Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 180

Thread: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

  1. #11
    Just Crazy Enough to Work
    Edify_Always_In_All_Ways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wilmington, DE
    Last Seen
    01-31-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,299

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    There is no evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous.
    Do you believe that it is safe?
    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat
    Heh. Do you realize how many children I'd murder to be immortal and have an army of willing slaves?

  2. #12
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    There is no evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous.
    None? I'm sure that's true.

    NOT.

  3. #13
    Professor
    Marilyn Monroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    03-06-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,137

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by P/N View Post
    I can't think of a single place where this happens. Having said that, I do have a problem with the government telling businesses what they can and cannot do when it comes to the public's choice though.
    Inhaling someelse's smoke is not their choice, and since it's toxic, there have to be controls.

    I smoked for 20 years (I quit 2 days ago). I've seen businesses go under because of smoking bans. I've seen people lose their jobs because a business went under due to a smoking ban. If one person loses their job or their business because of a smoking ban, it's one too many. By supporting these smoking bans, you are also supporting nanny-ism. The left is guilty of it and so is the right. In either case, they are 110% wrong.
    To me if they go under because of a smoking ban they didn't plan ahead, and they didn't have much of a business in the first place. A really good restaurant won't go under because of a smoking ban. Also, good luck on the quitting smoking, it's a tough battle, but it can be done.

    I work in a casino where people are allowed to smoke. The employees choose to work in that environment and the guests choose to enter an environment. No one is having second hand smoke forced on them, it's a choice that they make. Any argument stating anything to the contrary would be a losing one.
    People will risk their health to make money, so I don't think it's necessarily their choice.

    If I choose to go to a bar and have a drink after work, I'm making a choice to enter a smoking environment. Nothing is being forced on me because I don't have to go to the bar. I could simply go home, have a beer (or four since I'm already at home) and not be exposed to second hand smoke. Once again, it's a choice that I make. When the government starts mandating smoking bans, they are taking the rights of individuals and business owners away from them. It's no longer an issue of public safety and more an issue of freedoms being stripped.
    There are no freedoms being stripped away. This is a public safety issue, and the government does have the right to regulate it. No business should put any of their customer's health at risk to keep customer's who have bad habits. Businesses are their to serve others, and they have to take in all of their customers not just a few.

    And if anyone is going to respond to my post, please provide an example of second hand smoke being forced on someone. But since you can't because one does not exist, I don't expect any responses at the same time.
    Anytime you enter any establishment, or even outdoors where smoking may be permitted, it's being forced on the non-smokers. The non-smokers shouldn't have to make the choice since they aren't the polluters, it's the smoker's who bear the responsibility. Most smoker's won't control where they smoke if it isn't restricted.
    Last edited by Marilyn Monroe; 01-02-09 at 11:02 AM. Reason: incomplete
    "It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

  4. #14
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,396

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    There are no freedoms being stripped away. This is a public safety issue, and the government does have the right to regulate it. No business should put people their customer's health at risk to keep customer's who have bad habits. Businesses are their to serve others, and they have to take in all of their customers not just a few.

    So if a majority of a business's customers are allergic to a certain type of perfume, the government should be able to ban it? It's a public safety issue and their customer's health is at risk. Businesses are their to serve others but they should also be allowed to run their business the way they want to within the law, and last I checked cigarettes are still legal. For instance you say they have to take in all of their customers not just a few, for lots of businesses it's the other way around. Most of their customers are smokers and a few are not. So they now have to accomodate their few customers instead of the majority because of a law that forces them to.
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  5. #15
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by americanwoman View Post
    So if a majority of a business's customers are allergic to a certain type of perfume, the government should be able to ban it? It's a public safety issue and their customer's health is at risk. Businesses are their to serve others but they should also be allowed to run their business the way they want to within the law, and last I checked cigarettes are still legal. For instance you say they have to take in all of their customers not just a few, for lots of businesses it's the other way around. Most of their customers are smokers and a few are not. So they now have to accomodate their few customers instead of the majority because of a law that forces them to.
    Allergies are things people have no control over. The number of people who are harmed by perfume is minimal. The same cannot be said for second-hand smoke.

    It is possible that the businesses that get support from smokers may be getting less support from non-smokers because the business allows smoking. Once the smoking ban took effect in Washington, D.C., I began meeting friends for drinks after work (instead of Starbucks) on a regular basis.

  6. #16
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    link



    Of course, I have been called an anti-smoking Nazi or other such things, but I will not tolerate those who will force their poison on me.

    No one should be allowed to smoke in public places, or in places where children are forced to be (ie schools, homes with children or cars with children as passengers.)

    Taiwan is nine days away from relatively strict anti-smoking laws coming into effect. I, for one, am going to celebrate January 11, 2009 as a day of liberation from smokers who have no regard for the rights or health of non-smokers.
    I hate all the infringements onto private property that these laws make. Smoking is legal, so it should be allowed wherever the property owner thinks is appropriate.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #17
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,738
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    Inhaling someelse's smoke is not their choice, and since it's toxic, there have to be controls.
    But no one is being forced to be exposed to second hand smoke. Try reading the thread before my initial post. Try re-reading my post and provide me with a single place where anyone is being forced to be exposed to second hand smoke because you clearly failed to do so in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    To me if they go under because of a smoking ban they didn't plan ahead, and they didn't have much of a business in the first place. A really good restaurant won't go under because of a smoking ban. Also, good luck on the quitting smoking, it's a tough battle, but it can be done.
    Plan ahead for what, socialism, communism perhaps? We live in a free society where government interference regarding businesses and personal freedoms should be at a minimum. Maybe you incorrectly chose "Slightly Conservative" when signing up for the forums because keeping the government out of businesses is a key factor in conservatism.

    So using your logic, the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City wasn't much of a business? How about Harrah's Resort in Atlantic City? Nah, neither of those are serious businesses. I mean they don't employ thousands of people do they? I know of quite a few people that lost their jobs because they were laid off due to the sudden drop in business in April when the smoking ban in AC went into effect. But since these aren't "much of a business", we should just dismiss it right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    People will risk their health to make money, so I don't think it's necessarily their choice.
    It is their choice! No one forced me to work at a casino, I did so of my own choosing. If you can show me an ounce of proof of one single person being forced to work at a casino, bar or other venue that allows smoking, I'll paint your house this summer for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    There are no freedoms being stripped away. This is a public safety issue, and the government does have the right to regulate it. No business should put any of their customer's health at risk to keep customer's who have bad habits. Businesses are their to serve others, and they have to take in all of their customers not just a few.
    There are freedoms being stripped away. Business owners are being forced to obey a law that makes no sense whatsoever. What's next, does the government start banning eating McDonald's because it's bad for us? What about fried chicken? And what about alcohol? Just because a law is passed in the interest of "public safety" doesn't make it right, nor does it make us any safer. This is a slippery slope we are now on because the government is sticking their noses where it does not belong. Instead of whiners like aps and ludahai crying to "save us from ourselves", maybe they could get a healthy does of common ****ing sense instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    Anytime you enter any establishment, or even outdoors where smoking may be permitted, it's being forced on the non-smokers. The non-smokers shouldn't have to make the choice since they aren't the polluters, it's the smoker's who bear the responsibility. Most smoker's won't control where they smoke if it isn't restricted.
    I disagree 100%. No one is being forced to enter an establishment where smoking is permitted. Smoking have been banned from government buildings for years. Most private employers have banned smoking indoors for years as well. I have also never been to a grocery store, movie theater, bank, dry cleaner, electronics store or even a Wal Mart that allowed smoking. But somehow there is this long list somewhere where all of these places where people are being forced to be exposed to second hand smoke. Can you provide me just one venue or business where a single person has been forced to be exposed to second hand smoke? I won't hold my breath waiting on your incomplete response - trust me.
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  8. #18
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    From the OP:

    A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday. The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect.
    I have an alternate interpretation which none of the smoker-haters have considered.

    Perhaps what this study means is that, in the absence of life-giving second-hand cigarette smoke, 40% of the people who normally would've made it as far as the hospital when they had a heart attack instead flat-out dropped dead.



    This is what happens when you rely on anecdotal evidence to make your case.

    That is all.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  9. #19
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by P/N View Post
    I can't think of a single place where this happens. Having said that, I do have a problem with the government telling businesses what they can and cannot do when it comes to the public's choice though.
    Holy crap.

    We agree.

    Crap, the end-times are coming!

    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    From the OP:



    I have an alternate interpretation which none of the smoker-haters have considered.

    Perhaps what this study means is that, in the absence of life-giving second-hand cigarette smoke, 40% of the people who normally would've made it as far as the hospital when they had a heart attack instead flat-out dropped dead.



    This is what happens when you rely on anecdotal evidence to make your case.

    That is all.
    A better, more plausible, alternative is that this community may just be becoming more aware of health related issues, while other communities may not. There may be a growing fad toward healthy behavior in this community, which led to the smoking ban, and which also led independently to the reduction in heart attacks.

    There may be multiple factors at work here, of which a smoking ban may or may not play a role. Not all variables have been controlled.

    However, they are not simply relying on anecdotal evidence, IMO. There is a statistical study here that they are using in conjunction with known events.

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •