Smoking Bans

The reasons that the smokers had lower lifetime health care costs is that the life time was MUCH shorter than non smokers...

I wouldn't agree that it's MUCH shorter, but it could be a few percent shorter.

I thought this was interesting. It was about genes and smoking. Dr. Chris Amos, a genetic epidemiologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and lead author of one of the studies. The studies were led by researchers in France, Iceland and the US and published in the journals Nature and Nature Genetics.

"All smokers and former smokers have a 15% greater risk of developing lung cancer, the deadliest of all cancers, than non-smokers, researchers said."

15% ?? !! ??

I know many more people who died of lung cancer and never smoked, than smokers.

Smoking is undesirable for other reasons, but I was kind of shocked by the 15% thing.

stoker-man wrote:I know many more people who died of lung cancer and never smoked, than smokers.

I wonder how many of those deaths were caused because they hung out in bars and restaurants 'smoking' everybody elses' second hand smoke???


(why isn't there a smiley that indicates "smarta$$")

When Connecticut went smoke free, the restaurants complained about how much business they were going to loose because "people would stop going out to eat".

Well, as it turns out, because every restaurant is in the same position as far as smoking, most restaurants found out that there business actually picked up. And without smoking, the associated costs were reduced.

I wouldn't doubt restaurants will get a boost from it or stay even, I don't smoke in strictly restaurants now even where its allowed but I know a lot of people will. I even got bitten by it myself once eating breakfast where some jackass lit up one of the stinkiest cigars I ever smelled. I can understand the non-smokers point of view and I even try and respect that, ask coalkirk. Only place I'll light up is in bar type atmosphere where there is lot of people smoking anyway.

My point is it should be left up to the owner of the establishment and I really doubt this won't have a detrimental effect on bars that are serving over the 20% cap on food.

I agree with you Richard. i smoke one+ pack a day, but i hate eating in a smoke filled room. i don't mnd the band in publc areas but a private owned establishedment should be up to the owners not the Gov. to many laws now. some day we will not be able to own a GUN or BURN COAL.

I have had lifelong asthma, and if I have a cold even a whiff of cigarette smoke can set off the spasms. Restaurants are considered places of "public accommodation" and therefore a smoker has no more right to assault me with smoke than I have to let loose a whole spray can of air freshener or a bottle of "eau de skunk".

My son points out that "the drinking bone is connected to the smoking bone", so I do have some sympathy -- limited! -- for smoking in bars, which aren't your typical family restaurant.

One argument for the smoking bans is that, while patrons might have the option of going to another restaurant, employees of the restaurant can't get away from the smoke that easily, and may be engulfed in it for an eight or ten hour shift, rather than just the time it takes to eat a hamburger.

I'm not a s moker but have libertarian leanings. That is I think it should be left up to the bar or resturant owner. All that said, I must admist I enjoy it much more going to a bar or resturant and not leaving smelling like an ash tray.

Looks like fast food is next, get that Big Mac while you can: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/10 ... fastfood10

“While limiting fast-food restaurants isn’t a solution in itself, it’s an important piece of the puzzle,” said Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College.
This is “bringing health policy and environmental policy together with land-use planning,” he said. “I think that’s smart, and it’s the wave of the future.”

And:

A California law banning sugary drinks and limiting the fat and sugar content of foods sold in middle and high schools took effect in July. And the state enacted legislation last year to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables to be sold in corner stores in lower-income communities.

I can agree with limited banning of such food in schools because you have a captive audience, the second part of the above paragraph is what is disconcerting. Sounds very similar to the smoking ban in that its dictating how a business is run. Suppose no one buys the fruit and vegetables? If there was a a market for it wouldn't they be selling them already?

As an ex-smoker I can agree with smoking bans in restaurants etc. I can't see bans in outdoor parks, beaches or any place that my smoking will not affect others. This crap about banning it for health reasons is just that...Crap! (Next thing the government will be tying to ban Twinkies!) If adults choose to do things that is bad for their health, who am I to tell them they can't?? (I am a retired DEA Agent who believes that all drugs & prostitution should be legalized, taxed & only sold/available to/for adults.........so that's where I come down on any issue involving "morals" legislation.)

"....a retired DEA Agent who believes that all drugs & prostitution should be legalized....

I'm with you, Richard. I would rather buy drugs for an addict than have him knock me over the head to get my money because he is desperate. Especially if I could buy them at reasonable prices because they were readily available like carrots and cabbage. Prohibition was a godsend for organized crime in the United States. Drug policies today breed tremendous corruption and violence, and are a godsend to criminals, terrorists, and corrupt governments the world over, by keeping prices high enough to enrich them.

That 15% lung cancer rate is questionable,, but I'll go with it.. what it doesn't take into account is the heart attacks.. nicotine makes blood cholesterol stickier, so it forms blockages easier,, smoking and nicotine also cause a significant number of other cancers, like lip, tongue, throat cancer.. and get this, I learned about this just a few years ago,, Bladder cancer !! I had a friend who had smoked for decades.. and he died from a malignant bladder cancer from all the nicotine going through the urinary system...

Just plain nasty stuff...

Pluss, between smoking and the sun, it turns your skin into 'wrinkle city'.. my sister, who worshiped the sun, and smoked for decades,, looks 15 years older than I do, and she's actually only 2 years older ...

I too think the 'all public places' ban is riduculous.. beaches, parking lots etc.. with abundant fresh air... well just as long as I'm not downwind of the smoker.... at the beach,, If I saw someone put the butt in the sand, I'd dig it up and hand it to them.. smokers often have a rather cavalier attitude about disposing of their trash... I damn near got in a fist fight over some idiot emptying his truck's ashtray in my driveway... he didn't like me sweeping up the butts and ashes and putting them back in his truck !!

Greg L

acesover wrote: if you own a place it's up to you what goes on in your establishment.

That's not how they look at it in Maine. Here there is no smoking in any and all public buildings, period. The idea is...if an owner says it's OK to smoke in his place, the staff he hires has no chioce, the delivery people have no choice. Not that I agree or not, but that's the way it is. Also.... no smoking allowed in cars if any passenger is under the age of 18. That's a law in the local city, about to become law for the whole state.

My wife & I smoke, but have never smoked in this house. Even if it's 20 below zero, it's outside we go. If I go to see a customer I will never smoke on the way. Basically, I never smoke if I know I'm going to see a customer within 30 minutes. It stinks! It lingers!

Damn Communists. Pretty soon, they'll be telling us what toliet paper we can use...............

Cyber36 wrote:Damn Communists. Pretty soon, they'll be telling us what toliet paper we can use...............

Not communists...........Democrats!

BugsyR wrote:Not communists...........Democrats!

Hey!


( BTW,.........I decree you will use Charmin from now on!)