Harry Vest said:Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma. Somethings going on and it has absolutley nothing to do with second hand smoke.
Harry Vest said:Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma.
The word 'asthma' is derived from the Greek aazein, meaning "sharp breath." The word first appears in Homer's Iliad; Hippocrates was the first to use it in reference to the medical condition, in 450 BC. Hippocrates thought that the spasms associated with asthma were more likely to occur in tailors, anglers, and metalworkers. Six centuries later, Galen wrote much about asthma, noting that it was caused by partial or complete bronchial obstruction. In 1190 AD, Moses Maimonides, an influential medieval rabbi, philosopher, and physician, wrote a treatise on asthma, describing its prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. In the 17th century, Bernardino Ramazzini noted a connection between asthma and organic dust. The use of bronchodilators started in 1901, but it was not until the 1960s that the inflammatory component of asthma was recognized, and anti-inflammatory medications were added to the regimens.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Is there room for compromise
LemonMelon said:
Yes, there is. But things have gone a bit too far, IMO. What used to be "smoking/non smoking" is now "no smoking, period. GTFO."
LemonMelon said:
The day "teenage smoking" became criteria for the MPAA's rating system is the day that this became a bit of a joke. Let people smoke in their cars, in bars, whatever. Just not elevators, restaurants...you know, places where people would actually complain about someone else smoking.
LemonMelon said:
Let people smoke in their cars, in bars, whatever. Just not elevators, restaurants...you know, places where people would actually complain about someone else smoking.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Well the MPAA's ratings are just absurd. I live in a city where if more than 50% of your sales is food then you have to provide an entirely separate room for smoking, if you can't provide an entirely separate room and ventilation system than you cannot have a smoking section. I think this system has to be one of the fairest I've seen. This allows patrons and employees to make the decision if they want to breathe smoke or not...
indra said:
Why should people be able to smoke in bars?
Harry Vest said:They've been after us for years. It won't stop. These kind of people never stop. What feeds them is a inordinate amount of self righteous politically correctism. I wish they would answer me this on the smoking bans...Why is it that when I was a kid we were exposed to smoke constantly yet the cases of kids with asthma was almost non-existent, whereas today it seems if they don't have a horrible peanut allergy then they have asthma. Somethings going on and it has absolutley nothing to do with second hand smoke.
BonoVoxSupastar said:A lot of the bars here in town are providing non-smoking sections, just by their own choice, for you are still legally allowed to smoke in bars here.
LJT said:I think saying bars are a choice compared to a restaurant because 'we have to eat' is quite a bad comparison. I would associate greater luxury with going to a restaurant....no one has to eat out, as much as no one has to have a drink.
Abomb-baby said:Here's my problem with the whole smoking ban issue. Why is it government's job to regulate this? Where I live the county passed a no smoking ordinance a couple of years ago. It ended up hurting the small business owners who were forced to create outside smoking areas and less people went out due to it. There were no laws banning someone from opening a non-smoking bar. YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government? It just seems big brotherish to me. Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?
Abomb-baby said:Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?
Vincent Vega said:
I never heard of second-hand obesity.
I don't know what you define as 'restaurant', but in Germany eating out at a restaurant (which is not a fast food chain or something like that) is seen as luxury as normally you cook dinner yourself.
Abomb-baby said:YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government?
Abomb-baby said:Government telling you whats best for you.
martha said:
And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?
Abomb-baby said:The issue isn't about second hand smoke.
Abomb-baby said:
The issue isn't about second hand smoke. Its about control and Government telling you whats best for you. Is smoking healthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy things that people do that the Government hasn't gotten themselves involved in. People who go to Pubs and bars where there is smoking are making a choice. The funy thing is that where I live we have Casinos that are run by the tribes and they don't fall under state law. So basically, the smokers just moved. I just think that we are on a slippery slope regarding government involvement with these issues.
Abomb-baby said:I can make my own choices, can I not?
randhail said:The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.
martha said:
I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?
Abomb-baby said:
Its called finding another job.