• 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

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
link

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. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it's a clear sign the ban was responsible.

The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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.
 
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.

This is fantastic news! I'll be your Mrs. anti-smoking Nazi, ludahai!
 
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.
Good. Its not so much that people are harming themselves when they smoke, but they are harming everyone else around them. Everyone has a right to a certain "space" where no foul-smelling, heart-clogging, tobacco smoke can enter and choke the breath out of them.
 
Good. Its not so much that people are harming themselves when they smoke, but they are harming everyone else around them. Everyone has a right to a certain "space" where no foul-smelling, heart-clogging, tobacco smoke can enter and choke the breath out of them.

Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.
 
Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.

I know. This thread is totally boring when all we're doing is agreeing with each other. ;)
 
Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.

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:
 
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:

I resemble the remark, and am proud of it. Keep up fhe smoking bans, I say.
 
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.

There is no evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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? :roll:

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

:lol:

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

That is all. :cool:
 
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!

;)
 
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.

:lol:

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

That is all. :cool:

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.
 
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.

What you suggest is certainly more plausible, this is true. I assert, however, that given the facts presented my interpretation is also possible. ;)

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.

Exactly. This is the difficulty of presenting evidence which is not actual evidence as if it proved something when it does not in fact prove squat.
 
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.

First off your example isn't the usual. Most people aren't allergic to perfume, but if someone came in doused with a smelly substance it would be up to management to seat them as far away from the other customer's as is possible, or politely ask them to leave because their fragrance wasn't pleasing, and it was interfering with other patrons dining experience. Losing one person as opposed to many would be up to the business owner.

The laws have been changed all over saying you can't smoke inside buildings. It's no longer legal to light up just anywhere you feel like it. Smokers are aware. The laws are the laws. Businesses can not run their businesses anyway they want to. There are many laws in regards to all sorts of things that businesses have to follow.
 
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.
It's okay to deny others their liberty if it's for a good cause. Obviously this study proves out everything and we should take it as holy writ!

Let's all celebrate the day Liberty was denied!
 
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.

Smoking isn't entirely legal, and hasn't been without restrictions since the '60's.

There are many substances that are only partially legal, and cigarettes are one of them. Alcohol is in the same boat with cigarettes to a degree, not just everybody can serve it. Restaurants have all sorts of regulations because they serve food. Can't do whatever they please. Really, we have laws, rules, and regulations all over the place, mostly for safety.

I believe that cigarettes would be outlawed, but the government can't do it cause there are still so many who smoke. This would make them criminals, so they've been tip-toeing around it for many years. There is revenue made from them too, but I don't think that's why it's still legal it's more because of the addicting properties of it, and so many just can't kick the habit.

I'd like to see a safe cigarette, but apparently it can't be done.
 
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.

Bully for those who wish to live in a city where the government nanny rules. If someone wants to smoke, it's their business and not the government's, unless the smoker is causing non-smokers to breath his smoke. Here, it looks like the Nazis DID take over.
 
Back
Top Bottom