Wanna live longer? Stop other people smoking!!

[FluffyMcDeath]

Very intersting.
Sounds like a good reason to ban smoking in public areas.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/05/sci-tech/smoke_ban040405

[FluffyMcDeath]

AccyD wrote:

KennyR wrote:
By banning public smoking, the government make sure you don't pass this deathwish onto people who didn't have the choice.

But people do have a choice. If you do not wish to sit in a pub where smoking is allowed, there are not policemen at the door forcing you to stay, you can go and find another where smoking is banned. Similarly, if you do not wish to work in a smoking environment then you are free to leave.

 Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport. Or how about bus. Are people who go to airports choosing to smoke vicariously? Or do they go to airports for entirely different reasons? What about restaurants? What about in the average workplace?

KennyR wrote:

The pollution levels in the average club or pub are so high, if it was a workplace youd'd be forced to wear protective equipment. Otherwise you could sue your company.

The compensation culture has gone mad these days, no one forces anyone in these industries to work in the environment, it is a matter of choice.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Choosing to not work in an unhealthy environment is tantamount to choosing not to work if there are no better places for the worker to work. I have known many people who have worked smokey bars not because they wanted to work in smokey bars, but that they were able to work in a smokey bar when no-one else was hiring. So long as there are people desperate for a job (even for just a short time) there will be people willing to take these jobs but the fact that people still work these jobs does not mean that they are hapy to do so or even would do so given the choice.

[FluffyMcDeath]

AccyD wrote:

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Delete pub and think instead, for example, airport.

I would think the hundreds of thouands of gallons of airline fuel would make me think twice about smoking in an airport.

I doubt that, but what about the other scenarios where such a quip is even less realistic. How about hospitals? How about Kindergartens?

[FluffyMcDeath]

AccyD wrote:

Everyone knows the risks associated with smoking

But everyone also knows that those risks only effect "other" people. :-D

if you choose not to put yourself in the position of sharing a pub with me (a smoker) then the pubs will see their profits decline.

What has been found locally is that when a group of people go out for a few drinks, if there is a smoker (even only one) in the group, the group will generally go to a smoking establishment rather than alienate the smoker. They are willing to put themselves at risk rather than make the addict feel bad. This is an irrational behaviour but the "free market" we know today would collapse if humans behaved rationally. Crowds in bars are generally not risk averse anyway else why would they drink so much?

Anyway, it's funny to see a smoker getting so uptight about their habit. I don't think I was that uptight when I was a smoker, and if you are, it's a sign that you aren't smoking enough! :lol:

The point of the article was how HUGE the effect of public smoking is on public health among non-smokers. Doubtless if the ban had been given more time the heart attack rate would have gone back up since these are tickers that'll probably fail later anyway, but that the smoking was such a potent trigger was interesting. It would be even more interesting to have been able to observe the effect over a longer period to see just how much longer it would take the folks with dicky tickers to succumb if there was no public smoking.

BTW, smoke in a bar or your car or a room in your house is significantly more toxic that street level car polution, and car polution is quite strictly legislated in most of the industrialized world.