[The Ginger Rat]

Yes, there are apparently "social" smokers who will smoke once a week or so, and who can go for long times without wanting to smoke. I don't know what percentage they are.

I wish smokers were more careful of their butts. During our drought this past summer there were still bastards who would flick the butts out the windows of their cars onto the tinder-dry grass. Use your ashtrays!

Good luck to everyone trying to quit smoking. You will feel better, and yes, you do save a surprising amount of money. Besides, your teeth look better.

[desi]

as a former smoker, or rather regular smoker-haven't had a cigarette since march-I can say that it varies in whether of not someone will get physically addicted to nicotine.

Psychological is always an issue, but not all smokers become physically addicted. Nicotine is a drug, a controlled substance and anyone has the chance to become addicted phsically if they start smoking.

I myself was never physically addicted, I suppose this because I quit more easily than others, but I know people who literally wake up in the middle of the night to have a smoke. I never did that, and by a regular person's standards, a regular smoker's standards that is, they felt I was a pretty heavy smoker and that I'd be smoking till I was fifty and dead.

now I just smoke once in a blue moon on special occasions w/ my friends, such as a trip to AC, or someone I had not seen in ages, hence last march. before last march, I smoked...actually the march before that.

I used to smoke for eight years or so and had to quit because of bronchitis, so I quit, or else I would have gotten pneomoina or worse, a tracheotomy,as I knew a fellow who received one becuase he continued to smoke when he was terribly ill. once I got better I smoked again until graduation, I was in college, and I had to quit during finals! after that I was able to put it down whnever I chose.

but after not smoking for so long, when you do have that first one, you know and feel it's goddamn poison you're putting into you, and the head rush is incredible; after that, they go down smoother and you're fine with it. but the challenge after that is to put it down. fortunately, I'm able to do that. call it will or call it wahtever you want.

for people who have never smoked, it's pretty hard to imagine what it's like to smoke and to imagine what it's like to want or need a cigarette. I still miss it occasionally, but that's about it.
and all my friends who felt that I'd be smoking decades after them...well, they're the ones still smoking.


to all those who are trying to quit, good luck. a bit of advice, which you probably already know or may not even want, is make sure to avoid social inetractions with people that smoke or places�ie. a bar. the temptation will test your resolve. I somehow managed to do it twice, but it was incredibly hard. again, good luck!

[teszeract]

I have made the decision. I will give up smoking tomorrow.

[fat mac moron]

Originally posted by tintub:
stupid quote of the day

I actually think that's a good point... It seems to me (in America at least) that obesity related problems are going to surpass any other illnesses in next 20 years.

[SSharon]

I hate smokers. I hate all of them that congregate outside my dorm and blow that crap towards my window. I hate the fact that they are so damn selfish and ruin my life because they want to smoke. I have bad asthma and cannot stand the smoke, if they want to die, find a faster way please or do it in your own private property.

How can you compare this to exercise, sure its not good for them but fat people bother me less than the smokers I have to fight through to get into my class buildings.

I also work on ambulances and have found that probably 75% of them smoke. How?? We can drop some patient off with lung cancer and everything else there is to have and then they just go outside and smoke. They know the dangers but do it anyway . . . anyone else thinking of the word addicted?

For the people here that do smoke, I know I made some stereotypes so just ignore them and stop smoking. If you don't do it for yourself/family do it for people like me that suffer from your decisions. We don't want to hate you but you leave us with no choice.


Aside: why do states restrict people to using hands-free phones but let them smoke with one hand? Most people I see spend less time on the phone than holding that burning cig.

[iWrite]

I hate smokers. I hate all of them that congregate outside my dorm and blow that crap towards my window. I hate the fact that they are so damn selfish and ruin my life because they want to smoke. I have bad asthma and cannot stand the smoke, if they want to die, find a faster way please or do it in your own private property.

I don't "hate" them...but I do despise them.

They're usually ignorant and selfish with the way they demonstrate their "habit" (addiction).

They throw their butts all over the place and pollute the entire country. Last night we were at the beach and some *sshole smoking a cigarette comes down to watch the lunar eclipse and he passes everyone and he has a smoker's stench and cigarette hanging from his lips.

WHAT A LOSER.

And, can you IMAGINE being involved with one? Having to kiss someone who smokes?

DISGUSTING.

[iWrite]

By the way? Obesity doesn't compare.

If I want to become a fat slob with heart disease being in my proximity while I stuff my face full of sugar and lard isn't going to affect YOUR health...

Smokers, on the other hand, have secondhand smoke that they constantly pollute the air with -- which affects the air and health of other people.

LONG LIVE THE SMOKING BAN IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by The Ginger Rat:
Yes, there are apparently "social" smokers who will smoke once a week or so, and who can go for long times without wanting to smoke. I don't know what percentage they are.

Count me in in this percentage. I've smoked on average less than a cigarette per month since I had my first one 6 years ago. I have a simple rule for not starting to smoke: Never pay for cigarettes! Ever. If someone offers me a cig I'll take it. It can taste good (though I prefer cigars) and blowing smoke rings is cool. Top that with that addictions don't bite me (except perhaps the internet) and I don't count myself as a smoker.

I hate cigarette-smoke myelf, the stench and not to mention kissing smokers are like kissing an ashtray (this is not an anti-smoking clich�). But hey, if it's a party, bring it on

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by SSharon:
Aside: why do states restrict people to using hands-free phones but let them smoke with one hand? Most people I see spend less time on the phone than holding that burning cig.

A ciggie doesn't require any mental capacity whatsoever, whereas a phone call (hands-free or not) does. Thus having a ciggie whilst driving is nowhere near as dangerous as having a phone call. It's nothing to do with where your hands are - it's to do with where your head is.

Originally posted by iWrite:
LONG LIVE THE SMOKING BAN IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS!

Land of the free? When a smoking bar owner with smoking staff can't cater for smoking clients? That's screwed up.

[gadster]

Argh. I started smoking when I was about 9 years old. There was a really good ad campaign run in Australia, designed to appeal to young people, and - as a 9 year old - I fell for it. The tobacco companies knew at the time that nicotine was addictive, and they suspected it caused cancer. They had lab teams working out how best to deliver the nicotine, as well as working out how to appeal to youngsters. Now I am 40.

Dad just got diagnosed with cancer of the mouth. The top of the mouth. So, the surgeons need to remove large parts of his palate and upper jaw. ie: the bottom bit of his head, above the lower jaw. Ouch. The palate will be rebuilt with tissue from his forearm. Dad was worried that the skin on his forearm is pretty hairy. The doc said that the radiotherapy will kill the hair off, and - as a weird doctors joke - mentioned that the only bit of hairless skin was on his dick, but that the last thing you want is tumescent tissue in your mouth. Boom - tish.

I love smoking. But I wish there were a way I could get the nicotine dose (nicotine being relatively harmless) without the stinky smoke.

There is a free service here called 'smoke-enders'. Maybe I gotta check it out.

My third kid is due in 2 weeks. I'd like to give up the smokes and buy a bicycle. Love smoking tho', it's hard to explain.

[iWrite]

It's not hard to explain: It's an addiction.

Get some professional MEDICAL help if you can't kick it. Get a nicotine patch to help out and take up chewing gum.

Seriously, if seeing your dad the way he is (sorry about that) isn't incentive then I don't know what is.

If you can't do it for yourself, do it for your kids.

QUIT SMOKING FOR YOUR CHILDREN...THEY NEED YOU AROUND AND THEY NEED YOU HEALTHY.

[teszeract]

DAY 1.

I have not had a cigarette since last night around midnight. Finished reading the stop smoking literature. Have even followed some of the advice. Like telling people that I've stopped. It's taken me 10 and a bit months to get there from my initial resolution to stop. It's very hard because of the little 'voice' that sounds lke you but is 'in reality' the little devil on your left shoulder.

Will you guys 'n gals be my stop smoking buddies?

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by teszeract:
DAY 1.

Will you guys 'n gals be my stop smoking buddies?

Day 5. I went cold turkey this time.
We can do this.

[cjrivera]

Originally posted by teszeract:
DAY 1.

I have not had a cigarette since last night around midnight. Finished reading the stop smoking literature. Have even followed some of the advice. Like telling people that I've stopped. It's taken me 10 and a bit months to get there from my initial resolution to stop. It's very hard because of the little 'voice' that sounds lke you but is 'in reality' the little devil on your left shoulder.

Will you guys 'n gals be my stop smoking buddies?

Congratualtions.

One suggestion I usually tell people is to get a big glass jar and put it on your kitchen table. Put a picture of something you want to sabe up for (TV, stereo, kid's college... or on this forum...G5 or iPod). Throw in the amount of money that you daily spend on smoking. By the time you start getting a little "weaker" in willpower, you should have enough money to maybe make you change your mind about restarting. You'd be surprised how much 1-11/2 packs a day add up to in about 2-3 weeks.

[teszeract]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Day 5. I went cold turkey this time.
We can do this.

Cold turkey too.

I used to try not buying cigs but maybe a single cigar once a day - that soon turned into a pack again. Like magic and all.

[::maroma::]

So what is the general consensus on smoking marijuana (as far as long term health issues, addiction, etc)? I've heard different "truths" about it. Some say it's worse than cigarettes, some say it's not as bad, some say it's the same.

So, anyone have any definitive answers or links on the subject? I ask because I've been discussing this with a few friends of mine recently.

BTW - My grandmother died of lung cancer after smoking for most of her life. I watched her die, and it was enough to keep my hands off of cigarettes for ever.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
So what is the general consensus on smoking marijuana (as far as long term health issues, addiction, etc)?

Link to 07/2003 study results.

The study found that frequent marijuana smokers had a 19% greater risk of respiratory disesases than non-smokers, confirming prior work by UCLA Professor Dr. Donald Tashkin and others showing that marijuana smoke irritates the lungs in a manner not unlike cigarettes.

The addiction issue is debatable. I believe there can be a mental addiction with some, but there are no physical side effects to quitting.

[nvaughan3]

the possibility of physchological addiction to marijuana is not even debateable, I've gone through it myself requiring admission to rehab on multiple occasions.

As for physical dependence, it's debatable and certainly not common but I have known folks exhibiting physical withdrawal symptoms after going through detox for marijuana and personally do believe it is possible, albeit in extreme cases.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
the possibility of physchological addiction to marijuana is not even debateable, I've gone through it myself requiring admission to rehab on multiple occasions.

No offense, but just because you (and no doubt some others) have had a psychological addiction to marijuana, doesn't automatically make marijuana psychologically addictive. One can become psychologically addicted to most anything really. But that doesn't make most anything psychologically addictive by nature. I've known a couple people who swore they were psychologically addicted to caffein. Yet the vast majority of people aren't. So, the argument of the psychological addiction of marijuana is indeed debatable. Psychological addiction to anything is debatable.

[iWrite]

TO EVERYONE QUITTING SMOKING!

[voyageur]

FYI, here's the current criteria for diagnosis of "substance dependence" according to the DSM-IV (2000):

A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:

(1) tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) a need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect
(b) markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance

(2) withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
(a) the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance (refer to criteria A and B of the criteria sets for withdrawal from the specific substances)
(b) the same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms

(3) the substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended

(4) there is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use

(5) a great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance (e.g., visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g., chain-smoking), or recover from its effects

(6) important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use

(7) the substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g., current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression, or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption)

Specify if:
With physiological dependence: evidence of tolerance or withdrawal (i.e., either item 1 or item 2 is present)
Without physiological dependence: no evidence of tolerance or withdrawal (i.e., neither item 1 nor item 2 is present)

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Land of the free? When a smoking bar owner with smoking staff can't cater for smoking clients? That's screwed up.

No it isn't. Smoke in the work place is a health hazard. People have to work. When the conditions of the work place give you lung cancer - that's screwed up.

Land of the free doesn't mean you can do whatever you want - it means you can do things as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

By saying "if you don't like smoke, you should work somewhere else" is saying you can discriminate against non-smoking employees. Also, there are those who smoke but don't necessarily want to breathe it 8 hours per day.

Why not apply the same logic to sexual harassment - "If you don't like the harassment, go work somewhere else." Sounds stupid doesn't it? Why should filling the air with toxic substances be ok?

[iWrite]

YEAH!



I hate the reek of cigarettes ANYPLACE.

I can get cancer all on my own, thank you.

Seriously, why smoke?

Gives you terrible breath.
Gives you yellow teeth.
Costs a lot. A LOT.
Alienates you from certain people.
Gives you cancer or heart disease.
Causes moodiness.

WHY smoke?

It's just one of the most ridiculous things that people do.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
No offense, but just because you (and no doubt some others) have had a psychological addiction to marijuana, doesn't automatically make marijuana psychologically addictive. One can become psychologically addicted to most anything really. But that doesn't make most anything psychologically addictive by nature. I've known a couple people who swore they were psychologically addicted to caffein. Yet the vast majority of people aren't. So, the argument of the psychological addiction of marijuana is indeed debatable. Psychological addiction to anything is debatable.

You need to reread what I said sir. I said the "the possibility of physchological addiction" is not debatable. Which regardless of whether you think is true or not, is exactly what you just said when you tried to correct me.

[SeSawaya]

the horrible truth is, if you live in a city, bus exhaust along with car exhaust is a far far larger danger than all the smokers in the world in one room! Jet exaust in the ski, hmmm I bet thats good for us. Lets not even talk about industry pollutants.

Smoking is a horrid thing, my grandfather stopped cold turkey after 55 years of it. Amazing.

I just think that if they spent 1/2 the money they do on what is really killing people like they do on anti smoking campains, America might wake up. (along with the rest of the world)

sad

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by hayesk:
No it isn't. Smoke in the work place is a health hazard. People have to work. When the conditions of the work place give you lung cancer - that's screwed up.

Land of the free doesn't mean you can do whatever you want - it means you can do things as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

I should have made myself clearer - if everyone in the building wants to smoke they still can't. If everyone wants to smoke, what rights are being infringed?

Originally posted by hayesk:
By saying "if you don't like smoke, you should work somewhere else" is saying you can discriminate against non-smoking employees.

When everyone in a place wants to do the same thing (and nobody minds anyone else doing it) yet the government legislates that they can't, that's screwed up.

If one person in the building doesn't want to smoke and as a result nobody else can, who exactly is infringing on the rights of who?

There's an easy solution. Find out the smoker/non-smoker ratio (let's say 30/70 %) and issue smoking/non-smoking licences to premises in that ratio. Everyone is happy.

---
As an aside, you'll remember the thread about what food makes you physically ill? The smell of cooking or cooked fish makes me physically sick - I literally instantly throw my load - and I'm not the only one. Due to this, I'm being discriminated against and my rights are being violated as I can't be either a customer or member of staff in non-veggie restaurants.

So what do I do about this rights violation? Arh. That's it. I'll demand that all restaurants are banned from serving fish. See where we're going with this?

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I should have made myself clearer - if everyone in the building wants to smoke they still can't. If everyone wants to smoke, what rights are being infringed?

The people who want to go in the building but can't.

When everyone in a place wants to do the same thing (and nobody minds anyone else doing it) yet the government legislates that they can't, that's screwed up.

Does the same apply to sexual harassment? If nobody in the building minds, then those who do should stay out?

How about race? Is whites only bars and restaurants ok if everyone in the building is white?

If one person in the building doesn't want to smoke and as a result nobody else can, who exactly is infringing on the rights of who?

Everyone else in the building since there are those who don't enter the building because of this. There are real physical health hazards here. This isn't just someone not liking what others are doing.

There's an easy solution. Find out the smoker/non-smoker ratio (let's say 30/70 %) and issue smoking/non-smoking licences to premises in that ratio. Everyone is happy.

No, because it eliminates 30% safe work environments for non-smokers. What if the only jobs available are in those smoking bars. Should someone "put up" with the smoke and get lung cancer just so they can pay their rent and feed their family?

As an aside, you'll remember the thread about what food makes you physically ill? The smell of cooking or cooked fish makes me physically sick - I literally instantly throw my load - and I'm not the only one. Due to this, I'm being discriminated against and my rights are being violated as I can't be either a customer or member of staff in non-veggie restaurants.

I didn't read the thread, but that is a different case. Smoking negatively affects the health of everyone. You have an odd affliction. If the smell of fish made everyone physically ill, then you'd have a point.

So what do I do about this rights violation? Arh. That's it. I'll demand that all restaurants are banned from serving fish. See where we're going with this?

I see you're going nowhere with this. See my above comment. Smoking is a public health issue - workers have a right to a workplace free of health hazards that affect everyone. If smoking was just a bad smell, that'd be different. But when an activity negatively affects everyone around them, the rights of non-smokers outweight the rights of smokers, no matter what the ratio is, since the non-smokers are not doing anything to the smokers.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by hayesk:
The people who want to go in the building but can't.

If the establishment is clearly labelled as a smoking environment, why exactly would a non-smoker wish to go in there?

Originally posted by hayesk:
Does the same apply to sexual harassment? If nobody in the building minds, then those who do should stay out?

Yes. That's why I don't go into gay bars, nor seek legislation to get them closed down. It's my choice whether I go into a place.

Originally posted by hayesk:
How about race? Is whites only bars and restaurants ok if everyone in the building is white?

Bad analogy. By expecting everyone to be a non-smoker whilst in the building, you're effectively saying that "everyone is welcome but you have to be white while you're in here".

By playing the race card, you're arguing for diversity within the establishment. Diversity within the establishment means that smokers can be smokers. Non-smokers would have to learn tolerance.

Originally posted by hayesk:
No, because it eliminates 30% safe work environments for non-smokers. What if the only jobs available are in those smoking bars. Should someone "put up" with the smoke and get lung cancer just so they can pay their rent and feed their family?

So we ban all unsafe jobs then?

It really is as simple as this: Freedom of choice. If you don't like being in a smoky environment, don't go into one and don't work in one. If there are no jobs in smoke-free environments in your location, move or start your own company.

Don't deny others' rights to spend an evening in a smoky environment if they like it. Restrictions in personal choice are not what America was founded on. The Soviet Union, perhaps, but not America.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
Day 5. I went cold turkey this time.
We can do this.

I'm still going strong, although I've forgotten how many days it's been. Keep it up guys!

[nvaughan3]

What if the only jobs available are in those smoking bars.

It doesnt work like that. With the amount of smokers dropping every day and the folks who are militant about "secondhand smoke" increasing every day, the number of restraunts and spaces inside restraunts designated smoking drops. Free market forces, gotta let them work.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Does the same apply to sexual harassment? If nobody in the building minds, then those who do should stay out?

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yes. That's why I don't go into gay bars, nor seek legislation to get them closed down. It's my choice whether I go into a place.

Could you please tell me how you draw a parallel between sexual harassment and gay bars?

Thanks!

P.S. Need I remind you sexual harassment is illegal and homosexuality is not.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Could you please tell me how you draw a parallel between sexual harassment and gay bars?

Thanks!

P.S. Need I remind you sexual harassment is illegal and homosexuality is not.

Every time I've been in one I get sexually harassed. Maybe it's my own stupid fault for being so sexy, but there ya go.

There was as much relevance in my parallel as there was in the one I was replying to.

� If you want to run a gay establishment, do so.

� If you want to run a sexual harassing establishment, do so.

� If you want to run a smoking establishment, do so.

If the practices in these establishments are clearly known and you don't want to partake of them, don't go in there. It's called being an adult in a free society.

[beanbag]

I am a smoker. I smoke maybe 3-5 cigs a day in an average work day, maybe a whole pack when out drinking. As you can imagine, the NYC smoking ban has seriously affected my social life, and the lives of many of my friends.
here's a fact or 2:

1. There in no such thing as second hand smoke.

That is a proven fact by 2 major worldwide surveys. Trouble is, the anti-smoking lobby has twisted the facts to suit their own personal agendas. Here's the real facts:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm

The anti-smoking ban has seriously affected the hospitality industry. Check this link:

bad for business

One of my favourite bars in the east village, NYC is on the verge of closing. What was once a vibrant, fun place to hang out and drink is now a shadow of what it once was.

And it's not like a huge chunk of the voting public want smoking banned. Here's a PDF of a survey carried out in NY. 3 out of 4 people would like to see some kind of allowances for smokers:

http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/news...30808nycon.pdf

The problem with America today is that it's a hotbed of hysterical hyperchondria. Yes, there are some risks to smoking (first hand, not second hand). No, if you smoke you are not automatically going to get lung cancer. A small number of whiners convinced the government to enforce a bad that was not voted on by ANYONE. Skewed statistics and outright BS allowed them to do that.
That pisses me off.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by beanbag:

One of my favourite bars in the east village, NYC is on the verge of closing. What was once a vibrant, fun place to hang out and drink is now a shadow of what it once was.

First they banned smoking in theaters. And we watched as they began to fall, one by one.

Then they banned smoking in offices and places of business, and we watched in horror as the system of American capitalism fell apart.

The State of California enacted an anti-smoking law in 1998, and it was clear that the state immediately ceased to be an economic superpower.

Sarcasm On [ ] Off [x]

Could it be that the bar is closing because of something other than the smoking ban?

It's easy to say that smoking bans harm business but years of experience show otherwise. For every smoker who won't go to the theater, there are 2 people who will now go to the theater because it is smoke free, etc.

[beanbag]

Could it be that the bar is closing because of something other than the smoking ban?

Perhaps some other unseen factor made more than half the regulars stop coming after 30th March 2003. Can't really think of one myself

It's easy to say that smoking bans harm business but years of experience show otherwise. For every smoker who won't go to the theater, there are 2 people who will now go to the theater because it is smoke free, etc.

Didn't you even read the links?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by beanbag:
Didn't you even read the links?

Yup. And found scads of anecdotal evidence and confounding factors. Restaurants go out of business, how do you prove that smoking bans caused it (and especially with a data set so small).

Here are some links for you to check out:

NYC in favor of smoking ban

Smoking ban doesn't harm tourism

Hasn't hurt CA

Look, I'll concede this: a smoking-ban may lose smokers from a restaurant. But it also does a lot more: invites non-smokers to the restaurant and reduces health care costs and sick days for employees.

To show that a smoking ban harms bars and restaurants you'd have to control for many, many things, and no study I've seen has done that.

Again, my point is clear: smoking bans haven't hurt movie theaters or office buildings, why are people's knickers in a twist?

[beanbag]

Originally posted by petehammer:
[B]Yup. And found scads of anecdotal evidence and confounding factors. Restaurants go out of business, how do you prove that smoking bans caused it (and especially with a data set so small).

Here are some links for you to check out:

NYC in favor of smoking ban

ROFLMAO! A telephone poll of 530 people? Yeah, that's a real representative sample

Smoking ban doesn't harm tourism

Tourism? How is that relevant? people on vacation will spend money in restaurants whether they like them or not. What else are they going to do? go home to eat?

Hasn't hurt CA

Look, I'll concede this: a smoking-ban may lose smokers from a restaurant. But it also does a lot more: invites non-smokers to the restaurant and reduces health care costs and sick days for employees.

To show that a smoking ban harms bars and restaurants you'd have to control for many, many things, and no study I've seen has done that.

So why are you posting links saying that the ban has had no effect in Calif then saying there's been no study on it? Make your mind up.
What "sick days"? It's already been proven that SHS is no more hazardous than walking down the street breathing "city smells" (re: traffic)

Again, my point is clear: smoking bans haven't hurt movie theaters or office buildings, why are people's knickers in a twist?

Because a lot of people like to smoke and drink! I know it's hard for you to understand, but do try. The government had justified the ban by quoting bullshit statistics, basically lying to the people. You may be happy to accept thir word for it, but millions are not.

[beanbag]

this guy sums up my feelings pretty well. I wonder if he's still in business?

http://www.geocities.com/sfd-usa/library/etsbar27.html

[petehammer]

ROFLMAO! A telephone poll of 530 people? Yeah, that's a real representative sample

Yup, my 530 people polled to your 600 (yup, read your own study!).

Methodology: This poll of 600 likely voters in New York was conducted on July 29th and July 30th, 2003. All interviews were conducted via telephone by professional interviewers. Interview selection was random within predetermined election units. These units were structured to correlate with actual voter turnout in a general election. This poll of 600 likely voters has an accuracy of +/- 4.0% at a 95% confidence interval.

Still ROFLMAO? You might want to check these things out so you don't get caught with your pants down.

Assertion is different from truth. My point is that I can provide statistics to counter yours, and that no study has been done which would prove the effect of a ban (a point you have not countered).

Your assertion that second hand smoke is safe does not jibe well with the stance of, well, every major medical institution in the United States. And yes, I'm willing to take their word for it since a doctor or scientist may have a bit more knowledge and training on the issue than I do, and seem to lack the agenda of either the tobacco industry or libertarians.

Smoking and drinking are personal choices, but if those choices affect other people (second hand smoke, drunk driving) people are concerned. Drinking in a bar doesn't seem to hurt anyone, but smoking in a public setting (at least according to credible science) does seem to have an impact.

Would you or would you not support a study to determine, econometrically, the impact of a smoking ban?

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by voyageur:
FYI, here's the current criteria for diagnosis of "substance dependence" according to the DSM-IV (2000):

*snip*

The DSM is only a guide, which is the product of the trends and norms believed by psychiatrists. So please don't use it as tho. it applies universally.

[Sherwin]

Hmmm... Government banning things that people like to do? Remember prohibition?

I'm just waiting for the riots in Ireland when their bar smoking ban comes into force in January. My money's on a complete u-turn within a year.

[voyageur]

Since I work at a psychiatric institution, I"m aware of what the DSM-IV is used for.

Did I imply anything more? No. Posted as an FYI only.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Hmmm... Government banning things that people like to do? Remember prohibition?

I'm just waiting for the riots in Ireland when their bar smoking ban comes into force in January. My money's on a complete u-turn within a year.

Prohibition [n] a law forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Woah, the government doesn't allow people to buy cigarettes? They are banning people from smoking them? I must have missed that.

Sarcasm off.

You can't drink in the streets or on the job, either. Damn government.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by petehammer:
You can't drink in the streets either.

Yes you can - in really free countries (you know, the ones who don't keep going on about how free they are).

So let's get this straight. You can't have a smoke inside but you can't take your drink outside?

[beanbag]

Originally posted by petehammer:
[B]Yup, my 530 people polled to your 600 (yup, read your own study!).

I'll give you that one. Strange how 2 surveys can give the complete opposite results isn't it?

The fact is that there's no definitive proof that SHS is harmful. The Miranda study conducted by the World Health Organization proved there was no detrimental affects on health from SHS.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/pas-smok.htm

The organization tried to hide their findings when the study was completed in 1998. They were hounded by the British press until a copy was leaked. The controversy was not something they expected!
fact is, ANY study that does not prove that cigarettes are really, really bad for you is immediately discredited, even comprehensive 10-year studies conducted by the environmental branch of the United Nations. The medical community is so biased they can't even accept the facts when they're staring them in the face!
When it was just smokers killing themselves, it was hard for anti-smoking nazis to justify their bigotry. After all, they're only hurting themselves, right? So...if we can find a way to prove that they're also harming non-smokers....hey! Second Hand Smoke! Yeah..now we just gotta prove it...fake a few statistics...do a few BS surveys...now we can finally get those smoker bastards!

Would you or would you not support a study to determine, econometrically, the impact of a smoking ban?

Absoultely. An unbiased one too. Just walking around bars in Manhattan these days gives you a good idea of what kind of effects it's had

[petehammer]

Originally posted by beanbag:
When it was just smokers killing themselves, it was hard for anti-smoking nazis to justify their bigotry.

Oh no, Goodwin's Law! (As the length of a newsgroup thread grows, the probability approaches unity of some participant using the term "Hitler" or "Nazi". The party who first uses such terms is immediately declared the loser of the thread and discussion stops at that point.)

Well, it was fun while it lasted. I'm glad we agree a study should be done, though walking around bars in Manhattan doesn't count as an econometric study

[beanbag]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Yes you can - in really free countries (you know, the ones who don't keep going on about how free they are).

So let's get this straight. You can't have a smoke inside but you can't take your drink outside?

thats right - drink indoors, smoke outdoors.
The "land of the Free" thing? Nowadays you gotta read the fine print. There's lots of it. Most Americans don't seem to realize that

[beanbag]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Oh no, Goodwin's Law! (As the length of a newsgroup thread grows, the probability approaches unity of some participant using the term "Hitler" or "Nazi". The party who first uses such terms is immediately declared the loser of the thread and discussion stops at that point.)

Well, it was fun while it lasted. I'm glad we agree a study should be done, though walking around bars in Manhattan doesn't count as an econometric study

Dammit, I don't know all the rules!

Can I replace 'Nazi' with 'Extremist'?

[killer_735]

I would assert, in reference to Goodwin's law, that there should be some kind of prize for the first person to cite dictionary.com for a word we all know the meaning of.

The use of the DSM-IV in this case makes sense, but you're still fired.

"Wow..everybody look at how good their semantic-arguing skills are. They must be the uber-nerd, the one we've all been waiting for.."

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by beanbag:
thats right - drink indoors, smoke outdoors.
The "land of the Free" thing? Nowadays you gotta read the fine print. There's lots of it. Most Americans don't seem to realize that

Exactly. Land of the Free, Home of the Litigious.