SEZ:
You can't shmoke here so you go ever zere?
Shmokink must be banned everyvere!
Mein life sucks! Zat much iss true!
I vill noot shtoop 'til yours sucks, too!
Posted on 06/20/2008 12:31:19 AM PDT by stevelackner
I know there are people out there who may disagree with me on this one. But here I go anyway. Mind you this is not an issue that affects me personally as I am not a smoker.
First and foremost, because any article dealing with smoking must add in a few caveats I will take this opportunity to state what should already be obvious. I obviously believe that those addicted to smoking should try their harderst to quit. No doubt about that. You will not hear arguments from me disputing the dangers of cigarette addiction.
Now that I got that out of the way I can get to the issue at hand. Smoking bans have started becoming popular as cities decide where smokers can and cannot engage in their vice. I understand the rationale behind banning smoking in certain places of work. For example, an office setting with a bunch of cubicles is not a place for smoking. I tend to think that in today's day and age big companies would themselves ban smoking without the government forcing them to do so. In general I do not like government meddling in what is none of their business. I do not like the idea of the government telling a business owner how to run his or her business. Cigarettes are a legal and heavily taxed product (a tax which hurts working class people who smoke more than anyone else). But truthfully I will not get terribly vexed if the ban is not overly draconian, where it is banned in places that make at least some sense. I am generally opposed to smoking bans but I would nonetheless be willing to look at individual city bans and judge them independently and fairly as to whether the law is excessive.
One of the popular places for cities to ban smoking these days is bars. This is one of those bans that makes little sense to me. Bars are not health food stores. They are in the business of selling alcohol. When you enter a pub you should not be expecting for the same aura as 24 hour fitness. If a bar owner decides he wants to allow smoking in his bar I see no reason why he and his customers should not be allowed to smoke. If enough people do not like the environment created or are discomforted by the smoke then non-smoking bars should open up for them. But no one is being forced to go to a bar in the first place. The only rationale people give for this ban is that the bartenders are subjected to second-hand smoke. Truthfully, I do not think bartenders in smoking bars are dropping dead right and left from lung cancer. If they do not like the environment that many bars offer by allowing smoking then maybe bartending is not the greatest business for them. Nobody forces anyone to become a bartender. I am sure there will always be no shortage of bartenders willing to work in a smokey bar. The fact is that a bar is private property and smoking is a legal activity. Patrons can decide whether they want to support a smoking bar or not. I have always felt this way about banning smoking in bars. Recently a new study was done that validates my opinion but for a whole new reason.
The new study claims that banning smoking in bars is not only sort of stupid, it is actually dangerous. Two researchers from the University of Wisconsin named Scott Adams and Chad Cotti published their findings through the Journal of Public Economics this month. The two researchers claimed that while "using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations — smokers driving longer distances to a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks." In other words, bar smoking bans are actually dangerous. Let me now ask you one question:
What's worse, some smoke in a bar or a drunk driver plowing into another vehicle?
“According to law it is”
I’ll add abortion to your list of great rebuttles to Soliton’s statement above. I guess, according to the “it’s the law” argument, that I should just accept the murder of babies as an acceptable behaviour.
You seem to be of some intelligence. Which makes me wonder - why do you find it necessary to mock retarded people?
Just asking.
Unless you are blowing up abortion clinics, you ARE accepting abortion because it is the law.
Research has found that potential effects of smoking during pregnancy include an increased chance of genetic abnormalities. There has been associations made between pregnant women smoking and increased chance of cleft lip, cleft palate, problems with bowel, eyes, ears and spinal cord. There are also increased abnormalities found with the placentas. The effects of smoking goes beyond the birth. There have been links made between women smoking during pregnancy and their children developing respiratory problems, such as asthma, later in childhood.
http://www.pregnancy.com.au/smoking_during_pregnancy.htm
“Unless you are blowing up abortion clinics, you ARE accepting abortion because it is the law.”
What a ridiculous response. Fine, since you aren’t killing democrats, you are a socialist. Makes about as much sense doesn’t it. Of course, I shouldn’t have expected a reasoned response from you.
Pregnant chicks shouldn’t be hanging out in bars. And from my experience, the people who bitch the most about smoke in bars/restaurants are grossly overweight slobs who have much more important health issues to worry about.
“Research has found that potential effects of smoking during pregnancy include an increased chance of genetic abnormalities. There has been associations made between pregnant women smoking and increased chance of cleft lip, cleft palate, problems with bowel, eyes, ears and spinal cord. There are also increased abnormalities found with the placentas. The effects of smoking goes beyond the birth. There have been links made between women smoking during pregnancy and their children developing respiratory problems, such as asthma, later in childhood.”
Since many of the the Boomers had mothers who smoked while pregnant,this would perhaps explain their extraordinarily poor health,huh? (Sarcasm off)
Brainwashing is alive and well,isn’t it?
Passive smoking increases miscarriage risk
14 May 2004 - written by BUPA’s Health Information Team
It is known that mothers who smoke are at a greater risk of miscarriage if they continue to smoking during pregancy. However, the effect of a partner smoking (passive smoking) during pregnancy on the risk of miscarriage has not been clearly resolved. A joint American and Chinese study, published in the May 15 2004 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, has found that if a woman’s partner smokes, the risk of miscarriage is raised. And if the partner smokes more than 20 cigarettes a day, the risk is significantly increased.
Below we look at the issue in more depth:
How was the study carried out?
The joint American and Chinese study looked at 526 newly married women who did not smoke or drink from 1996 to 1998. They were all textile workers in China and they were put into groups according to the number of cigarettes a day their husbands smoked: more than 20 cigarettes a day, less than 20 cigarettes a day and no cigarettes (nonsmoker).
The researchers tested the women’s urine every day to see whether or not they had become pregnant. When the women did become pregnant, their pregnancy was followed closely.
What did the study find?
There was little difference between the groups of women as to their likelihood to become pregnant. Therefore, in this study, the smoking habits of the father did not seem to affect the chance of pregnancy.
However, the number of cigarettes the father smoked did seem to have an effect on the risk of spontaneous miscarriage within the first six weeks:
of the women whose partners smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day, nearly one-third of the women lost their babies within six weeks of conceiving
of the women whose partners did not smoke at all, roughly one-fifth of the women had a miscarriage within the first six weeks of conceiving
Also, the number of cigarettes the father smoked seemed to have an effect on the likelihood of eventually becoming pregnant and giving birth:
of the women whose partners smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day, 76 percent became pregnant and gave birth
of the women whose partners did not smoke at all, 84 percent became pregnant and gave birth
What are the conclusions from these findings?
The researchers from the study concluded that heavy smoking by the father increased the risk of early pregnancy loss. They suggest that this is either due to exposure of the male sperm to the effects of smoking, or due to the mother being exposed to the effects of passive smoking.
Why does smoking raise the risk of miscarriage?
The researchers believe that smoking by the father could damage the chromosomes in his sperm, making the sperm less likely to produce viable babies. Also the researchers think that the father’s cigarette smoke is inhaled passively by the mother and this can affect the developing fetus. It is thought that tobacco smoke may alter a pregnant woman’s levels of female sex hormones and that it may reduce the amount of blood that flows through the placenta and nourishes the baby.
What can be done to lower the risk of miscarriage?
It is worth remembering that miscarriage is a common event and many women experience two miscarriages, purely by chance. Often there is no underlying problem when a miscarriage occurs and there is every chance of a successful pregnancy in the future.
In over 60 percent of miscarriages, there is a problem with the way genetic material from the egg and sperm has combined and the resulting baby is unable to develop. There is no other reason for this than bad luck. Another cause is the embryo failing to implant into the lining of the womb. Doctors don’t full understood why this happens, but sometimes it can be due to a hormone imbalance.
Miscarriage is not thought to be caused by stress or lack of rest. However, it is helpful for both partners to stop smoking before trying to conceive and remain smoke-free once pregnancy has begun.
If you experience three consecutive miscarriages, it is advisable to visit your doctor to undergo tests to rule out any possible specific cause such as hormonal imbalances, abnormalities of the uterus or a problem with the immune system.
For more on miscarriage, please see our Miscarriage factsheet.
http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/140504smoke.html
Oh my God,you’re giving me a headache with the results of the “studies”.
Absolute nonsense !
Science is a bitch when it conflicts with your addiction eh?
Smokers literally stink. They smell bad. They make their poor children smell bad. They make it impossible for people who hate the smell to go to bars. Fine. I don't go.
Just don't try to make it into a noble act. It's what the gays do. They try to elevate their vice into a virtue.
Nice way to talk to a fellow freeper.
BTW, with all your cut/paste of "science" you forgot one itsy bitsy little point: COORELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
From your link: “Bupa is a global health and care organisation.”
Nope, not in their interest to control the lives of others, nope not at all. Do you work for this “global health care” organization?
“However, the number of cigarettes the father smoked did seem to have an effect on the risk of spontaneous miscarriage within the first six weeks:
of the women whose partners smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day, nearly one-third of the women lost their babies within six weeks of conceiving”
It’s funny that they didn’t even bother to include phrasing that the father’s smoked IN THE PRESENCE of the women who lost their babies to miscarriage. Keep swallowing the agenda driven dribble.
You are a great example of the new “republican” that has given us McCain. Congratulations for your part of the destruction of our once great Republic.
“Smokers literally stink. They smell bad. They make their poor children smell bad.
The liking,or disliking,of odors is subjective. You don’t like the smell of smokers,fine,no problem.
I hate the smell of beer but I would neither suggest that people stop drinking it nor would I say that beer drinkers stink .
Grow up and try being a wee bit more tolerant.
Addiction is an ugly thing. Beer drinkers do not pour beer on everyone in the room. Neither do they pour beer on their children's hair and clothes. If they did it would be child abuse. I think smoking in an enclosed space with children present IS child abuse.
I mock retarded people.
Did you ever watch the movie “There’s Something About Mary”?
They made a fortune and got a lot of laughs mocking retarded people. I even have a friend of mine whose brother has down syndrome and who has a sense of humor who laughed at the Matt Damon characters line “My real passion is my hobby...I work with retards.”
Everyone is sick of this PC BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.