Joan Bray knows that less than 30 percent of Missourians favor a smoking ban in bars and cocktail lounges. Affordable air filtration machines can make the air in bars and cocktail lounges that allow smoking cleaner than the air outdoors, far cleaner than OSHA air quality standards. Why does she insist on a strict smoking ban?

The right to breath clean air takes precedence to the right to smoke. I am all for a smoking ban as it will enable me to go out to more places and not have to come home smelling like an ashtray. Smoking is an absolutely repulsive habit which is harmful to all who have to tolerate it.

My business will never be smoke free, I dont care what they say or think. If you dont like the smoking, DON'T PATRONIZE!!! I'm sick of hearing about how bad smoking is for you, it's not 1/2 as bad as they say it is, it's a way to INCREASE taxes on smokers and generate revenue.. A friend was killed by a drunk drive, why don't you outlaw drinking within 10 feet of business's doors??? My dad died from a heart attack, why not outlaw food with fat in them?? the list goes on and on, stop messing with the smokers!

To magafrog if you dont like coming home smelling like an ashtray dont go into places that allow smoking. Smokers have the same rights as non smokers its pretty simple. I am a non smoker and i dont like the smell of 2nd hand smoke either but instead of whining about it i just stay away from places that alow smoking . I am sure if you owned a bar you would allow smoking or you would be out of buisness pretty darn quick. Thats what is wrong with this country poeple like you think you should be able to tell the american poeple what to do. Just like our young men in iraq its ok for them to go over there to keep our country safe and free but he or she cant walk into a bar and have a beer if he she or is not 21 years of age . GET A LIFE IF YOU DONT LIKE IT STAY AWAY FROM IT.................

Buffalo Wild Wings seems to be doing a healthy business and they are smoke free. Other states that have passed similar laws heard the same argument from businesses and smokers that business would drop but they are doing the same as before the law. I applaud the lawmakers and support a statewide ban.

i do not smoke. i am completely against telling business owners or private citizens what it "good" for us. foster's downtown does very well with a non-smoking environment, but they have the c h o i c e to do so. last time i checked cigarette smoking is legal and taxed. if non-smokers don't like smoke i guess they can choose, also. if there is such a tidal wave of support for this further invasion of citizen's personal choices then there sure as heck ought to be a groundswell of patrons of every smoking establishment in missouri making a stink bigger than the smoke they so decry.

It is not even about smoking anymore..it is people that won't stop til you live your lives the way they want you too. Solutions are so simple..if you don't like nudity..don't go to a strip club. If you don't like smoking, don't go to a bar where smoking is allowed..because obviously they could care less if you show up. If your business was so important to them, they would not allow smoking without some govt twits telling them what they can and can't do. The Government has done such a wonderful job so far screwing the country up..just what we need..more laws. Why exactly does the law cover workplaces and Govt buildings???? You already can't smoke there anyway, which is fair.

MichaelH....When you drink, I don't get liver cancer. When you smoke, you exhale proven cancer causing smoke that I am forced to breathe. Smoke all you want, I don't care, I just don't want to die of the same disease that you will die of. BTW, spell check is a wonderful thing stoopid

i'm waiting for michael to call somebody a racist because they disagree with him...that's his usual ploy

Well megafrog, I'm hanging with those in the above post. I find some people more repulsive than their smoke. Be careful with yours and others rights. Easy to lose and hard if not impossible to get back.

So itstimeforchange, if your being forced to breath, then are you going to whatever establishment of your own free will or are you being forced? If the smoking ban never happens, does this mean you will still frequent the establishment. I suspect you will and that would make you stoopid!

time4.......... please don't call out the dreaded spelling police! i can hear the sireens from aphar blasteen.

I feel any state or city that has a smoking ban should also ban the sale of tobacco as well. If they are so concerned about ones health then ban the sale and give up the tax revenue!

Comment...Yes, I have made the decision in the past to avoid certain establishments due to their lack of ventilation and excessive smoke. I would like to enjoy some of the bars in town to see live music, throw darts or just enjoy company. I enjoy Wild Wings for lunch/dinner because of their policy, but sometimes I have to suck it up (No pun intended) to go see my favorite band.

It's amazing how everyone against this ban thinks their rights are being threatened or taken away from the government when its clear they have already been taken away from the tobacco industry. Listen how the message from the lobby is being thrown out in this forum. Smoke good, non-smoke bad. Everyone's mind is already poisoned not just from the cigarettes but also from the message from the tobacco lobby, a very powerful one in DC next to big oil, drug companies and the auto industry.

Smoke em if ya got em

why don't these bleeding hearts buy the business they want to ban smokeing in, then ban smokeing there ? if a man pays for his business with his own money why does the customer think they can run it. the public will no go there if the smoke offends them. as has been said in previous comments people are loseing there right to control there preferances and most people are so stupid they don't realize it.
stop and think, is everyone stops smokeing today, who is going to pay the lost tax revenue. i suggest they raise sales tax and ban liquor also. maybe some of these do gooders would like to pay more sales tax.

michael...thanks for explanation...i was beginning to think that was all you had in your arsenal of debating points because you used it so often

In Az they banned smoking in public places and guess what the bars suffered but the private clubs are doing a great business! Why don't they ban fast food as there are a lot more fat people on public health than smokers!

I personally don't have a problem with anyone killing themselves in the privacy of their own home, but it infringes on my right to breathe fresh air when I have to walk into a store, office or mall and there are several smokers huddled by the door puffing away. Non-smoking sections in restaurants generally don't work because most of them don't have separate HVAC systems for the smoking and non-smoking sides.

I generally don't patronize restaurants that allow smoking but it is impossible to avoid the toxic smoke when smoking is allowed in close proximity of the entrance.

Please kill yourselves in the privacy of your own homes.

If there was an economic advantage to smoke free establishments, they would voluntarily go smoke free. Since that does not seem to be the case, forcibly making a place smoke free impinges on the private property rights of business. The fact is non smokers want to use force of law to impose their will upon others. A very interesting book by P. J. O'Rourke is A Parliment of Whores. Private property rights are addressed therein.

" i'm sick of hearing about how bad smoking is for you, it's not 1/2 as bad as they say it is." What a moronic statement. Do a little research. Tell that to people like my Mother who has lung cancer from smoking and tell it to the thousands of people who have lung cancer that never smoked a day in their life. I can't wait until they pass this law. It can't come soon enough.

Face it, it's only a matter of time before Missouri becomes smoke-free. Other states, like Ohio where I live, have banned indoor smoking and the bars and restaurants adapt to the ban by adding patios or decks to accomodate the ones who have to light up. It's not the end of the world for the smokers or the businesses.

Great fact sheet on second hand smoke.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Way too much data to put in here, go read it

Lets everyone go light up and have a shot of JD!!!!! I am good, while I do not smoke, I respect the rights of others who do. A non-smoking policy for businesses should be a choice the business owner makes, not the government. Alright said what I had to say, now lets get this post to #1 and bump off the school articles :) Casino, beer, whiskey, rock and roll, smoke, "Freedom of Choice", USA rocks!!!

Hooray! it's about time the state finally brought this idea to the table. a smoking ban would afford patrons the opportunity to dine anywhere they like without having to worry about whether it is smoke free environment or not. in addition to pleasing the patrons, eventually, this will lead to further cutting back of smoking everywhere and hopefully encourage people to lead a healthier lifestyle. This, in turn, will help keep our healthcare costs lower and reduce indoor air pollution. I am somewhat surprised that MO has a low tobacco tax. time to turn it around and hike that rate up. use the additional revenue for... ahem... education.

a recent study indicated that nearly 1/4 of smokers in St Joe alone want to quit but feel they can't. this is a perfect incentive and an ideal starting point for those who need "encouragement".

Forgot to add that this act (SB309) also specifies that "a person commits the crime of littering if he or she throws on the ground any cigarettes, cigarette packages, or other smoking-related items." About time.

I have now believe we need to forget about the smoking ban and produce a law which bans the public release of the following chemicals...

* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
* benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
* beryllium (a toxic metal)
* cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
* chromium (a metallic element)
* ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
* nickel (a metallic element)
* polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
* vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)

If State Sen Bray and the antismoking organizations and lobbyists truly believe their claims that a ban will not hurt business, then there is a very simple way for them to melt most of the organized business opposition to their proposal: All they have to do is sign a legal guarantee from their own funds against the losses that they claim will not happen.

If they're telling the truth they should have no problem with such a guarantee, after all, they'd get their legislation and they'd be risking no losses.

Think you'll see them rush to stand behind the integrity of their words and sign such a thing? Heh... yeah, right. They know perfectly well that they are LYING and that the taxpayers will have to foot bills in range of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars per year because of their ban. *THEY* won't pay it... they expect taxpayers to.

See this simple graph of what happened just in terms of charitable gambling tax revenue in Minnesota as a result of their bans:

http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf

The losses extended and grew worse throughout 2008, totaling over 350 million dollars, and that was JUST from the charitable gambling industry. If we had verifiable figures gathered for the wider bar/restaurant/hospitality industries that figure might easily double.

The stories in other banned states are the same: Illinois' gambling tax take was down 415 million in the first year of its ban, Atlantic City down about 300 million with its partial ban (going on some old figures here, that might be a bit off), Colorado down 100 million or more, and so forth. And again... those are just for one small segment of the hospitality industry.

And do the Antismokers pay for it? No, they let the taxpayers pay while they themselves simply laugh all the way to the bank.

So Senator Bray, are you telling the truth? Are you willing to make that guarantee? Of course you'll need to back it up with the budgets paying all the fat salaries and grants of the antismoking organizations, but hey, THEY wouldn't be lying to us, would they? They should be HAPPY to make the guarantee and get their ban.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

From http://ezinearticles.com/?State-Smoking-Bans---Good-Or-Bad-For-Business?&id=1363050

State Smoking Bans - Good Or Bad For Business?

Store owners are understandably disturbed by the presence of smoking bans, but oftentimes, to their surprise, business actually increases due to these prohibitions. Restaurants and bars in Massachusetts saw sales rise in the first six months following their ban in July of 2004. Additionally, a study by the Harvard School of Public Health tested 27 bars and restaurants to find that, "Dangerous, cancer-causing toxins plummeted by 93 percent once cigarettes, cigars, and pipes were banished."2 The Boston Globe reports that, "An increasing body of evidence also suggests that what's good for the health of workers and patrons may also boost the bottom line of businesses."2 Rise in business is attributed to people gathering in bars for food and enjoying sitting at the bar without concern about whether someone will be sitting with them smoking.

Business went up in NYC after their ban was implemented.

Mizzou_69, please name your business so I can avoid it.

This is really just academic anyway, the way that kids are taught now they will ban it in once they can vote.

Most bar owners I know are willing to do without it, they just want a level playing field.

"inconvenience" Well smokers are inconvenience to me. Waa waa waa. Stop talking about non-smokers whining when all I hear are smokers whining. If anyone thinks that the effects of smoking and second hand smoke are not as bad as they say, then I would like to see a study that smoking kill brains cells because they just seem to be getting dumber.

I shouldn't have to avoid places where there is smoking. Why is everything catered towards smokers? Why can't I go out enjoy myself for a change? I CAN NOT go anywhere there is smoking, thanks to you smokers, I have to use an inhaler. And frankly they should be paying for my $70 inhaler. I haven't had to pay that yet ($55, 35 and 48, prices keep changing) but I will as I no longer have insurance. I just got out of school, the only time I had insurance and looking for a job. Not to say I get deathly sick when exposed to smoke, that doesn't go well when I need to go somewhere.

So how would like it smokers, that you couldn't go somewhere that you wanted to go because you were in fear of your life and you can't afford something that helps you live. Its pay up for inhaler or go to the ER which would be far more pricey.

Smoking is like drunk driving. The ones who die are not the ones who do it. Smoking is a slow suicide, smoking is slow murder.

And here's to the smoking sections, a nice quote I like.

"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool."

And frankly I think places that allow smoking, if they go smoke free would pick up. As once again, I can't go anywhere that allows smoking and I'm sure there are plenty of other people who are in the same boat.

I have the right to breath smoke free air, no matter where I am. Smoker picked their bad habit and no matter if they want to believe the health studies or not, maybe they just don't want to deal with the fact that they are killing everyone around them (however I haven't seen any smokers who care about anyone but them self). They should smoke at their own home, their car, place were no one is at. And allow us who picked a better life style to breath smoke free air (can't say fresh air considering the air in St. Joe is crap anyway) and allow children to breath better air and hopefully won't ever have to use an inhaler.

Once again, thank smokers for ruining my health. The lung infection was great.

Personally the smoking doesn't bother me that much. In restaurants and bars I do think they could consider ugliness as a problem to be dealt with. What could be worse than sitting in an establishment among several ugly people. I would suggest a special section for them where most of the tables faced the wall. How would you know who these people were? As a general rule anyone over 50 who has smoked for 30 years is probably not one of the beautiful people.

Senator Bray from missouri...sounds like something from "the simpsons". doh!

Funny, this argument sounds a bit like the one of "forcing religion" in things. Some of the same ones who say, remove it from everything because you are forcing your beliefs on them, are some of the same ones here that are saying...hey just don't patronize the smoking places, its my right to smoke. Raises the question of hipocritical thinking, eh?

As it's written on the Gadsden Flag "DON'T TREAD ON ME"! Once a Freedom is taken away you don't get it back.
I'm not a smoker but I don't have a desire to limit those who do. I have a choice to patronize a business or not. I guess I live a sheltered life as I can't think of any place I've been in a long while where I've come home smelling like an ashtray. If the smell of smoke bothered me that much then I wouldn't go or I'd wash my clothes and take a shower as soon as I got home. Why not give the business owners an incentive (read $$) to install air cleaners instead of taking away their business and potential tax revenue.
A smoking ban in public buildings is not going to cause people to stop smoking. Smokers know the risk and choose to smoke in the same way that people who eat fast food know they're going to get fat.

been there- are you sure you are not a closet smoker? LOL. What about second hand smoke hazards? If alot of smokers would just be a little considerate while out and the businesses had adequate ventilation(most do not), I would not see a reason for a strict ban (although personally I am all for a ban). I do agree with you though on an incentive to business owners.

Before you say I'm off topic, isn't this supposed to be about thinking about the health of others? How many of you nonsmokers are guilty of using your cell phones to send or receive messages while driving? Are you not putting the health/safety of others at risk by doing this? If you answered yes to my second question would you support legislation that would ban smoking in public places and call for fines and loss of driving privileges if you are caught using a cell phone while driving? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you wouldn't.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

i guess this means i won't be able to open that hookah bar? ;0)

238, when the actual budget figures for the full post-ban year were analyzed for NYC they showed a loss, not a gain.

Itstimeforchange, you mention arsenic, but don't mention that you'd have to sit in a room with smokers for close to 600,000 years to get a poisonous dose. For polonium it's even worse: you'd have to sit there for several BILLION years. And you wouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom for all that time or you'd be excreting it.

Jon, you like the antismoking lobby's sound bite of "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool." but you've never thought it out. A pool changes its water about once a year. A decent bar/restaurant/casino changes its air 25,000 to 50,000 times a year. A slightly different ball of wax, eh?

So I'll ask again: Will Senator Bray legally guarantee to cover the losses she'll deny will exist out of her own pocket, or does she want the taxpayers to pay through their own noses?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

David! Don't go too far out on that limb becuase you most certainly bet I would support that legislation! In fact, I would encourage out state politicians to get something passed in that regards. Sooner the better! With they way especially the younger drivers are, they better do something quick. I saw one teen last year driving down the Belt with her knees doing the steering while her hands were doing the texting! I couldn't believe my eyes!

MichaelJ...there is no way you can sit there and claim that it would take 600,000 years for cigarrette smoke to cause damage. No way....you better catch back up to that there turnip truck quick!

Jon- I loved that quote about peeing in the pool. And changing the water once a year comparison is way off too. Chemicals eat that stuff up sure, but not before it exposes others to it...just like smoking. If I can smell it, I am sure regardless of what ventilation system is in place is not adequate enough.

Jon, we have to avoid smoking places in particular for a child with asthma. I know we arent the only ones, I bet some places will see an influx of customers with a ban. Surely, surely you smokers can go an hour or two without a smoke. Or simply go out to your car or something. Dont you just love these ones who make their stifle their kids in the car and choke force the smoke on them? Or the moms who smoke while pregnant and wonder why their kid has problems? Again, if smokers were considerate then I wouldnt have much of a problem. Unfortunately, there are far too many who aren't and there in lies a big part of the problem!

Actually, I guess in compromise, I would be happy if places of employments, shopping malls, restaurants, parks, etc. would be smoke free. Bars and pool halls and stuff, thats fine too, but since a large percent of their customers are smokers, maybe they should offer the business incentives or tax breaks to have them voluntarily become smoke-free. Or heck maybe have a couple smoke-free nights. I know it wont get the stench out, but that is better than directly inhaling someone else's smoke and allow a few people who might otherwise not be able to go to those places some time to go! Just a thought....

Information all from the National Cancer Institute

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure

michaelj...I only listed 9 of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. However, I will concede that many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, including the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the product is smoked, and the paper in which the tobacco is wrapped.

I would like a reference to the 600,000 year exposure timeframe if you have one please

Micheal,

"budget figures" Who keeps budget figures on private bars & restaurants? I would be looking at real results not government budgets!

Which part Michael H? I do get carried away sometimes ;-)

All I know, is that, I am hypersensitive to smoke, my daughter even more so. I know there are many, many people out there the same. Smoking is bad, no matter any twist you put on it. Even knowing that some choose to smoke. I believe that is within their right to do so, and do not want to take away their right to do it...in their own home or private spaces without forcing the ill effects of it onto innocent bystanders in public places. I have a few family members who do smoke. But even in their own home, they will step outside to keep it out of the house. They keep it away from others who do not enjoy sucking it down. I respect that! But all too often, and maybe because we can't see the ones who are being respectful, but we do see the ones who are inconsiderate. Those are the ones I think will me MOST affected by a smoking ban. I do stay away, by my choice, from smoking establishments, purely because of the smoking effects. While it would be nice to not to have to worry about that with a smoking ban in place, I wish there was some way these business could accomodate both EFFECTIVELY. I suppose if there was a way, it would have been done. So does this leave it as...either yes or no smoking. If so, my vote is no smoking...obviously we all choose to do what is best for ourselves, but since smoke causes illnesses in others, I think that *should* carry more weight.

PS: I watched a close family member pass away, their illness contributed to by smoking. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Smoker or non.

Suzy wrote "michaelj...there is no way you can sit there and claim that it would take 600,000 years for cigarrette smoke to cause damage. no way....you better catch back up to that there turnip truck quick!" and "ItsTime" asked for a reference. As I've noted elsewhere, I stand behind EVERYTHING that I write... unlike many of the Antismokers out there... so here you go. My 600,000 year reference was specific to the concern about arsenic... which is always a favorite "deadly element" singled out by Antismokers.

According to Ellenhorn, 1970, the lethal human dose for arsenic in an average man is about 150 mg. Now in 1999 the Mass. DoH conducted a landmark study of chemicals in tobacco smoke and determined that the average US cigarette put out a total of 32 nanograms. If you examine smoke exposure figures from the 1986 Surgeon Generals' Report, before there was a lot of pressure to distort them, you'll find that in relatively unventilated smoky conditions the average nonsmoker was inhaling about 1/100th of a cigarette per hour. In today's air filtrated and ventilated bars/restaurants/casinos the figure is likely closer to 1/1,000th. So that's 1/1,000th of 32 nanograms which is 32 picograms. at 40 hours a week for 50 weeks, that's 2,000 times 32 picograms, or about 64 nanograms per year.

So the question is, how many years at 64 nanograms per year would it take to build up 150 mg (assuming of course the worker was never allowed to go to the bathroom to eliminate any of it.)? In 1,000 years the worker would have 64 micrograms. in 1,000,000 years 64 milligrams. In 2,000,000 years 128 milligrams. So actually my deliberately conservative estimate understated reality by quite a bit.

For a worker to receive the lethal dose of arsenic, pictured as a killing threat by Truth.com propaganda, they would have to work for almost TWO AND A HALF MILLION YEARS.... without a bathroom break.

Have I answered your question?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Suzy, before moving on to ItsTime's concern here, are you aware that one of the largest risk factors for allergic sensitization in children of atopic parents is shielding those children from any exposure to tobacco smoke? See:

http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html

for details.

Now, on to ItsTime's question about the numbers of elements in tobacco smoke. I gave you a full reference for my 600,000 years note. I'll now ask you to point me to the list of 4,000 chemicals in smoke. I've seen the claim made literally thousands of times, so it shouldn't be hard to find the list. Please share the URL for it as I have been unable to find one.

You also note that you listed just 9 elements in smoke. Very often people on both sides of this argument accuse the people on the other side of "cherry picking." I very deliberately answered that argument when I was writing Brains by picking out a half dozen often noted "poisons" in smoke that ALL BEGAN WITH THE LETTER "A" and examining them in detail. See the ETS Exposure section of www.Antibrains.com for that. NONE of those "deadly poisons" would EVER come anywhere near a level of rational concern for anyone exposed to normal levels of secondary smoke.

You also mention that "50 are known to cause cancer." Cancer in what? Goldfish? Again: you're trusting sources that are NOT trustworthy. Find a reference for me listing 50 Class A (i.e. "known to cause cancer in humans") carcinogens in tobacco smoke. I seriously doubt you'll be able to find one because I never have.

You have been lied to, a lot, but if you look at the actual facts and realize that even for a few of them you've been lied to... maybe you'll begin to question the rest.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Suzy Q- I appreciate your humor ;-) My dad smoked for years and when I was little I'd listen to his morning smokers hack and that kept me from every picking up a cigarette.
I understand the concerns of second hand smoke but there are SO MANY other environmental toxins that cause me more grief.
Keep posting!

MichaelJ-hmm so what you are trying to say is that my parents and brothers smoking should have desensitized me? I would like to see you tell that to someone with asthma or lung cancer!

Even while my parents worked to kick their habit, and eventually succeeding, but even as they lit up, the would tell me what a nasty habit it was to never start. They did pay with their health. Hey I do understand way back when, the knowledge wasn't there of the harmfulness of it. I can understand there is an addiction to it. But no way no how MichaelJ are you going to convince maybe but a small few that cigarrette smoking isn't harmful to you and those you force it on. Sure I can go find and post links to many many articles, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you know this in this day and age, but within your right to choose to smoke. So MichaelJ if you think smoking is good for you, why does the tobacco companies even admit otherwise?

Been there - I do agree there are so many other toxins out there! I am all for cleaning up the environment of ALL its nastiness! But I should not have to allow someone to puff and exhale their nasty #@^% breath smoke at me or my kids. Funny the other day I went to a cafe (chalked with smokers) and I came away with my clothes and hair infiltrated with that stench. I found myself apologizing to the cashier at my next destination for what I must have smelled like to her. You know washing up your clothes, okay, showering for a second time during the day to get it out of your hair and pores...another, but not so easy to get it out of your coat without taking it to the cleaners...now that irritates me. That is even aside from the physical pains it causes me. It goes something like this. Eyes and nose irritation. Headache. Stronger headache. And if youre lucky maybe you won't need that inhaler. But hey, that biscuit and gravy that you thought would be worth it, now it doesn't seem so as much. LOL.

MichaelJ - you know you are leaving out important varying factors like the people. Not everyone has a tolerant response to cigarrette smoke. You can nanogram whatever you want, but you can't make everyone have the same physical condition and response to smoke. Even beyond from the annoying immediate physical response to it, there is lasting *unseen* damage it causes and contributes to that you won't see for some time. I am surprised noone has yet jumped on *paying* for others choice to destroy their health, causing medical $$ to go up for everyone else. I know, I know, there are other things similarly as annoying such as overweight people who for whatever reason wont or cant lose the weight, there are drinkers out there abusing their bodies in the same fashion, even out-there octomom having 14 babies, but we are - for the moment- talking about smoking.

Suzy, the study I pointed you to said that on the AVERAGE it should have desensitized you. Every individual is different. And you were speaking of allergies and asthma and then threw in lung cancer. If you want to talk about that instead I'd suggest that you read the 1998 WHO study by Bofetta, the largest international case-control study ever done, and check out the *ONLY* scientifically significant finding of their study: that children of smokers get lung cancer later in life at a rate 22% **LESS** than matched children of nonsmokers. No, I am not making that up: see for yourself from the summary/reference at:

http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable

And Suzy, if you had bothered to even read to just the third sentence of the Author's Preface of my book at www.Antibrains.com you'd have found the following: "I also do not here, nor have I ever, tried to claim that smoking is generally good for you, although many find enough enjoyment in it to justify its risks." so I do NOT "think smoking is good for you," or "not harmful to you" nor would I put any trust in what the tobacco companies say.

I *do* however lay out the base of my argument very clearly in the fourth sentence of Brains: "long-term risk from normal contact with other peoples’ smoke are virtually non-existent."

And if you don't want to take your kids to a bar or restaurant where people are smoking, no one in the world would dream of forcing you to, but if you are indeed truly sensitive in the extreme to smoking, once a smoking ban is passed you'll be under attack every time you walk down a sidewalk. Instead of being all nice and sealed up inside bars and restaurants that cater to them the smokers will now be outside at all hours of the day and night puffing away at you and your children because the law has thrown them out there.

If you think about it, maybe you should be working AGAINST a ban.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Why don’t the so called benevolent heath care industry lobby for a law that will protect public health? Like in making malpractice that kills a patient the same as a charge of negligent homicide as in a car accident! As it is 200,000 Americans die every year due to malpractice less than the some studies that claim deaths from smoking which are very hard to really prove unless you have a complete life history of a individual. But malpractice by wrong drugs, over doses, wrong operations, drunk doctors KILL! But yet the worst is a law suit for malpractice and they go on to kill again. Try that driving a commercial motor vehicle, ooops you can’t as your in prison!
Lobby for fair finance of hospitalization. If you are charging more for health care to pay for those uninsured how can you be losing money and claim non profit status?
Stop the killing by malpractice then you might get a bit of credibility!

Well I guess the lung cancer came in once I started thinking back of my Dad coughing up blood before he went in to have a lung removed. That was after he quit smoking but continued to "chew" for a number of years.

I am just amazed with all of this "knowledge" and "proof" you lay out that the entire world medical community is not so informed. I am sure that is all a conspiracy, huh?

Out of curoisty, what is your take on pregnany mothers smoking? How about nicotine being a vaso-constrictor and the ill-effects of that? Sometimes people do not realize the ramifications until they are in a health crisis, but hey ventilators, I hear, can be fun...something fun to look forward to.

I am sure if I bothered, I can come up with many links, facts, etc. Frankly, I am getting too tired tonight. But, tomorrow is another day.

For what its worth, I don't care if you smoke, want to ignore the facts, you shouldnt force your nasty habit out in public places onto others. Smoke in the privacy of your own home. I don't care if there are smoking bars here in town. If you read my earlier posts I even said I didnt see a need for a strict ban, but some common courtesy and adequate ventilation. You do have a point though about having all the smokers confined in a specific area, you can choke yourselves to death all you want! Have a big ole smoke out.

Peace out MichaelJ!

Me thinks that MichaelJMcFadden is educated beyond his intelligence.

Thats the thing Michael H. Apparently there are some proposing legislature that think they can dictate. Although I prefer a smoke-free environment, I DON'T think it has to come to a strict ban.

Smoking is bad, thats a fact. MichaelJ would like us to believe otherwise, that is what most of my comments are geared towards. Probably even about 99.9% of smokers would agree in spite of their choice to continue smoking (again within their right, no arguement here). We all do things (me included) that aren't in our best interest, but simply enjoy despite any increased risks for whatever. But all I ask is for a little common courtesy especially at family type atmospheres. I think most of us nonsmokers can understand that bars and other similar type establishments will be a smoking environment and decide if we want to go and inhale that.

MichaelH, why can't some smokers be a little more considerate? And why do they have to toss their butts out the car window to hit my car? Why do they have to light up cigarette one after another when they finish their meal and I am trying to enjoy mine? If they are done, maybe they can enjoy a smoke in their car instead? Mostly, second hand smoke is bad for those that they are around, including their loved ones, why would they want to expose them to the harmful side effects? THATS the one I cant understand most of all. My friend tells me (we debate this often) is that its because it is an addiction, and she cannot help it. I say...smoke if you want, but be respectful to others around you when you do.

As I stated in my previous post, my references come from the National Cancer Institute
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS#r1

As far as the references for the chemicals found in second hand smoke, I read the following references:

1.National Toxicology Program. Report on Carcinogens. Eleventh Edition. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2005.
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: 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
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children. Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

You are correct, nothing in these reports mentions anything about goldfish.

I do agree with Suzyq, stop throwing the used butts out of your car window. Use the ashtray in the car and empty in a proper place. The butts are not biodegradeable, they are made of plastic fibers. http://cigarettelitter.org

itstime...thanks for the links, I just haven't had time to go and put them for michaelJ. I have a feeling though he will think it is all lies, a conspiracy. He wants to justify why people should have the right to pollute our breathing space (talking about disrespectful smokers here). At least MichaelH and a few others probably (and I am sure I may stand corrected) will admit that smoking is bad, secondhand smoke too, but just choose to exercise their legal right to do so. I actually have more respect for the ones who acknowledge that than someone trying to put BS out here that smoking is somehow safe (I cannot believe with all the research and today's knowledge that anyone can try to argue otherwise) Just because something is allowed, you should still have some respect and consideration about it.

This is a bit off subject, but awhile back eating out at a newly smoke free restaurant with my young children who are learning new words, I cringed with some young adults at the table next to me, no-not smoking, but loudly cursing up a storm. Is it there right to cuss? Sure! But was it inconsiderate to do so with a family with young children sitting so close? YES! And yes, I asked them politely and respectfully to stop. And they did. Not only did they stop, but apologized. Thats all I ask of smokers...consideration and respectful smoking.

Gee suzyQ. If smoking and all the nastiness of smoke bothers you so much, why would you even go into a restaurant that was, "chalked up with smokers"? suzQ, I think your the one who likes to blow a lot of smoke!

Well comment, if I had known beforehand that it would be a morning for chainsmokers to go there, I would have suggested something else avoided it, as it was, I ate quickly and left, and had a headache for the rest of the day to boot. And besides that, I was a guest of a friend of mine-it wasn't my choice of cafe. That in of it self is a rarity and thats sorta was my point...it kinda sucks that you cannot go out and enjoy yourself because others want to be selfish and rude.

For the record comment, I have been accused of being full of gas before, but blowing smoke is a new one!

I love to read MichaelH's comments. He has nothing intelligent to bring to a debate and always tries to use personal attacks to show his intelligence. He truly is an internet tough guy!

Back to the subject now. . .

Smoking is a repulsive habit, I used to smoke and no longer do. Anyone who is exposed to smoke, be it first or second hand is subject to the harmful effects. If someone works in a bar, where there is smoking, they will be impacted. Will the bar owner be paying for their medical bills or compensate them for the time they miss from work because they get sick more often than the rest of the population due to smoke exposure? I think not.

The reason laws like this are necessary is because of the non responsible smokers out there who think it is their right to smoke wherever they want. I can't count the number of times in St Joe where someone would come up to my front door with a lit cigarette. I would promptly send them away. What about the poor kids that have to suffer through riding in a car with someone smoking? I bet that does wonders for a growing kid.

If someone wants to open a "private" club where smoking is permitted, like what they used to have in Mesa, Arizona, I am fine with that however if it is a business open to the general public, then smoking should not be permitted.

I smoked for thirty six years. Been off them ten years now. I don't necessarily find them repulsive but then I do not miss the habit. Most people I know that work in a bar, both smoke and drink. Kinda goes along with working in a bar. Seems to me that most ex smokers just can't get over the hump. They beat up on those that smoke because of their own weakness in combating their own addiction. If smoking in a bar hurts you, maybe your spending too much time there. And I'm sure you ain't drinking sasparilla.

It appears I was correct. ItsTime was unable to give a source for 50 known human carcinogens, or a source listing the 4,000 chemicals he claims are in cigarette smoke. The sources he listed give neither... I've read them. He then asked me to stop throwing used butts out my car window.

Unlike some of the less responsible people I debate with on these boards sometimes, I don't drive. If you *really* want to talk about people who irresponsibly risk the lives of others and pollute the planet for their own convenience and comfort, talk about drivers... not smokers.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Smoking has caused SIDs as well: http://www.sidscenter.org/TopicalBib/Smoking.html

but it seems many smokers do not care about anyone else but themselves which many have showed time and again.

I hope this Smoking ban gets passed so I can go shop and even try out new eating establishments which I cannot do because of some that allows smokers.

If everyone stopped smoking the air would get a bit better, people would have more money to spend on other things, and their health would improve as well.

just some food for thought.

If you can go to most restraunts in St. Joe, and drink till you are LEGALLY drunk, then drive home, I think you should be able to smoke a cigarette if you want!

Don't think for one second that the government has a right to tell anyone what they can, and can not do with their health. It is their choice. This is America....last time I checked. If we start accepting government telling us that we do not have the right to light up, what else are they going to tell us? You cannot wear sparkly clothes because some people have seizures?

Look, in simple, easy to uderstand, "ain't gunna lie to ya" terms, business owners should have the right to choose how their business operates, from having a non smoking section to completely allowing smoking. You, a consumer, also have the right to decide you don't like those rules, and not go to that person's business. Why is this so hard? So some restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it. Do you really need that 9,000 calorie cheeseburger anyway?

Personal choices people.....businesses have the right to allow smoking, and you have the right to not give them your money if they do. Nothing more, nothing less. Imagine if we all knew exactly what we were inhaling in the environment everyday anyway. I think smoking would be the least of our worries.

mo mule - driving drunk is against the law because of the risk it poses(regulation already in place gov telling you that is a no-no). Look for the same thing to happen with a smoking ban.

Tony, the govt is not telling you what you can do with your health, they are telling you you cannot adversely affect willfully someone elses!

Personal choices...I choose to support a ban! Why do you assume nonsmokers eat 9000 cal cheeseburger. Does it occur to you that someone who doesnt smoke might respect their bodies and health a bit MORE than smokers?? Seems reasonable to me. Also seems reasonable that smoking ban is inevitable, because THAT is reasonable thinking...is that simple enough to understand, Tony?

I don't smoke. I have asthma. I do occasionally like to go out to the clubs. And I do know I have to tolerate the smoke. I was standing next to a girl that lit up and blew her smoke right in my face. When I started coughing she rudely stated "What do you expect? You're in a bar!" I would gladly welcome a ban. As for restaurants...I hate it when I see infants and children sitting in the smoking section so their parents can share a smoke with them.

akm- or see them stuffed in a car with smoke fog built up! And don't get me even started on pregnant moms smoking. People tout choice, but I have yet to see anyone comment about this and i have mentioned it before. No choice or rights given to the kiddos. But sadly, even with a ban it wont stop idiotic parents from doing the same in the privacy of their own home.

You did go to a bar, and like you said, you expect smoke, but you don't expect someone blowing it on you in your face and making comments like that. Proves my point about the inconsideration and disrespect. I have family that smokes, but they take considerations and smoke outside and make every effort to be respectful about it. I have no problem with that other than wishing for their own sakes they would quit.

Acetaldehyde
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Adriamycin® (Doxorubicin Hydrochloride)
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic Beverage Consumption
2-Aminoanthraquinone
o-Aminoazotoluene
4-Aminobiphenyl
1-Amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone
1-Amino-2-methylanthraquinone
Amitrole
o-Anisidine Hydrochloride
Arsenic Compounds, Inorganic
Asbestos Note: correction in Substance Profile (posted February 13, 2009)
Azacitidine
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine and Dyes Metabolized to Benzidine
Benzidine
Dyes Metabolized to Benzidine
Benzotrichloride
Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds
Bromodichloromethane
2,2-bis(Bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol (Technical Grade)
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Butanediol Dimethylsulfonate (Myleran®)
Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA)
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Ceramic Fibers (Respirable Size)
Chlorambucil
Chloramphenicol
Chlorendic Acid
Chlorinated Paraffins (C12, 60% Chlorine)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea
bis(Chloroethyl) Nitrosourea
Chloroform
bis(Chloromethyl) Ether and Technical-Grade Chloromethyl Methyl Ether
3-Chloro-2-methylpropene
4-Chloro-o-phenylenediamine
Chloroprene
p-Chloro-o-toluidine and p-Chloro-o-toluidine Hydrochloride
Chlorozotocin

Chromium Hexavalent Compounds
C.I. Basic Red 9 Monohydrochloride
Cisplatin
Coal Tars and Coal Tar Pitches
Cobalt Sulfate
Coke Oven Emissions
p-Cresidine
Cupferron
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporin A
Dacarbazine
Danthron (1,8-Dihydroxyanthraquinone)
2,4-Diaminoanisole Sulfate
2,4-Diaminotoluene
Diazoaminobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide)
2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol
tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl) Phosphate
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3´-Dichlorobenzidine and 3,3´-Dichlorobenzidine Dihydrochloride
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1,3-Dichloropropene (Technical Grade)
Diepoxybutane
Diesel Exhaust Particulates
Diethyl Sulfate
Diethylstilbestrol
Diglycidyl Resorcinol Ether
3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine and Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine
3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine
Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethoxybenzidine
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine and Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine
3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine
Dyes Metabolized to 3,3´-Dimethylbenzidine
Dimethylcarbamoyl Chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethyl Sulfate
Dimethylvinyl Chloride
1,4-Dioxane
Disperse Blue 1
Epichlorohydrin
Erionite
Estrogens, Steroidal

Ethylene Oxide
Ethylene Thiourea
di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
Formaldehyde (Gas)
Furan
Glass Wool (Respirable Size)
Glycidol
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis C
Heterocyclic Amines
2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (MEIQ)
2-Amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline (MEIQx)
2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline (IQ)
2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Human Papillomaviruses: Some Genital-Mucosal Types
Hydrazine and Hydrazine Sulfate
Hydrazobenzene
Ionizing Radiation
X-Radiation and Gamma Radiation
Neutrons
Radon
Thorium Dioxide
Iron Dextran Complex
Isoprene
Kepone® (Chlordecone)
Lead and Lead Compounds
Lindane and Other Hexachlorocyclohexane Isomers
Melphalan
Methoxsalen with Ultraviolet A Therapy (PUVA)
2-Methylaziridine (Propylenimine)
4,4´-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
4,4´-Methylenebis(N,N-dimethyl)benzenamine
4,4´-Methylenedianiline and its Dihydrochloride Salt
Methyleugenol
Methyl Methanesulfonate
N-Methyl-N´-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine
Metronidazole
Michler's Ketone (4,4'-(Dimethylamino)benzophenone)
Mineral Oils (Untreated and Mildly Treated)
Mirex
Mustard Gas
Naphthalene

2-Naphthylamine
Nickel Compounds and Metallic Nickel
Nickel Compounds
Metallic Nickel
Nitrilotriacetic Acid
o-Nitroanisole
Nitroarenes (selected)
1,6-Dinitropyrene
1,8-Dinitropyrene
6-Nitrochrysene
1-Nitropyrene
4-Nitropyrene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrofen (2,4-Dichlorophenyl-p-nitrophenyl Ether)
Nitrogen Mustard Hydrochloride
Nitromethane
2-Nitropropane
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitrososarcosine
Norethisterone
Ochratoxin A
4,4´-Oxydianiline
Oxymetholone
Phenacetin and Analgesic Mixtures Containing Phenacetin
Phenacetin
Analgesic Mixtures Containing Phenacetin
Phenazopyridine Hydrochloride
Phenolphthalein
Phenoxybenzamine Hydrochloride
Phenytoin
Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, 15 Listings
Benz[a]anthracene

Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
5-Methylchrysene
Procarbazine Hydrochloride
Progesterone
1,3-Propane Sultone
ß-Propiolactone
Propylene Oxide
Propylthiouracil
Reserpine
Safrole
Selenium Sulfide
Silica, Crystalline (Respirable Size)
Soots
Streptozotocin
Strong Inorganic Acid Mists Containing Sulfuric Acid
Styrene-7,8-oxide
Sulfallate
Tamoxifen
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); "Dioxin"
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Tetrafluoroethylene
Tetranitromethane
Thioacetamide
4,4´-Thiodianiline
Thiotepa
Thiourea
Tobacco Related Exposures
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Smokeless Tobacco
Tobacco Smoking
Toluene Diisocyanate
o-Toluidine and o-Toluidine Hydrochloride
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Ultraviolet Radiation Related Exposures
Solar Radiation
Sunlamps or Sunbeds, Exposure to
Broad-Spectrum Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation
Ultraviolet A Radiation
Ultraviolet B Radiation
Ultraviolet C Radiation
Urethane
Vinyl Bromide
Vinyl Chloride
4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene Diepoxide
Vinyl Fluoride
Wood Dust

OK, maybe not 4000 as stated by the National Cancer Institute, but that's a pretty impressive list of nasty stuff.

How about instead of me providing a reference, why don't you give me total list and number of chemicals in cigarettes and second hand smoke that disproves the extensive research from the National Cancer Institute. I'll even look at research done by RJ Reynolds.

How about these sources?

National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute.
Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and
Other Disorders: The Report of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph
Number 4. NIH Publication No. 93-3605, Washington, USA,
August, 1993.

National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects
of passive smoking. Australia, November, 1997.

Department of Health. Report of the Scientific Committee on
Tobacco and Health. The Stationery Office. London, United
Kingdom, March, 1998.

National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Health
Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The
Report of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph Number 10. NIH
Publication No. 99-4645, Washington, USA, August,1999.

World Health Organization. Tobacco Free Initiative.
International Consultation on Environmental Tobacco Smoke
(ETS) and Child Health: Consultation Report. WHO Technical
Document Number WHO/TFI/99.10. 1999.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health
Service. National Toxicology Program. 9th Report on
Carcinogens. Washington, USA, 200017
Makomaski Illing EM, Kaiserman MJ.

Mortality attributable to
tobacco use in Canada and its regions, 1994 and 1996. Chronic
Disease in Canada 1999; 20(3).
Decou ML. Impact of passive smoking to coronary heart disease
mortality. M.Sc. Thesis. Queen’s University. Kingston, Ontario,
Canada, 1992.

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Secondhand Smoke Is Toxic and Poisonous

*

The National Toxicology Program estimates that at least 250 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer causing).
*

Secondhand smoke contains a number of poisonous gases and chemicals, including hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners).
*

Some of the toxic metals contained in secondhand smoke include arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries).
*

There are more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals in secondhand smoke that fall into different chemical classes, including:
o Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (such as Benzo[a]pyrene)
o N-Nitrosamines (such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines)
o Aromatic amines (such as 4-aminobiphenyl)
o Aldehydes (such as formaldehyde)
o Miscellaneous organic chemicals (such as benzene and vinyl chloride) and
o Inorganic compounds (such as those containing metals like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, nickel and radioactive polonium-210).

*

Eleven compounds in tobacco smoke (2-naphthylamine, 4-aminobiphenyl, benzene, vinyl chloride, ethylene oxide, arsenic, beryllium, nickel compounds, chromium, cadmium and polonium-210) have been identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as Group 1 (known human carcinogen) carcinogens.
*

Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
*

Secondhand smoke is composed of sidestream smoke (the smoke released from the burning end of a cigarette) and exhaled mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker). Because sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and under different conditions than mainstream smoke, it contains higher concentrations of many of the toxins found in inhaled cigarette smoke.

Last revised: January 4, 2007

Once again, nothing about cancer in goldfish....but I am looking

Smoking is a tumor causing, teeth staining, smelly, puking habit. If someone wants to kill themselves with smoking, more power to them, insomuch as no one else is impacted. . .

itstime and mega- AMEN!

Suzy.....did you actually read my comment? The 9000 cal cheeseburger issue was directed at non-smokers. And....if you are so worried about health, perhaps you should consider all of the toxic emissions let into the air that you inhale on a daily basis at the hands of a government who could not care less. But, I suppose that would mean that if you considered how bad that was for you, smoking would be a very small issue....and then you clearly don't have an argument.

Think before you speal suzy....I don't think that is asking too much.

tony - did you even read MY comment. I acknowledged that the 9000 cal cheeseburger was directed at nonsmokers! That was my whole point. That maybe nonsmokers might just take greater care with what they put in their body! Maybe it was the smoke fog surrounding your computer that made it a little hazy for you. The discussion at hand IS SMOKING, not other contaminants. FYI-I am just as concerned about those as smoking, but that doesn't make smoking a small or nonissue for me. So why would that make it a no argument. Quit trying to deflect! Another case of smoking-related craniorectal inversion I see.

here is a real mellon scratcher for you suzy...I don't smoke! I hate smoking, and think it is bad for you. but, I will fight to the death for the right to smoke. It should not matter whether or not it bothers you in the least. If you can ban someone from smoking, then I should be able to petition for you to not wear that nasty perfume that everyone thinks smells like a decaying skunk. but I do not have that right, and you don't have the right to tell someone not to smoke.
Whatever happened to real issues, like jobs, and education, and betterment of the quaity of life for all? When did we replace it with the nosy housweife syndrome, where everyone wants to butt in and tell someone else how to live? How can we call ourselves free when we cannot even let someone smoke in public without being arrested or ticketed? And how can you be so blind as to not see yourself giving your rights to the government in the name of convenience? what happens when what is convenient for government is not convenient for you?
There are many things I do not agree with. but I will never vote to give up personal rights in the name of convenience for others. If you do not like a business for allowing smoking, protest with your dollars, not by handing the government your rights on a silver platter. Once you give them up, the price is very high to get them back.

For the record, let me just say that I am not at all opposed to an establishment banning smoking. If they want to do it, their business, their call. I am absolutely opposed to the concept of government intervention on personal choice. This needs to be left to the businesses, not by running to big brother to tattle on something that you don't like.

"betterment of the quaity of life for all" I couldn't agree with you more on this Tony. If it was simply a matter of a stench or minor physical response or annoyance to smoke, I wouldn't support it either. But that is not how it is, please educate yourself on the hazards of second-hand smoke if you unaware. You must not have had a family member or loved one suffer any major side effects of smoking, and thats why you just don't understand. I am sorry if you don't agree, but peoples' rights to not be exposed to this at public places far outweigh someone's nasty habit. Seriously, if the disrespectul smokers out there would show some common courtesy and responsibility when they smoke, it wouldn't have to come to a govt controlled ban. Its too bad, they are ruining it for themselves.

PS: I like alot of people, related to a few that do smoke, but most do it in a responsible way...except one I know that involves children, and we just agree to disagree.

BTW-That 9000 cal cheeseburger your ID made me remember a time when I was in Cali and ate at Tony Romas! LOL.

Friends?

I always find it comical when defenders of an argument use some off-the-wall comparisons to prove their point. So far, smoking has been compared with ugly people, car exhaust, fast food, drunk/text driving and perfume to name a few. Please tell me, government fighters of the world, how exactly do these scenarios have any basis here? Yes, I know someone else's drunk driving or texting while driving can kill me. But we're not talking about whether or not I or anyone else is going to die at the hands of someone else. We're talking about people who want to be able to go into restaurants or other establishments and not have to deal with DAILY health effects from someone else's smoking. My asthma has a much greater impact on my life than worrying about whether or not I'm going to be hit by a drunk driver. My asthma is something that is much easier to control. And yes, I can choose to stay out of the establishments that approve smoking...but why I am punished by limiting the variety of places I can go just for the sake of others who want to be able to light up when they want? The selfish argument has been thrown at both sides, but honestly, if you look at it from a logical view, it makes much more sense for the good of the whole to ban smoking in public places. Not because we need more government intervention, but because we need to focus on making our environment a healthier one for all...not a happier one for some.

JLK Thank you. You are right on 110% You said it perfectly.

Suzy

Always friends....no matter the disagreement. if we cannot vehemently argue our opinions and go home at the end of the night with compassion and tremendous respect for one another we haven't much to live for. I will always side with liberty and personal rights. the same government that wants to tell us not to smoke is also the same government that can be accused of doing a lot of things that have harmed us in the past. And please allow me to reiterate that I will always support the business owner if he or she makes a decision that their establishment will be smoke free. But I don't think it should take the intervention of the law for this decision to be made. I will always say it should be the right of the people to choose how their businesses will be run. Not some lawmaker completely out of touch with reality.
But it was a good, fun debate, and i would love to do it again if you get fired up enough to throw a few punches my way. Im always in the mood for a cognitive brawl!

As a former clinical worker, I've tended to many patients with pulmonary problems, most related to smoking. I saw firsthand the crippling effects smoking causes when lung cancer or end-stage emphysema patients beg you to ease their pain and help them breathe normal. Unfortunately, it's too late! The damage is already done. They died a slow, miserable, painful manner.

Have you ever seen a dissected lung from a smoker...even a fairly young adult? I have and it was horrible. Check out this website: http://www.smokerslungs.com/

Oh, but smoking isn't harmful...if you believe some of the "pro smoking" posts. But hey, smoking doesn't kill brain cells...just ask them.

Oh ibham2-that is so horribly tragic and it need not be. I have also seen what you are describing about the misery of this endstage disease, only I seen it firsthand from family members. I'll never get over that, the images still fresh. Thats when they told me, don't EVER pick up the habit. As it is, the smoke affects me adversely enough second hand that I wouldn't even consider it.

Guys, I know some of you are coming from this from a govt control angle, and Tony I do totally understand what you are saying, honestly I prefer the govt to stay out of my and everyones' business as much as possible, but sometimes they have to step in for the safety and welfare of the common public. If only all smokers smoked with responsibility and regard. I will say it again, if smokers would just be considerate out in public, and I am not even saying you can't smoke in public, just not in confined areas unless in a private place. I guess even the more selfish of me would wish you wouldnt just so you or a loved one does not have the endure the painful side effects of smoking, but that is a choice I wouldnt decide for you. No matter what happens with a ban or not, for those of you who smoke without regard, how can you and feel good about that?

Tony-Enjoyed your debate, and I look forward to the next "brawl" :-) Next time, I will try to leave out the craniorectal comment, LOL. (All in fun with a little sleep deprivation on the side).