Huruma wrote: »
Yes, smoking should be banned in public places. Inhaling second hand smoke is even worse for your health than actually smoking is.
atribecalledgabi wrote: »
if they want people to stop smoking then they should stop selling cigarettes. but cigarette companies make too much money so they front and act like they care.
The_Invincibles wrote: »
no matter of fact they shud unban smoking in bars for a start
T. Sanford wrote: »
they should ban all women from smoking
kai_valya wrote: »
anti-smoking legislation is draconian at best. despite what many people think, there really is no significant risk associated with second hand smoke, not one scientific study has shown such. the largest and longest study (Enstrom & Kabat) followed more than 35,000 subjects for almost 40 years and found no significant risk associated with second-hand smoke. the WHO has also done a 7 years of research and reached the same conclusion.
the study that most of this type of legislation is based on is one done by the EPA released in 1993, which stated that approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths of non-smokers associated with passive/second-hand smoke. but in '98 a federal court basically said the epa study was a bunch of b/s to put it plainly because they had cherry-picked their data, ignoring any data that would contradict their already preconceived outcome.
if you choose not to smoke that's your choice, but i don't think anyone should have the right to stop someone from in engaging in a legal habit that is not harming you at all. don't be quick to believe something is bad/evil with out all the evidence just because it's the popular thing to champion
Myth #4: Smoking is a Constitutional Right. The Truth: The following information is quoted from "There is no Constitutional Right to Smoke" handout produced by the Public Health Institute: Technical Assistance Legal Center. "Proponents of the right to smoke often claim that smoking falls within the fundamental right to privacy, by arguing that the act of smoking is an individual and private act that government cannot invade. Courts consistently reject this argument. The privacy interest protected by the U.S. Constitution includes only marriage, contraception, family relationships and the rearing and educating of children. Very few private acts by individuals qualify as fundamental privacy interests, and smoking is not one of them. Generally, the Supreme Court requires a protected group to have "an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth." Smoking is not an "immutable characteristic" because people are not born as smokers, and smoking is a behavior that people can stop. Because smokers are not a protected group, laws limiting smoking usually will be judged only on whether the law is rational, or plausibly justified."
OhPee wrote: »
i've heard this a million times before, I still don't fully understand how. Then again i've never done any research.
In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.