http://www.physorg.com/news84949716.html

Are they using the EPA 1993 report showing 3000 deaths a year (1 in 42,000,000), how about the 1998 World Health Organization"s Report which found a Relative Risk for spousal exposure to be 1.16, with a Confidence Interval of .93 - 1.44.
(So 16% or 00% increase above non-smokers spouses, go ahead and pick one, they did)
Is smoking bad for ME? Yes. Is my smoking outside bad for YOU? No, and the hour you might be exposed to it in a restaurant isn"t either. You are more likely to get struck by lightning 3 times in a row, then to die from second-hand smoke.
The time and money spent on this subject could be better spent elsewhere, and they wouldn"t be infringing on my civil rights. The people that are pushing these laws are getting smoking banned OUTSIDE, come on, if that"s not a sign that they are just pushing people around then what is. For all you non-smokers out there, just wait, when smoking is banned everywhere; they"ll be coming after YOUR unhealthy habits too, like french fries. Think about it people, watch the amount of smoke that a smoker inhales directly into their lungs 10-50 times a day for 30-50 years plus all the second-hand smoke, do you honestly think that an hour of exposure to dispersed second-hand smoke in a restaurant is a threat to your life? You’re more likely to die today from the E-coli in your salad.

First, 1.16 is a better interpretation of the results than 1.00. Second, it's an unnecessary additional risk that I'll thank you to keep to yourself. Third, cancer risks aside, your spewing of smoke in my face plays havoc with my asthma. Think of restaurant bans as a civil society's way of keeping people like you from having the crap beat out of them by people like me. Fourth, the landlord mentioned in the article was perfectly within his property rights to evict smokers. They're a fire hazard.

MacGyver, health issues aside, I don't want to sit next to you in a restaurant as you light up. I wouldn't want to sit next to somebody with chronic halitosis, flatulence, nor smell somebody change a diaper at the next table. Eating largely an olfactory experience, no?

Non smokers find smoking rather disgusting as you're probably well aware. But I do support your right to kill yourself in your own home. It's your choice. That said, I nursed my wife as she died of cancer just before her 40th birthday. I hope you're luckier than I was as it's those around you that will feel the pain for many years after you might have died.

not surprised

As a former carton a week chain smoker who quit cold turkey, I applaud the laws banning smoking where it will harm the health of any human including the smoker. After all when the smoker eventually manifests some horrible condition related to smoking, the costs of his constant care are staggering. I would argue that much of his care would be paid by the public. Quitting smoking is the biggest test of one's individual will power that he will probably ever face. The smoker as I see it has 3 choices ultimately; 1. Quit now and hopefully do it in time so as to be able to heal from its harmful effects and live a much more active lifestyle. 2. Continue to smoke and face the stress of harming your body, stress from others around who despise the smell of it and most important facing the eventual problems and catastrophic diagnosis that you have some type of lung disease and the debilitating effects it will have on your lifestyle-many of the limitations which you have no idea how bad your life will be (my father went through this and he used to say "if only I had known it would be this bad". Option 3: Continue to smoke and live in denial of the harmful toll the HABIT IS TAKING ON YOUR BODY and probably have an early demise and at the same time in those last few years suffer terribly while still craving "just one more cigarette". GOOD LUCK FROM ANTHONY - A REFORMED SMOKER OF OVER 27 YEARS.

Also, MacGyver, you dispute the 3000 additional lung cancer deaths a year, yet you conveniently forget to mention the 45,000 additional cardiovascular disease deaths a year from passive smoking. So you're more likely to die from passive smoking than from a traffic accident. Show a little intellectual honesty, OK?

Interesting that as soon as someone talks about actual risks, the anti-smokers immediately switch to hyperbole. The discussion can't be about actual risks from secondhand smoke, it's actually about forcing everyone to do what non-smokers want. The shoe will be on the other foot if you like rare roast beef or sashimi - or sunnyside-up eggs ("The risks just aren't worth it!!!") in a few years, once the smoking battle has been settled and no one can smoke. In the meantime, the non-smokers get the benefit of the huge taxes levied on smokers and get to indulge their sense of righteous indignation. Pretty sweet deal for them, eh?

Been busy on our first day in the forum, haven't we MacGyver?

Just so the rest of us can get an idea on how well Mac'ie thinks things thru before posting, check out this idea of his posted today:



But to the topic at hand: you don't have a "nasty habit" like "french fries", Mac, you have an addiction. I hope you think things thru a lot better about this addiction than some of your other ideas, because this one will hurt you.

And I say this out of my self-interest, because undoubtedly I'm going to have to contribute to your medical costs since your payments into that system aren't likely to be enough alone.

Smokers should have to ring a bell and shout "unclean"

Its certainly addictive, and when smokers argue against non-smokers, its only the addiction talking. I quit years ago myselfe and its great, and i save money, lol.... it just isnt worth the lousy 1 min euphoric state caused by 'satisfying the withdrawl symptoms'. It makes more sence to smoke a joint than a cigarette, at least you get high, some interesting feeling that increases sensitivity and gives you a good night sleep. smoking really dosent do anything at all usefull... i also noticed after i quit that it obviously impares you're sence of smell and tast. things smell better and tast better, and tobacco smells much worse after i quit than it did when i did smoke... wich is one reason a smoker will argue, they have no clue what it really smells like to a non-smoker.

I can understand the no smoking inside, like the workplace and restaurants, but outside, I do not understand this. I thought this was meant to be a democratic society with equal rights for everyone.

I like what MAC said.

Hit by a bus, struck by lightning, etc.

Freedom ain't free, it has to come from me. Collectively.

JA - Are you saying we should ban people with Chronic Halitosis or Flatulence from restaurants? If you were faced with that situation, would you call the manager over and ask to have the person removed? If so, what to stop me doing the same thing with anyone else I find offensive (who isn't performing an act that is in and of itself illegal - i.e. Driving at 100 mph is not in and of itself illegal, since you can do it on a racetrack. Smoking tobacco is not in and of itself illegal, and should not be banned just because some find it upsetting. I could claim the same thing about dogs that are made to wear silly clothes by their owners, but it doesn't mean I'm about to go out and try to get dog clothes banned). Perhaps you'd prefer we go back to having separate toilets for various members of the community.

FULL DISCLOSURE - I smoked for around 5 years and gave up around 6 months ago.

I don't really see what my other post has to do with this one NoCleverName.
Why didn't you include my question on the other post I made on that day as well, www.physorg.com/news80832481. I have been reading physorg.com for the past 7 months, and I couldn't just read about people getting kicked out of their home for doing something that is not illegal, I felt like responding.

I very much expected to be flamed when I posted my comments on smoking, however, I wasn't trying to say that smoking is good for you, but rather that banning smoking outside has nothing to due with health risks. There is data out there that can show either side of the issue, and just because you picked the numbers you like, doesn't mean you should be able kick people out of their house.
The truth is that cancer has a lot to due with your genetics, you can smoke for 60 years and live to be 98 (my great-grandfather), or you can smoke for 5 years and die from heart disease, or you may never smoke anything at all and die from prostate cancer (my grandfather). If I keep smoking will I die from a smoking related disease? Most likely. Should I quit? Yes. Should you stop eating fatty foods, red meat, MSG, or stop drinking alcohol, and burning scented candles? I don't think it's my business, or anyone else’s but yours. When people do those things does it raise my insurance? Yes, but I chalk it up to the price I pay for freedom.
You all seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. I am willing to bet that at least someone living in that apartment building is living check-to-check; do you think they have the money to pay a deposit, first and last months rent? Do you think that you have a right to make someone homeless because you don't like their habit? Are you saving them from themselves by doing this? When did smokers rights come under the review of non-smokers? Don't respond with "They could just quit", if so, don't stop there; why don't you also come up with some more things they should do because you say so?

One last thing in case you have forgotten, no matter what you eat or how careful you are or how many miles you run a day, we are all going to die someday. Period. Nothing you do will ever stop that. Nothing. Try to leave people alone until your time comes.