# No more smoking in France



## shesulsa (Feb 1, 2007)

> PARIS - A ban on smoking in public spaces came into effect Thursday, a change that may alter the image of a country defined in part by its smoky cafes and cigarette-puffing intellectuals.
> 
> Frances 15 million smokers will be banned from lighting up in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other closed and covered public places. More than 175,000 agents are to enforce the ban, handing out fines of $88 for smokers and $174 for employers who look the other way.
> 
> ...



FULL ARTICLE


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Feb 1, 2007)

Good.  I believe in limited gov't intervention in individuals lives but I also understand most individuals inability to look out for themselves and most importantly the people around them.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 1, 2007)

Quite interesting.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 1, 2007)

That's the way it is in Denver - and even more in Boulder.  There is no smoking in public buildings, restaurants (except cigar bars), and some public places.


----------



## searcher (Feb 2, 2007)

I believe our state is to be "Public Smoke-free" by 2008.   Several counties and cities have already went this direction.   Great for me and mine.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 2, 2007)

All of Ontario is smoke free as of June 2006......I think it's great.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

Dude, you have gotta be ******** me. How could such control on ones freedom's be a good thing? I guess it is O.K.; until it is your behavior that is being controlled, huh?


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

In fact, I think that too many people are fat. And watching people around me eat garbage at restaurants only temps me to eat unhealthy myself.

I will be writing my congressmen soon so we can pass a law to prevent the sale of unhealthy and greasy food. It'll probably be good for the collective population.

Now if we can only do something about swearing, and smelling funny...%think%


----------



## Kreth (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I will be writing my congressmen soon so we can pass a law to prevent the sale of unhealthy and greasy food. It'll probably be good for the collective population.


My favorite chicken wings get banned, and someone's getting a cigarette put out on their forehead...


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Feb 2, 2007)

Overkill, IMO. Will workers be able "to go outside" and smoke? If not, it is a bit totalitarian (Big Brother).


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

Kreth said:


> My favorite chicken wings get banned, and someone's getting a cigarette put out on their forehead...


 
lol! :lol2:


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> Overkill, IMO. Will workers be able "to go outside" and smoke? If not, it is a bit totalitarian (Big Brother).


 
I agree... I just don't see what is so wrong with companies and establishment owners deciding how they want to run their business and work environment. Many workplaces and restaurants are smoke-free environments, or have designated smoking areas.

I just don't know why a removal of freedom and choice would be worth celebrating, even if you don't like smoking...


----------



## Obliquity (Feb 2, 2007)

Shirt Ripper said:


> . . . I also understand most individuals inability to look out for themselves and most importantly the people around them.


Could you expound on this for me?

Also -- as a cigar smoker in Washington State, where an indoor ban was enacted, I have never heard one comment by a person supporting the ban that was not, at it's very core, utterly selfish in nature.

I think cigarettes are filthy and that cigarette smokers are some of the laziest people on the planet. (Why else would they toss their butts all over the ground rather than simply disposing of them in a recepticle?) But, in our State, 80% of restaurants and lounges were already smoke free.  That was not good enough for the selfish in Washington who just had to insist that *they* could go into any establishment*  they *wanted to just because *they* wanted to.

Where do I smoke my cigars nows?  Strolling down the city streets or out in the parks where passers-by can enjoy the aroma with me.  If they complain, I just remind them that they drove me outdoors by their selfishly inflicted restraints. Otherwise, I'd be in the pub laughing it up with my other stinky friends out of range of their senses -- which is what they want anyway -- to not be bothered, because, you see, it's not really about anyone's health, it's about whiney, selfish, individuals who are encumbered by themselves, but who hide themselves behind _the children_.

But isn't smoking bad for one's health?  Some people snow ski all their lives without being harmed.  Some, like me, develop knee problems.  But who knew?  Now that we know skiing can cause lifelong health issues . . .

And driving . . . and martial arts . . . and fireplace pokers . . . and white bread . . .


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I agree... I just don't see what is so wrong with companies and establishment owners deciding how they want to run their business and work environment. Many workplaces and restaurants are smoke-free environments, or have designated smoking areas.
> 
> I just don't know why a removal of freedom and choice would be worth celebrating, even if you don't like smoking...


 
You know, I see your point.  That's why I'm going to start throwing all of my old car batteries into the pond on my land and start burning all of old tires in my front yard.  If my neighbors don't like it, they can move.  They make the "choice" to live next to me...


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

Obliquity said:


> Could you expound on this for me?
> 
> Also -- as a cigar smoker in Washington State, where an indoor ban was enacted, I have never heard one comment by a person supporting the ban that was not, at it's very core, utterly selfish in nature.
> 
> ...


 
artyon: artyon: 

Amen, brotha. Everyone Rep. this guy. This is EXACTLY correct!!


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> You know, I see your point. That's why I'm going to start throwing all of my old car batteries into the pond on my land and start burning all of old tires in my front yard. If my neighbors don't like it, they can move. They make the "choice" to live next to me...


 
Wow...golly, that is just like smoking! I see now how inconsiderate all those smokers are who just force the non-smoking public to be around their filth. Um... or not. 

Show me a statistic that proves smoking as a hazard to our environment, anymore then driving in your vehicle for a few blocks. And with all the establishments that are smoke free out there without a law, tell me honestly that people don't have the choice to go elsewhere with ease (without having to relocate their living space)!


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 2, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> You know, I see your point.  That's why I'm going to start throwing all of my old car batteries into the pond on my land and start burning all of old tires in my front yard.  If my neighbors don't like it, they can move.  They make the "choice" to live next to me...


That is a very different situation.  If a place of business such a resturaunt allows smoking it it, one simply doesn't have to patronize it.  The actions you are talking about are taking place near where people live and are also bad for the environment.

Jeff


----------



## Shirt Ripper (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> In fact, I (know) that too many people are fat. And watching people around me eat garbage at restaurants only...


makes me want to vomit.


----------



## The Master (Feb 2, 2007)

You know, if they ever make soap usage a requirement, and outlaw snails and fronglegs, France as we know it will cease to exist!

Viva La Revol'ution!


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Wow...golly, that is just like smoking! I see now how inconsiderate all those smokers are who just force the non-smoking public to be around their filth. Um... or not.


 
Many people have to deal with a variety of situations.  The amount of people who have no choice but to work in an area filled with 2nd hand smoke would surprise you.  In an economically depressed area with , often these are the only well paying jobs.  This also occurs in areas that have an economy based on tourism.  

Of course, you could just tell these folks to move, but then I would have to point out that NOW the example that I gave above dovetails nicely with this situation.  Jobs determine your standard of living and often your place of residence.



> Show me a statistic that proves smoking as a hazard to our environment...


 
See the Surgeon General's Warning.



> ...anymore then driving in your vehicle for a few blocks.


 
Fuel emissions cause the same kinds of ailments that exposure to ciggarette smoke causes and they contain many of the same harmful chemicals.



> And with all the establishments that are smoke free out there without a law, tell me honestly that people don't have the choice to go elsewhere with ease (without having to relocate their living space)!


 
This statement is heavy with the undercurrents of Privilege.  See what I wrote above and try to imagine some of those situations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> That is a very different situation. If a place of business such a resturaunt allows smoking it it, one simply doesn't have to patronize it. The actions you are talking about are taking place near where people live and are also bad for the environment.
> 
> Jeff


 
Actually, its not really that different.  See my post to Cruentus.  The crux of this situation, Jeff, is that this *is* a "pollution" issue.  Have you ever wondered what would happen if OSHA stepped in and applied the protective measures to the harmful chemicals that are spread throughout the workplace from 2nd hand smoke?  

People would have to wear face masks and eye protection from the particulate pollution alone.  The does not take into account the levels of chemicals that are in the air...and if people actually knew about THAT it would really surprise people.

For example, when I was in college I borrowed a Benzene PPM meter and went down to my local watering holes to measure the levels of this carcinogenic substance.  In every establishment that allowed smoking, the levels were above the government's reccomendations.  In a few really smoky places, the levels were three times above the limit.  When I finished this simple study, I wrote an article in our school paper about it.

Another thing I want to point out is that ventilation systems do not help.  Both MN and WI are considering statewide smoking bans and both states have commissioned studies on the pollutants and on the various measures taken by business owners to curb the effect of these pollutants.  These studies showed that no measure reduce the levels to what would be considere safe by any metric.  

The end result of these studies is that both governers in each state, Democrat Jim Doyle and Republican Tim Pawlenty, have pledged to sign statewide smoking ban legislation.

The bottom line is that the science and the reasoning behind the universal smoking bans is strong enough that people on both sides of the political spectrum are convinced.  Even staunch conservatives in my home state are saying that the "propertie rights" argument just doesn't hold any water in the light of all these findings.  

In many ways, I am heartened by these findings because it shows that science can sometimes triumph over ideology...and that is mostly a good thing.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Many people have to deal with a variety of situations. The amount of people who have no choice but to work in an area filled with 2nd hand smoke would surprise you. In an economically depressed area with , often these are the only well paying jobs. This also occurs in areas that have an economy based on tourism.


 
I'm sorry, but that is mythology. Name one place where this is the case, and where you can prove that the majority of jobs available within the same income bracket require one to work in a 2nd hand smoke filled area. Go ahead, name one.



> See the Surgeon General's Warning.


 
Name one instance where second hand smoke was a cause of damage to a persons body where the result was health problems or death. And no, you can't count people who are allergic to smoke.

Go ahead, name one.



> This statement is heavy with the undercurrents of Privilege. See what I wrote above and try to imagine some of those situations.


 
Dude, stop it. I have worked so many different jobs that it would make your head spin. Your statements are just not rooted in reality. I challange you to come up with some ounce of proof to back them up. 

This should be both interesting and hilarious....


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 2, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> In many ways, I am heartened by these findings because it shows that science can sometimes triumph over ideology...and that is mostly a good thing.


 
I would love to see the "science" that supports the idea that we need to have statewide smoking bans. That would be spectacular. I will be waiting to eat my words I am sure.

Hey, if we buy that, then I have some "scientific" websites that prove that evolution is not real, and that man and dinasours used to hang out together about 7,000 years ago. :lol2:


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I'm sorry, but that is mythology. Name one place where this is the case, and where you can prove that the majority of jobs available within the same income bracket require one to work in a 2nd hand smoke filled area. Go ahead, name one.


 
For someone with a High School education, Superior, Wisconsin.  Besides, it shouldn't matter.  Pollution on a worksite is pollution on a worksite.  What's the difference between Benzene emitted by a generator and benzene emitted by a cigarette?

Nothing.



> Name one instance where second hand smoke was a cause of damage to a persons body where the result was health problems or death. And no, you can't count people who are allergic to smoke.
> 
> Go ahead, name one.


 
You have to be kidding.  Google it just once.  Ninja Please...




> Dude, stop it. I have worked so many different jobs that it would make your head spin. Your statements are just not rooted in reality. I challange you to come up with some ounce of proof to back them up.
> 
> This should be both interesting and hilarious...


 
You know what, I don't know anything about you, but I just cannot believe that one person can be so ignorant of all the research that has been done on this topic.  I mean, seriously, this has been studied extensively for over 40 years.  

This isn't some conspiracy, dude.  However, if you really want a dose in some reality, you'll get it...

See Below


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 2, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I would love to see the "science" that supports the idea that we need to have statewide smoking bans. That would be spectacular. I will be waiting to eat my words I am sure.
> 
> Hey, if we buy that, then I have some "scientific" websites that prove that evolution is not real, and that man and dinasours used to hang out together about 7,000 years ago. :lol2:


 
Wow, just wow.  If you are going to compare organizations that studie the effects of smoking on people to "creationists" then you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.  

Anyway, read it if you want, I'm sure its not going to make any difference, but at least other people can see some of what I'm talking about...

2004 Surgeon Generals Report on the Health Effects of Smoking

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/sgr/sgr_2004/sgranimation/flash/index.html

Research, Data, and Reports

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/data.htm

Second Hand Smoke

http://www.cdc.gov/Tobacco/ets.htm

I don't know if you know it, but you've just experienced total pwnage.  Like I said above, this is pollution like any other.  I've personally measured it in various establishments and it was only a matter of time before it was regulated in all public places.  The only thing that kept in unregulated for so long was the powerful smoking lobby and all of the lies and propaganda they've disseminated over the years.  

This research puts all of that to rest.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 2, 2007)

Contact with 2nd hand smoke retarded the healing of my eyes after LASIK.  Contact with it now causes my eyes to dry, and causes vision issues that last days.
I'm not allergic to it.


----------



## kid (Feb 2, 2007)

I am still struggleing with quiting.  eventually I will though.  

I never smoked in my house, it stinks and sets into everything.  

If I wanted a smoke I went outside, i live in minnesota that means even on the coldest days i was outside bundled up burning one.  

If I was at a bar I asked the people next to me if they mind if i smoked.  

If a person was eating next to me I would never light up, it ruins the taste of food.  

If I could step outside to smoke in -15 degree F to have on you can to.  If you can't step out in that weather to have one you shouldn't be smoking.

A joke I heard a while back.  Q: Do you smoke after sex? A: yeah!  Q: You should get that checked out.

Mark


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 3, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Dude, you have gotta be ******** me. How could such control on ones freedom's be a good thing? I guess it is O.K.; until it is your behavior that is being controlled, huh?


 
How is being forbidden to smoke in a restaurant or workplace controlling your freedom?
So......someone that worked in the hospitality industry for 30 years dies of emphysema or lung cancer.....never smoked a day in their life.
I suppose smoking in a car with the windows rolled up and your kids sitting in the back is totally fine.......2nd hand smoke does nothing to developing lungs.

I happened to be a smoker at the time of the ban........and I still thought it was a smart move.
I worked and performed in clubs for over 10 years, and I can still remember the feeling of waking up the next day thinking my lungs were almost ripped out by the nicotine gremlins.

I like being able to take my kids out to a restaurant sans the free nicotine sampler plate.

I'm not against smoking.......Hell, I loved smoking.......but I love living more, and I love my kids even more than that...........


----------



## Carol (Feb 3, 2007)

*Moderator Note *

Attention All Users:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.


- Carol Kaur - 
- MT Moderator -


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 3, 2007)

This thread is hilarious. It really is. I somehow got "pwned' by some links to junk science reports? ok.... :idunno:

UpNorth (and everyone else I guess),

1st off, there is a "conspiracy," if one wished to call it that. The fact is that the majority of people out there are non-smokers. There are enough of these people who are selfish enough to inflate statistics to serve their agenda of erradicating smoking from the planet. This issue is very politically driven, as politicians can be venerated by the public for "cracking down" on smokers, rather then questioned as to why they aren't doing more productive things. It's a non-issue that can distract voters from the real problems.

The only real reason why government websites and government sponsered organizations tout the "dangers" of second hand smoke is because it is _popular_. And that is about the only reason, besides money interests and so forth.

I would like to refer you to a decent website that explains some if these things in laymens terms. We can start with statistics:

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid2.html

When they come up with these stats regarding second hand smoke, they use all sorts of biases to get the results that they are looking for. When they say "67,000 deaths occur from second hand smoke in a year," they are estimating these numbers by taking a sample size, finding out how many people died from "smoking related diseases" (heart problems, lung disease, etc.), find out how many of those people have been "around" SHS, and from that they determine what percentage people die from SHS. Then they multiply that number to fit the population. 

The problem with this should be obvious to any logical person. Correlation does not equal causation. If I ate bananas the other day, and developed a foot fungus today, does that mean that bananas cause foot fungus? Even if I did a study by taking a sample of people who have foot fungus, find out how many of them ate bananas before the time of the fungus, and come up with a statistical correlation, would that then prove that foot fungus is caused by bananas? 

Of course not. Yet, this is how the media will find junk science every week to back up why "broccoli could make your balls shrink....news at eleven!" You could make a correlation with just about anything.

And this is what they do to back up outragous claims against SHS. And people aren't realizing that correlation does not equal causation.

Why don't you read how the famous '93 EPA report that supposedly proved the health risks of SHS was conducted?
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

The studies to back up these claims are junk science, garbage studies. Plain and simple. 

Studies by places like Oak Ridge National Labratories that actually hooked up monitors to people who live or work in "smokey" environments with a significant amount of SHS (bars, factories, etc.) demonstrate consistantly that if one were to work in such a place year round, the amount of SHS damage would equate to about 6 cigarrettes per year.

The fact is, unlike actual smoking which is a health hazard, second hand smoke in smokey environments are not direct enough to do any significant damage to ones health. Most of the smoke rises and disipates in the air, dispite maybe an unpleasent smell.

But, if you still can't wrap your head around this, then do the "name 3 test." If 67,000 people per year are dying from second hand smoke, that would equal over a 1/2 a million people who died from it in a decade. That is a lot of people. So, we should all be able to name at least 3 people who have died from SHS, right? I mean, we can name people who died from actual smoking based on causation and correlation, so how about SHS? 

The fact is, you can't name 3 people where it is proven that the cause of death is second hand smoke. Again, cause, not correlation. Here is a nice article on the topic:  

http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

Yet, despite all this, we are ignoring one major fact that totally debunks any need for a government sponsered smoking ban. And that is that because smoking is relatively unpopular and not done by the majority, there are enough places to go where smoking is not allowed in the establishment if you don't want to be around it. Plain and simple. If you had a surgury or have allergies or what have you, and you are adversly affected by SHS, then you have only yourself to blame for that, in my opinion.

Personal choice is a factor here. It is both selfish and oppressive to want to take away peoples choices just because you find something unfavorable. If you can't see that not allowing a business owner decide what kind of workplace they want to have (smoking or non, etc.) is an infringment on freedom, then you don't know what it means to be free.

But, that is fine. Some of you who don't want to utilize critical thinking would rather believe the junk science because it supports your agenda. Well, then I can find a link to a website that "proves" that 9-11 was caused by remote control planes piloted by the Bush administration, too.

People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 3, 2007)

"This site will not only make you an expert on the subject of SHS, but also leave you well equipped to deal with anyone using numbers to support health claim."

that is a quote from the davehitt site........now everyone who reads it will be an expert.......awesome, i gots mad skillz


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 3, 2007)

So, the blurred vision, breathing difficulties, not to mention the stink aren't real concerns?  ok.

Heres what one company adds to their weed
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/p...edients_in_cigarettes/tobacco_ingredients.asp


*Toxicology*

 The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 4060 mg can be a lethal dosage for adult human beings.Okamoto M., Kita T., Okuda H., Tanaka T., Nakashima T. (1994). "Effects of aging on acute toxicity of nicotine in rats". _Pharmacol Toxicol._ *75* (1): 1-6. This makes it an extremely deadly poison. It is more toxic than many other alkaloids such as cocaine, which has a lethal dose of 1000 mg.[_citation needed_]
 The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties. Its teratogenic properties have not yet been adequately researched, and while the likelihood of birth defects caused by nicotine is believed to be very small or nonexistent, nicotine replacement product manufacturers recommend consultation with a physician before using a nicotine patch or nicotine gum while pregnant or nursing. However, nicotine and the increased acetylcholineic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine creates a more favourable environment for cancer to develop. Thus nicotine plays an indirect role in carcinogenesis. It is also important to note that its addictive properties are often the primary motivating factor for tobacco smoking, contributing to the proliferation of cancer.
 At least one study has concluded that exposure to nicotine alone, not simply as a component of cigarette smoke, could be responsible for some of the neuropathological changes observed in infants dying from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).[7]
 It has been noted that the majority of people diagnosed with schizophrenia smoke tobacco. Estimates for the number of schizophrenics that smoke range from 75% to 90%. It was recently argued that the increased level of smoking in schizophrenia may be due to a desire to self-medicate with nicotine. [8] [9] More recent research has found the reverse, that it is a risk factor without long-term benefit, used only for its short term effects. [10]However, research on nicotine as administered through a patch or gum is ongoing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine


*^* Machaalani et al. (2005) "Effects of postnatal nicotine exposure on apoptotic markers in the developing piglet brain"
*^* Schizophr. Res. 2002
*^* Am. J. Psychiatry 1995
*^* Br. J. Psychiatry 2005
So, believe what you want. But it just seems rather smart NOT to inhale a known neurotoxin, as well as allow it to coat your skin and seep in through absorption. Not to mention, I'd rather not reek the way smokers do.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 3, 2007)

Dave Hitt is an asswipe.
why should i have to name 3 people that have died from 2nd hand smoke?
isn't naming one enough?
most smokers will do anything to justify the habit and make light of statistics that call it deadly.
heck, i know a woman and her husband that run a tobacco farm and they think that the evidence that states smoking causes cancer is all BS.

my grandmother lived to be 96.....smoked for sixty years.....died from old age.
ok.....smoking cant hurt you, there is the evidence.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 3, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> This thread is hilarious. It really is. I somehow got "pwned' by some links to junk science reports? ok.... :idunno:


 
So, the CDC is doing junk science?  This claim is really laughable considering all of the things that the CDC studies.  I'm sure you would have no problem with all of the other "science" they are doing, like the studies on AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, and other infectious diseases.  Somehow, smoking is the target for you claim however.  Why is that?  



> 1st off, there is a "conspiracy," if one wished to call it that.


 
Right, because the chemicals in ciggarette smoke are just an illusion.  The fact that the amounts of these chemicals exceed federal regulations for workplaces is nothing but lies.  Check this out...

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm

All of these chemicals are present in 2nd hand smoke.  Many of which are present in very high levels when many people are smoking in enclosed spaces.  I HAVE MEASURED THIS MYSELF.



> The fact is that the majority of people out there are non-smokers. There are enough of these people who are selfish enough to inflate statistics to serve their agenda of erradicating smoking from the planet. This issue is very politically driven, as politicians can be venerated by the public for "cracking down" on smokers, rather then questioned as to why they aren't doing more productive things. It's a non-issue that can distract voters from the real problems.
> 
> The only real reason why government websites and government sponsered organizations tout the "dangers" of second hand smoke is because it is _popular_. And that is about the only reason, besides money interests and so forth.


 
No.  The reason why governments across the world are cracking down on smoking is because it is provabley dangerous.  All of this has been studied by scientists for over 40 years and the data is quite compelling if one is not trying to protect their addiction.

France, New Zealand, and all of the other states that are considering smoking bans are doing nothing more then applying the current pollution regulation to the chemicals in cigarette smoke.  For all practical purposes, this is a pollution issue.



> I would like to refer you to a decent website that explains some if these things in laymens terms. We can start with statistics:
> 
> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html
> http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid2.html
> ...


 
This is a blatent distortion of how these studies are really done.  A good friend of mine is a professor of Health and Statistics at Purdue University.  Estimations like the one described above are only the first step in doing a health study.  Estimations like this determine whether or not something needs to be studied.  The next step gathers actual qualitative and quantitative data on people who REALLY have gotten sick or died because of 2nd hand smoke.  If this data does not match the estimation presented, then the models are off or perhaps the premise is incorrect.  

In all of the current studies, the match between the model and the observed results have correllated to a very high degree.  The website you presented ignores all of this.  The people who are writing that stuff are either completely ignorant of the methodology in social sciences or they are intentionally misleading the readers in order to advance an agenda.

The bottom line is that THAT site is ******** and anyone with even one statistical methods class can tell you that.



> The problem with this should be obvious to any logical person. Correlation does not equal causation. If I ate bananas the other day, and developed a foot fungus today, does that mean that bananas cause foot fungus? Even if I did a study by taking a sample of people who have foot fungus, find out how many of them ate bananas before the time of the fungus, and come up with a statistical correlation, would that then prove that foot fungus is caused by bananas?
> 
> Of course not. Yet, this is how the media will find junk science every week to back up why "broccoli could make your balls shrink....news at eleven!" You could make a correlation with just about anything.


 
This is a classic strawman.  The writer has no clue how actual social science is done.  I suggest you actually take a look at the studies that have been performed.  I think you'll be surprised at just how long people have been collecting data on this.  Some of the logitudinal studies on this subject go back 35 years!  If I remember correctly, smoking was very popular back then...which kinda blows the whole "smoking is unpopular and we are being oppressed!" hypothesis right out of the water...



> Studies by places like Oak Ridge National Labratories that actually hooked up monitors to people who live or work in "smokey" environments with a significant amount of SHS (bars, factories, etc.) demonstrate consistantly that if one were to work in such a place year round, the amount of SHS damage would equate to about 6 cigarrettes per year.


 
There are so many factors that determine how much SHS that one will actually inhale that it doesn't surprise me that a study or two shows lower or higher levels.  This is why people do meta analysis on the collective studies.  These not only look at the results produced, but they also look at how the studies was performed.  A study that has a flawed methodology or is _designed_ so that it produces low results can easily be identified.

I'll give you my experience with this.  When I did my little study, I measured 10 random places inside each establishment I visited.  These places ranged from next to windows, in the bathrooms, to right at the bar.  Then I averaged the data I recorded.  Depending on the ventilation, the architecture of the building and the amount of smokers (which was all noted), I measured levels that ranged from just past to three times the Federal Guidelines for pollution on a worksite.

These guidelines exist because exposure to the chemicals in question has been proven to be dangerous.  If SHS has been shown to surpass federal guidelines for these chemicals, then why shouldn't it be regulated like any other pollutant?



> But, if you still can't wrap your head around this, then do the "name 3 test." If 67,000 people per year are dying from second hand smoke, that would equal over a 1/2 a million people who died from it in a decade. That is a lot of people. So, we should all be able to name at least 3 people who have died from SHS, right? I mean, we can name people who died from actual smoking based on causation and correlation, so how about SHS?


 
This is a gross simplification of statistics in this case and it totally ignores a number of factors that are really important.  Here is another way of looking at this.  There are 300,000,000 million people in this country.  If 67,000 people die from 2nd hand smoke per year, how many are you really going to see?  Of course this is grossly simplified, but the point is poignant.  
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html 



> Yet, despite all this, we are ignoring one major fact that totally debunks any need for a government sponsered smoking ban. And that is that because smoking is relatively unpopular and not done by the majority, there are enough places to go where smoking is not allowed in the establishment if you don't want to be around it. Plain and simple. If you had a surgury or have allergies or what have you, and you are adversly affected by SHS, then you have only yourself to blame for that, in my opinion.


 
Or maybe people have been convinced by the data that exists and they are totally sick and tired of paying the collective price for peoples bad decisions.  In countries that have socialized medicine, this is a really big deal because people's tax money is being wasted by people who intentionally harm their bodies as well as the bodies of others.  In our country, the costs harder to discern because we use private insurance.  However, there is a collective and noticable trend upward.



> Personal choice is a factor here. It is both selfish and oppressive to want to take away peoples choices just because you find something unfavorable. If you can't see that not allowing a business owner decide what kind of workplace they want to have (smoking or non, etc.) is an infringment on freedom, then you don't know what it means to be free.
> 
> But, that is fine. Some of you who don't want to utilize critical thinking would rather believe the junk science because it supports your agenda. Well, then I can find a link to a website that "proves" that 9-11 was caused by remote control planes piloted by the Bush administration, too.
> 
> People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...


 
Or maybe we just have a guy who is trying to protect an addiction?  There are 599 chemicals in cigarettes that are highly addictive.  The end result is that smoking is on par with heroin and cocaine when it comes to addictive power.  Look, you can call all of this stuff a "conspiracy" if you wish, but I have to wonder if your accusation that we all just trying to pursue our own selfish agendas can just as easily be applied right back on you.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 3, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> People will believe what they want to believe, no matter what is actually true, unfortunatily...



People believe this site, too... and go out of their way to avoid death by dihydrogen monoxide poisoning (an actual possibility) - that doesn't make your site "the one true word", or second-hand smoke safe just because somewhere on the 'net you found a site (or many sites) that says so, or any more than it makes dihydrogen monoxide a common poison, despite it being a common substance.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 3, 2007)

> So, the CDC is doing junk science? This claim is really laughable considering all of the things that the CDC studies. I'm sure you would have no problem with all of the other "science" they are doing, like the studies on AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, and other infectious diseases. Somehow, smoking is the target for you claim however. Why is that?



I can name one instance of the CDC doing "junk science".  Back a few years ago, they were telling us the handgun violence was an "epidemic".  Last time I checked, using a handgun, even unlawfully, isn't a disease.

Jeff


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 3, 2007)

ep·i·dem·ic [ èppi démmik ] 
noun  (plural ep·i·dem·ics) 
 Definition:   
1. fast-spreading disease: an outbreak of a disease that spreads more quickly and more extensively among a group of people than would normally be expected

2. rapid development: a rapid and extensive development or growth, usually of something unpleasant
an epidemic of civil unrest and rioting

adjective   
Definition: spreading unusually quickly and extensively: spreading more quickly and more extensively than would usually be expected

As you can see, that is a perfectly acceptable use for the word.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 3, 2007)

Mayham on the board! Mayham on the board! Call the Cavelry!!
:jediduel: :biggun: :argue: 


lol. OK, just letting you know that I am still "light" here. I don't want people to get too upset over the topic... 

Since my opinion is so unpopular, warrenting a lot of responses, I will have to do this by the numbers:

1. First off, I a not a smoker, at least not really. I do enjoy a good cigar now and again, but I don't smoke cigarettes. Furthermore, although I enjoy a good cigar (which is a 1-3 times a month occurance), I don't like nor do I frequent "smoke filled" establishments. So no "selfish" motive here.

2. Still someone has yet to provide evidence of any reports of a death purely as a result of SHS. With all the loud typing going on, and all the supposed evidence on how SHS is this killer that must be stopped (and don't forget god save the children), I find this interesting.

I am not saying that "smoking" isn't bad for you. Of course it is. We have a lot of studies to back that one up. Some of you seem to think that I am claiming that smoking isn't a health risk; I am not. I am saying that smoking is a health risk.... to smokers. I am saying that the risks of SHS are negligable.

The evidence is out there to back this up, particularly because there isn't one cause of great illness or death from SHS alone. If this is such a great "pollutant" and risk that needs to be made illegal, then you would think that we would be able to find at least one case of death.

And if you understand SHS and are a logical human being, you would realize that it disipates in the air. Even in enclosed rooms with little ventalation, SHS makes up such a small % of the surrounding air that the harmful chemicals break down very quickly, making the results of those who breath the surrounding air non-detect. Remember, breathing isn't the same as putting a detection device in a smokey area.

We find this out when we actually monitor peoples bodies who are around SHS. People are throwing a lot of garbage in this thread about the chemicals in cigarettes and air measurement tests and so forth, but none of that matters. What matters when we discuss health is the effects these things have on the _human body_. When we monitor that, we are unable to detect any effects of SHS with significance. This is far different then when we monitor people who actually are putting the cigarette to their lips and inhaling.

But, this I am sure will sway none of you who have minds already selfishly (for some) made up. That is OK; but I am still waiting to see some proof here that none of you have been able to provide so far.

3.  





> So, believe what you want. But it just seems rather smart NOT to inhale a known neurotoxin, as well as allow it to coat your skin and seep in through absorption. Not to mention, I'd rather not reek the way smokers do.


 
Then you know what.... DON'T go to establishments that are laden with SHS.

With only about 20% of public places in any given local in North America being "smoking" establishments, and with a much smaller % of them being "smoke filled," YOU can choose to go somewhere else. This is the fact that those in support of "smoking bans" neglect.

I have more then 1 friend who is allergic to smoke. So, you know what is awesome? When we go out, we don't have to go to smoke filled places. If we do go to a place that allows smoking, we sit strategically, and it isn't a problem.

Personal choice is an amazing thing. It is too bad that so many people would rather be told what to do, and would rather that individual choices are removed.

4. I also get real tired of the same lard-assed people who might be driving their SUV's (or other gas guzzler) through the "Micky-D's" drive thru to get their hormone filled chicken nuggets and aspertime filled sodas one minute, and barking about how SHS (something that hasn't been proven to cause health risks) is so gross and unhealthy the next. Well, look in the mirror before you talk! 

I am sort of tounge and cheek and not pointing fingers to individuals here of course, but if the stats regarding obesity and fast food consumption are reflective of the sample size of people who are reading this thread, then the above description fits a good % of you.

The point is that many of you who crybaby about second hand smoke exhibit far more unhealthy and polluting behaviors that, unlike SHS, have actually been proven to be risky. I think that many of you have worse things that you should be worrying about. Yet, if the government told you that you couldn't do your unhealthy behavior of choice, I would bet you would have a problem with that. Hmmm...makes you think...

5. Why is it, when companies decide to put garbage in things that we consume, our answer is to regulate the civil liberties of the individual? Could it be that the neo-cons are achieving their goals?

If we are going to pass laws at all, we should be passing laws to regulate companies who put poison in our products, not laws that try to regulate the behaviors of individual consumers. There are strong theories that adding some of these chemicals is done intentionally to make consumers more addicted to the product, even though the additives are harmful. Then, we wouldn't even be starting with cigarette companies if we had our heads in the right place. We should start with food companies, many of which all people consume and are harmed from.

See, this is very frightening to me in a way. Supporting a smoking ban is akin to supporting regulation of all sorts of personal behaviors that could be "harmful." Soon enough, we'll all be swiping ID cards to get grocery rations to control obesity, and candybars will be on the black market.

Sounds outragous, because it is. Yet, we continue to lose our rights as as individuals every year with little complaint or action. So... we should be "outraged" rather then saying to ourselves, "It'll never go that far..."

We need to stop trying to regulate every bit of individual behavior. Let people do what they want. If we are concerned with poisons in our products, then we should work to regulate those, inform, and boycott these products rather cashing in our individual rights just so we can selfishly control our neighbors. 

6. The health care issue exactly points to what I have been illustrating here regarding a slippery slope to an oppressive society. If France is so concerned about smoking because of the HC system, then where will it go next? "I'm sorry lady, your national ID card states that you have met your food rations for the week."

I am not against a form of national HC, as I agree that those of us who do not have such a system are in crisis. But it has to be done in a minimalist way where there is still some sort of market competition involved.

Because full nationalization now gives grounds for governments to start regulating any and all individual behaviors that might be a "health risk" and a burden to the "collective populus."

If this doesn't seem Orwelling to any of you, then maybe you have come down with a case of the pinko. Yall should get that one checked out... :rofl:   

7. Maybe off topic a little, but when upnorth said, "ninja please," I laughed out loud. That was pretty funny and awesome. :ninja:  :lol:

8. I say a lot of things in here "tongue and cheek" knowing that my opinion is the minority, and that I won't be very convincing to most of you. But I do think that there are some serious problems here. It is serious that many of you will fail to see my point regarding losing civil liberties. It is even more serious that many more of you will see the point, but will be willing to overlook it anyway for the sake of some sort of collective ideal.

It makes me both worried and sad that the old american ideals of freedom and individualism are almost gone. Well, I'll keep fightin' for them til I die, because that is all I can do.

Peace....

:supcool:


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 3, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> I can name one instance of the CDC doing "junk science". Back a few years ago, they were telling us the handgun violence was an "epidemic". Last time I checked, using a handgun, even unlawfully, isn't a disease.
> 
> Jeff


 
Hi Jeff. You are correct.

CDC, like many large organizations, has both a mix of good science and junk science. You provide a great example of "junk" that can be put out there, even if the organization is considered credible. Clearly when many people do scientific studies, the testers have an agenda, and they stack the data and method to fit it. This happens in all facets of the scientific community, meaning that we all need to really think critically when we look at studies that are done.

Not everyone is willing to look at studies based on individual merits, unfortunatily. It is much more "fun" to illogically "appeal to authority" instead, I guess... :idunno:


----------



## Kacey (Feb 3, 2007)

You don't like over-regulation - that's fine.  I don't particulalrly like it either.  However, the people most at risk from second-hand smoke are children - the group least able to avoid situations involving second-hand smoke, especially if the smoke is a parent.  From that perspective, I see little difference between laws against lead-based paint and laws against smoking in public places.  I have a concern about laws regulating what people can do in their own homes or vehicles, which is why I don't support laws against smoking around children - however, I do support education in the potential risks; from that perspective, I also support education about the risks of drinking while pregnant.

Smoking during pregnancy, like drinking, has been linked to low birth weight in newborns, which in turn is linked to a series of other health problems.  This is where education becomes important.  The problem with passing laws of this nature is twofold:  the problem of enforcement, and the problem with the invasion of privacy, as I would suspect that such laws would expand, not contract, and eventually at least attempt to encompass any setting where children are present.  This creates a serious moral conundrum:  the value of privacy for parents vs. the potential health problems for the child(ren) present in the home.

It is, admittedly, more difficult to determine a causal relationship between environmental carcinogens and/or pathogens compared with substances ingested directly.  Nonetheless, comparisons between large populations of people who were, and were not, exposed to second-hand smoke as children show greater risk for a variety of illnesses; however, given the number of other risk-causing behaviors that are statistically more prevalent among smokers, it is difficult to determine exactly which environmental factor is the primary causal factor.  Even so, I do not smoke, and if I did, I would not smoke around _anyone's _children, and would suggest - strongly - that others do not do so as well.  It is an avoidable risk, and I see no reason _not_ to encourage people to avoid such risks, as clearly as I would encourage them not to drink and drive.  Nothing may happen - but why risk it?

Some other studies on the risks of secondhand smoke:

*Children and Secondhand Smoke

**Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke Causes Respiratory Symptoms In Healthy Adults*

*Tobacco smoking

**Cigarette         Smoke & Kids' Health*

These are several articles garnered from a google search... but go on, believe what you like - it won't affect me.  For myself and my friends, I will avoid the risk, and seek to educate others to do so as well, on behalf of those who cannot avoid it themselves - but not legislative action.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 3, 2007)

I agree with Kacey in that smoking around children and pregnant women smoking is harmful, and that the answer is education rather then legislation.

I don't believe that it is the Second Hand Smoke that is harmful to the health of children because of the lack of strong evidence to support this idea. I do believe that the greater risk is that children who grow up with smokers are more inclined to become a smoker themselves.

Regardless, "public smoking bans" backfire, as these laws often do. Because instead of parents being able to smoke outside of their home, they are forced to smoke inside of the home or in their own cars where their children are more likely to be present. So because a few people "poo-poo" at the cigarette smell of maybe 20% of public places, children of smoker parents will now suffer more. So.... nice job with that.  

I simply cannot see the benefit of this sort of thing. It seems so obvious to me (as Kacey stated well) that education, and I would add freedom of choice, are the real answers here, not legislation...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I am saying that the risks of SHS are negligable.


 
If you really believe this, then I want to see you riding down the street with your kids strapped in the backseat and you puffing away on your cigar.  If they are so negligible, I'd like to see you do it day in and day out.  If SHS is harmless, this shouldn't be a problem right?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 4, 2007)

these sort of discussions always crack me up.......ninja please!

But really......when i smoked, i went through a period (when I was a punk kid, mind you) that I didnt give a rat's behind who had to deal with it.....then i grew up. As far as the ban goes in Ontario.....no one is saying you can't smoke in your backyard, or when you're walking down the street......it's public establishments and the workplace.

Smoking serves no purpose.....it's one of those ridiculous habits that once you start, you may never quit; hell, I may even start again....who knows. I quit once before for 3 years and started again.
Let's legalize all of the other illicit drugs out there too......I'm all for people killing themselves, it's not like people aren't shooting up or snorting in restrooms everywhere.......but i shouldn't be forced to participate by proximity.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 4, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> If you really believe this, then I want to see you riding down the street with your kids strapped in the backseat and you puffing away on your cigar. If they are so negligible, I'd like to see you do it day in and day out. If SHS is harmless, this shouldn't be a problem right?


 
I don't smoke cigars daily, 1st off.

That said, I'd say that would be a problem, but not for the reasons you propose. I think that the bigger issue with smoking in the home and in vehicles with children is that you create an environment where smoking is the standard, making them more likely to become smokers themselves. Unlike SHS, we KNOW that being a smoker is a health risk.

But like I said before, congratulations everyone: by supporting public smoking bans you create more situations where children will be exposed to smoking. Instead of a parent going somewhere else to smoke a cigarette where other adults exhibit similar behavior (like in break rooms and taverns or even outside) they now are more inclined to have to smoke in the home or in the vehicles around the children. So, once again, over regulation backfires. As I said before, this isn't for the children, and this isn't for public health. It is for a whiney, selfish few who want to use a collective ideal to throw their weight around...


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I don't smoke cigars daily, 1st off.


 
That's cool.  My father smokes a cigar occasionally and I have no problem with that.  He understands that many people don't like the smell, so he does it in places where the impact is minimized.  It's pretty sad when you have legislate respectful behavior, IMHO.  It'd be nice if people just better manners.



> That said, I'd say that would be a problem, but not for the reasons you propose. I think that the bigger issue with smoking in the home and in vehicles with children is that you create an environment where smoking is the standard, making them more likely to become smokers themselves. Unlike SHS, we KNOW that being a smoker is a health risk.


 
I don't know man, check out these studies...

SHS causes Heart Disease
SHS causes Lung Cancer
SHS causes SIDS

You can call this junk science if you want, but I would encourage you to check out the studies that they cite before doing so.  IMO, the evidence is conclusive.  SHS is harmful to your health.



> But like I said before, congratulations everyone: by supporting public smoking bans you create more situations where children will be exposed to smoking. Instead of a parent going somewhere else to smoke a cigarette where other adults exhibit similar behavior (like in break rooms and taverns or even outside) they now are more inclined to have to smoke in the home or in the vehicles around the children. So, once again, over regulation backfires. As I said before, this isn't for the children, and this isn't for public health. It is for a whiney, selfish few who want to use a collective ideal to throw their weight around...


 
Perhaps it will be offset by the following...

SmokeFree Policies Reduce Smoking
Smoke-Free Policies Also Reduce the Number of Kids who Smoke.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 4, 2007)

Dry eye syndrome is caused by many things, and one of them is exposure to SHS.  Glaucoma has been partially attributed to types of dry eye syndrome.  My mother has glaucoma and was married to a smoker for over 25 years.

At 17 I was diagnosed with reduced lung capacity from SHS.  My husband has COPD and pulmonary sarcoidosis - spent much time around aunts, uncles and grandparents who smoked.

Our MEDICAL DIAGNOSES are these problems AS A DIRECT RESULT OF EXTENDED EXPOSURE TO SECOND HAND SMOKE.

So I guess the walking, talking, gasping and wheezing proof in my life is junk science.

Here's the deal:

We can be free to do whatever we want as long as long it's not illegal and/or as other people don't get hurt.

Face it.

People get hurt from SHS.  They do.  They're all around you.  And most of them probably won't know just how much until later in life. 

And no, I'm not going to post a link to science because I've seen enough proof ... I live with it every day.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 4, 2007)

A link to a good book on the myths regarding SHS if anyone is interested. Some good explinations provided as well:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=386

There is no conclusive or substantial evidence to link SHS to significant health risk. Once again, correlation does not equal causation. So your family smoked and you have dry eye syndrome. There are a lot of people with Dry Eye Syndrome who lived in smoke free environments. With the studies where peoples bodies were monitored during and after SHS exposure, no significant effects could be found. So I am sorry we will have to agree to disagree on this (I will be willing to jump ship as soon as I see some convincing evidence otherwise, believe me).

But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that SHS is found to be a health risk.

Even if this is true, I fail to see how a public smoking ban is the best answer to the problem. There are so many places that one can go where one is not exposed to SHS. Many workplaces nowadays don't even allow smoking in their buildings. Yet, now adults have no place to go besides their homes and vehicles to smoke. This means more children of smokers exposed more often.

I fail to see how regulation of behavior is the answer to any of these problems. It never is. All you do is create more opportunities for people get fines and jail time, while complicating problems and solving nothing. Prohibition did not work, the "drug war" has failed to be effective, and a public smoking ban will not help anythig either. It will only set a dangerous precidence on what we allow governments to regulate.

So, those in support of this have failed to demonstrate how SHS is a health risk through evidence. But lets forget about that and give it the benefit of doubt. What argument can any of you present that says that regulation like this is a good thing, as compared to freedom and education?

:idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 4, 2007)

From the American Lung Association


----------



## Kacey (Feb 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> So, those in support of this have failed to demonstrate how SHS is a health risk through evidence. But lets forget about that and give it the benefit of doubt. What argument can any of you present that says that regulation like this is a good thing, as compared to freedom and education?



Do I think that more regulation is a long-term answer?  No, I don't.  But I do know that the regulations limiting or banning smoking in public places is the only thing that gets some peoples' attention.  Long before smoking became a public health issue, my father used to smoke a pipe.  He didn't smoke in his car because to properly fill and light a pipe took both hands, and to smoke one took one hand - and his car had a stick shift, which left him shy a hand, since he always kept one hand on the wheel.  My mother wouldn't let  him smoke in the house, because she didn't like the smell of his pipe tobacco (an interesting concept, as I always thought it smelled much better than her cigarettes - not to mention that she smoked 2 packs a day and he smoked perhaps 3 pipes a week); he couldn't smoke at work long before most people because he was a librarian, and smoking materials of any type were banned for fire safety reasons.  That left smoking while walking the dog, and as the dog got older, he was less willing (and able) to wait while my father loaded and lit his pipe - so my father quit smoking entirely, because there was no time or place he could do so.  This was in the mid-70s.  I know plenty of other people who quit for the very same reason - there is nowhere left that they _can_ smoke - thus they don't do so anymore.  By the way... my mother finally quit when her mother (a smoker for 50+ years) died a slow, painful death from emphysema.

There is also an ad campaign for Nicorette currently being aired on Denver TV, that features a woman who quit smoking because the lady at the cosmetics counter suggested a cream to remove "lines around the lips" - want to bet more women quit smoking because of wrinkles and other unattractive and visible signs of smoking than because of the health issues?


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 4, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Do I think that more regulation is a long-term answer? No, I don't. But I do know that the regulations limiting or banning smoking in public places is the only thing that gets some peoples' attention.


 
Sure. And I am all for that when it is individual companies and property owners who decide that they want to limit or ban smoking on their property. The case with your father is a common one that did not require legislation.

My problem is when it is mandated by the government. I don't see why it is useful to go after the few places deligated for adults to smoke when there are so more non-smoking places and areas then not to begin with.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 4, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> My problem is when it is mandated by the government. I don't see why it is useful to go after the few places deligated for adults to smoke when there are so more non-smoking places and areas then not to begin with.



And yet, those places only began to appear when mandated by the government.  When I was a kid and a teen, smoking was legal - and present - everywhere:  in schools, at gas stations (a definite safety hazard), in restaurants (non-smoking sections were unheard of when I was young), in many stores... I remember my mother complaining when the bank she worked for banned smoking in certain parts of the building because the smoke was bad for the newly installed computers (not the people).  Walking past the teachers' lounge at my elementary and middle schools caused choking fits... eating in restaurants was unpleasant because the ambient smoke killed the taste and aroma of the food... non-smoking rooms in hotels were unheard of... and many other examples I don't have the time to list - and none of this changed _until_ the government stuck its nose in and forced the change to occur.  

I have no problem with the legal action that caused those changes - I lived with a smoker (my mother) until I left for college, and had no choice in the matter; then I got to college (where the dorm gave you a 3 page questionnaire about your prospective roommate - and, based on several lawsuits - actually paid attention to your smoking or non-smoking preferences)... after a few short weeks living in a non-smoking environment, going near cigarette smoke caused nausea, and still does today.

You don't like government regulation into issues that affect personal freedoms - that's your choice.  That doesn't mean that all government regulation is bad.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 4, 2007)

Kacey said:


> And yet, those places only began to appear when mandated by the government.


 
I disagree. I think that you will find that these changes occured when education programs, public service announcements, and so forth became more readily accessable and began to set in. When public education and programs really started getting the information out there on the health risks of smoking, that was when smoking became gradually less and less socially acceptable, causing more and more places to ban smoking on their grounds. There are plenty of states that still have little to no laws regulating public smoking, yet have much less places allocated for smoking then in the 70's.

Again, I'd say it is education and freedom that works, not regulation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 4, 2007)

Wearing seatbelts, helmets, use of child car seats, and more.
All "common sense"
All required by law in most places.
Why?
Because people often need to be told to do what is best for them.
Annoying? Yes, very.
But little things like "common sense" and "common courtesy" are anything but, and are often lacking in todays American society.
So, I've got no problem with laws limiting where someone with a desire to inhale toxic stink can do so, as I value my right to taste my food, and smell the flowers higher than their right to make my eyes burn and my clothes stink because they need their "fix".


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Sure. And I am all for that when it is individual companies and property owners who decide that they want to limit or ban smoking on their property. The case with your father is a common one that did not require legislation.
> 
> My problem is when it is mandated by the government. I don't see why it is useful to go after the few places deligated for adults to smoke when there are so more non-smoking places and areas then not to begin with.


 
I consider myself to be fairly libertarian in many of my views.  Especially when it comes to the government controlling peoples's behavior.  I make exceptions, and so do many other libertarian minded people when it comes to pollution.  If one of the jobs of government is to protect people and one believes that there is conclusive evidence that SHS is dangerous, then wouldn't regulating it like any other pollutant make sense?  

One of the problems with this type of pollution is that there are alot of people who do it.  It's not like walking into a power plant and having them install scrubbers on their stacks.  There are many sources and it is hard to control.  Therefore, controlling this pollutant is going to take more government action...a greater sweep of government power.  Will it be worth it in the long run?  If it protects people from SHS and encourages more people to stop smoking, I think so.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2007)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I consider myself to be fairly libertarian in many of my views. Especially when it comes to the government controlling peoples's behavior. I make exceptions, and so do many other libertarian minded people when it comes to pollution. If one of the jobs of government is to protect people and one believes that there is conclusive evidence that SHS is dangerous, then wouldn't regulating it like any other pollutant make sense?


 
Sure... and I agree. I am not a classic libertarian in that I don't think that businesses should be regulated. In the interest of consumer and worker rights and the environment particularly, I am often all for regulation if done properly. My view is that government has 2 jobs and only 2 jobs; to keep us safe and keep us free. Anything beyond that is overstepping bounds, in my opinion.

Sometimes, there are conflicts. When the conflict is between safety of consumers/workers and freedom of corporations, with _reasonableness_ I err on the side of consumer/workers. The reason is because I don't believe that corporations should be considered individuals, as our laws currently see it, despite what post civil war case law says. I believe that corporations are entities as defined by paperwork with many people behind it. To always rule in favor of corporations because we don't want to impede their "individual" rights is erronious in my opinion. They are not individuals, but a collection of paper and people, and to allow them freedoms at the expense of the freedom and safety of individual consumers and neighbors is allowing a "collective entity" (a grouping of people with money and power) to hinder the individual. This is something that our consitution and government is supposed to protect us from.

So, I am not against "regulation" per say.

And often, safety and freedom conflict as well, as can be argued with this case...

I just realized what time it is. I have to go teach some army folks how to shoot a pistol. I will expand on this later this afternoon. Sorry... , but I will tie these thoughts in to why I am so staunchly against a public smoking ban when I return...


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 5, 2007)

It can't be said enough that if you don't want to be around smokers and smoking, don't go where the owner alows it.  There are plenty of family resturaunts and the like that without government interference don't allow smoking in their establishments.  It's that easy.

Jeff


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 5, 2007)

*Mod. Note.*

*Attention all users*
* 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MT Moderator-

*


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> It can't be said enough that if you don't want to be around smokers and smoking, don't go where the owner alows it. There are plenty of family resturaunts and the like that without government interference don't allow smoking in their establishments. It's that easy.
> 
> Jeff


 
Actually, its not.  The people who go establishments that allow smoking are putting themselves at risk from pollution.  The people who work in those establishments are really putting themselves at risk from pollution.  
In other areas of our lives, we, as a society, have decided that "any" exposure to the pollutants that are found in SHS is unacceptable.  It doesn't matter if you choose to be in that environment or not.  The risks that many of the chemicals bring are too high.  Sure, we can debate whether SHS is really dangerous or not, but IMHO the case really is a slam dunk.  The body of studies out there is vast beyond most people's comprehension...unless you had to do a lit review on this stuff like I did.  

Also, if anyone has ever seen the movie, "Thank you for smoking" that pretty much sums up the few studies that are claiming SHS isn't dangerous.  

Anyway, back to a person's choice to remain in a polluted environment or not.  Sure, we can debate whether or not some people have the choice to work in polluted environments.  IMHO, the only thing that prevents someone from seeing a situation where the choice would be hard is a lack of imagination (I personally know three people who are in this situation right now)  Also, you know what, if it came down to it and I had to make the choice between my health and putting food on the table, I'd go on welfare.  The point is, why should anyone have to make this decision in the first place.  SHS is pollution and no one should be exposed to it.

I liken this situation to a situation faced by many migrant workers in this country.  In all sorts of industries, undocumented workers are hired by companies to do all of the jobs that anyone who grew up on our society would never do.  Many (most) times, these people are given no safety equipment (which includes equipment to deal with toxic chemicals), no training on how to deal with toxic chemicals, and are totally unprotected if they are injured.  These people take those jobs, knowing in advance the conditions they will face and they all hope that they'll be the lucky ones  (this is how companies and migrant workers subvert OSHA and worker's comp regulations.  If "guest workers" are allowed in this country, both of the above will become meaningless).

The bottom line is this.  Why should anyone have to make those decisions?  Why can't we as a society just step up to the plate and say that this is unacceptable?  A person's right to smoke around others is not worth the health risks associated with it and I think that it would be immoral to continue to allow it.  Just as it IS immoral to let PEOPLE take jobs in the situation I described above.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 5, 2007)

Isn't living in a free society all about making decisions for yourself?  Like where to go, what job to take.  Trust me, in the food service industry, a waiter/dishwasher/busboy/cook would have no problem finding a similar job in a non-smoking establishment.

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2007)

In my opinion, it is immoral to not allow people to make their own choices. It is also very selfish and unaccepting of other peoples values. When we ever learn that it isn't right to impose our values on other people, whether it be health, religion, choice of job, or what have you?

To add to what I was speaking about before, there often is conflict between personal freedom and safety when it comes to regulation. With this, we need to ALWAYS err on the side of freedom unless other people are put in danger involuntarily.

Example, seat belt laws. If I want to drive around without a seatbelt, then I am an idiot. But, it is my perogative to do so and be an idiot (I don't do this, btw; just using this as an example). Seat belt laws, I am afraid, are wasteful and useless. We waste valuable LE dollars and time trying to "set up stings" and bust people for not wearing seat belts (at least here in Michigan). Now, if you want to drive around with a baby in the car without a seatbelt and proper car seat, THAT is when we should have a problem. NOW police should be able to enforce laws and serious penalties, because a child (3rd party) is involunarily being put at risk.

It is immoral to not let people make their own choices, even if they decide to choose poorly. It is only moral to step in when 3rd parties are involuntarily and significantly at risk, because now it infringes both on safety and freedom (freedom for others to be safe).

This is the way WE HAVE to operate if we want a free society. Nothing comes "for free," including freedom. If we want to live in a free society, we have to pay the price of allowing people to be the victim of their own choices. If we try to save everyone from their own choices, then we create a police state, and an orwellian and totalitarian and intolerant environment. Because what we are saying when we try to save everyone from their own choices is, "we don't respect what you value as an individual, so you must obey our values as to what is proper, safe, and right, otherwise you will find yourself fined or serving time in jail." When we decide to pass laws for the sole purpose of saving people from their own choices, we are deciding to be bullies, intolerant of other peoples values, and we are deciding to move closer to a police state.

So, whenever you make these decisions as to where you stand on this law or that law, you must always ask yourself, "at what cost" and "at what gain." Often, the costs don't justify the gains.

Also, people who always think "regulation" are the ones being unimaginative. Most of the time the problems can be solved without having to infringe on peoples freedoms. For example, what if insurance companies could decide to not cover you for personal injury if you got into an accident without your seatbelt, and what if this were clear to consumers? This, plus PSA's and education would do enough to convince most people to wear seatbelts most of the time. People who still decide to not wear the belts are most likely the same people who would make the same choice if facing a $50 or $80 ticket on top of it. So, the seat belt issue can be solved without having to regulate and pay tax dollars to police it.

Same with the SHS issue. This issue can, and is being solved without laws. Since the introduction of PSA's, smoking has cut almost in half since the 60's/70's: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicservic/publicservic.htm

Education, not regulation, has made smoking less prevalent and less socially acceptable in our society. What we could do if we were interested in freedom would be to allow individual locals to pass their own laws to deem all public areas non-smoking unless otherwise posted. This way, individual cities and twps can decide how they want to run their commuities. And this way, individual business owners can decide if they want their establishment to be smoking or not through posting a sign in a designated area that says "smoking permited." 

I am certain that with the exception of a few taverns and smoke shops, most places would remain non-smoking establishments. This would solve any problem of people being exposed to SHS who don't want it, as it pretty much is today. This way, you allow communities and individuals to decide what they want in their environment. 

*For the sake of clarity, here are the points of disagreement that I have from others who support a public smoking ban:*

1. People who want the ban believe that SHS is gravely harmful to the health of others. I disagree because when peoples bodies are actually monitored when exposed to SHS, there are no measureable effects (unlike the effects seen from smokers themselves). Once again, I challange anyone here to post up some evidence linking SHS to disease or death. A website that simply says its true without any discussion as to how that data was gathered is only an illogical "appeal to authority" rather then evidence.

2. I believe that in just about every case, adults have the choice now a days to be around SHS or not. People don't have to go to places where there is SHS. People don't have to sit in smoking sections. Most public places now a days are non-smoking establishments. People who work in smoking establishments have the choice to work elseware or to compromise with employers on the issue, despite all the sob stories of pregnant bartenders forced to work in taverns because there is no other comparible employment. This is nonsense. I challange you to think of regular circumstances and occurances where people couldn't simply choose to not frequent places that allowed smoking, and go ahead and name them. Most of what I will get are crybaby stories where people could, of course, choose to not be around SHS but decide to anyway.

3. There is no evidence that SHS is a pollutant that is on par with any of our other current polluting behaviors. We can't link SHS to global warming or carbon dioxide levels or what have you. The issue of SHS as a pollutant is negligable as compared to our reliance on fossil fuels. I challange you to provide evidence that proves that stopping smoking would lower the worlds pollution levels significantly as compared to other pollutants, and I will be willing to entertain this idea.

4. I believe that the real problem with smoking around others is not SHS, but exposing the behavior to children, particularly within the homes of smokers. This because children are more likely to become accustomed to smoking and grow up smokers. I believe that by banning smoking in public places, instead of allowing the few places left for adults to smoke, you create an environment where now parents of smokers have to smoke around children because they can only do it in homes and vehicles. With this in mind, I challange you to prove to me that a public smoking ban would help solve this issue rather then complicate it.

5. Mass regulation of behavior and "victimless" crime never really works better then other means of solving problems, like education and freedom of choice. We ultimatily end up wasting money and valuable Law Enforcement resources on policing and regulation. This is money that we could be using to fund education, to clean the environment, to cure disease and solve our health care crisis, and so forth. mass regulation didn't work with prohibition. It has yet to work with the drug war. Hell it didn't even really work with seatbelts, as it is arguable that the PSA's and education are the real hero's behind increased seat belt use rather then fines and policing. And, this won't work for public smoking either. In general, regulation of bad choices and victimless crimes only accomplish more people getting put jail and more fines and more money spent on enforcing individual behavior. Our jails are crowded with people involved in victimless crimes, and are getting more crowded every year; all tax dollars and resources utterly wasted. I challange you to ask yourselves how increased enforcement and regulation of victimless crimes makes society better rather then worse.

5. We ultimatily have to decide what type of society we would like to live in, and what we decide will always come with a price. The price of freedom is choice, and allowing people to be a victim of their own choices. The price of saving people from their own choices is to create a system based off regulation and punishment where choices are made for the people. One is a free republic or democracy that protects civil liberties, the other is a totalitarian police state based on controlling others for some sort of "greater good." You need to decide what kind of society you would like to live in. I am deciding that I don't want to live somewhere that isn't free due to someone elses idea of what is safe and good. Others have decided that they are willing to pay the price of freedom for the illusion of security. I see dangerous precidence and slippery slopes created with things like "statewide/nationwide public smoking bans." How far will we allow these things to go? It all seems OK until over-regulation begins to effect you. Sure, it may seem OK when we are talking about "common sense" stuff like helmet laws and seat belt tickets. But now Ontario and Bejing won't allow entire dog breeds, and has been mass Euthanizing them. France won't allow smoking, sure. Rights to weapons and self-defense means are almost completely lost in the first world nowadays. So how far are you willing to go for the sake of illusionary security and safety? How about cameras on every road that automatically sends you tickets in the mail? Since Obesity is fast becoming more of a problem now then smoking, how about ID cards that ration your food purchases if you exceed the height/weight chart? How about wiretaps without warrents? How about microchips to regulate healthcare and insurance coverage and monitor "pre-existing conditions" These aren't apocalyptic fantasies folks, these are things that we have the capabilities to do right now, and that are happenening or can fast become the norm (next 20-50 years). So, we need to decide right now how we want to live, and keep the trend towards freedom. Because once the trend gets too far in the other direction, we will find ourselves in an orwellian society with no means of changing it.

That is what I believe anyway, and I am willing to fight to protect freedom, and I am willing to make the choice for freedom at the expense of consequence for my choices, and not being told what to do. It is too bad that more and more people now a days would rather someone else makes decisions for them rather then having the freedom to make their own choices.

I challange you, most of all, to really take a hard look at what kind of society you would like to live in, and that you would like your children to live in.

*And these are my points of contention with other people in this thread and elseware who support statewide smoking bans. I don't have much else to say, unless someone provides compelling evidence or argument contrary to these points that would cause me to rethink my position. Otherwise, I will have to simply and respectfully agree to disagree with the other positions here. Saying more, unless new contrarian opinions and evidence arise, will only amount to me repeating myself ad nauseum, and beating a dead horse.*

*So, I have said my piece. You will either agree or you won't, but my position is illustrated in many different ways for anyone to read.*

*Thanks for the discussion...* 

:asian:


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 5, 2007)

so if a parent wants to go without a seatbelt....thats cool.
but if they let the child go without....uncool.
now we have an accident with dead parents and an orphaned baby.....really uncool.

apply that logic to smoking.


----------



## Kacey (Feb 5, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I challange you, most of all, to really take a hard look at what kind of society you would like to live in, and that you would like your children to live in.



I would rather live in a society that charges me, as a taxpayer, for prevention (i.e. regulation) than live in a society that charges me, as a taxpayer, for treatment of those too stupid to avoid risky behavior (i.e. medical bills for those who smoke, who inhale SHS, who drive without seatbelts and insurance, etc.).  From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, prevention is cheaper.  Also pragmatically, while it is one thing to say taxpayers shouldn't pay the bills for such persons, it's just not going to happen - people will still be affected by such risky behaviors, and those costs will still be passed on - through taxes for the uninsured, and through premium hikes for the insured.  Regulation is cheaper.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 5, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> 1. People who want the ban believe that SHS is gravely harmful to the health of others. I disagree because when peoples bodies are actually monitored when exposed to SHS, there are no measureable effects (unlike the effects seen from smokers themselves). Once again, I challange anyone here to post up some evidence linking SHS to disease or death. A website that simply says its true without any discussion as to how that data was gathered is only an illogical "appeal to authority" rather then evidence.


 
The American Heart Association has been cited.  The American Lung Association.  So was the CDC.  On all of these sites, links to hundreds of supporting reports exist.  On the fact sheets given by the CDC, there are literally over 1000 reports available for view.  In the posts regarding SHS, the links I provided will take you over 100 studies that show that SHS is directly linked to heart disease, lung cancer, SIDS, and a whole slew of other ailments.  This is NOT an appeal to authority, it is an argument that is overwhelming in support of the FACT that SHS is harmful to your health.



> 2. I believe that in just about every case, adults have the choice now a days to be around SHS or not. People don't have to go to places where there is SHS. People don't have to sit in smoking sections. Most public places now a days are non-smoking establishments. People who work in smoking establishments have the choice to work elseware or to compromise with employers on the issue, despite all the sob stories of pregnant bartenders forced to work in taverns because there is no other comparible employment. This is nonsense. I challange you to think of regular circumstances and occurances where people couldn't simply choose to not frequent places that allowed smoking, and go ahead and name them. Most of what I will get are crybaby stories where people could, of course, choose to not be around SHS but decide to anyway.


 
SHS contains 4000 carcinogenic chemicals plus particulate matter that is harmful to peoples' health.  If a smoker was a corporation, all of those chemicals would be regulated in some way so that the people who are WILLINGLY EXPOSED are properly protected.  The corporation is federally mandated to FORCE there workers to wear the proper protective gear.  With SHS, many of the same chemicals that OSHA regulates are well above the levels that would normally be regulated anywhere else.  

There, IMO, the circumstances of exposure just don't matter.  These chemicals are dangerous and need to regulated.



> 3. There is no evidence that SHS is a pollutant that is on par with any of our other current polluting behaviors. We can't link SHS to global warming or carbon dioxide levels or what have you. The issue of SHS as a pollutant is negligable as compared to our reliance on fossil fuels. I challange you to provide evidence that proves that stopping smoking would lower the worlds pollution levels significantly as compared to other pollutants, and I will be willing to entertain this idea.


 
"Pollutant" according to how it is regulated by environmental engineers, refers to a chemical has been tested and proven to be harmful the health of humans.  SHS contains over 4000 classified pollutants.  With many of them reaching levels where they would be regulated by OSHA if that agencies regulations had that broad of a sweep.  SHS isn't going to contribute to global warming, but it is going to increase your chances of getting sick.



> 4. I believe that the real problem with smoking around others is not SHS, but exposing the behavior to children, particularly within the homes of smokers. This because children are more likely to become accustomed to smoking and grow up smokers. I believe that by banning smoking in public places, instead of allowing the few places left for adults to smoke, you create an environment where now parents of smokers have to smoke around children because they can only do it in homes and vehicles. With this in mind, I challange you to prove to me that a public smoking ban would help solve this issue rather then complicate it.


 
This is a valid point, however the real tragedy is that the children will have more direct exposure to SHS.  This will have a detrimental effect on their health.  For example, my wife lived with a mother who smoked constantly and she developed a case of SHS asthma that went away as soon as her mother stopped smoking.  

The good news is that smoking bans have been proven to reduce the amount people smoke (citations for this have already been posted).  We can only hope that there is a counterbalancing with these two effects.



> 5. Mass regulation of behavior and "victimless" crime never really works better then other means of solving problems, like education and freedom of choice. We ultimatily end up wasting money and valuable Law Enforcement resources on policing and regulation. This is money that we could be using to fund education, to clean the environment, to cure disease and solve our health care crisis, and so forth. mass regulation didn't work with prohibition. It has yet to work with the drug war. Hell it didn't even really work with seatbelts, as it is arguable that the PSA's and education are the real hero's behind increased seat belt use rather then fines and policing. And, this won't work for public smoking either. In general, regulation of bad choices and victimless crimes only accomplish more people getting put jail and more fines and more money spent on enforcing individual behavior. Our jails are crowded with people involved in victimless crimes, and are getting more crowded every year; all tax dollars and resources utterly wasted. I challange you to ask yourselves how increased enforcement and regulation of victimless crimes makes society better rather then worse.


 
In the literature I posted before, it was shown that smoking bans cost the taxpayer very little.  Especially if the businesses that allow illicit smoking to occur are levied with fines.  One need not chase down every individual smoker...only eliminate the places where they gather.



> 5. We ultimatily have to decide what type of society we would like to live in, and what we decide will always come with a price. The price of freedom is choice, and allowing people to be a victim of their own choices. The price of saving people from their own choices is to create a system based off regulation and punishment where choices are made for the people. One is a free republic or democracy that protects civil liberties, the other is a totalitarian police state based on controlling others for some sort of "greater good." You need to decide what kind of society you would like to live in. I am deciding that I don't want to live somewhere that isn't free due to someone elses idea of what is safe and good. Others have decided that they are willing to pay the price of freedom for the illusion of security. I see dangerous precidence and slippery slopes created with things like "statewide/nationwide public smoking bans." How far will we allow these things to go? It all seems OK until over-regulation begins to effect you. Sure, it may seem OK when we are talking about "common sense" stuff like helmet laws and seat belt tickets. But now Ontario and Bejing won't allow entire dog breeds, and has been mass Euthanizing them. France won't allow smoking, sure. Rights to weapons and self-defense means are almost completely lost in the first world nowadays. So how far are you willing to go for the sake of illusionary security and safety? How about cameras on every road that automatically sends you tickets in the mail? Since Obesity is fast becoming more of a problem now then smoking, how about ID cards that ration your food purchases if you exceed the height/weight chart? How about wiretaps without warrents? How about microchips to regulate healthcare and insurance coverage and monitor "pre-existing conditions" These aren't apocalyptic fantasies folks, these are things that we have the capabilities to do right now, and that are happenening or can fast become the norm (next 20-50 years). So, we need to decide right now how we want to live, and keep the trend towards freedom. Because once the trend gets too far in the other direction, we will find ourselves in an orwellian society with no means of changing it.


 
I don't think there is any need to worry about the slippery slope.  Smoking bans required bi-partisan support in order to pass and Dems and Reps can hardly agree on anything now day.  They agree on smoking bans, however.  And they do this because the evidence of their effectiveness and of their need is overwhelming.

The last thing I'm going to point out is that I find it really interesting that all of these countries are so far ahead of the US when it comes to promoting the health of their populace.  We are in really deep doo doo when it comes to our health.  If you look at the Dept of Health statistics, the amounts of illness caused by smoking, obesity, and other diseases is sky rocketing...and much of this is caused by the choices that we make.  So why are all of these other countries so much more progressive then we are?

I think that the common demoninator in almost all cases is socialized medicine.  The taxpayers in those countries directly feel the bite of the bad decisions other people are making in regards to their health.  Except in their case, they can VOTE to make some changes.  The people can actually try and make things better.

In our case, our privatized system makes it impossible for us to do this.  Thus, our insurance premiums keep going up and up and there is no end in sight.  IMHO, our national health has got to be a national priority.  We need to all understand that we are all tied to each other, that we all support each other.  If one person gets sick because of the stuff they do, it affects us all.  And this is no different then anywhere else in the world...


----------

