Totally get what he means. Totally went at it the wrong way. If you don't want people to get all riled up because of these three non-smokers, sit them down and compromise. Don't just fire them on the spot. What does that say about your business?
I know it. There is no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoke has any long-term health consequences to anyone save individuals who share a residence with the smoker. You've repeatedly stated your view that secondhand smoke is harmful, beyond the exception above. Then you've questioned the accuracy of those who dispute it, and suggested asking a doctor for proof. But you're the one making the assertion. Can you post links to any conclusive evidence of secondhand smoke's dangers beyond the exception made? Hard research--please don't waste my time with WebMD or worse, an excerpt from Reader's Digest.
I have to giggle. I have to. I can only reply in a nutshell. I knew what point you were trying to make from the start, and wanted to point out how moot it was. Alcohol poison for liver, smoking poison for lungs, and you still see nothing to question. Also we don't have to prove a negative, you have to prove a positive.
You want hard proof... and a doctor isn't a good source? For health? Sorry, there was a time before internets, and you are currently speaking down to me as if what I have to say requires hard evidence and nobody else does. You should talk to a doctor if you want your proof, no link required. No cheap online article. Go talk to one and come back and tell me breathing in smoke is good for you. I'm not asking proof of anyone, not at least until I was "flamed" by another poster. Seriously, this a fun online forum and I expressing my views just as much as anyone, and I am certainly not trying to flame anyone else.
My doctor told me that eating in a smoke-allowed restaurant would do nothing to harm me. He said it's about the equivalent of thinking simply going out in the sun causes skin cancer.
I am still sure your doctor is not implying it's good for you. Just not going to cause any permenant damage. Anyways, I'm sorry the arguing is going this far, honestly, I don't mean to offend anyone, just trying to have an interesting conversation.
Ok, here's the deal. I'm not a doctor. I admit it. But I'm a year away from being a physician assistant--a master's degree--at a pretty solid school. And I've got a pretty solid background in the medical field from before. I don't need to talk to a doctor. Not a day goes by that I don't read from medical textbooks or research articles. But for the hell of it, I'll ask my preceptor tomorrow. Already know what she'll say, but whatever. And I'm not flaming you--I'm demanding proof from you because you're the one making inaccurate medical statements. I don't need to demand it from others, because they're not wrong and I already know that. Breathing secondhand smoke on an irregular basis--the kind you'd be exposed to in many of the public settings from which smoking is currently banned--has never been proven to cause any long-term health consequences. We could be wrong. Research might prove that. But for now, you're wrong. And I'm calling you on it.
Obvioulsy, we are online, so here I guess a link will have to do. Just look up "Damage of second hand smoke" on google if you want more. http://www.tobaccofacts.org/secondhand/index.html Quote: Exposure to second-hand smoke for as little as 8 to 20 minutes can cause physical reactions linked to heart and stroke disease. For example: - the heart rate increases, - the heart’s oxygen supply decreases, and - blood vessels constrict which increases blood pressure and makes the heart work harder
Of course it's not "good" for me. It's not like it's full of vitamin C. In fact I would be curious to see the list of things that ARE "good for me". I'm willing to bet in comparison to things that aren't good (but aren't bad), it's a tiny list. I point again to his analogy, which is the best analogy of temporary exposure to second hand smoke I've ever heard. EDIT: Going to tobaccofacts.com to prove smoking is bad is like going to welovejesus.com for the proof of Jesus existing.
Wow. What a great guy you are. I'll bear that in mind if you ever get hit by a car (well, you didn't have to cross the road, did you). And I did. And you didn't. And when I'm forced to go outside to smoke because of people like you, you infringe on MINE. So why the hell should I have to go outside on account of YOUR opinion and not vice versa? ...Yeah. That just sounds SOOOOOOO impartial, doesn't it.
Wasn't the reason for the smoke banning in bars because of the employees' health? Seems fair to me. I call bullshit on the boss.
Shocking. Almost like exercise. Regardless, that site isn't exactly hardcore legitimate medical research. Beyond that--look at what it says. Nowhere does it prove to me--or anyone--that secondhand smoke causes longterm health consequences to non-cohabitators. And it's typically of the sensationalism associated with secondhand smoke. Look, here's an example: How can they prove that secondhand smoke caused the diseases that killed the non-smokers? It's not like there's a secondhandsmokitis that's only associated with secondhand smoke. All the diseases that are associated with it can also be caused be a variety of other things. And the phrase used in the article, "secondhand smoke diseases," is NOT a medical term. It's just a charged phrase intentionally employed to get the effect it's getting out of you.
You forgot the worst one... Wikipedia. Anyone arguing with Draven- no matter how strong of a point you have, you can't win. Paging Dr. Debesh...
apples and oranges my friend! I mean this debate is a loaded one that can be faught with great points either way. smoking is a choice where diseases are naturally occuring. But for the sake of maintaining the peace, I am bowing out. Good luck all.
Just to say my peace I'm just glad they've more or less banned smoking from all public places in Canada. As far as I'm concerned it is a public health issue and non-smokers have every right to be protected from second hand smoke. Smokers can complain all they want but as far as I'm concerned there the ones who should be taking it outside as for people who don't smoke it's an unnecessary health hazard and just a plain nuisance.
You sure about that? There are medical professionals who believe substance addictions to be a disease. Are you going to say people with a medical disease cannot exist or apply a treatment near you? This is why many government institutions have to provide SMOKING locations because they believe people who smoke have a medical addiction and need treatment. And guess what? While we all know it is bad for them Smoking is part of it. NIH knows all too well the harmful effects of smoking, but they refuse to ban it on campus or at their facilities because they believe it is discriminating against people with a medical illness. Just like people believe lots of things to be a simple choice later to be found out to be related to chemical imbalances in the brain, Genetic pre-disposition or physiological reactions outside of the person's control. Anti-smoking people want to criminalize smoking and treat them like criminals... The health professional industry feels they need to be treated more like people with a medical condition. While the jury is still out because both sides have filled the debate with false propaganda and lies, I error on the side of 'not' legislating over legislating. We all know things cause harm to the body, but it is cruel for me a person who does not have any predisposition to 'substance addiction' to demand those who do to be denied access to it. Find out how and why they are effected significantly different than me and can address it or have alternative treatment, and it is available and effective, then go ahead and ban your brains out. It doesn't exist right now. Medical Science doesn't have the answer right now. I am allergic to dogs. Exposure to dogs cause very similar symptoms as these, even worse. It is against my rights to be exposed to dogs in public. Maybe Dogs should be banned because it causes negative health impacts for me? Or I could simply stay away from dogs and establishments who allow dogs or public places that allow dogs... Or I know I am going to be exposed to dogs I can take steps to deal with the effects.
This is where I typically pop in and add that the 1993 EPA report on SHS...the report that injected the "secondhand smoke kills" argument into the public consciousness and thusly became the cornerstone of the mass outbreak of indoor smoking bans...was thrown out in federal court in 1998 (with notably less fanfare) for falsification/manipulation of data. Clearly, inhaling secondhand smoke isn't particularly good for you. But neither does it warrant the demonization that was necessary in order to justify dubious smoking bans.
