Replies

There is statistical proof that 4000 smokers contract lung cancer to the 1 non-smoker that develops lung cancer. And if smoking admittedly exacerbates an already existing condition, then why allow it?

Would you please direct me to the site for the documentation for this statement- "a nonsmoker has a higher chance of getting lung cancer from drinking whole milk than from exposure to second hand smoke"?

ITA with your statement about time, money and effort going to appropriate causes. Had my mother never smoked, the probability of her getting lc would have been astronomically reduced, that would have been money well spent.

There is a 1.19 chance of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer because of SHS (19% increase). There is a 1.65 chance of contracting lung cancer from drinking whole milk (65% increase).

Neither increase is statistically significant, and even the EPA pooh-poohs the milk incident as insignificant, yet pushes the far less incident of SHS exposre as a MAJOR problem. I am sorry to be unable to provide a direct link to the info, but my references to it are on my other hard-drive. It is probably from the NCI, NIH or EPA......but whichever one it is, they keep it fairly well-hidden (I wonder why) a direct link to the government info can probably be found at the Forces.com website.....if you can bring yourself to look at a site that opposes your view, but backs up everything it says with citations and science.

I'm not looking for an arguement about smokers and their elevated risks - I've already acknowleged them. Smoking bans are not about smokers smoking........they are about "protecting" others.....including many people that never asked for such "protection."

I'm sure the bartenders and waitstaff who have been "protected" right out of jobs thank you for your promotion of the bans......and I know a lot of them in Delaware. I have a friend here in VA who's band no longer even bothers with gigs in Delaware. The places they used to play can no longer pay them because business is so off because of the ban.

No one is forcing anyone to enter an establishment that permits smoking and no one is forcing anyone to work there either. If there was such a demand for non-smoking places there would have been lots more of them, without government intrusion. And that is another unacknowleged casualty of the smoking bans, the establishments who built their clientele on the market of non-smokers....those businesses have also been hurt.

You are trying to convince me, because of your personal experience, that is quite alright with you to put another person out of business just because you don't like something he chooses to do. Cigar bars were created for like minded folks to have the freedom of assembly with other like minded folks. Many tobacconists and tobacco shops regularly had special nights for their customers.......not any more. All because people like you refuse to allow the owner of an establishment to choose his/her own clientele and build a business.

I don't believe you understood my comment regarding time, effort and money at all.........