's right to enjoy a drink, or two, or whatever.
Now, with smoking, I'm not trying to take away a person's right to smoke
either, I'm just saying that the smoker shouldn't be allowed to light up where
it will affect someone who is bothered by the smoke. Understood??
I can speak slower, if need be.

Yeah, I agree the second-hand smoke danger is puny when compared to
larger issues, but I'll tackle the little problems first, then I'll move on up to
the bigger problems (i.e. lung cancer, emphysemia, heart disease, global
warming, etc ......ahhhh what do ya know? these are all related to
cigarette smoking!)

Is my common sense a danger to you? Or is my logical way of viewing
this issue what you find to be threatening? Or?????

LOL, where is it? Lets restrict drinking to the home, and only by those who inhabit the home. That is the only way YOUR common sense works in this debate. The effects of ONE drink causes loss to motor skills. Do you really think that everyone walks to Bars & Restaurants? hmmm.

The debate, once again, is the PUBLIC health risk. The victims are the ones to be concerned about (but it's obvious that the facts arn't relivent).

Once again. If there are VICTIMS of ETS, they are aware of the risk when entering these establishments. An adult is capable of making these decisions, are they not?

Problem with drunk driving deaths is that ITS victims are given NO WARNING!

Which of these two health risks should be more highly restricted. One that WARNS or one that KILLS UNKNOWING VICTIMS?

Yes, let's restrict drinking to the home. That sounds good. Now that
we've solved that problem can we get back to the second-hand smoke
subject, if you don't mind.

(You are so "consumed" with the second-hand effects of alcohol,
you are unwilling to address the second-hand dangers of smoking cigarettes.)

I don't mind placing a ban on drinking, if it'll save lives. I thought we were
talking about cigarette smoke, but YOU keep dragging the issue
into the cocktail section of the bar!!

Is there any chance you could debate the issue at hand??????????????
Here's an idea: Fix yourself a drink, relax, and when you are ready,
come back and we'll talk about second-hand smoke, and its dangers!!

This may seem maddening to you, but at least now we know the "public health" debate is a hoax.

Further restriction to the "second hand effects" of either alcohol or tobacco does not serve the general "need" of the public.

Both are "wants" not "needs". Regulating anything because "it feels good" is crazy.

Is there a health danger created by "second hand smoke"? Perhaps, but it fails to meet the standard that WE establish as a society.

You assume that I do not drink. Your assumption is wrong. I drink, I smoke, I drive an S.U.V., I ski, I have parachuted, I was once a Deputy Sherrif/Volunteer firefighter. I do or have done many things that "risk" my life, as well as others. It's life, and at some point people quit understanding that all of it creates the reason to live in the first place.

I am not saying the next line to you doomed, but I feel sorry for people that "fear" so many things, or worry about "this deadly thing, and that deadly thing", they really don't fear it, but the fear gives them something to be passionate about and gives their lives value.

On September 11, 2001, two airliners hit the World Trade Centers. A small group of individuals, so concerned that Americans think differently then them, killed thousands because they worried about American Culture.

For only a few moments this attack brought this Country together, and for a few moments we were ONE. That didn't last long, I honestly think we are futher apart then we have ever been before. In a way, the terrorists won.

You want to debate the health effects of something that is impossible to determine, but fair enough, lets do that. Any adverse effect of tobacco is only caused when people "choose" to be around it. No one, in todays world EVER has to be around it.

But lets say, just for the sake of argument, that YOU are forced to be around it, and you think that, for your safety, a law should be formulated that protects you from it in Restaurants. Are we NOT also then saying that ANYTHING that causes adverse effects to certain human beings should not also be banned from certain areas?

Pet Stores without Cats. Grocery Stores without Peanuts. Welding shops without cutting torches. Soldiers without Guns.

It would seem to me that these Americans deserve every bit as much respect and protection as YOU do? If not, why not.

Lets just regulate life. Lets pass a law saying that every citizen deserves to be protected from everything that creates risk, no matter where or when. That is, afterall the path that we are heading down.

My Grandfather (a smoker) saved 16 men in WWI. For this he was nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Those 16 Men would have died from a Mustard Gas attack that occured and killed the 3 that my Grandfather could not save. I have had the honor to get to know several of the Grandchildren of the Men my Grandfather saved. These all have a photo, taken by a journalist of my Grandfather, receiving 1st aide from a nurse on the back of a horse drawn wagon. This photo was taken after my Grandfather returned from his third of four trips behind enemy lines to bring these men out. He has his leg out being bandaged from a gunshot wound, and he is sitting up smoking a cigerette.

Do you think any of the Men he saved, or the offspring that came to be because the fathers returned home, or the grandchildren of those men really care if there is a small risk to him smoking around that nurse? Do you think for a minute that any of them, including the Nurse would have dared to consider him an Addict? By the way, this "addict" lived to be 92 years old.

What you have just read is what makes this whole debate laughable. YES THERE ARE HEALTH RISKS, not just from tobacco, but from a myriad of things. I do not appreciate government interference in making those "risk assessments" for me!

I recently heard a "anti" compare smoking in a restaraunt to "peeing in a pool, It effects everyone in the pool". How some people think never fails to amaze me.

Yes, If someone peed in a pool it would effect everyone in the pool. But the proper comparison would be, if the person yelled, "Hey everyone, I'm about to pee in the pool", waited for everyone that wanted out of the pool to leave, then peed. The way she put it is exactly what the "public health risk" of second hand ALCOHOL, the second example is appropriate for "second hand smoke".

Debate on doomed.

Jaime:

Thank you for the reminder.

It is a tough question to debate under those terms. Both sides have "studies" to support their individual sides.

Each and every study, it would appear, contains a number of flaws, and dozens of studies have never had the results published. Why?

What I have attempted to do, and I am not sure this meets your qualification, but it seems resonable, is to establish a "standard". The Public health and safety "standard".

I think it's a valid first step in the process to look at what the "public" assumes, on a day to day basis, as acceptable health risks.

Without establishing such a standard, debating the question is like debating what is "harder" a diamond, or winning the Super Bowl.

Your thoughts?

Smoking poses a significant health risk in public places, including open places.

First of all, smoking is a form of drug use. Because smoking is a form of drug use, tolerance of smoking in public places puts out the mixed message that drug use is okay. In and of itself, the mixed message poses a health risk to children who may be confused later on by the implications of the mixed message. This health risk exists even in open places where exposure to second hand smoke is absent.

Second of all, smoking poses the health risks associated with any drug that takes away from the natural high. People exposed to smoke are exposed to the drug nicotine contained in smoke. Although drug users and drug sympathizers discount second hand effects of a drug, it is unfair for health conscious people who want to stay "clean" of drugs to be exposed in any amount. Additionally, being violated in this way can cause the added health problem of mental stress.

Third of all, smoking poses the shameful health risks of cancer.

Fourth, smoking makes society look stupid. Although people may laugh at this observation, making society look stupid sets in motion a very hazardous and heavy ball that can cause a lot of harm. Low self-esteem and unreasonable behavior can be fostered in an environment where stupid things like smoking are being done with acceptance.

Finally, smoking in open places will still harm an innocent baby in the mother's womb. The baby may be gestating without the smoking mother, or the person smoking next to the non-smoking mother, knowing it.

Thus, smoking is very harmful and should be eliminated immediately.

I grew up on a tobacco farm, not only is smoking harmful, but working in the tobacco fields is as well. My uncles used to call it "green tobacco sickness", but if you worked in the fields when it was hot and humid, your pores were opened and the sap from the green underside of the tobacco leaves had droplets of nicotine laced sap would make you seriously ill.

However, tobacco farming is a political issue. I doubt that our elected officials or the government will step in and end tobacco farming any time in the near future. The vast majority of farmers sit on the left of the aisle. :hmm:

So is the consumption of alcohol, caffiene, and sugar. So is the use of presecription drugs - a practice rampant in this country. To argue on the basis of your first point - a moral point - is specious. We do not legislate morality in this country - nor free speech. If I liked, I could walk up and down in front of your house every day with a placard reading "Smoking is Cool" and there would be nothing you could do to stop me. The notion that the "sending of mixed messages" through the mere act of smoking in public should somehow be criminalized is absurd.


It sounds to me as though anyone who is seriously concerned about becoming "unclean" due to second-hand exposure to nicotine in microscopic amounts in the open air is already suffering from a bit of mental stress.


There is nothing "shameful" about cancer. Cancer is a disease (which has dozens of causes), not a judgement.


So does religion. So do a lot of things. Although people may laugh at this observation, making society look stupid sets in motion a very hazardous and heavy ball that can cause a lot of harm. Low self-esteem and unreasonable behavior can be fostered in an environment where stupid things like religion are being accepted.

Sadly, perhaps, we can't criminalize stupidity - in any of its multitude of forms.


Where's the evidence? I have seen no clinical studies relating open-air smoking to any of the alleged health concerns you mention throughout this posting. What are your sources for any of this?

wertz,

Some people think if they smoke in an open place they will not harm anyone. But if a woman is pregnant and she smokes in an open place she will still harm the baby. And if a child sees someone smoking in an open place it may send a mixed message that can lead to harm. Also, people in an open place may associate in the manner of unreasonable behavior in an environment that accepts smoking. Notably, the person who is smoking in an open place will harm society by increasing his or her risk of cancer, and because smoking is a senseless form of drug use, it is shameful to expose oneself or others to the risks of cancer in this way. Finally, it is in fact violent for drug users to expose other people to inhalation of their drug substances in an open place or any place whatsoever, even in one's own home and even by so called accident. It is very offensive regardless of whether or not users or their supporters want to downplay any need for sensitivity or aversion to drug exposure.

[quote]Smoking poses a significant health risk in public places, including open places. [/quote]

Proof please. Your contention does not equate to fact. There may be some minor evidence to indoor smoking (second hand), but the evidence about outdoor smoking is quite limited. At best it shows nearly zero danger.

[quote]First of all, smoking is a form of drug use.[/quote]

Do you drink Soda Pop? Do you take asperin for a headache? How about that morning cup of coffee, or that beer while watching "the game"? Also drug use. But that is not the point of this entire discussion.

[quote]Because smoking is a form of drug use, tolerance of smoking in public places puts out the mixed message that drug use is okay. [/quote]

Legal drug use has always been OK. One of the largest companies in the world derives great revenues for itself, and its stockholders because of this fact. Is WALGREENS sending a mixed message?

[quote]In and of itself, the mixed message poses a health risk to children who may be confused later on by the implications of the mixed message. [/quote]

see above, but then again, this is about the dangers of second hand smoke, not the inability of some parents to relate to thier children.

[quote]This health risk exists even in open places where exposure to second hand smoke is absent.[/quote]

REALLY? How, what possible "health risk" can there possibly be if nothing is present to risk ones health?

[quote]Second of all, smoking poses the health risks associated with any drug that takes away from the natural high. People exposed to smoke are exposed to the drug nicotine contained in smoke.[/quote]

It is often said that exposure for a few hours in a smoky bar is like smoking a pack of cigs. If so, please explain to me how anyone, exposed to these conditions remain non smokers? If nicotine is so addictive, no one who ever spent time around it in one of these environments would remain non-smokers.....

hmmmmmm, strange indeed how, on one hand it is so completely addictive, yet on the other hand, it's not?

[quote]Although drug users and drug sympathizers discount second hand effects of a drug, it is unfair for health conscious people who want to stay "clean" of drugs to be exposed in any amount. [/quote]

You might have a point here except for one little problem. No one is ever forced to be around second hand smoke. Thats a basic problem with the "health & safety" issue that surrounds this entire discussion, for it to be a danger, YOU MUST VOLUNTEER to be around it.

[quote]Additionally, being violated in this way can cause the added health problem of mental stress.[/quote]

I get stressed out being around the following (nothing personal here) Fat people, stupid people, Old people, young people, people who can't contol there kids, people who can't control their emotions, people who wear ugly clothes. People who don't bathe regularly, etc. etc. etc........

[quote]Third of all, smoking poses the shameful health risks of cancer.[/quote]

As does lawn fertilizer, car exhaust, BBQ smoke and OH YEA, sunlight.....

[quote]Fourth, smoking makes society look stupid.[/quote]"

Not really, it makes those, in society that stress out over other peoples habits look stupid, but not society in general I don't think.

[quote] Although people may laugh at this observation, making society look stupid sets in motion a very hazardous and heavy ball that can cause a lot of harm. Low self-esteem and unreasonable behavior can be fostered in an environment where stupid things like smoking are being done with acceptance.[/quote]

Lets not forget about personal freedom, the right to freely assemble and the property rights of business and home owners that rights get trampled in the effort to make "a perfect world"......

[quote]Finally, smoking in open places will still harm an innocent baby in the mother's womb. The baby may be gestating without the smoking mother, or the person smoking next to the non-smoking mother, knowing it.[/quote]

Yet she, the Mother has a right to stand anywhere she wants to. She also has a right to move away if she wants to. Her rights, as well as the rights of her baby are excersized by that simple fact.

But, to get back on the "health" issue. Do you think that pregnant women should have the right to endanger their "unborns" health by flying to London? Ever spent a week in that disgusting city? A few days there and you yack up black crud for the following week. Maybe, to guarentee the safty of the "unborn" we should make every women take a pregnancy test prior to buying a ticket to london, Los Angales, Pittsburgh, Houston, Istanbul, Moscow or about 10,000 other destinations in the world. It is afterall, the safety of the children that should matter the most.

Little known fact. The number one killer of Children in the United States is the lack of affordable health care. Take a little tour of the homes the Doctors live in in your community.

[quote]Thus, smoking is very harmful and should be eliminated immediately.[/quote]

Another poster posting "feelings". We do not, in a free society, "eliminate" things based on feelings. Our society demands evidence.

[quote]Finally, it is in fact violent for drug users to expose other people to inhalation of their drug substances in an open place or any place whatsoever, even in one's own home and even by so called accident.[/quote]

Whoa, "a violent act" really? How so? We are completely changing the defined term of violent, and as a smoker a must highly object to this.

But lets look at "violent acts" that ARE LEGAL, and cause no "health and safety" problems to society.

Quarterbacks getting blindsided and driven into the ground by 300 lbs linebackers. Baseball players getting hit in the head by 100 mph pitches. Auto racers hitting walls at 200 mph.

All violent, all unhealthy, none send "mixed signals", and non are objectionable.

Once again this Country has "health standards" most of which are to protect people from unknowingly becoming at risk. These standards are just and protect the population. Second hand smoke is only encountered voluntarily, so the "standard" is not applicable to the further restriction of smoking.

No, that's not true. If a pregnant mom smokes in an open place, the baby still encounters the effects of smoking involuntarily.

Whether the person smokes indoors or outdoors, smoking still concentrates in the "closed place" of the body. For the smoker that concentration is all the more intense. But for the non-smoker, any concentration is nevertheless unacceptable.

To be exposed by a drug user to a drug via inhalation is violent. No one should have to live with the problems of drug users like that.

If non-pregnant smokers want to get high, don't they have nicotene patches and gum? Why should others be infringed upon so smokers can exploit whatever means of drug use that conveniences them? The same is true of marijuana users. If people are going to get high, it is offensive and violent to expose others to the drug by inhalation.

It is so sad when children who cannot get away are exposed to people's drug use like that.

Suppose people made cigarettes with no more marijuana content than was likely to be perceived by secondhand smoke. Do you think it would be legal? Of course not, because no quantity of the drug is acceptable. What is worse is forcing bystanders and children who are exposed to the smoke to in effect "smoke along" with the drug users.

Freechildren:

The following is the Websters definition of "violent":

Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

Freechildren wrote:



Please do not redefine common words in order to bolster a weak position.



Not true? Who has controlling authority over the baby? You? The Mother? The Health Department?

This same mother could legally have this baby aborted. The baby, due to it's nature relinquishes all legal authority to the Mother. Unless the Mother is FORCED to inhale second hand smoke, this authority is excersized.



The use of tobacco has been highly regulated. It is legal and both the World Health Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency has shown that the health risks of second hand tobacco smoke has the same health risk as drinking the average daily recommended servings of floridated water. Should pregnant women then be banned from drinking water. After all, I don't put the flouride in the water.



McDonald's selling Soda Pop and Coffee should be boycotted?



Cigarettes have zero maijuana content in the first place, and perceptions have no place in this discussion. I might perceive something, but that perception means nothing in law or health debate.

No quantity of drug is acceptable? Boycott Walgreens then, they sell massive amounts of drugs, and looking at their P&L's it would appear that most people find using drugs highly acceptable.

Again you state "What is worse is forcing bystanders and children who are exposed to the smoke to in effect "smoke along" with the drug users"

When does this happen? Please give examples of such "force". The truth is, as it relates to the health issue, no one is EVER "forced" to be around second hand smoke.

Winston Churchill said it best "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"

I beleive that the stress over this issue creates a far greater "health" risk, then the legal consumer product itself creates.

Again, the number one killer, in the United States as well as the World, is the lack of affordable health care (as stated by Hillery Clinton). Drive by your local Doctors Homes, look at their Stock portfolios, look at the Cars they Drive and the Country Clubs they belong to. Many deaths and health problems are more likely the result of the need for cash flow then by the products you fear so much.

Drugs are violent because they cause injury by distortion of the "natural high" of one's physiologic composition. Drugs are violent because they cause injury by infringement on the "natural high" of well-being and they profane the grace of the "natural high". Drugs exert a physical force in chemical form so as to injure and abuse. When presented in smoke form, drugs make a violent entry into the bodies of others, like a thief making illegal entry into a person's home. Exposure to drugs that detract from the natural high constitutes an instance of violent treatment or procedure. Drugs can have an intense, turbulent, furious and often destructive action or force. People are often exposed to other people's drugs because the drug users have vehement feelings about expressing their need to popularize acceptance for drug use; they feel that respecting people's right not to be exposed to drugs would be like acknowledging that there is something objectionable about drugs. The instances of these actions or feelings have a clashing or jarring quality of discordance with the people being exposed. Drugs that detract from the natural high cause an undue alteration of the physiologic composure affecting a person's mind or mental state.

So, there you have it. Drugs fit the definition of violence ACROSS THE BOARD. Since smoking involves the drugs nicotine or marijuana in inhalable form, exposure of others or yourself to smoking constitutes an act of violence.

OK Freechildren, lets try this again. Since you have not apparently, looked up the definitions of each, I have done it for you: see the webster definition of Violence below, as well as the sub defined terms along with it:

Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

NOPE, THE PHYSICAL ASPECT IS NOT PRESENT

2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE

This relates to liable, not physical violence. Violation of ones name.

SEE THE FURTHER DEFININITION OF OUTRAGE:

(Main Entry: 1out·rage
Pronunciation: 'aut-"rAj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, excess, outrage, from outre beyond, in excess, from Latin ultra -- more at ULTRA-
Date: 14th century
1 : an act of violence or brutality

DOES NOT EXIST

2 a : INJURY, INSULT <do no outrages on silly women or poor passengers -- Shakespeare> b : an act that violates accepted standards of behavior or taste <an outrage alike against decency and dignity -- John Buchan>

NOTHING AFFECTS DECENCY OR DIGNITY

3 : the anger and resentment aroused by injury or insult
(Main Entry: 1out·rage
Pronunciation: 'aut-"rAj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, excess, outrage, from outre beyond, in excess, from Latin ultra -- more at ULTRA-
Date: 14th century


3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>

NOTHING INTENSE, TURBULENT or FURIOUS OCCURS.

b : vehement feeling or expression

FEELINGS AND EXPRESSION ARE NOT HEALTH ISSUES

NOW LETS EXAMINE FERVOR

: FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE

(Main Entry: fer·vor
Pronunciation: 'f&r-v&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fervour, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French ferveur, from Latin fervor, from fervEre
Date: 14th century
1 : intensity of feeling or expression <booing and cheering with almost equal fervor -- Alan Rich>
2 : intense heat)

NOPE, THIS DOES NOT WORK IN YOUR ARGUMENT EITHER

4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

NEITHER DOES THIS

Again, any "violent act" that you associate does NOT work with the above. What does work with your argument is the following word and IT's MEANING:

Once again, from Webster:

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
Date: 1718
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


Please note #'s 2 & 3. This is the reason that this debate is so hard to have admin.

No one wants to debate it as a Health issue, the PROPAGANDA, the changing of the "norm" to fit ones debate is so accepted.

I again have posted example after example of how the "anti" side will not openly and honestly debate the health aspects of this.

In an attempt to get this back on topic, let me repost

Hugo:

It is important to note that the study that you post is probably the most complete study ever done. It defines the issue best as it was completed by a group who enjoys a tremendous amount of respect from the ant smoking side of the isle.

Thanks for the repost.

The risk to a foetus is the same whether the pregnant woman is smoking in an open or closed place. This is not a thread about smoking and pregnancy. The argument is irrelevant.


If a child sees someone smoking anywhere - in an open place, in a closed place, on television, in a dream - the message will be the same. The argument is irrelevant.


Please demonstrate the risk of cancer. You may wish to refer to the links provided by Hugo - here - and me - here and here - before responding with older research. The argument is irrelevant.


I believe the issue of "violence" has been adequately addressed by redliner. The argument is irrelevant.

Due to your harping on "drug substances", what is your position on, say, the consumption of sugar, which is also addictive - and every bit as harmful as tobacco, if not more so (not to mention the fact that its abuse is way more widespread). What sort of "mixed message" are we sending every time we buy a kid a candy bar or fix them a bowl of cereal or prepare them processed food?

Hugo,

Let's say you're a non-smoker. It's a hot day and you have been exercising vigorously. You come into the house panting (you're going to the refrigerator to get something cool to drink). Then it hits you. You have walked into a house full of stale, nasty smoke. There is a smoker in the house.

Do you mean to tell me you need to play games with a "medical study" to figure out there is something profoundly unhealthy about all that smoke?

The short answer is yes. It may be annoying, but I seriously doubt it is going to reduce my lifespan. This is what is happening here, the fascist left wants to enforce private property owners to make their private property unannoying to them. Don't like what is allowed in a place? Go elsewhere!

Of course I seriously doubt that the smoke from a smoker in a house would even annoy me. It is only chicken little lunatics who would be concerned.

Of course it wouldn't annoy you - you're a smoker!

I believe what the cigarette slaves are trying to
say is that if you don't like the second-hand smoke
that's being blown in your face, get the heck out of there.
Your health is not their problem!

The smoker's rights takes precedence over the
rights of the non-smoker. If you go to the movies,
and you bought a ticket, and you are waiting in line
to get inside the theater, and the guy in front of you
starts puffing away, you should throw that ticket you just
purchased in the garbage, and go home. If you don't,
and that smoke gives you a headache, it's your own darn fault!

IMHO smokers should stop being selfish about this issue.
And, just admit that what they are doing, while it may not be illegal,
is morally offensive, physically damaging and just plain RUDE.
It's also INCONSIDERATE and DISTASTEFUL, not to mention a
TOTAL TURN-OFF!!!!!

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 20% of the population
smokes (that is probably a high estimation, as I do not think there are
that many ignoramuses among us). Why is the other 80%
supposed to run around dodging carcinogenic bullets of smoke?
It doesn't make any mathematical sense!

There are obviously conscientious smokers in the world.
They are the folks that ask, "do you mind if I smoke?", or they
politely try to keep the smoke from affecting others. Unfortunately,
they are few and far between!

I am not a smoker. I wonder why someone would assume I am. Oh, I know ,because they cannot understand why a non-smoker would feel strongly enough about the rights of property to not favor banning them annoying smokers from lighting up in bars and restaurants.

As Jaime stated, we are not debating if smoking is annoying, we are debating the effects of second hand smoke on people's health. The most extensive studies have shown little correlation between second hand smoke and health problems.

We have another study out. From the NY Post:

May 16, 2003 -- A new study published in a prestigious medical magazine has found no significant evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer or heart disease.
"The association between [passive smoke] and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed" claimed the study, in the weekly British Medical Journal.

In a surprising twist, the study was backed by anti-smoking crusader Dr. Elizabeth Whelan.

"There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease," said Whelan, an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health.

Whelan, author of "A Smoking Gun: How the Cigarette Industry Gets Away with Murder," said her group's research has reached the same conclusion as the new study.

While Whelan said she's delighted by New York City's smoking ban, she labels "patently absurd" Mayor Bloomberg's claim that it would prevent 1,000 deaths of bar and restaurant workers.
(end of quote)

Now please document any evidence at all that smoke drifting over into the non-smoking section of a restaurant creates any health problems. It is totally absurd. Miss Whelan is an anti-smoking activist and she dismisses the claims of Bloomberg and others.

Sorry, Hugo, my apologies for calling you a bad name - a "smoker".
(I must have you confused with your furry friend )



I don't need documented "convincing" evidence to know that second-hand smoke
is a danger. The same way I do not need to jump out of a ten story building to
know what is going to happen when I hit the ground. It's a no-brainer. The
damages of second-hand smoke are as insidious as the damages that a smoker
himself faces, in that the effects may not show up for years or decades.
But, the damage will unveil itself sooner or later.



Forgive me for not including a link to support what any
red-blooded human being can experience
first-hand. When I am near second-hand smoke I get a very bad
headache (if I'm around it for more than a minute or so).
I don't need a biased study to tell me it's good or bad for me.
I use my own experiences as my study.

I was flipping through channels and heard Britney Spears tell Diane Sawyer that she actually had gotten "high" from second-hand marijuana smoke from people who smoke marijuana in the music industry. This is an important observation that extends also to tobacco smoke. Although the drug effects of nicotine may not be as discernable as those of marijuana, the effects of second-hand marijuana smoke prove beyond reasonable doubt that drugs can be communicated to others in the form of second-hand smoke.

We know that drugs are not good and that we need to say no to drugs. Imagine what it would be like if the whole world smoked as much marijuana as the music industry. Then everyone would be exposed to marijuana in the form of second-hand smoke, just like Britney Spears who admits she got high from it.

The same is true of tobacco smoke. Just like the music industry smokes marijuana, in our culture there is a more mainstream element that smokes tobacco. For example, everyone in a restaurant or bar where people are smoking will be exposed to second-hand drug use, just like Britney Spears was exposed to second-hand drug use from marijuana smoke.

When conscientious parents in the music industry see someone smoking marijuana, back stage or at the studio, they lead their children away so that they will not be exposed to the effects of the drug second hand. In the same way, conscientious parents try to keep tobacco smoke away from their children, because we know it is a form of drug use, and that exposure to drugs is bad. It is bad for all of us.

Freechildren, in case you haven't noticed, this is not about marijuana.

Marijuana is an illegal drug. There is s concept that you appear to be struggling with. Legal drugs and their use vs. illegal drugs and their use. This is a debate about the LEGAL USE of a LEGAL PRODUCT.

I am sure the administrators of this debate would be more then happy to assist you with starting a debate on whether marijuana "contact highs" are harmfull to our youth, but it is simply not remotely related to the subject at hand.

If you would like I could supply you with the address of Websters online. Defining the terms might help you.

Lets however go back to the study that Hugo posted to try to keep this discussion on track.

Read the study "freechildren" and tell me where the harm occurs.

Yet you say "drug use is bad". This statement is used to confuse the debate. I think you probably meant to say "illegal drug use is bad".

Aspirin is a drug. It's use is good
Caffine is a drug. It's use is nothing to be ashamed of.

The list goes on and on.

"Just say no to drugs" has meaning, but only when used in it's proper context. Saying no to all drugs is just plain stupid.





Addressed above.



Unless she was already high from it to begin with. This debate is, however not about second hand marijuana smoke which contains a far different chemical signature then second hand tobacco smoke.

I would again point you to the study that Hugo posted. You may want to read it so that you will actually have something debate about.



That is quite a blanket statement. True some in the music industry might smoke marijuana, but I can tell you as a friend of a current music star, not all do.



Once again "freechildren" leaps out of the issue at hand. LEGAL DRUG USE vs. ILLEGAL DRUG USE. Apples and oranges.



More likely they do not feel the child should WITNESS violations of the law. See "freechildren", marijuana use is illegal.



Do conscientious parents keep their kids away from aspirin use? How about Pepsi use? Big Mac use?

Please explain this. Oh, YOU 'freechildren" may beleive that you are conscientious, but perhaps you are not. Who should determine this, you or me?

And that is the whole point, isn't it?

As Hugo pointed out earlier, study after study has shown an almost zero effect on bystanders from second hand smoke. Please attempt to debate the issue.

Hi Red, I hope you don't mind if I interject:



I am a parent, and yes, I do keep my kids away from aspirin
(it's use has been linked to serious health complications in children).
My boys (ages 3 & 6) have never tasted Pepsi (that's no lie), nor have
they eaten at McDonalds. Why? Because it is not beneficial to feed them
that garbage. The same way it is not beneficial to be around second-hand smoke.



So, why does my head start to hurt when I'm around second-hand
smoke? And why do I start to feel nauseous??? Is that not proof
in and of itself that second-hand smoke is physically harmful?
(my body is warning me by sending signals to the brain that give
me the headache - then I have no choice, but to leave the
environment that is causing the harm).....

No. This is also about marijuana. The topic of this debate is simply:



There is nothing that says the "smoke" in question is limited to tobacco smoke.

Second hand smoke is dangerous and disgusting, whether in the form of marijuana or tobacco. Both are forms of drug use.

Also, you should note that tobacco smoking is illegal. It is illegal to smoke in many areas, and it is illegal for people of certain ages to buy tobacco products. Thus, when people expose children to second hand smoke, they end up being exposed to a drug, second hand, that is illegal for them to use first hand. This is just like when Britney Spears is subjected to marijuana smoke second hand.

One my best friends has one of the strangest conditions I have ever seen. If he eats any type of poultry, his throat will immediately close up, and if he is not rushed to the hospital, he might die. Doctors cannot figure out what is causing this allergic reaction, but it only happens with poultry, nothing else (not even eggs, that come from those same chickens). It's not psycho-somatic (his mom once got the bright idea of making him eat chicken without his knowledge, bad move). His body just rejects it.

My point is that bodies do strange things. I have met other people that get the same thing as you from tobacco smoke. Some had it worse, some had it milder. Maybe you are allergic. Maybe it's psycho-somatic. This is no indication of the harmful long-term effects of second hand smoke.

Freechildren wrote:



Go back and READ the original post. Second hand smoke in this debate IS TOBACCO SMOKE!

Again, if you need assistance with starting a debate about marijuana, please contact an administrator for assistance.



No, the studies posted would indicate that it is not dangerous, and YOUR beleif that it is "disgusting" has no place in this "health" topic.



Smoking (Tobacco) illegal? In general it is not Freechildren. There are some restrictions, but the claim, the way that you make it, would also make driving a car illegal. Sure you can drive a car, but you can't drive it through your neighbors back yard without his permission. You can't drive it doing 100 mph through a school zone, you can't drive it without a licence or insurance and those under age or who have lost their licence's cannot drive legally either.

Your point?

Doomed-Planet wrote:







All are your right to do. Yet, some would say that you are affecting them adversely. There are many studies that say that keeping a "pristine" environment around young children ACTUALLY inhibits the childs immune system from developing, thus causing illness since the immune system does not fight off even the simpist of infections.



It might be proof enough that it causes harm to you. Everyone has something that irritates them. The example from above, cat dander, peanut dust, sunlight, perfumes. The list can go on for page after page. We don't qualify any of them as a general danger.

GOOD HEARING FROM YOU DOOMED. HOPE ALL IS WELL!