2007 Smoking Policy

Numbers mean absolutely nothing really.

I could care less if it's unhealthy or not. What it is, is just plain RUDE and INCONSIDERATE.

I smoked for 15 years and can honestly say that second hand smoke, no matter if outside or in, is inconsiderate.

^Plain and simple.

gener said:

The point? Get off of the silly guy with his cig down by the stroller handle. His kid isn't in danger of anything but a little ash. Before you start judging someone of their actions perhaps it would be wise to learn a little about the subject.

I think being one that has had to repeatedly admit children to the peds unit with asthma exacerbations or with other smoke induced respiratory issues more than qualifies as knowing a little about the subject. The child is in danger of more than a little ash. I have gotten kids breathing under control, only to have the parents come & visit, go out for a smoke, & subsequently put their child back in respiratory distress just from coming back in with the smoke on their clothes. I can't tell you how many times I would have to get a breathing treatment stat for that occurring. Then the poor childs heart is racing due to the side affects of the med & he/she is hyper & anxious & can't rest, on & on.

Gener, I am not saying that I believe open air second hand smoke is overall as bad as an inclosed area. But people, adults included, can have respiratory problems with even limited exposure to smoke & it is just not fair to take away their right to breath fresh air. (Well, as fresh as Ohio air gets that is ;))

I know any habit is extremely difficult to break. I am not at all without sympathy as I have my own demons to contend with, so I am not on a high horse here. I have had to watch patients getting chemotherapy, literally drowning in lung fluids from lung cancer, that would shake so bad from withdrawal because I could not let them go out to smoke. So I understand addiction. But I do not believe we can not take into consideration, how our actions affect others in regards to second hand smoke.

That was a great writing. The last few years when I saw younger kids and younger adults smoking walking by me. I told them if you don't throw that cig down or you will be falling down in your 40's or 50's in the Cemetery. I looked behind myself and they threw their cig down.

Ok.....um........WHAT?

I meant I looked around and saw their cigs on the ground.

One last comment and then I'll put it to rest (for this round... unless someone brings up health costs).

I do not in any way disbelieve what any other poster says on this site, that certainly does include Good Greif's post. Dispuiting what Good Greif has seen or done isn't my point or my place. My response is this: For every person that comes in that seems to be effected by shs I can show you a person who has lived with shs or grown up with shs and have no "shs type related illnesses". From my perspecitive I have yet to see anyone with any health problems as a result of smoking. Common sense tells me that there are bound to be people out there that are more sensitive to their surroundings than others, people that I don't get to meet because I do not work in the health care industry. The point is that observation of any number of cases that may or may not be caused by what seems to be the likely cause is not proof that there is a link between shs and any disease. (i know that sounded worse than I wanted it to, but I can't think of a better more succinct way to put it, I really am only trying to argue a point and not be a jerk). And while one who works in the medical field sees and witnesses all kinds of horrible conditions and situations, one cannot be certain to a cause or correlation without a controlled emperical study.

Loopy may not care about numbers and he is more than entitled to his opinion. But numbers matter to determine the causality and correlation.

You know there are plenty of other things in this world that can cause some people harm but not to others. We choose to live with them. Some people are so allergic to fish they cannot be near it when it's cooked. It closes their throat. I've seen someone effected by it myself. By the grounds that anti-smokers make I should be able to have it banned from a public building since it prohibits people from enjoying their establishment. It's not as if anyone has to eat fish. There are plenty of alternative foods. And it infringes on their right to breath air that won't kill them. Besides you can enjoy it in you own home. But because of some peoples severe reaction to fish it should be outlawed in public buildings. And I can prove that it actually is an allergen to these people without any doubt that it might or might not be dangerous.

The only difference between my rediculous fish story and anti-smoking pundits is that smoking is in fact harmful to those who partake in its consumption. But again there is some doubt to if shs is a serious threat to the average person and how much shs is needed if it is harmful. (Again to drive the point) In an outdoor environment the risk is essentially zero. Heck there are even studies that show restaurants that allow smoking are within government threasholds for contaminents for the workers. (http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html)

This is an issue where a group want smokers to go away because they don't want to be bothered or because they want more government telling us how to live. The problem I have is that the facts of what is found in legititmate research is often twisted or outright ignored to scare the bejeezous out of us so they can do what they do.

Oh... I get the distinct impression that you'all think I smoke. I don't. And I can't say I particularly like the smell of cigarette tobacco either.