quote:Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
I have yet to see a study where "other factors are controlled for" to my satisfaction.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought it was common enough knowledge that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand and that bars tend to be smokey that I wouldn't have to demonstrate the step inbetween, but here it is.
If you can't separate the two in your mind, then its your imagination that fails you. Go to a bar in New York. The patrons enjoy themselves just as much as they did before, they just don't have to wash their bed-sheets, pillow-cases, coats, clothes, hair, skin, and anything which contacted any of these things after they wake up in the morning.
quote:If you can't separate the two in your mind, then its your imagination that fails you.
Your selective reading must have eliminated "often" and "tend to be" in what I said.
Edit to add: in the link above, what do they mean by "100% smoke free law"? The fact that they differentiate for areas with bans on smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces confuses me, and they don't clarify on the site itself.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I still think that "Smoker's Clubs" should be allowed. Maybe some kind of special ventilation system is required and a difficult licensing system put into place to open up such businesses. Hiring workers would require full disclosure of the environmental effects of smoking.
It just makes sense. Why not?
Sorry Primal Curve, I meant to address that and completely forgot to. I mostly agree with this idea. My only reason for feeling any reluctance about it is the possibility I see for it to harm businesses that have been forced to go smoke-free. Other than that concern, which I'm not sure is valid, I think that your suggestion is a good one.
Twinky, yeah, I was impressed by enochville's post as well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your selective reading must have eliminated "often" and "tend to be" in what I said.
If they can be separated, and have been in almost half the country, then how can you use the argument that they are linked to oppose anti-smoking legislation?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
I have yet to see a study where "other factors are controlled for" to my satisfaction.
Tell me more about your satisfaction. What would it take to satisfy you?
(The question is actually meant seriously -- what's your statistical and/or scientific background?)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
I have yet to see a study where "other factors are controlled for" to my satisfaction.
It sounds like you've been doing a lot of digging into this, erosomniac, and I definitely applaud that--it's always a good idea to probe at assumptions and see if they hold up to examination. I find it mind boggling that more than a millenium passed during which educated people "knew" that women had fewer teeth than men, based on Aristotle's assertion that this was the case, when simply spending five minutes actually looking into it would have disproven the idea.
What percentage of the literature on the subject have you read? I know that you said earlier that you'd read about 10% of the works Lyrhawn had cited; would that figure apply to all of the relevant studies that have been done? What kind of flaws have you seen in the methodology? How widespread have you found those flaws to be? What kind of controls would you see as adequate for eliminating other factors as causes of the medical problems being attributed to second hand smoke?
Also, what is your background in the sciences? That question isn't meant to imply that someone without formal training can't spot problems with studies, but if you have particular expertise in this field I'd be interested in hearing about it.
[Edit--or...what twinky said. In three freaking sentences. ]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they can be separated, and have been in almost half the country, then how can you use the argument that they are linked to oppose anti-smoking legislation?
I don't oppose anti-smoking legislation. Did I say I did? If I did, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out so I can edit it.
enochville, I managed to miss not two, but three of your posts, so I'll respond now:
quote:eros: Some research is not ethical to do. You'd never get a review board to approve an experiment (not correlational) in which the researchers expose subjects to known carcingens from the open, burning end of a cigarette just to see if it causes them cancer or other health problems like closing their mouth over that burning cigarette would.
I think mounds of correlational data make a strong enough case. I, for one, am not willing to give people cancer just to prove to you that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
I'm not either - and I will not ever accept the correlational data as conclusive in these cases. We'll just have to agree to disagree as to how conclusive the data is.
quote:Edit: If second hand smoke is not the causal variable that would explain the correlational data, what would you propose as the possible variable that could account for the corrrelational data?
Honestly, I have no idea. In many studies they get close to showing causality, and all of them are in instances of smoking within a confined area, which is why back on the first page I said:
quote:It's worth pointing out the difference between secondhand smoke coming from one person, or even a few people, in an outdoor area, and secondhand smoke from many people in a closed room.
Since then I've been talking primarily about second hand smoke in an open atmosphere setting, which most people have been choosing to ignore, along with most of my other points, and the original point of the discussion in the first place.
quote:In the second hand smoking case, we already know ingredients in cigarettes have been shown to cause cancer. Why would we expect putting one's mouth over the cigarette is that much more dangerous than holding our faces two feet from the smoke and breathing it in.
What continually gets pointed out is that the carcinogens in cigarette smoke, much like the harmful emissions from factories and automobiles, gets diffused enough that the amounts of carcinogens they add to the breathable air are negligible.
The experiment you proposed is reasonable, but still inconclusive. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree: I will need to see a causal relationship between the two, regardless of a lack of other possible variables, in order to consider it conclusive.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What percentage of the literature on the subject have you read? I know that you said earlier that you'd read about 10% of the works Lyrhawn had cited; would that figure apply to all of the relevant studies that have been done?
I've read many more recent studies than the ones Lyrhawn referenced. I have no idea what the percentage is, but based on the fact that I regularly run into new studies, I'd guess I've read between 1/5 and 1/3 of what's available (keeping in mind that these days, my access to a medical library is much more limited).
quote:What kind of flaws have you seen in the methodology? How widespread have you found those flaws to be? What kind of controls would you see as adequate for eliminating other factors as causes of the medical problems being attributed to second hand smoke?
I'm not sure that "flaws" is the right way to decribe it. I don't typically have problems with the methodology of studies performed; my main quarrel is with the conclusions drawn from the data. Many studies, especially more recent ones, do a good job of methodically accounting for (if not isolating) other variables. But especially when the researchers themselves point out that the studies are not conclusive, I have a hard time accepting the studies as conclusive.
quote:Also, what is your background in the sciences? That question isn't meant to imply that someone without formal training can't spot problems with studies, but if you have particular expertise in this field I'd be interested in hearing about it.
I have no particular expertise in the field. My background doesn't include anything beyond some college level courses (and nothing numbered higher than 170) and a lot of time spent reading medical journals.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't oppose anti-smoking legislation. Did I say I did? If I did, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out so I can edit it.
Haha, this is actually kinda funny.
I made a post in response to pH where I was explaining the merits of clear air legislation.
Then Fitz debated some of my points.
I countered.
Then you started arguing with me about my counter-arguments, which were ALL made in the context of anti-smoking legislation.
Which would explain our apparent disconnect, if you either did not read, or did not remember, my posts before the one you responded to, which clearly put my arguments in an anti-smoking in the workplace (including bars and restaurants) legislation context.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, no big deal. Yeesh, I wasted a lot of time here at work arguing with someone who didn't disagree with me . (Not that you've said you agree with me, or with any of my arguments, but it sounds like you don't disagree with my main point at least)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So erosomniac, is there any study that could be ethically conducted that would prove to your satisfaction whether or not second hand smoke could be a primary cause of, say, lung cancer?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ugh, yes, I'm glad my boss isn't here right now, or my responses here would be a lot less frequent.
The thing is, I've actually had a fairly productive day. Fixed at least 5 bug tickets, and will probably knock another one out before I leave.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So erosomniac, is there any study that could be ethically conducted that would prove to your satisfaction whether or not second hand smoke could be a primary cause of, say, lung cancer?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
[Edit]
quote:The thing is, I've actually had a fairly productive day. Fixed at least 5 bug tickets, and will probably knock another one out before I leave.
What do you do? It sounds like your job is very similar to the one I'm about to leave to apply for.
And on that note, I'm leaving the office for a job interview now, so pardon my lack of responses for a few hours.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a software engineer (or software developer for the canadians who may object to my use of the term engineer) for a small software company, doing web-based financial aid software (Java/J2EE).
I've been doing new development for months, which is what I love, but for the time being I am fixing bugs. I've got a whole list of them to fix, but I always start with the easy ones and work my way to the hard ones. The one I just fixed took me all of five minutes .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So erosomniac, is there any study that could be ethically conducted that would prove to your satisfaction whether or not second hand smoke could be a primary cause of, say, lung cancer?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
What kind of studies have demonstrated the dangers of smoking itself? Or the dangers of asbestos exposure? Honest question here--I don't know the answer. I'm wondering, though, if they would live up to what you demand of a study.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm a software engineer (or software developer for the canadians who may object to my use of the term engineer) for a small software company, doing web-based financial aid software (Java/J2EE).
If you're legally entitled to use it, knock yourself out. You wouldn't be entitled to use it here, but here isn't where you are. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you could get the same substances/chemicals in the same doeses, but in a different form, such as a patch or chewing gum, would you take that instead of a cigarette? If so, that would eliminate the whole problem of secondhand smoke. Or are there other reasons to smoke that don't rely on the substances in the cigarette? If so, couldn't another activity replace it?
I would think if there were satisfactory alternatives available, a smoker should at least consider using those when in a confined, public place. Perhaps businesses could even offer these alternatives to customers where smoking is banned.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Who said that?
Anecdotal evidence on Hatrack isn't a scientific study. REAL scientific studies, like ones I've alluded to on this thread say that ESPECIALLY for children, second hand smoke is dangerous. It is especially dangerous for children because their lungs aren't yet fully formed, and it could cause disease, or leave their lungs damaged and more prone to conditions that will manifest themselves later in life. [/QB]
Part of the post I quoted in my initial anecdote:
quote:I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much.
I'm perfectly, completely aware that anecdotal evidence is not a REAL scientific study. I am also perfectly aware of the ways in which one goes about constructing a REAL scientific study.
posted
About the women and teeth thing, I do not think it completely obvious that experiment would have contradicted Aristotle on the question. After all, people having their full set of teeth is a fairly recent development, and women were usually of lower social status than men. It is at least conceivable that women did, in fact, lose more teeth (on average) than men did, and therefore had fewer.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you could get the same substances/chemicals in the same doeses, but in a different form, such as a patch or chewing gum, would you take that instead of a cigarette? If so, that would eliminate the whole problem of secondhand smoke. Or are there other reasons to smoke that don't rely on the substances in the cigarette? If so, couldn't another activity replace it?
Doubtful. I enjoy the act of smoking itself. I'll occaisionally smoke at a hookah lounge, despite the fact that hookah tobacco contains a lot less nicotine, just because it's laid back and fun. There are things I like about it that are only incidentally connected to smoking; the way smoke moves and curls through the air, for example. I've always had...let's say busy hands; I'm nearly always twirling a pen or something similar, and smoking fits into that in an obvious way.
If for whatever reason a total public ban on smoking were to go into effect, I'd probably just smoke at home and go through the day as without. Patches, gum, or even chewing tobacco are all pretty unappealing. I hope it wouldn't come to that though as I try to be courteous when I smoke in public; I won't take a drag while passing someone on the street, I avoid groups of people, and will moved when politely asked. When Seattle banned smoking in indoor public areas, I went along without bitching. Well, without a lot of bitching. I don't see why smokers and non-smokers can't meet halfway on this one.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Who said that?
Anecdotal evidence on Hatrack isn't a scientific study. REAL scientific studies, like ones I've alluded to on this thread say that ESPECIALLY for children, second hand smoke is dangerous. It is especially dangerous for children because their lungs aren't yet fully formed, and it could cause disease, or leave their lungs damaged and more prone to conditions that will manifest themselves later in life.
Part of the post I quoted in my initial anecdote:
quote:I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much.
I'm perfectly, completely aware that anecdotal evidence is not a REAL scientific study. I am also perfectly aware of the ways in which one goes about constructing a REAL scientific study.
-pH [/QB]
Well, don't you think it's a bit dishonest to use quotations around something that no one actually said? I never said, and by your own quoting there admit that I never said "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked." What I really said, as you quoted later, was:
quote:I suspect you either don't have asthma or your father didn't smoke very much. Or maybe you just got lucky.
The last of which there you left off entirely. And your knowledge of the scientific process not withstanding, you still proceeded to take swipes at what I was saying based on anecdotal evidence.
quote: No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Saying that at all seems ridiculous to me, since your ire is directed at a comment that doesn't exist, but that it appears you doctored to make it sound smug and condescending when it never was to begin with, just to get your point across.
You said that 1/4 of the children in your house had a severe respitory problem, and that the rest, who were exposed to higher levels of second hand smoke were fine. You seemed to be using it as a shield against second hand smoke's deadly nature. But when confronted on it, you said it was an attack on a ficticious statement. Maybe you'd like to clarify yourself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see why smokers and non-smokers can't meet halfway on this one.
Honey, I'm sorry to be so blunt about this. I know that you are polite and try to avoid harming others with your smoke. The reason that we can't meet "halfway" is because your "right" to indulge an addiction is far outweighed by people's right not to be made ill.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that non-smokers tend to start with the assumption that a stranger that smokes is an ass. I'm sure there are many smokers that are asses, but then, there are many people that are asses. Most smokers, or at least most if not all smokers that I know, will gladly leave the room, walk down the block or put out their cigarette if you ask them nicely to. If you are an ass to them (or me), the typical responce will not be so polite. I you just say "excuse me, but second hand smoke really bothers me, would you mind putting that out?" you would get a far better responce than accusing smokers of being selfish and uncaring.
I can't speak for anywhere else in the world, but in Houston there are hundreds upon hundreds of restaurants and bars. A law was recently passed to the effect of restaurants and bars must either be entirely smoking or entirely not. It doesn't hurt anyones income levels, because everyone still goes out, just to different places. I don't go to the bars/restaurants that don't allow smoke, but there are many more people that do. I think this is an excellent solution.
And because there are enough service industry businesses that do and do not allow smoking, the employees get to make the choice as to which the want to work out. Hell, I have bartender/server friends who choose to only apply at smoking establisments so that they can smoke on their off time, and get that necessary nicotine boost from second hand smoke while they work.
I never, ever smoke near children. I think that is just wrong, but I also think it is incredibly stupid when parent's bring children into establishments that they know allow smoking.
I guess my main point is that if people were a little more polite to each other, a lot of the difficulty would be removed.
Smoking is obviously bad for you. So is second hand smoke for that matter. How bad, I couldn't say, but yeah, it's bad. But, just because something is bad for me, doesn't give anyone the right to try to make me stop. I like drinking too, and thats bad for me. and sugar, and coffee, and huffing hair spray... oh wait, scratch that. The point is that you have a right to ask me to smoke somewhere else, but not to tell me that I can't smoke.
As for the smear campaing thing that the thread started with: I completely agree. I relate that to the anti-marijuana ads that implied that smoking pot will make you kill children. I mean, I don't think my mouth tastes bad, and I don't think my girlfriend's mouth tastes bad, and she doesn't think my mouth tastes bad, so where is it anyone's place to tell me my mouth tastes like an ashtray? The anti-smoking ads should stick with the facts, and not subjective perceptions.
quote:I'm not either - and I will not ever accept the correlational data as conclusive in these cases. We'll just have to agree to disagree as to how conclusive the data is.
Just trying to be clear: you do not accept any medical/physiological-related explanation as conclusive based just on correlational data. (I find this markedly difficult to agree with, but I wanted to make sure I understood your assertion first.)
quote:Again, we'll have to agree to disagree: I will need to see a causal relationship between the two, regardless of a lack of other possible variables, in order to consider it conclusive.
Are you familiar with the criteria used formally to establish a causal correlation in regards to medical literature? [There is actually a developed standard on this, and I find it fascinating. If you are unfamiliar with it, I'd be happy to pull it up.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Lyrhawn. The quotes around "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" were clearly not intended to indicate a direct quote, ESPECIALLY SINCE in my ORIGINAL POST, I quoted the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. Maybe you'd like to read up on what I actually said.
quote:Just trying to be clear: you do not accept any medical/physiological-related explanation as conclusive based just on correlational data. (I find this markedly difficult to agree with, but I wanted to make sure I understood your assertion first.)
In most instances, yes. Like most people, I'm more inclined to accept overwhelming correlational data where other possible variables have been ruled out as demonstrating a causal relationship when I actually agree with the implications of that relationship, but that's almost never enough to persuade me entirely.
quote:Are you familiar with the criteria used formally to establish a causal correlation in regards to medical literature?
Yes, unless it's changed in the past...7-8 years or so. If it has, I would appreciate your updating me.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I mean, if you knew for a fact that I said something, and even quoted it, then why change it and use quotations around it (when if you're going to PARAPHRASE something for the sake of being sarcastic you use ' ' and not " ", which I'm pretty sure you know)?
Perhaps it was a grammatical confusion, but I guess I don't understand why you'd quote me, and then specifically take care to twist it into something sarcastic, and then get angry about it afterwards.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just don't understand why you said what you said.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, moving on from the subject of whether or not second hand smoke is harmful, and back to the original topic of the post: nonsmokers attacking smokers for a habit that is legal and a personal choice-
I really don't understand why nonsmokers feel so strongly anti-smoker that they would create smear campaigns against smokers, enact extremely restrictive legislation against smokers, and in general simply make life harder for smokers. I am not a smoker, never have been, and never will be. But I don't see why non-smokers feel a need to pass laws and air advertising that demeans and restricts the behavior of non-smokers.
For example, I am a Seattle voter. As someone mentioned earlier, Seattle just passed Initiative 901, (for the record, I voted against it) which makes it illegal to smoke in any public place or workplace. That means you are not allowed to smoke in bars. You can't even have a seperate room in bars in which smoking is allowed. Now, I'm all for nonsmokers rights, but how is it bad for me, as a nonsmoker, if someone somewhere operates a bar with a smoking room? I mean really. Certainly parts of the law I can agree with - if I work in a large office building, and have to pass in and out of it every day, I shouldn't have to walk through a cloud of smoke to do so. And if I want to open the window of my office to let in some fresh air, it's reasonable for me to expect that there's not someone standing right next to it waving a cigarette at me. But at some point, the law goes beyond protecting the rights of nonsmokers and becomes purely vindictive. And that is not ok.
posted
Of course, laws like that could be intended to protect the people working in bars.
Or they could be in reaction to the fact that when the law allowed for separate smoking sections (I know this is true in my area, don't know about yours), the smoke didn't respect those boundaries, and the laws didn't require safeguards to ensure that it did.
But sure, go ahead and assume the law is vindictive.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or they could be in reaction to the fact that when the law allowed for separate smoking sections (I know this is true in my area, don't know about yours), the smoke didn't respect those boundaries, and the laws didn't require safeguards to ensure that it did.
Actually, he said:
quote:You can't even have a seperate room in bars
and
quote:someone somewhere operates a bar with a smoking room
which, to me, implied that the room was an actual seperate room with a closing door, as opposed to smoking sections, which typically contained no dividers. I'm assuming, therefore, that he was talking about any bill incorporating the suggestions he made to require the room be actually self-contained.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
IME, doors help very little unless the rooms have separate ventilation systems.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the story in Seattle; just what the story was here in Los Angeles before we passed a law very similar to the new Seattle law.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:IME, doors help very little unless the rooms have separate ventilation systems.
That was also an assumption I was making, since a shared ventilation system would obviously defeat the whole point and no ventilation system would be...yeah, pretty terrible. Even for smokers.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Houston when it was legal to have smoking and non-smoking section in one building it was mandatory that they have completely seperate A/C and ventilation systems.
quote:Of course, laws like that could be intended to protect the people working in bars.
The people who work in bars have a choice of whether or not to work in bars that allow smoking. They could wait tables or bartend at any number of restaurants/hotels/clubs/resorts that don't allow smoking. If a person can not get any job what-so-ever besides in a bar that allows smoking, they have more problems than second hand smoke and really need to work on developing some decent job skills.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
(ersomniac -- i haven't forgotten my promise. I just has a big test on Wednesday, and I'm all focused on the study.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from all the pollutants that have been/is dumped onto us, the earth, etc.. we demonize cig. smoke. Never made much sense to me to focus on ONE small element when we have massive dumping.
Some of these ads (personal attack), remind me of the 1950/60's black and white ads on pot. They were so grossly exaggerated and erroneous that kids quit listening when reality proved otherwise. Give the medical facts. Those who are going to choose to smoke will do so out of rebellion, to fit into a certain group and discard the advertisements anyhow.
As for reaching a happy medium:
Since there are counties in Texas that are dry (no alcohol), they have this nice little plan. You can serve alcohol if you are a private club. Let's just do the same for smokers.
Make private smoking eateries, bars, coffee houses, parks, etc for smokers only or those who don't care. That way the smokers can keep out those whining non-smokers and the cancerous smokers are quarantined.
Posts: 163 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I mean, if you knew for a fact that I said something, and even quoted it, then why change it and use quotations around it (when if you're going to PARAPHRASE something for the sake of being sarcastic you use ' ' and not " ", which I'm pretty sure you know)?
Perhaps it was a grammatical confusion, but I guess I don't understand why you'd quote me, and then specifically take care to twist it into something sarcastic, and then get angry about it afterwards.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just don't understand why you said what you said.
Perhaps because I find the idea that anyone who grew up with a parent who smoked SHOULD be against public smoking to be absolutely ridiculous?
quote:Originally posted by vonk: The people who work in bars have a choice of whether or not to work in bars that allow smoking. They could wait tables or bartend at any number of restaurants/hotels/clubs/resorts that don't allow smoking. If a person can not get any job what-so-ever besides in a bar that allows smoking, they have more problems than second hand smoke and really need to work on developing some decent job skills.
In the Los Angeles area, before the 1998 law which made it illegal for any restaurant, bar, or tavern to allow smoking, that was simply untrue.
There were virtually NO restaurants or bars that did not have smoking in at least one section. Being a waiter/waitress meant working around cigarette smoke. Period.
And while there was quite a long time period where the law was more honored in the breach than in the observance, I am very glad I live in a state where I can go out to eat and not worry about being unable to breathe. (I react quite strongly to cigarette smoke.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that if all restaurants and bars have smoking sections, it is unfair to a server/barteneder who reacts badly to cigarette smoke. But I don't think the solution is to make it illegal to smoke in all restaurants/bars.
If given the choice of making a restaurant all smoking or all non-smoking, a vast majority of restaurants will be non-smoking. A vast majority of bars on the other hand, will be smoking. (I'm basing that on my experience in Houston.) So a person would have plenty of choices.
I just don't think it is fair to force anyone who wants to have a smoke to stand 30 feet away from a building in whatever extreme temperatures might be found in your area.
It is not a one or the other type of situation. You can have people smoking in some restaurants/bars and still have many other restaurants/bars that you can enjoy smoke free. Just because it hasn't happened in your area does not mean it is not a viable, compromising and, in my opinion, better solution.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
