In case you doubt that anti-smoking laws are here to stay, consider that France — yes, the France of smoky cafes and strong unfiltered Gitanes, where smoking is part of the culture — officially goes smoke-free today, joining several other European nations, including Great Britain and Ireland, that have passed laws making restaurants and bars smoke-free.
Amazing. If the French can go smoke-free, it seems only a matter of time before this global health trend reaches Wichita.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
86 Comments
I just don’t get the point of making bars smoke free. It’s the one place where non-smokers smoke.
I don’t get it, PMom…I go to bars ocassionally and I’ve never lit up, neither do any of my friends…and if there is a lot of smoke, I leave.
I’ve had to leave concerts at the Cotillion because of the smoke, so I don’t even go there anymore.
The non smokers have the right to breathe clean air…that right should be number one.
We just buried my brother in law yesterday who died as a direct result of smoking unfiltered Camels for 40 plus years. By the time he quit smoking it was too late..and he suffered terribly the days leading up to his death.
I wish all you smokers could have stood next to his hospital bed like I did and watch him die..then you’d know what you (and your family and loved ones)have to look forward to. I loved him dearly and it really hurts knowing that he could have lived a quality life much longer if he had not smoked. As it was, he never could enjoy his retirement because of his damaged lungs, and he had a horrible, lingering death.
If you can’t quit smoking for yourself, please do it for your family and friends who love you.
I buried a number of smoking relatives too young, but I doubt them seeing others would change their smoking habits as they often stood by seeing their kin suffer horrible deaths. Healthcare workers who deal with these deaths are frequently smokers themselves.
All my life I’ve seen “No Smoking” signs. Some places simply did not want smoking in their premises and put up signs and people abided by it.
I don’t particularly like to dine in smoky places, but I have been known to enjoy a cigarette and a scotch and soda together.
Unless it’s a public place such as a court house or airline terminal where people have no choice to attend, seems to me the proprietor should have the option (and the balls) to decide whether or not his/her clientel will patronize a place of business, regardless if people are smoking.
One of my all-time favorite barbeque places reeks with smoke from the pit. Maybe (or maybe not) second-hand hickory smoke isn’t as lethal as tobacco smoke. But it seems absurd that the government should require that place to be “smoke free… except for some kinds of smoke.” The lady who owns the place ought to decide.
Hickory smoke smells a lot better than tobacco smoke. I don’t think they intentionally place carcinogens, tar, and nicotine in hickory chips, either.
Oh please!
I’ve buried plenty of relatives and friends for plenty of reasons, everything from heart disease to car crashes caused by drunk drivers. Why aren’t fatty foods, alcohol and automobiles being banned?
The smoking ban is clearly a case of the non-smoking majority imposing its preference on everyone else. Nothing more. The science is junk — along the lines of that which had you eating piles of oat bran not so long ago.
Maybe I’ll jump on the bandwagon and ask the city to pass an ordinance to restrict the blatherings of sanctimonious nitwits on the Eagle editorial page since it drives my blood pressure up.
Sorry, the science is not junk…second hand smoke is dangerous to one’s health. If you eat a Big Mac or drink a quart of whiskey everyday…you’re not hurting me. But lite up next to me and you’ll hurt my lungs with your carcinogen filled smoke.
“The smoking ban is clearly a case of the non-smoking majority imposing its preference on everyone else.”
Exactly. And they do so in the name of the nanny state, who knows what’s good for you, whether you like it or not.
“It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority.” – Lord Acton
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” – Albert Camus
Yea, I agree, there is no reason to ban smoking at any place unless its a place young children frequent because they have to acompany their parents so they don’t have a choice to avoid second hand smoke. But adults do have a choice to avoid smokey places in the name of their health, and that is their responsibility not any level of government. I think a lot of places should be smoke free, but bars should have a choice, any place that serves alcohol as the majority of their profit should allow smoking, or constitutionally it should be up to the business owner to decide for himself, its the business owners choice.
Might as well ban cigarettes and tobacco products, but you won’t see the government do that, I’m sure the big tobbaco companies have some close ties in government. Plus smokers are taxed, that would be a lot of taxes lost.
I lived in Wichita,and now live in Wi.
A smoking ban was passed here in Appleton Wi in the taverns and restuarants.The only thing about it,is the the city is telling a private business owner what he can/cannot do in his place of livelyhood,which is unconstitutional and deprives him of smoking customers,therefore taking bread off of his table.If you don’t like the smoke,don’t go in the bar!!
White elephant – are you implying the only people who ever enjoy a drink at a bar with friends, are people who smoke?
Please don’t throw in the drama of, “might as well ban cigarettes and tobacco products…” because a public smoking ban has nothing to do with the complete ban of a product.
The bottom line is – keep the smoke outside.
This is just too good – warn ahead for ‘nasty’ words!
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=59
My favorite part:
“When it came to tobacco and alcohol we made the startling discovery that people over 30 were no longer little children who still p*%$ed the bed.
“In fact, not only were they able to read the gigantic warnings on cigarette packets, they were also fully aware that drinking two bottles of Muscadet on an empty stomach could lead to hangovers, half-remembered unpleasantness and chronic liver disease – but they were going to do it anyway because they were adults and it was no-one else’s f&%#ing business.”
Perfect.
GMC, good article.
My favorite line was the last one:
“The report made a series of key recommendations for public policy makers including putting warnings on stuff and then shutting the f**k up.”
——————————————————————–
We have the Nanny Government now telling us what we can and can’t do in privately owned establishments. In the interest of public safety (?), or in the interest of the majority?
Government tells us in many locales that we can no longer smoke in bars, for example. It’s not good for our health.
But it is OK to consume as much alcohol as you want, then hope that you don’t get caught driving drunk on the way home from the bar.
Our Nanny is selective on keeping us safe.
Apparently, certain vices are allowed, and others are not.
Those who want bigger government, should shut the f**k up, when government finally gets around to limiting one of their favorite vices.
But who cares about freedom anyway?
All we want is a big Nanny Government to take care of us, and give us free stuff.
And beggers can’t be choosers.
Unfortunately, it’s like a natural law that the best bars, with the liveliest conversation and offering the biggest laughs, always reek of second-hand smoke.
I don’t smoke, I hate second-hand smoke, and I agree with Mary that the default relationship between smokers and non-smokers should always favor clean air first and foremost (favors the non-smoker, that is). Hell, American smoking habits have been so artfully ingrained in American society by tobacco marekting efforts that this relationship is STILL largely wrong. How any smoker in their right mind could just ASSUME that s/he can smoke indoors (or outdoors, sometimes), fill the air with exhaled smoke, water vapor from their lungs, and incinerated epithelial cells and this is somehow their god-given right is retarded. I don’t care who you are, that’s just wrong.
All that said, I agree: let the biz decide. No need for a law, as long as it’s just us adults sharing the same enclosed space. And I’ll just suffer the crap air when I need a laugh and a beer.
once the nanny nazis are done with tobacco whats next bars that serve booze thats not good for you, fatty food, sugar? Cars their dangerous too, and the exhaust isnt any better than tobacco smoke.
Fast Food will be banned next Tom.
Only McSalad’s will be allowed.
I took a trip to Ireland recently. The worst thing about Dublin was the smoking ban. All it did was drive the smokers outside. So all along the sidewalk was discarded cigarettes and the smokers. You actually needed to go inside for clean air.
All the result of typical stage one thinking.
An even better reason not to have a no smoking policy.
Any time the Fascist Left now running the EU puts up a policy…we should be against it.
As we should when the Fascist Left of the US Media spouts such same policy.
A whole new book came out about these groups this week. Keep them under your watchful eyes all the time.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841/badblue-20
The french are still smoking, Vandals torched 372 cars as France celebrated the New Year, cars that is. I just read this on the internet. That is a lot of second hand smoke to breathe.
Last posting at 12:52 pm
It is now 1:16 pm
Cigarette break is now over, everybody back to work.
Smoking should be banned everywhere except in one’s own home. We seem to be finally catching on to the fact that when drug addicts (which is what smokers are) blow their lethal foul smelling smoke around, it does more damage than merely smelling bad.
White elephant – are you implying the only people who ever enjoy a drink at a bar with friends, are people who smoke?
Please don’t throw in the drama of, “might as well ban cigarettes and tobacco products…” because a public smoking ban has nothing to do with the complete ban of a product.
The bottom line is – keep the smoke outside.
Posted by: free2breathe
The bottom line may be health hazards when it comes to second hand smoke. But the real bottom line is keeping our rights, a business owner has the right to choose whether to allow smoking or not, maybe they can make a big sign that says smoking permitted outside of a businesses doors so that people know there might be smoke in the building, so they can avoid the smoke. Plain and simple, if the smoke in a business is a threat to your health then don’t patron it, stay away, don’t take your kids in there, only you are responisble for your health and your kids, not the government. You can avoid cigarette smoke, just don’t go into the places that allow smoking, on the flip side you can’t avoid drunk drivers, maybe we should ban alcohol again.
Mary you said yourself 40 years of smoking non filter cigarettes. Gee if it took 40 years, must not be all that dangerous to YOUR health huh.
For a current list of smoking bans in the US, go to:
http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=519
It’s a very lengthy list of states and localities that have banned indoor smoking, organized by the type of ban. You will need to click on a link to see the pdf file.
Pmom, I didn’t live with my brother in law, but as a result of his example, 4 of his 5 kids smoked, and only one has quit so far.
My brother-in-law loved life and loved to garden, travel, etc…but because of his COPD, he was never really able to enjoy his life after he was forced to take early retirement due to his chronic lung disease.
I have a friend who grew up with her parent’s chain smoking, and as a result, has emphysemia even though she has never smoked a cigartte in her life…her pulmunologist told her it was her parent’s smoking that caused her to develop the disease later in her life.
You can deny the effects of smoking all you want, but the medical evidence proves the negative consequences for smokers and those who are subjected to second hand smoke.
I remember a teacher once telling me as I lit up a cigarette when I was 17..”If you continue to smoke and manage to live to the age of 60, you’ll wish you hadn’t (lived that is)”.
I quit smoking when I was 18…and I’ll always be thankful to that teacher and my then boyfriend (who is now my husband) who threatened to break up with me if I didn’t quit. Not only did they save my life, but they saved the quality of my life.
I’m a non-smoker (life long, age 69) and I think restricting smoking in all venues in Wichita is kow-towing to a bunch of do-gooders. We like to go to a couple of eating places, which allow smoking, and they have the type fans in the ceiling that draws off the smoke. If we happen to be seated next to smokers, or some move in next to our booth or table, we just move.
If YOU don’t want to be around smokers, you have the option to “opt out”. PERIOD.
As to the French….I think I recall a very apt hand gesture that was a favorite of the Monty Python gang, and I raise it “salute” to them.
Why should the majority (80%) have to “opt out” to the minority (20%)?
There are plenty of places smokers can indulge…their homes, their front porch, their cars, and outside almost anywhere.
I’ve been to communities that have smoking bans, and it’s really nice to be able to go anywhere for a dinner or a drink and not have to worry about being able to breathe.
Try it, gazz, you’ll like it. As for me, I really don’t worry too much aboout the rights of smokers, especially when billions of our tax dollars is spent treating their smoking related illnesses and over 400,000 people die each year in our country as a direct result from smoking.
research shows that communites that have smoking bans also have fewer smokers as a result…if you make smoking a big enough hassle, people will simply give it up. That’s a win/win for everyone.
Mary I agree, I think resturants that don’t serve alcohol should be non-smoking, but I think it should be up to the business owner to decide, and who knows maybe the state should give an extra tax break to the business owners who choose to ban smoking at their own establishments. We shouldn’t force a ban on business owners it is their choice, but what we could do is make it appealing to ban smoking by giving tax breaks to the business owners who choose to do it.
Imagine that, Kansas could actually set an example to the rest of the nanny police states in our country. By not forcing bans, but encourging them.
I don’t consider it a “nanny state” thing to protect those who don’t smoke from those who do. When a person engages in an activity that is harmful to those around them, they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. Period.
If I own a shop, and I want to cater to smokers and allow smoking, then dont’ come to my store…it is really that darn simple.
But no, you couldn’t just let people be, you had to take over everyone else’s rights too. What crap.
What gives you the right to intentionally ruin your health and then expect my tax dollars to pay for your medical care for a totally preventable disease?
I’ve never agreed with non-smoking laws. I much prefer to let business owners decide how to run their own businesses.
However, it’s fun to watch the smokers whine and bitch.
I tell you it’s really nice where they have smoking bans…I don’t think you’d find anyone in California or Utah that thinks it’s a bad idea.
Well, from a normally very polite smoker, a suggestion?
If my smoke bothers you, please feel free to say so POLITELY.
I don’t know how often I have gotten the dirtiest looks or heard loud remarks addressed to others but meant for me. You know? Talking about me to talk to me?
In a nice friendly voice, try “Excuse me, but your smoke bothers me. Would you mind?”
And I will happily comply.
There are places where I doubt business can continue if you ban smoking. I wouldn’t shoot pool or bowl if I couldn’t smoke for example.
You owe it to your son to quit, JR. No excuses. Don’t put him through what my family just endured. Life is too short as it is.
I know it’s hard, but you’re young enough JR, that if you quit now, it won’t be too late.
OK, I’ll quit preaching now. Goodnite all!
…And first they came for the smokers….
Then they came for the ????….
Heh.
You COULD argue my son is still alive BECAUSE I smoke.
I tried to quit a couple times. One time I quit for half a day and my ex ended up telling me to start again.
I quit for a week once. Then I thought “Gee, would I get the same buzz I used to get if I had just one?” I didn’t. But took it up again anyway.
I’ve been smoking 20 years. Like an idiot I started when I was over 20 to get this….impress a girl.
Likely any damage to me is already done.
And I smoke light filtered cigarettes and my son has never been ill. So I don’t feel like I’ve hurt him much more than air pollution does.
Maybe someday.
Did anyone post this? Who cares or gives a flying duck what the french do?
The only trend setting example Franch has done for us ended up hurting us in the end… Whatever they do – we should do the opposite!
I prefer American Toast and American Fries.
Screw the French.
What disease are you referring to that is totally preventable, Mary? There isn’t any such thing…
…And first they came for the smokers….
Then they came for the ????….
…. your guns?
What gives you the right to intentionally ruin your health and then expect my tax dollars to pay for your medical care for a totally preventable disease?
Posted by: Mary Caruso | January 01, 2008 at 07:43 PM
That’s right! It would be WRONG to expect someone ELSE to pay for someone’s healthcare!
Now you got it Mary.
Max?
I know Mary. Mary is a friend of mine.
She will NOT agree with your interpretation of her post.
You know? Like earlier when you swallowed your foot on another thread.
Keep plugging Max. Just read better. You just react too fast.
Never swallowed my foot JR.
There is no End Date for personal responsibility. Whether someone is unemployed 1 day or 10 years, it’s still their responsibility to take care of themselves.
And these were not poor people by any means. Mary claimed they owned a home and had other assets.
Well, before I go begging for help, I’ll do what I can with the assets I have.
“I have mine, give me yours too!”
And JR, you are not the Blog Interpretor.
Pretty damn Hypocritical of Mary to bitch about paying for healthcare for a smoker, when she’s begging for healthcare handouts for her family.
Take it to the thread it belongs on Max.
There you go again…
Reacting instead of thinking.
“when she’s begging for healthcare handouts for her family.”
To be clear, Max is bringing another thread here.
To clarify? Mary is in favor of national health care. I have known her almost 3 years and have never seen her “beg” for anything.
You know? Like earlier when you swallowed your foot on another thread.
Keep plugging Max. Just read better. You just react too fast.
Posted by: J R | January 01, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Take it to the thread it belongs on JR.
You hung over JR?
Actually with all the taxes smokers pay on a pack of cigarettes, we should be able to pay for their healthcare, plus all the non-smokers healthcare, where exactly is our cigarette tax money being spent? In Iraq?
That’s what I want to know WhiteElephant.
I just read that the tobacco manufacurers receive about 6% profit from selling cigarettes, retail makes a little more, then the governments profit from taxing is 50%. So the government is profiting more off selling cigarettes than the manufacurers, way more. Shouldn’t we know exactly how this money is being spent. Hell national healthcare would be a non issue if our government used all the cigarette tax for that matter.
These combined cigarette tax rates do not include the federal cigarette tax (39 cents per pack)
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/cigarett.html
(January 1, 2007)
STATE TAX RATE
(¢ per pack)
Alabama (1) 42.5
Nebraska 64
Alaska (3) 180
Nevada 80
Arizona 200
New Hampshire 80
Arkansas 59
New Jersey 257.5
California 87
New Mexico 91
Colorado 84
New York (1) 150
Connecticut 151
North Carolina 35
Delaware 55
North Dakota 44
Florida 33.9
Ohio 125
Georgia 37
Oklahoma 103
Hawaii (3)
Oregon 118
Idaho 57
Pennsylvania 135
Illinois (1) 98
Rhode Island 246
Indiana 55.5
South Carolina 7
Iowa 36
South Dakota 53
Kansas 79
Tennessee (1) (2) 20
Kentucky (2) 30
Texas 141
Louisiana 36
Utah 69.5
Maine 200
Vermont 179
Maryland 100
Virginia (1) 30
Massachusetts 151
Washington 202.5
Michigan 200
West Virginia 55
Minnesota (4) 123
Wisconsin 77 2
Mississippi 18 Wyoming 60
Missouri (1) 17
Dist. of Columbia 100
Montana 170
U. S. Median 80.0
Source: Compiled by FTA from various sources
(1) Counties and cities may impose an additional tax on a pack of cigarettes in AL, 1¢ to 6¢; IL, 10¢ to 15¢; MO, 4¢ to 7¢; NYC $1.50; TN, 1¢; and VA, 2¢ to 15¢.
(2) Dealers pay an additional enforcement and administrative fee of 0.1¢ per pack in KY and 0.05¢ in TN.
(3) Tax rate is scheduled to increase to $2.00 per pack on July 1, 2007 in AK and to $2.00 on Sept. 30, 2007 in HI.
(4) Plus an additional 25.5 cent sales tax is added to the wholesale price of a tax stamp (total $1.485).
Source: Compiled by FTA from various sources
(1) Counties and cities may impose an additional tax on a pack of cigarettes in AL, 1¢ to 6¢; IL, 10¢ to 15¢; MO, 4¢ to 7¢; NYC $1.50; TN, 1¢; and VA, 2¢ to 15¢.
(2) Dealers pay an additional enforcement and administrative fee of 0.1¢ per pack in KY and 0.05¢ in TN.
(3) Tax rate is scheduled to increase to $2.00 per pack on July 1, 2007 in AK and to $2.00 on Sept. 30, 2007 in HI.
(4) Plus an additional 25.5 cent sales tax is added to the wholesale price of a tax stamp (total $1.485).
Lists too long to post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
This is the list of 599 !!!!! additives in cigarettes submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in April of 1994. It applies, as documented, only to American manufactured cigarettes intended for distribution within the United States by the listed companies. The 5 major tobacco companies that reported the information were:
American Tobacco Company
Brown and Williamson
Liggett Group, Inc.
Philip Morris Inc.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
One significant issue is that while all these chemical compounds have been approved as additives to food, they were not tested by burning. Burning changes the properties of chemicals. More than 4000 !!!!!! chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette.
Of all the reasons to ban smoking or do anything else, “because the French do” is the lamest one I’ve ever heard.
Many years ago I was waiting in a bank line, leaning on a cane because of a sports injury, when a sweet little old lady asked me about the cane. I told her my knee joint was very stiff. She said she would tell me the secret she had found in her eighty-plus years of life about how to keep from getting stiff in the joints.
She leaned close to me, and with a twinkle in her eye she said, “The secret to keep from getting stiff in the joints is….don’t go into them!”
Don’t like smoking estabishments? Don’t go into them.
What disease are you referring to that is totally preventable, Mary? There isn’t any such thing…
Posted by: swallow my nickel
Yes, nickel…smoking related illnesses are preventable because people don’t have to smoke. Many diseases come to mind that are related to smoking cigarettes…emphysemia and most lung cancers top the list, many heart diseases could also be prevented by not smoking.
Max, I’m not “begging” for handouts for my family, asshole. I’m just making the point that people shouldn’t have to lose their shirts to get the health care they need.
I suppose when you’re 65 (maybe you already are) you won’t take advantage of Medicare, because to you, that would be taking a government handout?
IF you could prove that the only way that anyone gets those diseases is to smoke, you would have a case, Mary. But that proof does not exist…
And I’m not advocating for “free” health care, I’m advocating for “affordable” health care. Even today people with Medicaid have co-pays. No one really gets a free ride.
When I had cancer, I paid out about $4,000 out of pocket, even with good health insurance. I think that was fair.
I’m very thankful I HAD insurance, because I would have hated to sell my house in order to pay for my treatment, no one should have to do that.
I’ve been a nuse for over 20 years, and I’ve never seen anyone with emphysemia who hasn’t smoked or been exposed to secondhand smoke.
It’s pretty rare to see someone with lung cancer who hasn’t smoked..the only other exception is being exposed to asbestos or grain dust or having a primary cancer elsewhere in the body.
The numbers will tell you that smoking most definately causes cancer, heart disease, and COPD.
That’s “nurse”, not “nuse” sometimes I’m a “muse”, but I’ve never been a “nuse”.
it’s good to know that your experience as a nurse makes you smarter than all of the scientists who have ever studied this subject, since all of them only show smoking as a risk factor, and not a cause…
“Risk factor” or “cause”..it’s really the same. Why don’t you call a cancer specailist or a pulmunologist and ask him/her if smoking causes emphysemia or lung cancer? I’ll bet you $100 they tell you the same thing I did.
“specialist”…man, my spelling sucks this morning!
I never said I was smarter than the scientists, I just know what Ive experienced…and I never watched anyone die from lung cancer or emphysemia that didn’t smoke. Smokers have a good chance of getting lung cancer and all smokers get emphysemia, while it’s rare that non-smokers get those lung diseases.
I suppose when you’re 65 (maybe you already are) you won’t take advantage of Medicare, because to you, that would be taking a government handout?
Posted by: Mary Caruso | January 02, 2008 at 09:29 AM
NO it would not be a handout. Unless of course, Max (and his employer) are not paying into the medicare payroll deduction.
AW, Mary is out of her mind. She has no clue that Medicare taxes and premiums pay for Medicare, though within 10 years it will be broke.
And it’s Pretty damn Hypocritical of Mary to bitch about paying for healthcare for a smoker, when she’s begging for healthcare handouts for her family.
She says she’s not begging. She’s just asking for affordable healthcare. WTF does THAT mean?
It means Mary wants someone to pay her $$$ to make it “affordable” so she doesn’t have to dip into her savings account, or give up a third car, or not go to Europe this year.
Mary pays more for Cable TV, Cell Phones, and Entertainment then she would if she paid her own health insurance.
I’ve never heard anyone whine and rant more, then Moaning Mary.
AW, Mary is out of her mind. She has no clue that Medicare taxes and premiums pay for Medicare, though within 10 years it will be broke.
And it’s Pretty damn Hypocritical of Mary to bitch about paying for healthcare for a smoker, when she’s begging for healthcare handouts for her family.
She says she’s not begging. She’s just asking for affordable healthcare. WTF does THAT mean?
It means Mary wants someone to pay her $$$ to make it “affordable” so she doesn’t have to dip into her savings account, or give up a third car, or not go to Europe this year.
Mary pays more for Cable TV, Cell Phones, and Entertainment then she would if she paid her own health insurance.
I’ve never heard anyone whine and rant more, then Moaning Mary.
“Smokers have a good chance of getting lung cancer and all smokers get emphysemia, while it’s rare that non-smokers get those lung diseases.”
===========
And there you prove my point exactly, Mary…if they were caused by smoking, then everyone who smoked would have them. You also say that people who don’t smoke get these diseases, so obviously there is another cause for them.
Ya know Max? I am starting to take a real dislike to you.
Wow Max, you really ARE an asshole!
I couldn’t even GET insurance if my husband loses his job and benefits. Would YOU have $70,000 to cough up for cancer treatment? If so, than good for you…for most of us that would be a real disaster…hope you can stay safe and secure in your ivory tower.
Swallow, if you smoke you WILL get emphysemia, and your chances of developing lung cancer are greatly increased. Smoking DOES cause these diseases, no matter that you choose to stick your head in the sand.
Take me up on my bet…call a cancer specialist and ask them if smoking CAUSES most fatal lung diseases.
BTW, my niece’s biopsy turned out to be negative!!! They really dodged a bullet this time.
What a relief!!
Affordable health care should be available to every American.
My friend called from Norway the other day..they have universal health care there and prenatal care is a requirement of women if they want to get family leave when they have their baby. Just think how many problems just that one simple rule would prevent.
Affordable healthcare would encourage preventative healthcare, which would reduce overall the cost of healthcare.
By not allowing drug companies to bribe doctors with perks or advertise, billions could be saved on medications. It’s already the law in Japan.
If everyone had a co-pay, even a small one, that might discourage people from wasting resources like utilizing ERs for minor complaints.
There are so many ways to bring down the cost of healthcare, and making it more affordable for the average person.
The big problem is there are too many corporations making huge profits with the present system, and they will fight any and every change by keeping the politicians in their pockets.
“I’ve never heard anyone whine and rant more, then Moaning Mary.”
Oh please, Max..you’d get the blue ribbon for whining and bitching…if I whine and bitch, it’s because you’ve been such a good role model!
I did call someone who works in cancer research at the KU Medical Center in Kansas City, and they said you are WRONG!! Donate the $100 to breast cancer research, please…
=============
I suppose you think your liver cancer was caused by smoking too…
As to your comments about me having my head in the sand…My grandfather died of lung and bone cancer, my mother died of breast cancer, my father is a 10 year survivor of colon cancer, and I work in an industry that has a higher risk of lung cancer, among other respiratory diseases…so it is in my best interests to keep up on everything in the field. No, I don’t smoke either…
…and neither did any of the 3 afore-mentioned relatives, either.
Randy …
The only way things will change in Wichita is to see an entirely new City Council seated. The current Council will simply write a “compromise” ordinance that won’t actually change a thing. It only takes a few whiners to scare the beJesus out of the City Council.
Yeah right, you called an expert and they said that smoking doesn’t “cause” lung cancer..was that person a pulmunologist or a oncologist? I didn’t think so.
BTW, I didn’t have liver cancer.
You’re splitting hairs, swallow…yes, smoking INCREASES the risk of getting lung cancer…it’s all the same, just different ways of saying it.
Every chronic smoker WILL have emphysemia, also. Or do you dispute that, too?
I stand by what I said, I’ve never seen anyone die from primary lung cancer that didn’t smoke. It’s pretty rare to get primary lung cancer from anything other than smoking. If you fill your body everyday with carcinogens, that may CAUSE you to get cancer.
Your grandfather probably had bone cancer first, or a primary cancer somewhere else in teh body, and it spread to his lungs, that’s common, because the lungs are very vascular and a primary cancer elsewhere in the body will go to the lung when it metastisizes.
Breast cancer may not be directly caused by smoking, although smoking increases the risk.
You can get exposed to respiratory toxins and that will also increase the chance of lung cancer, but the main cause of lung cancer is smoking cigarettes.
I lost both my parents to lung cancer. I’ve never smoked (eh, tobacco. .nevermind).
My verdict: you hage a right to poison yourself. There are numerous ways to do so–tobacco just happens to be fairly good at it. But keep the stuff out other people’s lungs. And yes, within reason. Whatever that means.
THAT’s the dividing line. Your fist, my nose. Nothing new.
The argument is really over how that is fairly and logically accomplished.
Lets hope for a smoking ban soon. My husband and I went to TJs yesterday for lunch because they have such a good hamburger, the minute we ordered, the two ladies behind us lit up, even though we moved across the room from them, we could still smell their cigarettes while we were eating. It’s not fair that we can’t enjoy good food without the stink of someone who’s so inconsiderate that they can’t wait until they leave the restaurant for their tobacco fix.`