Published: January 9, 2014 1:19PM
Sign in or
January 12, 2014 6:36PM
Oh please ...you don't want THEM to tell you that you can't smoke at a certain place. Then you turn around and tell THEM they shouldn't eat at a certain place. Surely I ain't the only one that sees the hypocrisy here.
January 12, 2014 11:34AM
pitchfork: "And yes there are a few in that picture that might need to leave the McDonalds alone for a while."
Although the "point" (and I use that term loosely) that you are trying to make is totally irrelevant, it is also incorrect. Which ones specifically...I don't see any "McDonald's" casualties in that photo. Nobody appears to be overweight...look at all of the photos for different views.
January 12, 2014 11:25AM
"Bullbutter" may arse!
You should know by now that I don't just make this stuff up. The source of these peer reviewed scientific study findings is found on the web at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
"Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and can cause coronary heart disease.1,3
Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 46,000 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.4
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25–30%.1
Breathing secondhand smoke can have immediate adverse effects on your blood and blood vessels, increasing the risk of having a heart attack.1,2
Breathing secondhand smoke interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of having a heart attack.
Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage the lining of blood vessels and cause your blood platelets to become stickier. These changes can cause a deadly heart attack.
People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk of suffering adverse effects from breathing secondhand smoke and should take special precautions to avoid even brief exposures.1
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [accessed 2013 June 10].
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A Report of the Surgeon General: How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: What It Means to You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010 [accessed 2013 June 10].
3. Institute of Medicine. Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence [Adobe PDF file] [External Web Site Icon] [PDF–707.47 KB]. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 2009 [accessed 2013 June 10].
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000–2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008;57(45):1226–8 [accessed 2013 June 10].
Bodeen: "Smokers are potentially very dangerous to non-smokers (especially children and elderly) so really you have no "right" to expose them. AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPOSE YOUR AUTO EXAUST FUMES TO EVERYBODY? I KNOW, IT'S DIFFERENT. Isn't it!"
No, really it is NO different, which is why your car is equipped from the manufacturers with expensive exhaust emmissions reduction equipment, and it is heavily regulated by the government which sets up emission standards to limit these pollutants based on their effects on humans and the environment.
Emission standards are requirements that set specific limits to the amount of pollutants that can be released into the environment. Many emissions standards focus on regulating pollutants released by automobiles (motor cars) and other powered vehicles but they can also regulate emissions from industry, power plants, small equipment such as lawn mowers and diesel generators. Frequent policy alternatives to emissions standards are technology standards.
Evolving over the course of several years, the EPA's automotive emissions regulations have been approved by Congress via amendments to the Clean Air Act. The idea behind all of these amended regulations, of course, is that tighter control over tailpipe emissions leads to cleaner air.
It appears to be working, as longtime residents of Southern California have observed — smog, while still a major problem, is nowhere near the eyeball-searing levels it was 20 years ago. Today, the emissions standards in the U.S. are more stringent than anywhere else in the world, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Which Emissions Are Regulated?
No matter the vehicle type, Tier 2 regulates the emissions of five tailpipe pollutants:
- Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOG) — this category accounts for alcohols and other pollutants that are not hydrocarbons but can lead to production of ozone, a principal smog-related compound
- Carbon Monoxide (CO) — toxic to humans when inhaled
- Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) — can react and produce ozone, a toxin, and contributes to acid rain formation
- Particulate Matter (PM) — when inhaled, can cause lung and bronchial problems; thought to be carcinogenic; also a contributor to smog
- Formaldehyde (HCHO) — can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes; cause headaches, allergies and trigger or aggravate asthma symptoms
Note that none of the pollutants regulated today are "greenhouse gases" (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) nitrous oxide (N2O) or water vapor (H2O).
Non-Methane Organic Gases (NMOG) — this category accounts for alcohols and other pollutants that are not hydrocarbons but can lead to production of ozone, a principal smog-related compound
Carbon Monoxide (CO) — toxic to humans when inhaled
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) — can react and produce ozone, a toxin, and contributes to acid rain formation
Particulate Matter (PM) — when inhaled, can cause lung and bronchial problems; thought to be carcinogenic; also a contributor to smog
Formaldehyde (HCHO) — can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes; cause headaches, allergies and trigger or aggravate asthma symptoms
You my be interested to know that many of these harmful constituents of auto exhaust are also contained in cigarette smoke. The key difference is that in cigarette smoke there is a lot more nitrogen compounds which are much more carcinogenic. There is no safe dose of the following constituents.
Tobacco smoke contains a deadly mix of more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic. About 70 can cause cancer. Here are some of the chemicals.
Formaldehyde: Used to embalm dead bodies
Benzene: Found in gasoline
Polonium 210: Radioactive and very toxic
Vinyl chloride: Used to make pipes
Chromium: Used to make steel
Arsenic: Used in pesticides
Lead: Once used in paint
Cadmium: Used to make batteries
Carbon monoxide: Found in car exhausts
Hydrogen cyanide: Used in chemical weapons
Ammonia: Used in household cleaners
Butane: Used in lighter fluid
Toluene: Found in paint thinners
Tar: Drawn into the lungs where it condenses and 70% is deposited on the lungs lining.
Hmmm. Sucked on any tailpipes lately? You might as well.
January 11, 2014 12:38PM
Just breathing second hand smoke momentarily will increase the risk for a person with heart disease to have a heart attack by 1/3. BULLBUTTER
Smokers are potentially very dangerous to non-smokers (especially children and elderly) so really you have no "right" to expose them. AND YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPOSE YOUR AUTO EXAUST FUMES TO EVERYBODY? I KNOW, IT'S DIFFERENT. Isn't it!
January 11, 2014 11:01AM
pitchforkprotester, January 10, 2014 7:35PM
Where have I said I do not believe in science? When science is used to further an agenda that puts fears above fact then I have a problem with it."
Well, besides in the second line in that very statement, and anywhere science interfers with your very narrow uninformed layman's views, like here:
"I am a smoker it's a choice, called it a bad habit if you must, but don't feed false intel, or reports all to further an agenda under the guise of heatlh issues"
You are funny! Just breathing second hand smoke momentarily will increase the risk for a person with heart disease to have a heart attack by 1/3. How many people have you killed like that? Smokers are potentially very dangerous to non-smokers (especially children and elderly) so really you have no "right" to expose them...and that is the crux.
January 10, 2014 7:35PM
Where have I said I do not believe in science? When science is used to further an agenda that puts fears above fact then I have a problem with it. Hundreds of people each day die from lung cancer and are either non-smokers or have not ever been around second hand smoke.
Gezz you talk about right to breathe fresh air and you get more crap breathing each day walking around downtown Frankfort, not to mention the kids in daddy truck blowing black smoke because they think it’s cool. And let’s not forget that even being out in the sun can give you cancer. What’s next Sun Free Zones?
I will agree that standing out in front of a restaurant’s door smoking while others are trying to go in to eat is not only wrong but rude too and I don’t mind going away from the door. But when you want to put restrictions on oh let’s say Long View park and making an outdoor park, outdoor park mind you smoke free then that’s getting ridiculous. The ball field I can understand but the whole dang park?
Nonsmoking campaigns gain an inch then they want to go a mile singling out smokers like a leper colony and not giving one single thought that it is an individual choice to smoke just like it’s an individual choice not too, or even the choice to go out to eat. It’s not a right, or even a privilege, but my smoking which is my choice is being infringed on can you at least agree to that?
I’m not rude with my smoking and will not ever be. I respect you and anyone else that does not smoke. But it isn’t being given in return to smokers. The nonsmoking campaign is not polite or respectful, its hateful arrogant individuals that lash out at smokers because they don’t smoke and want everyone to not smoke and that’s where the push back from smokers starts to get nasty.
And yes there are a few in that picture that might need to leave the McDonalds alone for a while.
January 10, 2014 1:10PM
mediumjoe, January 10, 2014 12:17PM
"As if these idiots have nothing better to do. Focus on the Budget!"
Let me guess here, medium joe, and I am going waaaayyyy out on a limb here...are you a smoker?
January 10, 2014 1:07PM
anonymous_1304, January 10, 2014 11:20AM
"IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CHOICE!
SPIRITS ARE MORE HARMFUL AND BREAK APART MORE FAMILIES."
Why are you YELLING? I am looking for that kernal of truth that is usually in most posts, but I do not see any in your comments as stated.
What "all comes down to choice"? Certainly I do not feel comfortable with allowing nicotine addicts to make the choice for me as to whether I am exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). While I agree that it should be an adult's right and choice to take into their OWN bodies whatever they wish (including heroin, meth, nicotine or whatever), it is not their right and choice to force others in their proximity to ingest these substances along with them. And that is the issue!
"SPIRITS ARE MORE HARMFUL AND BREAK APART MORE FAMILIES."
Spirits are more harmful than what? Tobacco products? Are they evil spirits? You betcha'!
According to the CDC:
Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. Despite these risks, approximately 46.6 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral cancers.
The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. An estimated 88 million nonsmoking Americans, including 54% of children aged 3–11 years, are exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the same poisons in cigarette smoke as smokers.
Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death, including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 die of heart disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory tract infections.
Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion a year in medical costs and another $97 billion a year from lost productivity.
Tobacco kills far more people than the alcohol.
According to the CDC:
There are approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States. This makes excessive alcohol use the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for the nation.
January 10, 2014 12:17PM
As if these idiots have nothing better to do. Focus on the Budget!
January 10, 2014 11:20AM
IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CHOICE!
SPIRITS ARE MORE HARMFUL AND BREAK APART MORE FAMILIES.
January 10, 2014 9:45AM
What overweight leaders are talking about? Those representatives in the photo? Who among them is overweight? I do not see any.
January 10, 2014 9:40AM
pitchforkedtongue: "I am a smoker it's a choice, called it a bad habit if you must, but don't feed false intel, or reports all to further an agenda under the guise of heatlh issues."
"Bad habit"? In denial much? I think that the proper term for it is an addiction to a lethal and deadly drug that kills 2/3 of those who use it exactly as intended. "It's a choice, just like the use of meth and heroin are choices, only it is much more likely to kill you and those around you than either of these illicit drugs.
What you are calling "false intel" is what more enlightend people call science. Science tells us that passive smoking is the inhalation of smoke, called second-hand smoke (SHS), or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), by persons other than the intended "active" smoker. It occurs when tobacco smoke permeates any environment, causing its inhalation by people within that environment. Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death. The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus that has been established and peer-reviewed during the more than 20 years of continuing research.
These risks have been a major motivation for smoke-free laws in workplaces and indoor public places, including restaurants, bars and night clubs, as well as some open public spaces.
Now pitchfork, you may not believe in science as your many posts on here would indicate, but it is important for a society to base its laws and regulations on science rather than "backwards thinking" opinions, and especially from those of the addicts of the very products that we are trying to regulate. I'd say that smokers have a bit of a conflict of interests here...would you at least concede to that?
Personally, after studying this issue for more than 20 years, I am in agreement with the smokers who say that some of the outdoor restrictions are a bit of an overreach, however, as anyone who has ever had to run the guantlet through all of the smokers around the entrance of your favorite restuarant can attest, there needs to be strict distance requirements established and enforced. While simply walking through that smoke may or may not kill you instantaneously, neither will walking through a plume of recently discharged skunk scent.
The threat threshold should not be what harmful activities of some can precipitate instantaneous death in others, as some smokers would contend. But rather what is irritating, unpleasant or downright dangerous to those innocent folks who are just trying to get on with their lives in public places without unnecessary "intrusion" from drug addicts getting their fix. Smoker's rights END when they impact non-smoker's airspace. Somehow smokers think that they are the ones being intruded upon...which I guess is just their addictions talking.
It is only fair to make all public places smoke free...it is a matter of life and breath.
January 10, 2014 9:20AM
user_33314 it is ironic that most of these overweight people wants to control what others do their bodies. It's funny really, look at them standing there posing for the camera.
H.S. say what you want but they are trying to take away our rights to smoke under the guise of it's bad for others in outdoors. If they get their ways then they will take it even further, watch and see. They will never touch alcohol so no need to worry there because our country cannot afford to lose the tax income it gets from it.
Who are overweight leaders to tell others what to do when it comes to their health.
January 10, 2014 8:50AM
anonymous_424, January 9, 2014 3:05PM
"I am not a smoker, but I don't feel I have the right to tell everyone else what to do and neither does the law makers. We aren't suppose to be living in communism."
I am not a smoker either, but I don't believe that anyone is taking the right of adults to smoke cigarettes away from them, or even trying to. The question is not whether adults have a right to smoke cigarettes, but rather do they have the right to make others around them smoke along with them. I think not.
PS - Nobody currently lives in communism. There has never been a country that has actually practiced true communism. There have been a lot of totalitarian dictatorships in this world and none of them have practiced actual communism. Communism is a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order. It has nothing to do with restricting smoking in public places.
January 10, 2014 8:39AM
What are they planning on turning a whole state, that produces tobacco into a smoke-free state?
I agree with bodeen that in restaurants it is a must, anyone remember how bad Frisch's was in the mornings with all the farmers, and retired folk just stiing around drinking coffee and smoking up the place?
I am a smoker it's a choice, called it a bad habit if you must, but don't feed false intel, or reports all to further an agenda under the guise of heatlh issues.
We keep allowing intrusions on our personal lives by backwards politicians thinking they know what's best we soon will be living in a communism nation.
Next thing they'll try to take our beer away.
January 9, 2014 4:59PM
I am not a smoker. Looks like the smoking issue should be left alone, and a few of you should take up weight watchers.
January 9, 2014 4:58PM
I am a smoker! I strongly believe that owners of businesses should have the say wether they want to allow smoking or not! However, in restaurants that serves and have children in them, smokers should go outside. I have always done this and did it way before our town banned it. It's a matter of respect. Also, people take smoking in public to the extremes by requiring unreasonable distances. It isn't right to tax it and then ban the use of it in public outright. I am also of the opinion that second hand smoke is over exagerated. Simply walking by a smoker isn't like they say. Cars or rooms is one thing but outdoors???? I will never be convinced..
January 9, 2014 3:05PM
I am not a smoker, but I don't feel I have the right to tell everyone else what to do and neither does the law makers. We aren't suppose to be living in communism.
January 9, 2014 1:36PM
It's about time!