Given that the only joy from smoking is just satisfaction from having an artificial need met due to chemical addiction, smoking tobacco should be licensed to current smokers only, with all profits and private wealth of tobacco companies being paid to the remaining smoking victims as compensation for the enslavement, poverty, pain, suffering, ostracisation, legacy and early death caused by some people's greed. Ban it everywhere and if taxpayers don't like the need to pay out so as to enable smokers to go elsewhere, then they shouldn't have turned a blind eye to the shafting of a large section of the population by drug dealers, state, politicians and society.
I do not think people should be able to smoke in restaurants and bars. Second hand smoke is very bad for anyone and it would be best if people who visited bars or restaurants did not have to worry about inhaling second hand smoke. If someone wants to smoke, they should smoke where the smoke will not harm innocent bystanders.
Second-hand smoke doesn't just endanger the health of the smoker. I don't pay to enjoy a meal or a drink, just to breathe a dangerous amount of smoke for the entire time, as well, especially when I would never smoke by choice. There's also no really effective way to separate smokers from non-smokers, so I think it's only fair to ban smoking in restaurants and bars.
I believe smoking should be banned in all indoor public environments. It is detrimental to the health of other patrons and employees working there who choose not to smoke. It also makes venues less appealing for other non-smoking patrons. So, businesses would be likely to benefit from these laws. Since the ban in Chicago, I have gone out much more.
I enjoy walking with my child. No matter where we go, there always seems to
be a smoker somewhere blowing second-hand smoke near my baby. This smoke is
known to cause illness, and there is nothing I can do, as a mom, to stop these
smokers or protect my child from it. If people don't have the decency to
smoke where it won't bother others, then the law must step in.
Because of the fact that cigarette smoke is harmful to both the smoker and the people breathing in second-hand smoke, smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars. It has made a world of difference to people who live in states where it has been banned. The quality of experience is wonderful and, not to mention, it promotes better health.
Why would you possibly want to smoke around so many people,Smokers obviously know thats annoying and is very unhealthy not only to them but everyone around them!
Having worked in smoke-filled bars, I can attest to the fact that second-hand smoke is both annoying and a real health hazard. I was pregnant at the time, and my obstetrician actually accused me of lying about being a non-smoker, because of complications I experienced. I still feel guilty about exposing my unborn child to that danger.
I think cigarettes should be banned in most bars and restaurants because many patrons and workers are non-smokers and should not be subjected to the unhealthy habits of other customers. However, smokers and people who don't care about taking risks with their health should have places where they can go and smoke. There could be restaurants segregated by smoking and non-smoking preferences. Or, the tobacco industry could be changed so that second-hand smoke is not so carcinogenic and so dangerous.
Yes, it should also be banned everywhere internationally as well. Lung cancer and other health problems would decline dramatically and tourists would also be less exposed to harmful fumes.
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”
“Enstrom defends the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
Court rules environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen:
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)
OSHA WONT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous:
“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA won't apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”
Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”
Secondhand smoke, safe as dust:
“Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk”(p. 5)
“Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (***from non-tobacco
sources***) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.” (p. 7)
“ETS exposure was not found to significantly increase risk among never smokers in this study”(p.7)
ShowtimeTV, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.
PURPOSELY misleading public with MEDIA STRATEGIES:
The Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health was enacted by Congress in 1984 as a collection of HHS, AHLA, NCI, WHO, CDC and other government funded health organizations. (eliminating any independent sources of information).
Direct quotes from meeting notes:
“Social (Un)acceptability of smoking will be decisive TOOL on the road to a smoke-free society.” Using “four mechanisms: -passive smoking, -social cost, -ELIMINATE ALL INFLUENCES in society which could reflect favorably on smoking, -educational campaigns for children (App.II) “
“although passive smokers may suffer considerable subjective discomfort, a lasting adverse health effect is probably not likely to result in otherwise healthy, grown-up individuals. “
““Lindahl concluded that it is difficult to demonstrate harmful effects of passive smoking on healthy nonsmokers; there is little proven in this area”
“He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt “
“We're moving out of the horse and cart era, we're not yet in the jet age of MEDIA STRATEGIES, but we're getting there “
Notes/contents Review: http://rampant-antismoking.com/
Actual notes: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/efp57a00/pdf
People aren't required to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking. If they find that it is an annoyance then they can visit another restaurant.
Smoking cigarettes should not be banned in restaurants or bars because of the effects of second hand smoke. The effects of second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated. One study concluded that 40 year old women are dying of lung cancer as a result of second hand smoke, yet there are women who have smoked cigarettes for over fifty years who have not died of lung cancer. Perhaps there is another cause of lung cancer. Instead of hysterically assigning the blame to second hand smoke, has anyone studied the long term effects of using aerosol hair spray?
A business owner should be able to decide what types of customers they want frequenting their establishment. There are many business owners who prefer a smoke-free environment, and all the benefits that come with banning smoking in their place of business. However, many business owners would choose to allow people to smoke. Non-smokers could then opt to not frequent the places that allowed smoking. Non-smokers need to take responsibility for their own health, just like smokers do. If this means having drinks at home or at a place that doesn't allow smoking, that's the choice they should make, instead of complaining about smokers making them sick.
While many studies have been made on the effects of second-hand smoke, they are not universally conclusive. While many agree that prolonged exposure to second-hand smoke (such as when a smoker cohabitates with a non-smoker) is sometimes (though not always) harmful, an irrefutable study proving that very limited exposure to second-hand smoke is detrimental has not been done. The studies that claim to prove this are often distorted or contradictory. In truth, the human lungs are built to filter bad things from the body; it's the same reason you won't die after a walk on a smoggy day. Your lungs can throw off the hour of exposure to someone smoking all the way across a restaurant. Of course, if a restaurant want to be non-smoking, that's within their rights, but they shouldn't cite unreliable studies that have been pumped full of scare tactics to do so.