Re: Smoking & Health (was Lance Armstrong & physical abilities)

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >Also from SF - gotta say, I like it. I think that there is something damn

> >foul about smoking publicly where other people have to inhale it.

>

> I can't say I disagree, inasmuch as I HATE getting caught in a cloud of

> smoke when I'm out walking somewhere. OTOH, I'm not sure how high it's

> reasonable to place the bar for public-space smoking given that cars are

> allowed to go all over the place spewing out exhaust. At any rate, I do

> think reasonable care ought to be taken to give smokers a place to smoke

> that doesn't involve ridiculous inconvenience to them or harm to others.

>

>

>

> -

>

Sure - I don't think that their right to smoke should take precedence over my

right to breathe, but I do think that there should be places for them to do it.

Z Tron El-Foooz

[Guest guest]

On 7/26/05, Robin Ann <grainwreck@...> wrote:

> So listen up: Stop Smoking. Maybe he will now... :-)

> ~Robin

I haven't smoked for a couple days, but geez, all this talk about

smoking makes me want a cigarette. Oh... I mean " need " a cigarette.

I'm " addicted, " after all. ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

The technique for killing yellow jackets is to allow them to land on

your food and then, before they get away (very important) to fly back

to tell the others in the hive, you mash them with the tines of your

fork -- just one deft move and that's it. Nobody talks. The ones from

the hive who fly off to raid our food table never come back and I

think word gets around..

As for the fork, you just wipe off the little yellow jacket legs or

eat them a la Mike . I imagine there is some nutrition in yellow

jackets?

~Robin

[Guest guest]

Z Tron El-Foooz,

>Sure - I don't think that their right to smoke should take precedence over my

right to breathe, but I do think that there should be places for them to do it.

>

Those bans may actually have real merit.

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez & artid=404491

" An important aspect of this study is that it was done in one isolated

place with a single hospital that dealt with all admissions for acute

myocardial infarction. In most other places that have implemented

smoke-free policies, there are several hospitals with people moving

across jurisdictional boundaries for work, housing, and health care.

These factors " smear out " the effect of any smoke-free policies in both

space and time. Data from California, however, could be interpreted as

supporting our results. Death rates from heart disease fell faster in

California than elsewhere in the United States during the California

tobacco control programme,12 which, while including a tax increase and

media campaign (including the promotion of smoke-free environments),

focused on creating smoke-free work-places and public places.13 The

fraction of the population covered by smoking restrictions rapidly

increased as a result of the campaign,1415 and there was a parallel

reduction in deaths from heart disease.12 Helena's small size and

isolation were important contributing factors to our ability to detect a

change in admission rates. "

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>Those bans may actually have real merit.

One problem with banning unhealthy things is that the attitude behind the

ban may be mistaken. Plenty of people would like to ban salt and animal

fats, for example. Another problem is that it's a disastrous infringement

on personal freedom. That's the key difference behind banning smoking

entirely (absurd) and preventing people from smoking around other

people. A smoker's real and legitimate freedom to smoke doesn't trump my

right to not breathe it in.

-

[Guest guest]

,

>One problem with banning unhealthy things is that the attitude behind the

>ban may be mistaken. Plenty of people would like to ban salt and animal

>fats, for example. Another problem is that it's a disastrous infringement

>on personal freedom. That's the key difference behind banning smoking

>entirely (absurd) and preventing people from smoking around other

>people. A smoker's real and legitimate freedom to smoke doesn't trump my

>right to not breathe it in.

>

Absolutely. I failed to make that clear. Public and workplace smoking

bans have shown some merit as far as passive smoke and health is

concerned. And the same with alcohol: people should have the right to

drink at home to oblivion, but once they get in a car and kill someone,

then they are infringing on someone else's rights. It is very gray, not

just black and white. I think smoking sections in restaurants are not

very helpful to sensitive nonsmokers either. Perhaps smoking and

nonsmoking establishments would be a better option than the outright

bans on smoking that are coming out now.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>I think smoking sections in restaurants are not

>very helpful to sensitive nonsmokers either. Perhaps smoking and

>nonsmoking establishments would be a better option than the outright

>bans on smoking that are coming out now.

I tend to think so too. A " smoking section " doesn't often help me much at

all. OTOH, there's the difficulty of employee health, which isn't

necessarily helped in either case, except for some employees.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I tend to think so too. A " smoking section " doesn't often help me much at

> all. OTOH, there's the difficulty of employee health, which isn't

> necessarily helped in either case, except for some employees.

From my experience in the restaurant industry (I've worked at five), I

believe it is more common to smoke than to not smoke. Nevertheless,

in an area where there are sufficient numbers of restaurants, where

there is a hefty supply of both smoking and non-smoking restaurants,

presumably non-smokers would gravitate toward non-smoking restaurants

and vice versa, if it was important to them.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

> > I tend to think so too. A " smoking section " doesn't often help me much at

> > all. OTOH, there's the difficulty of employee health, which isn't

> > necessarily helped in either case, except for some employees.

>

> From my experience in the restaurant industry (I've worked at five), I

> believe it is more common to smoke than to not smoke.

And 85% of those insist that they are not addicted.

>Nevertheless,

> in an area where there are sufficient numbers of restaurants, where

> there is a hefty supply of both smoking and non-smoking restaurants,

> presumably non-smokers would gravitate toward non-smoking restaurants

> and vice versa, if it was important to them.

>

> Chris

>

Well, this is obviously true, but I'm not sure what point it addresses. If

something is important enough to anyone they will modify their behavior

accordingly. Glad you straightened that out.

[Guest guest]

> From my experience in the restaurant industry (I've worked at five),

> I believe it is more common to smoke than to not smoke.

> Nevertheless,

> in an area where there are sufficient numbers of restaurants, where

> there is a hefty supply of both smoking and non-smoking restaurants,

> presumably non-smokers would gravitate toward non-smoking restaurants

> and vice versa, if it was important to them.

>

> Chris

I worked in a lot of restaurants too. Mostly dives. It helped with

college! Anyway, I agree about smoking sections: they are pretty

useless. I don't mind the actual fresh smell of cigarettes (and I love

fresh cigar smoke if it's a good cigar!) it's the sour smell of both

that pervades afterwards. I only like to wash my hair every 5 -7 days

and so I really mind the old smoke smell in my hair because I have to

make an extra effort to wash it.

Someone else's personal choices have influenced my actions and I don't

think that's right..

But, OTOH, unless it's hot, humid, airless, and crowded outside, I

think it should be okay to smoke outside even if its a public area.

The thing that's missing in all this is common courtesy. Smokers

should use their judgement and be courteous if someone gives them a

look or asks them to please put it out. I hate that I have to ask a

smoker to stop while I eat and possibly provoke a confrontation. Not

good when I'm hungry and ornery!

While I don't mind a whiff of smoke outside I do mind if someone is

smoking inside because I love to smell different smells. I mean, how

can a person smell the " chemistry " of a potential mate? That seems

rather tragic doesn't it... And speaking of that, the thing I like

most about smoking is the ritual. It has good memories for me and I'll

have a cigarette if someone I like is smoking one. It's completely

social for me.

In a bar I think it's okay to smoke but there should be smoking and

non-smoking bars so you know what you're getting in for..

And, again, more than the actual smoke, I hate that cumulative

residual smell that lives on long after the smoker has left the room.

I really think it's sad that we have to have rules for everything.

~Robin

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 7/27/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

> > I tend to think so too. A " smoking section " doesn't often help me much at

> > all. OTOH, there's the difficulty of employee health, which isn't

> > necessarily helped in either case, except for some employees.

>

> From my experience in the restaurant industry (I've worked at five), I

> believe it is more common to smoke than to not smoke. Nevertheless,

> in an area where there are sufficient numbers of restaurants, where

> there is a hefty supply of both smoking and non-smoking restaurants,

> presumably non-smokers would gravitate toward non-smoking restaurants

> and vice versa, if it was important to them.

>

> Chris

These days you can buy commercial air filters that are so good that

the smoke is gone in an instant. Plus there is even technology

available that can adjust the air pressure in a room so that the smoke

stays in the smoking section of the restaurant. Pretty amazing There

is of course the rather fluid definition of what exactly is " public "

that is at the heart of this debate.