• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks

aps said:
I love it when people compare smoking to poor eating habits. It's just so rational and on point. NOT. My eating a hamburger does not impact the health of those sitting near me.

Supposedly, only 20% of people smoke. So we're supposed to bow down to 20% of people and let them smoke wherever they want? No thank you.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting this. :roll:

People are suggesting on or in there private property they can smoke like a chimney and the government should have no involvement.
 
Blackdog said:
No one is suggesting this. :roll:

People are suggesting on or in there private property they can smoke like a chimney and the government should have no involvement.
Click to expand...

Everytime there is a smoking ban of any sort, smokers complain. Trust me, if they could smoke wherever they wanted, they would smoke everywhere. Come on, Blackdog, don't try to tell me otherwise.

I am fine if people want to smoke in their car with their windows rolled up or in their house with their windows up. I cannot drive with my windows down because I ALWAYS smell cigarette smoke when I am at a stop light, whether it be because someone is smoking outside or smoking in their car with the windows rolled down.

I lived next door to a smoker. It never failed that whenever I went to sit out on my patio or do gardening in my backyard, he would be out there on his deck at some point smoking. And I could smell it--not just lightly. It drove me crazy (I celebrated when I heard he was moving out of the neighborhood).
 
ludahai said:
1. Growing up, my parents forced second hand smoke on me nearly every day of my childhood.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll give you partial credit for this one. While you weren't in dagner of a heart attack or heart disease as a child, you were submitted to second hand smoke and it was forced on you. Having said this, you were a child with no rights and unless you still live at home, you would only be submitted to their second hand smoke if you visit them (assuming they are still alive).

ludahai said:
2. I worked for a company a few years ago that required its employees to attend a monthly working lunch. While smoking was prohibited in the workplace, it wasn't (at that time) prohibited in the restaurant. My boss (despite the fact that NO ONE else lighted up), choose to smoke, blowing his smoke everyone in the room when we were having our working lunch.
Click to expand...
A few years ago...enough said.

ludahai said:
3. Many times, I have been in a public place, minding my own business, when a smoker would come, sit next to me and light up. He was forcing his poison on me.
Click to expand...
But you weren't forced into this situation, it is one that arose. Were you tied to the chair you were sitting in? Did someone hold a gun to your head and tell you to not move? Sorry, but this one doesn't count either.

ludahai said:
4. Once when I was a grad students at the University of Georgia, I was working on an essay in the computer lab when a girl (fat and ugly) sat next to me REEKING of cigarette smoke. It was absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...
So her smell was forced upon you, but not her second hand smoke? Ahh, I see, it's not just the second hand smoke that bothers you. The true nature of your red herring comes out.

ludahai said:
This is only a FEW instances where smokers showed a lack of respect for the rights of me as a non-smoker. I am so much looking forward to the new laws taking effect here next Sunday. I will report ANY place I see not enforcing the law to the local authorities.
Click to expand...
None of the instances you listed still exist today. Your stories started out with "Growing up...", "a few years ago..." and "Once..." - what a sham. You can be the smoking hall monitor if you so desire, but I find it truly pathetic. No one is forcing second hand smoke on you today. You have the right to not enter a place of business or a residence if smoking is taking place if it offends you so much. No one is taking that right away from you.
 
Does smoking outside really have adverse health effects on other people? Obviously second hand smoke can be harmful, but wouldn't that be in the instance of extended exposure, such as living with a smoker? I seriously doubt that smoking a cigarette in the park actually harms anybody but the smoker. With all the crap spewed into the air by factories and cars it doesn't seem possible that cigarettes would have enough of an impact to make a difference.

Does anybody have any info on casual exposure to second hand smoke?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Does smoking outside really have adverse health effects on other people? Obviously second hand smoke can be harmful, but wouldn't that be in the instance of extended exposure, such as living with a smoker? I seriously doubt that smoking a cigarette in the park actually harms anybody but the smoker. With all the crap spewed into the air by factories and cars it doesn't seem possible that cigarettes would have enough of an impact to make a difference.

Does anybody have any info on casual exposure to second hand smoke?
Click to expand...

For the record, I no longer smoke since I quit several years ago.

I don't like the smell of smoke, and it irritates me a little when I end up smelling it. However, I think people like aps and ludahai are just control freaks who use these minor irritations as excuses to regulate behavior that is not truly harming them in any significant way.

There was a time when smokers were harming the people around them, and that behavior needed to be regulated out of society through law and social pressure. It was indeed profoundly unfair, especially in work-places. I am not one who buys into the notion that people can 'just work anywhere'. There are times when jobs are plentiful and people don't have to stay with an employer, sure, but that is not always. Mothers need to feed their children, Loners need to feed themselves. They shouldn't have to endure other peoples smoke in the effort to do this.

Everything is a poison in large enough amounts, while in small enough amounts most things are benign. Oxygen is a poison that is slowly killing us, but by the same token of course we would live alot shorter lives without it. Aps will pounce on this and say that people don't need tobacco to live, and think that she's scored a point, when really she's missed it.

I am simply pointing out that in small enough amounts, tobacco smoke is merely an irritation, not a poison. Some people believe that irritations need to be regulated out of existence, particularly with regard to tobacco. As I've indicated elsewhere, I think these people are neurotic control freaks, and just as with any control freak behavior, they use real but minor points as an excuse to give justification for their endeavor twoard control.
 
Dezaad said:
For the record, I no longer smoke since I quit several years ago.

I don't like the smell of smoke, and it irritates me a little when I end up smelling it. However, I think people like aps and ludahai are just control freaks who use these minor irritations as excuses to regulate behavior that is not truly harming them in any significant way.

There was a time when smokers were harming the people around them, and that behavior needed to be regulated out of society through law and social pressure. It was indeed profoundly unfair, especially in work-places. I am not one who buys into the notion that people can 'just work anywhere'. There are times when jobs are plentiful and people don't have to stay with an employer, sure, but that is not always. Mothers need to feed their children, Loners need to feed themselves. They shouldn't have to endure other peoples smoke in the effort to do this.

Everything is a poison in large enough amounts, while in small enough amounts most things are benign. Oxygen is a poison that is slowly killing us, but by the same token of course we would live alot shorter lives without it. Aps will pounce on this and say that people don't need tobacco to live, and think that she's scored a point, when really she's missed it.

I am simply pointing out that in small enough amounts, tobacco smoke is merely an irritation, not a poison. Some people believe that irritations need to be regulated out of existence, particularly with regard to tobacco. As I've indicated elsewhere, I think these people are neurotic control freaks, and just as with any control freak behavior, they use real but minor points as an excuse to give justification for their endeavor twoard control.
Click to expand...

I'm not a control freak. I just hate smoking and smokers.
 
ludahai said:
The one in the OP is MUCH newer than that.
Click to expand...

It was not a study specificly on second hand smoke or it's affects...

"But the study had limitations: It assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke.

One academic argued there's not enough evidence to conclude the smoking ban was the cause of Pueblo's heart attack decline.

The decline could have had more to do with a general decline in smoking in Pueblo County, from about 26 percent in 2002-2003 to less than 21 percent in 2004-2005. If there were stepped-up efforts to treat or prevent heart disease in the Pueblo area, that too could have played a role, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

"I don't think it's as clear as they're making it out to be," Siegel said."

It was from 6 years ago and is still using the exaggerations of earlier studies. Or as I call it, a lie.
 
aps said:
Everytime there is a smoking ban of any sort, smokers complain. Trust me, if they could smoke wherever they wanted, they would smoke everywhere. Come on, Blackdog, don't try to tell me otherwise.
Click to expand...

So you believe in punishing everyone for someone else's actions? Because you feel inconvenienced?

aps said:
I am fine if people want to smoke in their car with their windows rolled up or in their house with their windows up. I cannot drive with my windows down because I ALWAYS smell cigarette smoke when I am at a stop light, whether it be because someone is smoking outside or smoking in their car with the windows rolled down.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding. :roll:

aps said:
I lived next door to a smoker. It never failed that whenever I went to sit out on my patio or do gardening in my backyard, he would be out there on his deck at some point smoking. And I could smell it--not just lightly. It drove me crazy (I celebrated when I heard he was moving out of the neighborhood).
Click to expand...

Then you have issues.
 
P/N said:
OK, I'll give you partial credit for this one. While you weren't in dagner of a heart attack or heart disease as a child, you were submitted to second hand smoke and it was forced on you. Having said this, you were a child with no rights and unless you still live at home, you would only be submitted to their second hand smoke if you visit them (assuming they are still alive).
Click to expand...

PARTIAL credit? I was subjected to it for EIGHTEEN YEARS! It WAS forced on me. And it IS a cause and contributor to childhood ailments. Please educate yourself. My brother and I both had asthma as children - something that does NOT run in my family. I do NOT suffer from it NOW. My doctor is of the belief that it was because I was subjected to the second-hand smoke of my parents.

As for my parents, fortunately, my mother has given up the disgusting habit. Sadly, it killed my father.

A few years ago...enough said.
Click to expand...

It still happened. It can't now because smoking in restaurants in Taiwan is mostly banned now.

But you weren't forced into this situation, it is one that arose. Were you tied to the chair you were sitting in? Did someone hold a gun to your head and tell you to not move? Sorry, but this one doesn't count either.
Click to expand...

So I have to move because a smoker decides to light up where I am enjoying a nice morning with my family? Tyranny of the smokers.

So her smell was forced upon you, but not her second hand smoke? Ahh, I see, it's not just the second hand smoke that bothers you. The true nature of your red herring comes out.
Click to expand...

She was still breathing smoke when she came in. It was absolutely DISGUSTING.

None of the instances you listed still exist today. Your stories started out with "Growing up...", "a few years ago..." and "Once..." - what a sham. You can be the smoking hall monitor if you so desire, but I find it truly pathetic. No one is forcing second hand smoke on you today. You have the right to not enter a place of business or a residence if smoking is taking place if it offends you so much. No one is taking that right away from you.
Click to expand...

The second one could not happen today here due to anti-smoking laws. Were it not for the laws being passed by government to protect non-smokers, it would still be commonplace. Would I be able to fly on a plane smoke-free were it not for anti-smoking laws?

There are still children today having second-hand smoked forced on them by their parents. There are still work meetings held in restaurants in the US and other countries where workers are subjected to smoke. Smokers still force their poison on other places such as public parks and baseball stadiums. FOrtunately, the later becomes illegal where I live in SEVEN days. The LAW is providing more protections for non-smokers. LIVE WITH IT! :mrgreen:
 
Dezaad said:
For the record, I no longer smoke since I quit several years ago.
Click to expand...

Good for you. One of the best decisions you ever made.

I don't like the smell of smoke, and it irritates me a little when I end up smelling it. However, I think people like aps and ludahai are just control freaks who use these minor irritations as excuses to regulate behavior that is not truly harming them in any significant way.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am not a control freak. However, we are talking about a highly carcigonenic poison. You should hear what a friend of mine here who is a cancer research says about the poisons in second-hand smoke.
 
Blackdog said:
It was not a study specificly on second hand smoke or it's affects...

"But the study had limitations: It assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke.

One academic argued there's not enough evidence to conclude the smoking ban was the cause of Pueblo's heart attack decline.

The decline could have had more to do with a general decline in smoking in Pueblo County, from about 26 percent in 2002-2003 to less than 21 percent in 2004-2005. If there were stepped-up efforts to treat or prevent heart disease in the Pueblo area, that too could have played a role, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

"I don't think it's as clear as they're making it out to be," Siegel said."

It was from 6 years ago and is still using the exaggerations of earlier studies. Or as I call it, a lie.
Click to expand...

Actually, the study was from three years ago. 41% decline. PRetty dramatic in three years.
 
Blackdog said:
So you believe in punishing everyone for someone else's actions? Because you feel inconvenienced?



You have got to be kidding. :roll:



Then you have issues.
Click to expand...

The issue is not wanting to have a cancer-causing poison forced on us by the tyranny of smokers.
 
ludahai said:
Actually, the study was from three years ago. 41% decline. PRetty dramatic in three years.
Click to expand...

Decline for who?

Lets use common sense. If they did not separate smokers from non-smokers how accurate are the results they want to claim?

Occam's Razor man.
 
ludahai said:
The issue is not wanting to have a cancer-causing poison forced on us by the tyranny of smokers.
Click to expand...

You mean like everyone that works in a factory or drives a car?
 
ludahai said:
The issue is not wanting to have a cancer-causing poison forced on us by the tyranny of smokers.
Click to expand...

No the issue is you don't respect private property. It is that simple.

People are able to make the choice whether they want to go into a bar that allows smoking. They don't need tyrannical collectivism to make the choice for them.
 
aps said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a case of someone being harmed by second hand smoke.
 
Wessexman said:
No the issue is you don't respect private property. It is that simple.

People are able to make the choice whether they want to go into a bar that allows smoking. They don't need tyrannical collectivism to make the choice for them.
Click to expand...

Most of the bars in my town have sold their lots because of this B.S.

Instead of being social and hanging out at the bar and feeding a business and providing upkeep on jobs, they buy the liqour and stay at home... because they can smoke.

But it's peoples' right not to have to deal with cigarette smoke right?... :roll: go somewhere else.
 
americanwoman said:
Just waiting for those who defend the government forcing people who are smoking a legal substance to only smoke where they say it's okay to smoke it to show up in this thread. Oh wait, you freedom haters are already here.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Do you smoke?
 
Blackdog said:
Decline for who?

Lets use common sense. If they did not separate smokers from non-smokers how accurate are the results they want to claim?

Occam's Razor man.
Click to expand...

A 41% decline in hospitalized heart attacks in Pueblo, the city that enacted the ban. Clear from the article cited in the OP. On only three years, that is a VERY sharp decline - far lower than the the nation as a whole, or even the State of Colorado I would guess.
 
Wessexman said:
No the issue is you don't respect private property. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Private property rights are not and never have been absolute. That is even more so when you make it public access.

People are able to make the choice whether they want to go into a bar that allows smoking. They don't need tyrannical collectivism to make the choice for them.
Click to expand...

They can smoke at home if they have no children and it is not entering the living space of their neighbors. Other than that, keep your nasty habit away from the civilized people of the world who don't smoke a cancer stick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom