Yeah the tobacco companies had nothing to do with it, subby- ya dumbf*ck!!

Are there any tobacco related causes of death that take less than five years from contraction until untimely demise?

Gecko Gingrich: Are there any tobacco related causes of death that take less than five years from contraction until untimely demise?

Tobaccoitis.

But the gloomy predictions failed to materialize. Bars and restaurants saw business increase in the first year of the ban, while a survey found 90 percent of people reporting they ate out as often or more often than before the ban.

Between 2002 and 2006 -- the last year for which figures are available -- the number of smokers in the city fell by some 240,000 to around one million.

The number of smoking-related deaths meanwhile fell more than 11 percent from 8,722 to 7,744 during the same period.

Of particular note, fewer kids were taking up the habit, with the number of smokers among New York high school students falling by 50 percent, from 18 percent of the school population to less than one in ten between 2001 and 2007.

Wow, what hideous and useless legislation. Success in all areas.

Just dastardly.

Stoj: Tobaccoitis.

Ahhh...yes. I forgot about inflammation of your tobacco. It makes all your Panatelas turn into Presidentes.

Yanks_RSJ: Wow, what hideous and useless legislation. Success in all areas.

Just dastardly.

i think this is a really interesting story for just that reason. on one hand, one can still make the very convincing argument that even as bad as smoking is, the government has no right to limit my right to smoke.

but however right that sentiment is, it also clearly cannot be said that the government doing just that has some type of negative results.

it's an argument where technically, both sides are right (or at least, not wrong).

Gecko Gingrich: Ahhh...yes. I forgot about inflammation of your tobacco.

i thought the whole point was to enflame your tobacco.

oh... inflame... nevermind.

burndtdan: i think this is a really interesting story for just that reason. on one hand, one can still make the very convincing argument that even as bad as smoking is, the government has no right to limit my right to smoke.

but however right that sentiment is, it also clearly cannot be said that the government doing just that has some type of negative results.

it's an argument where technically, both sides are right (or at least, not wrong).

I go back and forth on this, and while I don't like the fact that goverment can legislate a legal behavior, health concerns for all people should ultimately be the goal, IMO.

There are those who said, "if you don't like secondhand smoke, don't go to bars" which is technically true, but why should the smoking minority wield that sort of power over the decisions of the majority of non-smoking America?

Fact is, smoking is a choice, too. The smoking ban has had literally no negative impact on NYC, except perhaps instances pneumonia for dedicated smokers who will stand outside in the dead of winter to kill themselves in two different ways.

But the gloomy predictions failed to materialize. Bars and restaurants saw business increase in the first year of the ban, while a survey found 90 percent of people reporting they ate out as often or more often than before the ban.

I've never bought into that bullshiat. Of course people continue to go out after the bans. Do you expect everyone to stay home? Show me a major city with the balls to allow people the choice between smoking & non-smoking establishments, follow the business trends, then let me know how things pan out. I'm willing to bet you'd see a spike in biz for both.

/Non-smoker

Excuse me, Penn and Teller told me this ban was bullshiat, so.

robsul82: Excuse me, Penn and Teller told me this ban was bullshiat, so.

Only if you care about property rights.

I just think it's ridiculous that smokers are constantly vilified. I am what's considered a "considerate smoker". I don't eat in the smoking section of restaurants. If I am out with friends and want a smoke, I will leave the table and go outside to smoke. It's my addiction, not anyone else's.

However, I don't think that a legal behavior should be legislated in this way. if you want smoking bans, fine. Make tobacco illegal. Better yet, why not make alcohol illegal? It kills more people a year than tobacco. No wait! We should also make prescription drugs, driving, sex, food, water, television and breathing illegal as well!

burndtdan: i think this is a really interesting story for just that reason. on one hand, one can still make the very convincing argument that even as bad as smoking is, the government has no right to limit my right to smoke.

Your right to smoke infringes on my (and my family's) pursuit of happiness. At least, when it's making it uncomfortable to breathe.

One aspect of this is that, while I can't substantiate it with stats, I would venture to guess that smokers are disproportionately distributed among the lower classes. More specifically, among those in poverty. And those receiving welfare. So for every smoker that ever sees a doctor for smoking-health-related issues is coming out of your tax dollars.

As a social worker, I think about these things as I drive 20 miles home with the window down in all weather to air out my car from the disgusting smell of smoker (and poor hygiene) clients.

tudorgurl: if you want smoking bans, fine. Make tobacco illegal. Better yet, why not make alcohol illegal? It kills more people a year than tobacco. No wait! We should also make prescription drugs, driving, sex, food, water, television and breathing illegal as well!

If smoking only had an impact on the smoker's health, you'd have a point.

Drinking and driving is illegal, because at that point alcohol is endangering other people's well-being. If a person wants to kill himself with alcohol, more power to him.

Same for smoking. Knock yourself if you have a strong craving for poison. I don't.

The smug levels have a chance to reach a record high in this thread...

The only thing I dislike about public smoking is, unlike any other addiction, non-smokers have to share it at the moment of use. Yes, drunk drivers are probably more dangerous, yes, drug addicts certainly do more harm; but I don't have to drink the alcohol or ingest the crack. But if someone is smoking next to me, I do have to inhale the smoke.

If there were any other way to obviate this problem without sending smokers outside, smokers could smoke themselves into a coma and I would have no problem with it. Kill yourself however you please; and smokers don't drive their cars into telephone poles or hold up 7-11's.

Yanks_RSJ: There are those who said, "if you don't like secondhand smoke, don't go to bars" which is technically true, but why should the smoking minority wield that sort of power over the decisions of the majority of non-smoking America?

Why don't they just have bars that don't allow smoking? Where I live, one of the two local bars allowed smoking and one didn't. I never went to the smoking bar because I hate reeking of smoke and all that. While I'm certainly not one of those "OMG Free Market FTW!" folks, this seems to be a situation where the free market would and should dictate whether smoking is permitted in an establishment.

Live free or die. Liberty requires risk.

Feel free to ban smoking in public buildings or in child-related businesses. Otherwise, it's entirely up to the owner and the customers to make their choice. Go live in the Nanny State if you're going to complain about that. Maybe they can pad the sidewalks with bubblewrap for you and your precious little snowflakes.

/Not a smoker and not a troll... just really sick and tired of these crybabies and complaints

This makes me want to take up cigar smoking just to piss off hippies. Anyone have any suggestions on how to make my first purchase?

Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo: burndtdan: i think this is a really interesting story for just that reason. on one hand, one can still make the very convincing argument that even as bad as smoking is, the government has no right to limit my right to smoke.

Your right to smoke infringes on my (and my family's) pursuit of happiness. At least, when it's making it uncomfortable to breathe.

One aspect of this is that, while I can't substantiate it with stats, I would venture to guess that smokers are disproportionately distributed among the lower classes. More specifically, among those in poverty. And those receiving welfare. So for every smoker that ever sees a doctor for smoking-health-related issues is coming out of your tax dollars.

As a social worker, I think about these things as I drive 20 miles home with the window down in all weather to air out my car from the disgusting smell of smoker (and poor hygiene) clients.

like i said, there are convincing arguments for both sides of the argument. hence why it's so interesting... it's a case of competing moral directives.

WFern: Live free or die. Liberty requires risk.

Feel free to ban smoking in public buildings or in child-related businesses. Otherwise, it's entirely up to the owner and the customers to make their choice. Go live in the Nanny State if you're going to complain about that. Maybe they can pad the sidewalks with bubblewrap for you and your precious little snowflakes.

/Not a smoker and not a troll... just really sick and tired of these crybabies and complaints

see?

As a lifelong asthmatic, I approve of any reduction in the number of smokers. Add in the poor health of some of my smoking relatives before they died, and I have a very strong distate for tobacco.

Yanks_RSJ: If smoking only had an impact on the smoker's health, you'd have a point.

According to the anti-smoking crowd that is exactly the case. To them, smoking IS just as dangerous as cocaine, heroin and DWI.

But that's besides the point. Thanks to the smoking nazis, we now have legal precedent that some vague 'greater good' is more important than property rights, privacy rights or even personal choice. And if you don't see how that will eventually be abused by our government, then you are a fool.

Distaste, not distate. No spell checker on my work browser..

Gecko Gingrich: Are there any tobacco related causes of death that take less than five years from contraction until untimely demise?

Sure. Like when a badgered smoker pulls out his 9 mil and pops a cap in the whiney, sanctimonious prick who finally made said smoker go postal. There's a tobacco related death that went very quickly.

tudorgurl
I just think it's ridiculous that smokers are constantly vilified. I am what's considered a "considerate smoker". I don't eat in the smoking section of restaurants. If I am out with friends and want a smoke, I will leave the table and go outside to smoke. It's my addiction, not anyone else's.

However, I don't think that a legal behavior should be legislated in this way. if you want smoking bans, fine. Make tobacco illegal. Better yet, why not make alcohol illegal? It kills more people a year than tobacco. No wait! We should also make prescription drugs, driving, sex, food, water, television and breathing illegal as well!

I think that it has more to do with the way it impacts other people. I personally dont want to go to a restaurant and come out feeling nauseous because of the person smoking in the table next to me making my clothes stink. I dont want to have to go to a bar and inhale tons of smoke, ruining my own health because they dont care enough about their own.

I also dont think its fair to say "if you dont like smokers then dont go to bars" because I shouldn't have to be punished by not being able to go where I want. Just because I am concerned about my health, the way I smell and the fact that I dont want to talk to someone blowing smoke in my face doesnt mean I should have to skip going to bars, restaurants, etc. If you want to suck your cancer stick, do it outside where you're only killing yourself.

Yanks_RSJ: tudorgurl: if you want smoking bans, fine. Make tobacco illegal. Better yet, why not make alcohol illegal? It kills more people a year than tobacco. No wait! We should also make prescription drugs, driving, sex, food, water, television and breathing illegal as well!

If smoking only had an impact on the smoker's health, you'd have a point.

Drinking and driving is illegal, because at that point alcohol is endangering other people's well-being. If a person wants to kill himself with alcohol, more power to him.

Same for smoking. Knock yourself if you have a strong craving for poison. I don't.

Yanks nailed it.

We should decriminalize any and all drugs. Who gives a hoot just as long you not killing anyone else.

You know who the real villains are here? The bar and restaurant owners that opposed this. This is the 21st century: you do not have the right to decide how your private property is to be used. The government does that.

Stupid business people. The fact that business increased only shows how wrong they were.

I'm not really a smoker but I like the occasional cigar. There's nothing like a cigar with a double of scotch.

Unfortunately I can't bring the drink outside (legally, anyway) and I can't smoke inside.

On the bright side I've saved a lot of money since the ban - it's proven to be cheaper to just stock up at home and have parties on the back patio every other week.

The other thing that sucks is that before the ban there were smoking bars and non-smoking bars. The non smoker bars were relatively clean but boring. The smoking bars were, well, smoky but the people there were generally pretty awesome.

Ever since the ban everyone's gotten dull - unless you go outside. Just got to be careful about not getting caught with the beer by roving officers.

Gecko Gingrich: Are there any tobacco related causes of death that take less than five years from contraction until untimely demise?

Pancreatic cancer (Bill Hicks, Patrick Swayze) often goes from diagnosis to death in less than a year, sometimes as little as a few months, and tobacco is linked to a 50% increase in the risk of that kind of cancer.

Other things such as emphysema can take years to kill you, but can often be stopped in their tracks if the person simply stops smoking.

Most doctors will tell you that if you have any smoking related health problems, the quicker you stop smoking the better your prognosis will be. This article may bear that out. Either that, or 250,000 smokers moved out of NY and another 250,000 immediately moved in, and therefore all those smoking related deaths still happened, but in another city.

EsteeFlwrPot: I also dont think its fair to say "if you dont like smokers then dont go to bars" because I shouldn't have to be punished by not being able to go where I want. Just because I am concerned about my health, the way I smell and the fact that I dont want to talk to someone blowing smoke in my face doesnt mean I should have to skip going to bars, restaurants, etc. If you want to suck your cancer stick, do it outside where you're only killing yourself.

Why couldn't there just be bars/restaurants that don't have smoking? I mean it's not like not having a smoking ban means that everywhere would have to allow smoking. I personally would love it if this were the case, I could go to non-smoking places and not smell like crap/get watery eyes/etc. and at the same time we could respect the property rights of business owners.

Remove all Republicans: My only problem is that government has become so addicted to the taxes from cigarettes that they'll never go all the way and finally ban the thing. Another remnant of our early misinformed history that needs to go.

Exactly. The government has a long and successful history of banning drugs. We should expand this to tobacco as well.

EsteeFlwrPot: I think that it has more to do with the way it impacts other people.

Right. And thanks to you (and others just like you) we've now established that - as a matter of law - we can control behavior based on what the GROUP thinks is acceptable or not acceptable. Individual desires need not apply.

And that should scare the piss outta people.

Weaver95: Yanks_RSJ: If smoking only had an impact on the smoker's health, you'd have a point.

According to the anti-smoking crowd that is exactly the case. To them, smoking IS just as dangerous as cocaine, heroin and DWI.

But that's besides the point. Thanks to the smoking nazis, we now have legal precedent that some vague 'greater good' is more important than property rights, privacy rights or even personal choice. And if you don't see how that will eventually be abused by our government, then you are a fool.

That precedent has always existed. Any time a person's liberty infringes on the liberty, property, or health of another, the government - particularly local and state government - has a right to regulate it.

For the same reason that no, you cannot have a bonfire in your backyard three feet from your neighbor's fence, you do not have the right to spew your cancer-causing effluent into my face, or into the face of some poor wage-worker for whom the alternative to work may be death or government assistance.

Smellvin: This makes me want to take up cigar smoking just to piss off hippies. Anyone have any suggestions on how to make my first purchase?

Walk into a cigar shop and tell the clerk you'd like to develop a habit, they'll be happy to help.

If you're shy about that kind of thing, just try them out to see what you like. I'd recommend against spending more than $6 for a cigar, and don't go for the long ones unless you think you'll finish the whole thing.

burndtdan: Gecko Gingrich: Ahhh...yes. I forgot about inflammation of your tobacco.

i thought the whole point was to enflame your tobacco.

oh... inflame... nevermind.

Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

Weaver95: And thanks to you (and others just like you) we've now established that - as a matter of law - we can control behavior based on what the GROUP thinks is acceptable or not acceptable. Individual desires need not apply.

And that should scare the piss outta people.

Right, people can't see past their own noses these days.

t3knomanser: Remove all Republicans: My only problem is that government has become so addicted to the taxes from cigarettes that they'll never go all the way and finally ban the thing. Another remnant of our early misinformed history that needs to go.

Exactly. The government has a long and successful history of banning drugs. We should expand this to tobacco as well.

Actually, the war on drugs has been quite a breadwinner for the Federal government. And with property seizure laws written as loosely as they are, a number of state and local governments get a cut of that money as well.

Remove all Republicans: Much more efficient than having the large, chaotic uncontrollable public make decisions.

I'm voting for Diebold, too.

OMG, if those politicians know whats good for them they'll reverse that law and get people smoking cigarettes again around other people!

1) Kills more people so to lighten the load pressure on the medical industry
2) Smoking brings in a TON of tax revenue that they'd have to make up for in other ways!

and MusicMakeMyHeadPound...

$6/cigar is a good price (puffs away on La FLor Dominicana DL chiselitto)

attackingpencil: Why couldn't there just be bars/restaurants that don't have smoking? I mean it's not like not having a smoking ban means that everywhere would have to allow smoking. I personally would love it if this were the case, I could go to non-smoking places and not smell like crap/get watery eyes/etc. and at the same time we could respect the property rights of business owners.

The property rights of business owners does not extend to the wage-slaves that work at their business. Without a compelling interest, since the advent of labor laws in the early 1900s businesses have not been permitted to expose their workers unnecessarily to toxic substances, and have been required to minimize to a reasonable degree workers' exposure to such substances. Tobacco smoke is not a necessity for the transaction of business in a bar. The smoking ban in restaurants and bars was simply an extension of this principle.

Weaver95: Right. And thanks to you (and others just like you) we've now established that - as a matter of law - we can control behavior based on what the GROUP thinks is acceptable or not acceptable. Individual desires need not apply.

And that should scare the piss outta people.

We also regulate murder, based on the fact that the group thinks it is unacceptable.

Remove all Republicans: Why? I think it's better that we have government officials deciding what can happen to us based upon their studies and other information. It's all centralized, organized information decided by a few individuals. Much more efficient than having the large, chaotic uncontrollable public make decisions.

crimethink doubleplusungood, eh?

captainktainer: We also regulate murder, based on the fact that the group thinks it is unacceptable.

So smoking is now murder?

I think this is one area where the "invisible hand" should do the work. It seems clear as glass that, if there were a large demand for nonsmoking bars, which there apparently is, then a bar that didn't allow smoking would attract clients a bar that allowed smoking didn't. And vice-versa. Why can't this just work out like that?

And this legislation also has lead to some closing of hookah and cigar bars, which is screwed up.

Weaver95: captainktainer: We also regulate murder, based on the fact that the group thinks it is unacceptable.

So smoking is now murder?

Haven't you been paying attention to those Truth ads? Not only is it murder, it's genocide.

Genocide.

How could you defend genocidal maniacs, Weaver? How could you?

captainktainer: We also regulate murder, based on the fact that the group thinks it is unacceptable.

Murder is outlawed because this is a Christian nation, and the Bible states clearly that murder is forbidden. It says nothing at all about smoking, except for the reference to Moses getting stoned off a burning bush and seeing God.

Weaver95: Right. And thanks to you (and others just like you) we've now established that - as a matter of law - we can control behavior based on what the GROUP thinks is acceptable or not acceptable. Individual desires need not apply.

And that should scare the piss outta people.

Sounds very Democratic.

In other news, priggish-related deaths up 90%.

TFA
"Everybody should have a choice."

It's not a choice. It's an addiction.

The only reason anyone thinks they enjoy smoking is because they don't understand what it's done to their brain. You get a craving, and then you have to smoke just to get back to normal. What's so great about this? Why not instead not smoke, and then be at normal all the time??

captainktainer: The property rights of business owners does not extend to the wage-slaves that work at their business. Without a compelling interest, since the advent of labor laws in the early 1900s businesses have not been permitted to expose their workers unnecessarily to toxic substances, and have been required to minimize to a reasonable degree workers' exposure to such substances. Tobacco smoke is not a necessity for the transaction of business in a bar. The smoking ban in restaurants and bars was simply an extension of this principle.

Truly, the health of the employees is the only argument that I accept for why smoking bans are ok. However, couldn't those people simply work at the non-smoking bars or somewhere else entirely? The owners of smoking bars would presumably have to offer higher wages in order to keep their staff, in the same way that other dangerous jobs generally pay more. Furthermore, I'm completely in favor of regulations that enforce proper air filtration/movement/ventilation to reduce the danger.

burndtdan: i think this is a really interesting story for just that reason. on one hand, one can still make the very convincing argument that even as bad as smoking is, the government has no right to limit my right to smoke.

but however right that sentiment is, it also clearly cannot be said that the government doing just that has some type of negative results.

it's an argument where technically, both sides are right (or at least, not wrong).
THIS

*grabs popcorn* Between this ensuing flame war where both sides have so much ammo to prove their point and the end of the Davidson Kansas game, I should be entertained for the next few hours.