A step towards the Holocaust!

LAST UPDATED: 16 Jan, 2011 @ 13:01
134
SHARE
A step towards the Holocaust!

THE new public smoking ban has met fierce resistance, as one politician compared the victimisation of smokers as being akin to the Holocaust.

Mayor Francisco Leon de la Riva insisted that encouraging people to report on those breaking the ban was how ‘terrible things in the history of mankind have always begun”.

The leader of Valladolid council continued: “It invites people to report one another… First they started with the Jews, now here we are reporting smokers.”

It came as over 1000 complaints were made about those breaking the ban in the first two days since it was introduced on January 2.

In total the country has employed thousands of inspectors, with 900 alone in Andalucia.

In particular, there has also been widespread hostility to the ban in parks and outside hospitals.

One patient in the Basque Country was arrested when he threatened a nurse who reminded him of the new law.

A man from Extremadura meanwhile assaulted four men when he was told to put his cigarette out by the bar owner, who was then attacked receiving 16 stitches in his head.

Two other clients ended up with arm injuries and another with a black eye following the violent outburst.

Finally, a Marbella restaurant has defied the smoking ban and is telling clients they can smoke inside their establishment.

Asador Guadalina has put a sign up saying ‘As a private business, we will uphold what we believe is our right, and not apply this law within our establishment’, which has been applauded by some.

The ban came into force on January 2 when Spain finally joined the rest of western Europe in banning smoking in bars and restaurants.

But the new law is particularly strict and extends to parks and outside health centres.

It’s in sharp contrast to the half-hearted attempt at stamping out smoking in public places back in 2006 which offered so many loopholes nothing changed.

134 COMMENTS

The Olive Press are not responsible and do not moderate individual comments before they are posted. Anyone who uses racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic language or hate speech will be blocked.
  1. Harley, thanks for all the links you provide but I seriously doubt any of the anti smokers check them, they can’t get beyond their propaganda trained brains. They don’t seem to even care about how crooked these company’s and non profit organizations are and that they are all connected to push their own agenda, follow the money.

    I lost my computer a week ago after I posted about the Newsweek story that said nicotine makes the brain smarter. I didn’t say I was smart, the neuroscientists did the study so attack them. The people here would rather attack the messenger rather than the message. Stop being so mean people.

    The people here don’t seem to care that they are being lied to by Big pharmacuticals and the American Cancer society where they spend your money on huge salary’s and very little on cancer research.

    Lily, I’m with you on making tobacco illegal, but what could replace all that money? No worry’s look at all those fat people out there! More than 30 states have a soda tax even though it doesn’t help any body lose weight so now they say it needs to be taxed at a higher rate to make a difference. They want to tax one can of soda about 30 cents a can. Alcohol won’t escape either, you can count on that. It’s all easy money and they have a great plan, all the need to do is follow the exact same plan as they did on tobacco. The “obesity epidemic” is worth billions to the pharmacutical, diet, weight loss, media and the government.

    Freedom, is something your children and grandchildren will never know. My 29 year old son hates smoke but he also see’s the big picture and can see freedom is at stake. Smoking isn’t the end, it’s only the beginning of things to come.
    Any time you ban something, you are taking away someones freedom to that thing.
    Just where do we draw the line as to when we dictate for ourselves how we live and when Big Brother dictates for us?

  2. Well, at least he is still going after an operation which he has more than paid for with the tax on cigarettes he has incurred over the years. Think everyone is going bananas over the smoking issue, why can´t we have smoking and non-smoking places, so we all have a choice of where to go. Nobody should be allowed to dictate who does what these days, so let´s have a bit of moderation and tolerance. Give everyone the right to choose where they go to do what they want. (Don´t twist my words people – I don´t mean any other nefarious things than smoking in this case).

  3. We have been down that roadf – the law in 2006. This gave choice in theiory, but the reality was it was impossible to find a non smoking restaurant. Some paid lip service to it by installinfg smoking cubicles, and then pinned back the doors to make life easier for the waiters, thus allowing the smoke to permeate right through the restaurant. Having a smoking area in a restaurant is akin to having a ‘pee-ing’ area in a public swimming pool. It was the smokers who made the 2006 law unenforcable, an that is why it was tightened up. Don’t blame the non-smokers. Anyway you still have a choice – you can nip outside for a quick drag.
    Non smokers need a choice too, and in the glorious summer we will have to chose to sit inside, so you smokers wilol have your day of smugness then.

  4. Jan: No, in the glorious summer, you’ll whine that the smokers you forced outside are ruining it for you and demand an evern more restrictive law.

    Siouxsie: the main reason the Antis don’t want choice is that, at least for drinking establishments, smoking venues would do the most business. French president Sarkozy, at the introduction of that country’s ban, aksed the same question you do (he even cited Spain’s previous arrangement) and was told by the Chief Anti that under such a system “nonsmoking bars would die.”

    Rocky: how on earth did you “lose your computer” after posting a nicotine-positive story???
    I see from other sources that Spain is now joining the modern dystopian world with an anti-obesity campaign (no more paella!!!) and no, alcohol will not be far behind.

    Gusano: Harley fulfills your fetish for citation and then some, but, msyteriously, you have no comeback other than a cheap insult.

  5. To Jan Saunders
    Jan thankyou for your comments..
    I am a bar owner in Spain and I have no complaints that I spent a good amount of my hard earned life savings on opening a bar in Spain. When I invested in the bar I understood the legal obligations that would be my responsibility as a bar owner but none of these conditions concerned smoking habits. I have little doubt that none of the current power mongers are actually bar owners themselves otherwise I feel confident that their decision making processes would have been much better thought out. I also believe that as you have such strong opinions yourself on what people should and should not be allowed to do in public bars, you might think about investing your hard earned life savings in buying a bar yourself. If the type of bar you propose as an ideal turns out to be successful then I am sure that everyone will follow your business model. Talk is cheap and it is also easy. I imagine that you bought your current home with lots of hard work and with that purchase came a set of conditions relative to laws of ownership and use. I also imagine that if someone official knocked on your door tomorrow and informed you that the conditions that you initially bought your house under had now changed and put your tenure of it at great risk, you would be greatly concerned.
    I am a smoker myself but that has not stifled my educational ability as I have a Masters Degree. Since the Smoking ban was introduced I do find that the bar feels, looks and smells cleaner and I am pleased about that. I might also add that I do not agree with anyone smoking near children or anyone who is offended by it. However the current law does not allow enough flexibility to accomodate those who wish to smoke. As an example the law regarding bar terraces is at the very least ridiculous. If I have a 2 locale bar which has a terrace enclosed by 3 walls I am not able to allow smoking. However if I put a wall down the middle of the bar and turn the one bar into two different etablishments then each individual establishment now only has 2 terrace walls each and therefore everyone can smoke away happily on the conjoined terraces which has in no way changed physically. There are many other permetations of this which make it even more ridiculous. As a considerate smoker and bar owner I would much prefer that the local councils work with the bar owners to ceate an environment that suits everyone in such a way that non smokers can drink happily free from any kind of smoke inhalation and smokers can feel comfortable to pursue their habit whilst drinking without having to lurk on the kerb side and creating an unsightly pile of butt ends on the pavement. Like any other business I depend on my clientelle to continue operating but the bottom line is that it is my bar, it is not a public highway and as such I should at least be allowed some say in how it is run.
    As for smoking and health issues it is obvious to me that whilst heavy smoking probably does have a considerable effect on people´s health many other factors must be taken into consideration particularly in relation to lifestyles.
    As someone who has worked in the hospitality industry most of my life it is not difficult to identify where many of the real health problems lie. I have known many smokers who are very keen to uphold a healthy lifestyle in other aspects of their lives, i.e diet, sports and other interests and it has been my observation that these have been much healthier examples of human beings than some of the none smokers who are still a large part of the beer guzzling, pie eating brigade who seem to be rushing headlong into coronary explosion. So please can we ackowledge that a part of being human is being human. Eductaion and information based on reality is what really counts and I must say that as a fellow human being I am saddened by some of the zealot like comments being made here. I would suggest that all concerned, if the are really concerned, would take the time to read all of the links shown here and to do so with an open mind. If you do not have an open mind then you will not really be able to take in the information being offered to you. It´s as if your own prejudices will be drowning out your potential to absorb the truth. In truth there are many objectionable behaviours in society and it is unfortunate for smokers that theirs is an easy habit to identify and persecute. If we really care about people´s health then let us take all the measures necessary to improve their lot. Let´s ban any car that pollutes our atmosphere. Let´s not allow people to engage in relationships with other people who might raise their stress levels, this includes marrying them. Let´s not allow mothers to buy their children food that is not proven to enhance their ability to perform well, particularly chips and Mcdonalds let´s not allow purists to make us feel bad about ourselves to the degree that we feel inferior to them…..etc etc etc etc the list is endless… Come on people if you really don´t have a grasp on human nature perhaps it is time to educate yourselves on the theme and in doing so you might find a much nicer person underneath, the kind of person who is more accepting of themselves and their own foibles and one who is less likely to look towards the desecration of others in the pursuit of feeling better about themselves.

  6. The world according to George …….

    ?I understood the legal obligations that would be my responsibility as a bar owner but none of these conditions concerned smoking habits.?

    — You probably don’t understand that society and its laws are constantly changing ……..

    ?I have little doubt that none of the current power mongers are actually bar owners themselves otherwise I feel confident that their decision making processes would have been much better thought out.?

    — surely not – do you have any idea of the amount of money tax for tobacco brings and that will be lost in the process ……..

    ?I also believe that as you have such strong opinions yourself on what people should and should not be allowed to do in public bars,?

    –I do and one of them is not to endanger others patrons health …….

    ?I imagine that you bought your current home with lots of hard work and with that purchase came a set of conditions relative to laws of ownership and use?

    – -Any private home is not a public accessible place, I hope you can appreciate the difference …….

    ?I am a smoker myself but that has not stifled my educational ability as I have a Masters Degree.?

    — In Bar owner ship ??? Possibly your educational ability was not but your basic ability to connect the dots (basic intelligence) is or never has been up to par ….

    ?As a considerate smoker and bar owner I would much prefer that the local councils work with the bar owners to ceate an environment that suits everyone?

    — Only in George’s world – people are not considered and responsible, less so today then yesterday , au contraire …..

    ?As for smoking and health issues it is obvious to me that whilst heavy smoking probably does have a considerable effect on people´s health many other factors must be taken into consideration particularly in relation to lifestyles.?

    — Get serious, you are proclaiming that beating up children just a ?little bit? is quiet all right as long as you buy them sweets afterwards ……….

    ?So please can we acknowledge that a part of being human is being human.?

    — and trying to better ourselves in a constant mode is what got us out of the caves, you want humans to be humans doing harm to themeless in spite of knowing better? It will take many generations to Stop smoking but understand that you have to start somewhere ……

    ?In truth there are many objectionable behaviours in society and it is unfortunate for smokers that theirs is an easy habit to identify and persecute.?

    — because it endangers others in public without need ………. you can smoke all you want in your own environment – smoke does dilute and disappear …….

    ?Let´s ban any car that pollutes our atmosphere.?

    — patience George it will come in the not so far future ……..

    ?Let´s not allow people to engage in relationships with other people who might raise their stress levels, this includes marrying them.?

    — as I mentioned before, connect the dots and don’t be ridiculous ……….

    ?Let´s not allow mothers to buy their children food that is not proven to enhance their ability to perform well, particularly chips and Mcdonalds let´s?

    — agreed 100%, best just tax so called junk food to a price of luxury and subsidies carrots, apples and the likes ……..

    ?not allow purists to make us feel bad about ourselves to the degree that we feel inferior to them.?

    — why not ? most likely you only feel bad because you know you are doing something negative to yourself, its called a bad consciences, which is a self preserve instinct that tell you Stop – lets not try to eradicate it, without it the good people that you talk about will smoke, drink and eat themselves into oblivion (we are already seeing it left and right) ………..

    ?Since the Smoking ban was introduced I do find that the bar feels, looks and smells cleaner and I am pleased about that. I might also add that I do not agree with anyone smoking near children or anyone who is offended by it.?

    — so do your customers, even the old hardcore haggaluggies (the smokers that cough up phlegm in the am) ?

    hang in there, things will normalize after a while ……..

  7. To Barb E. Dahl
    Hi barb and thanks for your comments, by the way love the nickname lol.
    Barb my contribution to the discourse on smoking was merely a simplistic overview of the situation as it stands in Spain at this moment from an owners point of view. Yes it is a public accessible venue but at the same time it is the proprietors who have to make the books meet and if they do not meet then eventually the establishments will close. If that is how it must be then so be it only history will tell what will happen. The fact to date is that many of the customers are smokers who have smoked in bars since they began drinking. Believe me I am as interested a bystander to this event as you are.
    I really am well aware of the processes of the evolution of our species since the onset of the metachondrial Eve.
    As a fan of many sociologists and philanthropists I am also very well aware of the nature of social evolution and the individuals unique phenomenological processes that impinge and impact upon that process.
    I do not knowingly wish to endanger anybodies health but this world is full of incidents and activities where I and many others make the choice to contribute to unhealthy environments i.e. carbon footprints, waste, stress, hygiene, sexual activity, socialized conditions of worth and self worth, religion etc etc etc.
    Whether somewhere is considered private or not does not exclude us from our responsibility to making those who enter safe. It is my experience that many households I have worked in throughout my life are health risk zones and this is not because the residents were smokers. It is important that those who choose to enter do so from an informed perspective.

    Connecting dots is one of my favourite pastimes particularly when it is the healthy little spots on a rubenesque backside, I usually find that pink felt tip looks best lol.
    I believe that people are capable of reasoniing and we are seeing that happening through our discourse on here. I also believe, parhaps naively, that humans are basically good and that it is only through unique social moulding that they become less than they can be in terms of being a fully functional, autonomous human being.
    Beating up children is not alright, it is a disgusting proposition. Love children and they will become all that they can be.
    Human beings will always engage in activities that may well be detrimental to their health or well being as it is a part of human nature to be inquisitive. I am not agreeing with this I am just acknowledging it. I have no doubt that the Beatles would have struggled to have written many of their obscure lyrics if they had not been as high as kites. By the way this does not imply that I am a Beatles fan.
    It is well researched and documented that stress is one of the leading killers of our age. It leeches the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system to the point where adrenilines and noradrenalines breakdown our most sensitive organs.
    I have done many wrong things to others in my life but I guess that learning to live with guilt is a part of our growth as individuals and an intrinsic part of our journey. However smoking is not one of these things that I feel guilty about. I am always polite about it and do what I can to move to a spot where non smokers will not be affected. I more than anyone wish that they would introduce exclusive non smoking bars so that I would not have to be put in that position. I like smoking, I know it´s bad for me but it´s a habit I enjoy. Many people indulge in habits, acitivites and pastimes that are not good for their or others health. I hate the fact that people enjoy riding motorbikes at ridiculously high speeds. Life is sacred but they do it. We all have our hemlock and many of us pay the price for their choices. I wonder what your ´hemlock is´. smile
    Using substances of one form or another has been a part of society for a very long time. Opium root was sold openly in the market in medieval times and many drugs were only labelled distasteful when the British empire decided that opiates were an oriental pastime and should therefore be considered low class. By the way I do not condone the use of any drugs.
    As for educational abilities I have been fortunate to have a good and healthy life so far cough, splutter, phlegm lol and being a bar owner is only one of my feathers and strings.
    On a side note I am not yet aware of anyone who has died as a result of other people smoking in my bar. However as a bar owner in a busy town in Spain I have witnessed many people who have suffered injuries due to alcohol, either through accidents or arguments. I might add that none of these incidents occurred in my bar.
    I believe approximately 28,000 deaths in the United Kingdom last year were attributable to alcohol alone and I would hope that all those who are engaged in this discussion are as active on sensible drinking forums as they are on this forum. It would fill me with pride to know that I am engaging with others who are equally concerned about the health of society from a more collective and inclusive perspective.
    I don´t know who you are Barb e dahl but I quite like the cut of you so far and I kind of like the way you scratch hogs. So if you wish to continue please do but without the need to include sarcasm, strikes me you´re too intelligent for that and presumptions are never a good thing in a debate…..nice wishes
    George

  8. The truth about 2nd hand smoke, If any of you really want to learn the truth about 2nd hand smoke, go vist these site, it’s a real education.
    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/10/all_opedsmokinganti_2011_3_4_bk.html?comm=1” target=”_blank”>http://http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/10/all_opedsmokinganti_2011_3_4_bk.html?comm=1

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/10/all_opedsmokingpro_2011_3_4_bk.html

    If you followed a smoker around at one foot downwind for 24 hours you would increase your exposure by 4 mcrogms/m^3. The “Significant Harm” level in the EPA table is FIVE HUNDRED mcrogms/m^3 — not even close!

    That table is also informative in another way because it exposes another trick Antismokers like to use to bolster their case. Note the column on the left that enables Repace to talk about 15 mcrgms/m^3 being the “healthy” limit. That’s an ANNUAL average. To hit the upper bound of truly “healthy” exposure to secondary smoke you would have to tie four smokers together in a little clump, tie yourself to them with a one-foot long shoelace and then circle around them to stay directly downwind while they each smoked one cigarette per hour for 24 hours straight for 365 days in a row.

  9. Rocky, neither of those links are to independent peer-reviewed research. They count for absolutely nothing. If you actually read the relevant independent peer-reviewed research, especially the relevant meta-analyses, you’d soon realise that there is no safe level of tobacco smoke, environmental or otherwise.

  10. George, right you are about most things you state.
    I do not think society would be having this discussion and many many others about regulating laws and rules ……. if it would be up to considered neighbors and citizens like you. The sad fact is that todays society is not considered but au contraire it seems an egoistic mass who insist on their rights like e. g. “Its legal to smoke here” so I can do it …. the following incident actually happened to me about ten years ago when in a restaurant, after my meal I felt obliged to go outside to have a cigarette after dinner because there was baby present on the next table, the father and mother of this creature smoking away !! I felt obligated and just had to say something – after exchange of arguments the discussion was ended with me being advised that it was legal …. I advised them in return to forget about legal but to get counseling from their family doctor about the dangers for a newborn being exposed to second hand smoke – for the creatures sake I hope they did. This may be a drastic example, but I find that it shows just how ignorant a lot of folks are and that instead of reading between the lines of rules and laws – thus using common sense and their social conscience the majority chose to live by the philosophy “Live and let Die” I believe we live in the era of everyone is a Superstar and thus can do what they deserve …… Ergo – we need those laws to protect the Superstars from themselves ! I am 100% positive the biggest and loudest contestants fighting for their right to smoke – will tomorrow be the biggest and loudest contestants fighting for their right for a smoke free environment, while hopefully sitting in your bar consuming Shirley Temples …… Un saludo

    BTW “Rocky Raccoon” was certainly written on a Roll …….

  11. Let people make their own decisions and mind your own business: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGJrlFH_qTg

    More & more doctors and scientists are coming out of the closest to say it’s all a hoax, 2nd hand smoke is a joke. If you can get beyond your own propaganda trained brains and do the research with an open mind you will be surprised where it takes you. But most of you won’t because your mind is made up from years & years of brainwashing. You can hate 2nd hand smoke but it does not harm you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4

    guirino: If you did read the comments there were not just 2 studys referenced but many for people to go and check out. That was the whole point, the author telling you where to go and read for yourself how the main “study” was flawed and why it was flawed. Like I just wrote: not many people will go and look but will believe because it’s been told to them for so long. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.
    For anyone who’d like to see the sort of research the NY law is based on, read and enjoy a short and actually fairly accurate satirical description of the “Klepeis Study” at:

    http://wispofsmoke.net/satire.txt

    Read the study itself too — it’s referenced there — and you’ll find the satire pretty close to the reality.

    Finally, anyone who visits New York City in search of “Clean Air” is … well… I don’t think I have to beat the point to death here. Ms Feinberg, I’ll offer you the challenge offered on the other OpEd: There has never been a single scientific study showing any degree of actual real harm to anyone from the concentrations and durations of smoke anyone would normally be exposed to outdoors. Disagree? Fine: go find a couple of studies that you can defend and post them here to show me wrong. NOTE: “Studies” – not generalized reports, fact sheets, opinions, quotes from people, press releases, web sites, etc.

    Understand? “Studies” — as in peer reviewed research with the details availabel for critical examination. Hint: you won’t find any: they don’t exist. All that’s out there are studies like Klepeis where they show that the wonders of modern nanoscopic technology can detect molecules of smoke exist.

    Michael J. McFadden,
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

  12. I cannot believe that this argument is still raging five months on!
    I smoked for 30 odd years, stopped the last 20. Stale cigarette smoke is FOUL by any standards, trying to eat a meal or enjoy a drink surrounded by it not a pleasant experience. Fumes from a pile of manure would be preferable, and healthier!
    Maybe the health risk from second-hand smoke is not high, but would you leave a baby in a smoke-filled bar? If not, why not?
    The answer: it’s unhealthy and possibly dangerous to the baby’s development. If anyone disgrees with this, they’re not fit to be a parent.
    Smokers, enjoy your habit, I did, but use a modicum of decency when others are nearby. I didn’t!! I didn’t care about second-hand smoke and it’s attributes. My ignorance was profound.

  13. As far as children go:

    The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
    The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
    Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008
    http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(07)01954-9/abstract

    .
    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
    Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14
    http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm

  14. Heres another

    In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

    The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

    http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/11/7655

  15. Tony: your question is a red herring. Of course no one’s going to “leave” a baby anywhere!
    But I will tell you that I and many, many others of my generation grew up in smoky homes and are as healthy as anyone else. Who died and made you an authority on who is and isn’t fit to be a parent, anyway?
    The law does not exist to provide what you consider to be a pleasant atmosphere. But since you bring it up, lots of people eat and drink while others are smoking but I’ve yet to hear of anyone willingly dining in the presence of manure. Perhaps your tsstes are a bit odd, Tony?

  16. HarleyRider, or the tobacco industry’s main online lobbyist (if you want his full title) must surely be a prime candidate for the ‘moron of the century award’: Smoking actually aids existing breathing illness conditions and smoking is good for children. This person has done more for the online anti-smoking movement than anyone lol.

    Chris, do you really want to be associated with such numskulls? And are you really saying smoking around children is good parenting? Your standards continue to slip big time.

    Btw, in Spain, campo dining is frequently done with the aroma of dung present. Dung has no side effects btw.

    Abide by the law and get over it.

  17. Thank you freddy……a warm welcome from an adversary!

    Since you have no substance to your post in this debate I assume you surrender and just live with what you have left your hatred of smokers…….BTW most kids were raised in housholds that smoked during the 20s,30s,40s,50s,60s,70s and into the mid 80s……….yet we are all just fine and omg ALIVE!

  18. Chris, the red herring is your own creation, and parental fitness decided by the action of that parent ‘leaving’ the baby in the bar, it’s not my decision. The smoker would also be there, contributing to the well-being of the baby with extra second-hand tobacco smoke. I didn’t suggest that the smoker would be that unfit as a parent to leave the baby unattended.
    It seems to me that lovers of second-hand tobacco smoke have never actually frequented old pubs, with the orange yellow staining from floor to ceiling – that is the deposit of years of smoking. And that would also be deposited in the lungs of anyone inhaling tobacco smoke, second hand or not. Why argue? It’s fact. And to argue that these tarry deposits are not harmful to health is unbelievably stupid.
    For many years I worked in a computer environment with vast racks of vital electronic communications equipment. Smoking was suddenly prohibited, but not as we thought out of consideration for employees health, but because of tobacco deposits on delicate contacts and circuit boards, etc., in this equipment.
    I’m sorry, you’re wrong Harleyetc, almost all cancerous deaths I have known over the last 20 odd years, if not from old age, have been made up of smokers. Obviously some exceptions, which no doubt you will make the most of.
    All we non-smokers want is to allow smokers to kill themselves if they want to but don’t kill us at the same time. In other words, consideration for others.

  19. To Barbie
    smile
    Hi Barb thanks your comments, I knew you were a nice person lol. Smoking and children ouch hot topic. I wouldnt leave my kids near a smoking barbecue or downwind of a forest fire so I certainly wouldn´t want them in a room full of smokers….
    It seems to me that many non smokers and ex smokers and even many smokers just do not enjoy the smell of smoke and that is obviously understandable. Even though I am a smoker myself I hate the way that copius amounts of smoke make your eyes sting and the stale smell is awful and therefore leads to an undesirable environment. So if it is true that passive smoking is not as harmful as has been claimed then what we are all looking for is a path towards everyone being able to enjoy their desired environemnt. If this is the case then it would be more helpful for the anti smoking supporters to establish the honest grounds for their cause ( a more pleasant environment ). In this way the smokers might be more inclined to listen to their needs and be more sympathetic ( I do hope so ) and I for one would understand that this would need to be legislated. What is happening at present is that smokers are being accused of being latent mass murderers through unjustifiable data and therefore it is understandable their sheckles are raised in defence. Innocent until proven guilty is always a good thing…….
    From what I have read so far on this and other forums it appears that the not guilty verdict is winning although I look forward to other evidence being presented.
    On a side note I do always smile at how smokers on television soaps are subliminally used as a motif for failure and weakness. Watch anyone on a television soap filmed nowadays and the only characters allowed to smoke in a scene are those who are deemed to be unhealthy or suffering from some type of psychological stress and menial coping mechanisms with the implication being that they are in some way less of a person.
    Next time you´re watching a big hollywood movie take note of the placement of products in the background during happy moments in the film, they are not there for artistic substance. Doesn´t have too much to do with smoking but it does point out the perceived power of subliminal conditioning………… an influence that we are all subject to.
    George

  20. Harley, I’m not an adversary. I’m the person with the law on my side. You, I’m afraid, are in the the losing party. You’ve lost the argument, lost the debate, and are now losing public opinion. Smoking is down in Spain, and further extending the public places ban is a step in the right direction.

    Keep up the good work for our cause Harley.

  21. Smoke-Free Workplace Law is primarily intended to protect workers from health hazards resulting from exposure to secondhand smoke.

    Even exposures in the home couldnt stand up,the congressional research office concluded:
    •the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking;
    •it is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS;
    •if there are any lung cancer deaths from ETS exposure, they are likely to be concentrated among those subjected to the highest exposure levels… primarily among those nonsmokers subjected to significant spousal ETS.
    •Even when overall risk is considered, it is a very small risk and is not statistically significant at a conventional 95% level.
    According to the CRS, basing an assessment on only the most pessimistic study of those reviewed, exposure only to background ETS (as in workplaces and bars) creates a lifetime risk of about 7/100ths of a percent of dying from ETS related cancer.

    Additional studies also undercut key assumptions in the “estimates” of the 63,000 victim “death toll” espoused by anti-smoking forces. The WHO’s International Agency on Research on Cancer published a 1998 study that ran for 10 years, covering 7 different countries, concluding that there is no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who lived or worked with smokers.

    http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/17/1028570-secondhand-smoke-mirrors

    Its hard to make a case for any smoking bans anywhere when the evidence isnt there to begin with.

    The latest niosh study on casino workers
    is more a political anti-smoking study than a medical study….

    There former findings after 10 years concluded the shs studies didnt cut the grade to show any cause for alarm and ended with osha making the final say as greg watchman stated above.

    Be it acute or chronic exposure causation cannot be shown for any of the claims made.

    Those same casino workers tested are the same ones trying to sue over second hand smoke in court against the casino owners.

    Those same casino workers worked diligently on harry reid and hillary clintons campaigns.

    The study came after the democrats took over the congress and the senate.

    politics and science = Junk Science and laws.

    It appears the solution is going to be a political one rather than sound science!

  22. Hi Fred, since you seem to care about the children so much, you do know that fat people are next. Studys say: Fat parents make fat children. Hanging out with your fat friends will make you fat too. Shall we make new laws against fat people too? Actually they already are but the govt. and big pharma know best don’t they. Trust them and take their medicine. Save me. save me.

  23. And it would appear that Fatter people need larger coffins meaning more wood being chopped down, meaning increased decimation of our forests meaning less oxygen produced globally leading to less air for us all to share….this suggests that fat people are a harm to smokers and non smokers……where will it all end.

  24. Fred, Yep I don’t have the link but yep, there’s a study that says if you hang out with fat people… I’m sure you can find it if you look.
    Lot’s of people think we should ban alcohol too. Living leads to death no matter how hard they try. Here’s another article saying the old people are living too long, don’t you just love it.
    For Lee Rathbone-McCuan, a professor of social work at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, the bigger concern is that aging brings illness, frailty and dependence on others.

    “I really believe that longevity is putting the American family at grave risk,” she said. “We’re calling on people to be care givers without the support system needed. We have huge mobility barriers. Middle-class families have trouble paying for long-term housing and care.

    Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/16/2804933/a-long-way-home-challenges-faced.html#ixzz1MkzVE6ID

  25. Did you also see the study where if you stand next to a stupid person you also become stupid. Clearly, you lot have all been hanging out together too much lol.

    Rocky, you are not being banned from smoking, you must have consideration for others who don’t smoke, it’s as simple as that. What this debate shows more than anything is that smokers are largely intolerant to other peoples’ rights. You give a quote that mentions how families are having problems paying for things. Well, stop buying cigarettes then! That’ll save a fortune for a start. Doh.

  26. Did you also see the study where if you stand next to a stupid person you also become stupid. Clearly, you lot have all been hanging out together too much lol.

    Poor Fred, anti-tobacco and anti-obesity folks who hang together not only are stupid they even do studies to prove just how stupid they are!

    Obesity spreads to friends, study concludes
    By Gina Kolata
    Published: Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, according to researchers. When one person gains weight, close friends tend to gain weight too.

    Their study, published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved a detailed analysis of a large social network of 12,067 people who had been closely followed for 32 years, from 1971 until 2003. The investigators knew who was friends with whom, as well as who was a spouse or sibling or neighbor, and they knew how much each person weighed at various times over three decades.

    That let them watch what happened over the years as people became obese. Did their friends also become obese? Did family members? Or neighbors?

    The answer, the researchers report, was that people were most likely to become obese when a friend became obese. That increased one’s chances of becoming obese by 57 percent.

    There was no effect when a neighbor gained or lost weight, however, and family members had less of an influence than friends. It did not even matter if the friend was hundreds of miles away – the influence remained. And the greatest influence of all was between mutual close friends. There, if one became obese, the other had a 171 percent increased chance of becoming obese too.

    The same effect seemed to occur for weight loss, the investigators say, but since most people were gaining, not losing, over the 32 years, the result was an obesity epidemic.

    Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a physician and professor of medical sociology at Harvard Medical School and a principal investigator in the new study, says one explanation is that friends affect each others’ perception of fatness. When a close friend becomes obese, obesity may not look so bad.

    “You change your idea of what is an acceptable body type by looking at the people around you,” Christakis said.

    The investigators say their findings can help explain why Americans became fatter in recent years: Persons who became obese were likely to drag some friends with them.

    Their analysis was unique, Christakis said, because it moved beyond a simple analysis of one person and his or her social contacts, and instead examined an entire social network at once, looking at how a friend’s friends’ friends, or a spouse’s siblings’ friends, could have an influence on a person’s weight. The effects, Christakis said, “highlight the importance of a spreading process, a kind of social contagion, that spreads through the network.”

    Of course, the investigators say, social networks are not the only factors that affect body weight. There is a strong genetic component at work too.

    Science has shown that individuals have genetically determined ranges of weights, spanning perhaps 30 or so pounds, or 13.5 kilograms, for each person. But that leaves a large role for the environment in determining whether a person’s weight is near the top of his or her range or near the bottom. As people have gotten fatter, it appears that many are edging toward the top of their ranges. The question has been why.

    If the new research is correct, it might mean that something in the environment seeded what many call an obesity epidemic, making a few people gain weight. Then social networks let the obesity spread rapidly.

    It also might mean that the way to avoid becoming fat is to avoid having fat friends.

    That is not the message they meant to convey, say the study investigators, Christakis and his colleague James Fowler, an associate professor of political science at the University of California in San Diego. You don’t want to lose a friend who becomes obese, Christakis said. Friends are good for your overall health, he explains.

    So why not make friends with a thin person, he suggests, and let the thin person’s behavior influence you and your obese friend?

    That answer does not satisfy obesity researchers like Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

    “I think there’s a great risk here in blaming obese people even more for things that are caused by a terrible environment,” Brownell said.

  27. When Fred’s scant powers of argument abandon him, he resorts to insults.

    Tony: more red herrings. Living tissue is different from walls or equipment. If secondhand smoke were as deadly as the Antis proclaim, Japan would have one of the world’s shortest life expectancies, as opposed to having the longest.

    And you stated that anyone who merely disagreed with you was an unfit parent. Go back and read your own post.

    The Dutch (another famously short-lived, unhygienic people, lovingly refer to their pubs as “bruine kroege”, i.e. “brown jugs” in reference to the very smoke buildup you find so scandalous.

HAVE YOUR SAY...