smokking banned in clubs / pubs (1 Viewer)

[OZGIRL86]

How bout known murderers? Like John Howard or Bush, or any number of American ex-presidents?

.

I don't consider john howard a murderer.......Saddam is a murderer

 

[glycerine]

umm please sophie, go and find me one case study in australia where someone has died from passive smoking. just one.

 

[Sophie777]

Hahahahaha

My god. Only like 80% of lung cancer patients smoke.

There are certain types of lung cancers only caused by smoking and patients who have the disease didn't smoke.

Recent case, woman was a barmaid and is currently dying of lung cancer. She DIDN'T smoke. Constantly serving in the bar and breathing in passive smoke. She is suing the bar company for allowing people to smoke in there.

Glycerine, there are many cases of non smokers dying of a lung cancer ONLY caused by smoking.

 

[glycerine]

yeah can you give me references pls? cuz i can shoot anecdotes and hearsay until the cows come home too.

 

[Sophie777]

Simm was a Foodtown supermarket manager in Auckland and Tauranga for 28 years, inhaling second-hand smoke from smoking colleagues in the office, cafeteria and at management meetings.

"I can guarantee it was work-related. My wife and I don't smoke and I don't have friends who smoke. We don't go into smoky environments, like bars. It was only at work where I was exposed to passive smoking."

Dr Peter Zink, his Auckland GP, said passive smoking was to blame for Simm's lung cancer. He said it was unfair that past ACC legislation prevented some people getting compensation for passive smoking injuries.

"The risk of lung cancer is two times higher in a non-smoker living with a person who smokes. The Surgeon General states that passive smoking "is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non-smokers" and several studies have strongly linked passive smoke with heart disease."

http://www.nationaljewish.org/medfacts/passive.html

 

[Sophie777]

It does cause lung cancer. Ask your GP, as any doctor. Ask any person who has any idea on medicine.

 

[glycerine]

thanks for that. i hate when people make blanket statements without proof.

 

[glycerine]

It does cause lung cancer. Ask your GP, as any doctor. Ask any person who has any idea on medicine.

what? i never said smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

 

[Li0n]

If anything it causes dumb cancer, and sophie77 is proof of it

 

[johnson]

It is a bit hypocritical to ban smoking for the good of others while forgeting the far more serious harm caused by overly large cars and fossil fuel burning plants.

To this day there is no report conclusively linking every day passive smoke to any illness.

The only time it is any real threat is when you work at a pub or club for many years (think 40 years to have an increase chance of cancer by 40%).

yeah well fossil fuels and pollution are a completely dfferent issue altogether, but i completely agree with you the government needs to enforce new laws and educate the public about sustainable living and stuff

but banning smoking is good for the workers' perspective, i don't think they should suffer for someone else's enjoyment

 

[thorrnydevil]

I don't think it is taking away people's right to smoke. People don't have the right to kill others. If smokers want to kill themselves, then they can but they have NO RIGHT TO KILL OTHERS!

These people should be the ones with awful cancers! The world is an unfair place full of discrimination. Who cares if its discrimination to smokers! Do you think you would say this if you dying from passive smoke?

If you have a problem in a bar FUCKING WELL LEAVE!

You don't have to stay there, so get the fuck out. I don't smoke, but I know people who do. They won't be able to go to the bar after a hard days work to have a smoke and a beer because your afraid of inhaling a little bit of smoke.

I'm against smoking. I think its a disgusting thing. However, people like you aren't the only ones who should be able to go out and have a good night.

 

[Sophie777]

Calm down.

Having an opinion is not about yelling at people.

Passive smoking does cause lung cancer. And, I don't wanna get cancer. Neither do you i assume. I suppose it wont be until the cancer is more common in the non smoking population that you won't be so aggressive.

My only argument was that it has been proven, without a doubt to cause lung cancer.

And, as for me being dumb. Personal attacks only prove your inability to form a logical argument. I'm not forming a stupid opinion. These are facts.

 

[mack]

Well I agree smokers should be able to have a smoke and beer after work. Thats why the aforementioned segregated smoking/non smoking section was a good one. Non smokers shouldnt have to have their time affected by clouds of smoke.

The point is-Everyone should be able to go out and have a good night. I myself find my night is worsened by constantly inhaling smoke. Its not fair, I shouldnt have to leave just because of that.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Well I agree smokers should be able to have a smoke and beer after work. Thats why the aforementioned segregated smoking/non smoking section was a good one. Non smokers shouldnt have to have their time affected by clouds of smoke.

The point is-Everyone should be able to go out and have a good night. I myself find my night is worsened by constantly inhaling smoke. Its not fair, I shouldnt have to leave just because of that.

I totally agree. Like I said before, there should be two seperate bars for smokers and non-smokers.

 

[Li0n]

Hmm? the dumb part seems logical to me ?
you = dumb for all real x
KEKEKEK!ROFL!~~

 

[Sophie777]

haha ok then.

 

[omg_a]

But the NSW branch of the Australian Medical Association said the delay in a total ban meant more bar staff would die unnecessarily. Its president, John Gallotta, said: "The Government has quoted figures showing that exposure to passive smoking in licensed premises causes between 73 and 97 [bar staff] deaths each year in NSW. That's between 192 and 256 needless deaths before this ban takes effect."

this came from
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/12/1097406573786.html

it was in the smh on tuesday i think. hopefully that clears up the giving proof argument??

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

hopefully this will lead to the eventual banning of smoking (doubtful considering the $$$ it brings in, but im hopeful nevertheless)

 

[ogmzergrush]

I'm all for the ban personally, I respect the right for others to make their own choices, but it's blatantly obvious that an individual's decision to smoke affects those around them, thus denying them the same right.

All the people complaining about not being allowed to smoke when they want to, hard luck, you'll just have to stay at home and do it, where the only person you are killing is yourself.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

although the government makes money from the tax from smoking.. they also lose money when they have to pay for lung cancer treatments...
I've heard smokers come out and say 'but they get so much tax from us! what's their problem?', the truth is i don't think the tax even begins to pay off their medical bills.