Smokers get the boot

I think the next thing they should ban is perfume,(why not) it affends me. The only reason i would light up,sometimes is to kill the stench of some ones stinky perfume. Come on law makers show them you can do it.

I am an ex-smoker, having quit in 1979 after doing 4 packs a day for the prior 20 years. With that stake in the ground, this no smoking/feel good 'progressive' legislation is a real of pile of bovine effluvia. With the massive cigarette tax increase to 'benefit the chiildren', the revenue will drop. The progressive tax mavens will then increase taxes some more, and look to alcohol and high fat foods.
Bottom line: let's use Maryland to slide into socialisn first. Government knows what we need, not us? What a crock! Let the smokers smoke! It's their lungs and their option.

Shop Virginia where the taxes are much lower.

Second hand smoke is a pubic health hazard. Therefore it is appropriate that it be banned from any business open to the public.

Open up a private smoking club and let the rest of us enjoy the clean air.

Next we need to fine smokers who throw their cigarette butts in the street.

Also, don't forget how many fires are started buy careless smokers. Clearly, these druggies are a menace to society.

Sure, smokers should be allowed to smoke as much as they want, provided that a) the rest of us don't have to encounter their toxic, cancer-causing fumes in any public place and b) we never have to pay for their smoking-related health problems again. Just because it's a free country doesn't mean that smokers are allowed to negatively impact others' lives with their choice to smoke.

Studies have shown that in states where the smoking ban exists reveneu does not drop. I have spoken to bar owners who quietly like the idea. No more burned tables, no more walls that reek, no more ceiling tiles that look like tar. Smokers are hooked, they ain't goin' anywhere.

robert wrote:

I think the next thing they should ban is perfume,(why not) it affends me. The only reason i would light up,sometimes is to kill the stench of some ones stinky perfume. Come on law makers show them you can do it.

Check this out!

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/n...

robert wrote:

I think the next thing they should ban is perfume,(why not) it affends me. The only reason i would light up,sometimes is to kill the stench of some ones stinky perfume. Come on law makers show them you can do it.

The antis are already working on that. Have no fear!

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/fume27...

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia -- Perfume is meant to provoke passion, but not the sort stirring this historic seaport.

To the horror of perfume makers worldwide, Halifax has become the first major center in North America to prohibit the wearing of all cosmetic fragrances -- from Giorgio to grandmother's lavender soap -- in most indoor public places, including municipal offices, libraries, hospitals, classrooms, courts, and mass transit buses.

With little fanfare, and less public debate, a city renowned for its sea breezes and friendly folk has declared underarm deodorant, herbal shampoos, colognes, and other scented products to be hazardous to public health -- or at least too politically incorrect to be countenanced. The ban, backed by ardent scent opponents, reflects not only concern for people discomforted by fragrances but a grim new environmental view that sees a morning slap of aftershave as a blow against Mother Earth.

"Aromatic chemicals are poisoning people and the planet as much as tobacco or pesticides," said Karen Robinson, an anti-scent campaigner who compares the fight against fragrances to writer Rachel Carson's celebrated early warnings about the effects of DDT, a powerful insecticide now restricted by law. "We don't want a 'Silent Spring' brought by cosmetics in Halifax. We've even got scent-free doughnut shops."

Meanwhile, students have been suspended from class for wearing hair gel and other scented goo (one nearly landed in jail for "assaulting" his teacher's olfactory senses); an 84-year-old woman was booted out of City Hall for wafting her customary cologne while making a civic inquiry; and another woman was ordered off a city bus for smelling too sweet.

Fed up in Towson wrote:

Sure, smokers should be allowed to smoke as much as they want, provided that a) the rest of us don't have to encounter their toxic, cancer-causing fumes in any public place and b) we never have to pay for their smoking-related health problems again. Just because it's a free country doesn't mean that smokers are allowed to negatively impact others' lives with their choice to smoke.

Let us see how consistent you really are.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.ht...

Polycyclic organic matter (POM)(A)

The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs), of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in particulate form. Sources of air emissions are diverse and include cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, home heating, laying tar, and GRILLING MEAT.
----------

So according to the EPA, meat smoke contains the same nasty toxins as tobacco smoke and TAR!

Ever noticed the brown gooey stuff on a range hood?

Why should the meat eater be allowed to poison the cooks, other workers and patrons who wish to breath clean air? Why should the cooks be forced to go home reeking of burned meat?

What is the safe level of burning meat smoke? Is there a safe level?

Let me guess, you find this smoke acceptable because you like the smell? Personally I love the smell of a nice juicy steak cooking over an open flame....but it IS deadly.

http://books.google.com/books...
"Never breathe the smoke of burning meat or burning fat."
----------

I have more bad news for the meat eaters. Take a look at the latest findings regarding LUNG CANCER and red meats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22199057/...

"Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake," the researchers wrote.
----------

WOW!

Those are some pretty scary number eh? How many so called deaths by SHS were actually caused by eating red meats? How many of the studies that the antis gleefully quote included this HUGE confounding factor in their moral statistics?

What use are statistics that leave out HUGE confounding factors?

Hhhmmmmm.

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Let us see how consistent you really are.

<snip ... off-topic rant about "hazards of grilling meat">

It's required by law that there's a suitable exhaust fan directly above the grilling surface in every commercial kitchen to blow the exhaust out of the building. If you feel like wearing a similar, high-horsepower fan to blow the smoke away from everyone else when you light up in public, go right ahead. But your "comparison" is apples-to-oranges anyway.

In short, your desparate justification of your need to inflict your right to poison yourself on others is off-topic and stupid, but mostly sad. The saddest part, however, is that it's MY tax dollars that will be used to pay for ripping out your rotted, cancer-destroyed lungs in an decade or so.

Keep on puffin', though!

The next time I hear about anyone leaving a non-smoking bar drunk, getting behind the wheel of their vehicle knowing they shouldn't and then going out and killing an innocent person or family...then you can tell me there should be a ban on smoking!!!! Ever smell a freakin' drunk?

robert wrote:

I think the next thing they should ban is perfume,(why not) it affends me. The only reason i would light up,sometimes is to kill the stench of some ones stinky perfume. Come on law makers show them you can do it.

you are right that panther piss them old bags wear is awful. i dont mind smokers who smoke not in a restaurant. i am a ex smoker. for respect you should not smoke around people who are eating. remember not everybody smokes. go outside its nice to smoke outside anyway. or do like i did QUIT..........THE CIGARETTES WILL KILL YOU IN THE LONG RUN

Fed up in Towson wrote:

<quoted text>
It's required by law that there's a suitable exhaust fan directly above the grilling surface in every commercial kitchen to blow the exhaust out of the building. If you feel like wearing a similar, high-horsepower fan to blow the smoke away from everyone else when you light up in public, go right ahead. But your "comparison" is apples-to-oranges anyway.
In short, your desparate justification of your need to inflict your right to poison yourself on others is off-topic and stupid, but mostly sad. The saddest part, however, is that it's MY tax dollars that will be used to pay for ripping out your rotted, cancer-destroyed lungs in an decade or so.
Keep on puffin', though!

Apples and oranges? Do you claim to know more than the EPA? They claim meat smoke has the SAME toxins as grilled meat smoke.

I see you are not too fond of having your hypocrisy exposed. You must be one of those meat lovers who is in denial.

So are you in agreement with the ACS that there is NO safe level of SHS? If so, please tell us what the safe level of burning meat smoke is. Both are indoor pollutants and contain the same toxins.

How is this fair to the cooks? Must they go home reeking of burned meats? I thought this was about the right to breath clean air in the local eatery? Perhaps you actually believe in ventilation?

You also seemed to skip right over the latest finding regarding consuming red meats and the link to LUNG CANCER.

How many of the studies your side so gleefully quotes included this HUGE confounding factor in their moral statistic? Those were some pretty big numbers to exclude eh?

Tell us, how may of the so called deaths by SHS were actually caused by the wrong diet? You have no idea now do you.

You remove rights from those you find offensive based on junk science that did not include this HUGE confounding factor.

What use are statistics that leave out HUGE confounding factors?

Please do tell.

Oh yes...will you be on your deathbed with LUNG CANCER wishing you had consumed one less charbroiled steak...or would you blame your poor choices on the smokers?

Goodolgranny wrote:

The next time I hear about anyone leaving a non-smoking bar drunk, getting behind the wheel of their vehicle knowing they shouldn't and then going out and killing an innocent person or family...then you can tell me there should be a ban on smoking!!!! Ever smell a freakin' drunk?

What's your point? Drinking and driving is already illegal and an offense punished by stiff fines, revocation of your license, and potentially jail time, as it should be. It's *never* OK when one's choices, such as smoking or drinking and driving, cause harm to other people.

Am I the only one who is amused that people are sitting in a bar, at 12 noon, drinking? It's not the smoking ban we should be up in arms over, it's the lack of a work ethic in the United States. I was busy doing my job yesterday at noon, I wasn't worring about getting soaked, standing outside a rainy bar yesterday. I'm from a little town in Western New York...bars opened at 4 in the afternoon...AFTER most people began getting off from work. If you're having a cold one at noon, I would suspect you have larger issues than where you can light up.

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Apples and oranges? Do you claim to know more than the EPA? They claim meat smoke has the SAME toxins as grilled meat smoke.?

<snip>

You're reaching way, way too hard here. It's ceratinly true there are studies which have tied red meat intake to incidents of colorectal cancer etc., but I'd love to see the numbers on lung cancer deaths caused by meat intake versus smoking.

Your smokey kitchen / "poor cooks" argument is just pathetic. Please, smoker ... you can do better than that. Again, show me absolute numbers of deaths caused by properly-exhausted kitchen grilling surfaces versus secondhand cigarette smoke in everyone else. A restaurant CANNOT KEEP THEIR LICENSE if they don't keep their fans in working order. Show me the tens of thousands of short order cooks with rotten lungs from a properly ventilated grill surface.

The bottom line is that the majority of the public doesn't want people like YOU to be allowed to blow toxic fumes at them in public. If you don't like it, move.

As a former smoker who quit his filthy habit four years ago, I couldn't be happier with the new smoke-free environment in my home state. Even when I did smoke, I understood it was offensive to non-smokers, potentially dangerous to them and I took steps to prevent my smelly toxic residue from being a nuissance. This law forces others to be considerate to non-smokers. It also clears the air in some of my favorite haunts. You can still step outside to feed your addiction.

Fed up in Towson wrote:

Sure, smokers should be allowed to smoke as much as they want, provided that a) the rest of us don't have to encounter their toxic, cancer-causing fumes in any public place and b) we never have to pay for their smoking-related health problems again. Just because it's a free country doesn't mean that smokers are allowed to negatively impact others' lives with their choice to smoke.

I agree 100%. Now I can hang out again!! I had stop going out to clubs and bars because I got tired of coming smelling like a chimney!!! This law is long over due!!!

coming home

Fed up in Towson wrote:

<quoted text>
You're reaching way, way too hard here. It's ceratinly true there are studies which have tied red meat intake to incidents of colorectal cancer etc., but I'd love to see the numbers on lung cancer deaths caused by meat intake versus smoking.
Your smokey kitchen / "poor cooks" argument is just pathetic. Please, smoker ... you can do better than that. Again, show me absolute numbers of deaths caused by properly-exhausted kitchen grilling surfaces versus secondhand cigarette smoke in everyone else. A restaurant CANNOT KEEP THEIR LICENSE if they don't keep their fans in working order. Show me the tens of thousands of short order cooks with rotten lungs from a properly ventilated grill surface.
The bottom line is that the majority of the public doesn't want people like YOU to be allowed to blow toxic fumes at them in public. If you don't like it, move.

Did you even read the link I provided? This is a brand new study and the very latest information regarding LUNG CANCER and red meat consumption.

As for wishing for a study that compares this HUGE increased risk for lung cancer between smoking and red meats, I would like to see one as well. If you of one please post a link. Kind of hard to quote a study that does not exist now isn't it. Tell your friends at the ACS to get busy.

See...here is the problem for those on your side. NONE of the studies that are supposed to "prove" SHS causes lung cancer included this HUGE confounding factor in their moral statistics.

I will ask you AGAIN. What use is statistical analysis that leaves out HUGE confounding factors?

So now I am pathetic for pointing out the fact that meat smoke and tobacco smoke contain the same toxins? It is your denial of this fact that is pathetic. My...you must really love a good steak.

Don't worry, perhaps reality will hit home someday. This is all new information that your side would LOVE to keep from the public.

Now please do tell...what is the safe level of burning meat smoke? Is there a safe level? Since tobacco smoke and meat smoke contain the same toxins, certainly you should be able to provide the reader with some kind of opinion.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/polycycl.ht...

Polycyclic organic matter (POM)(A)

The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs), of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in particulate form. Sources of air emissions are diverse and include cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, home heating, laying tar, and GRILLING MEAT.
----------

Hypocrisy exposed.