Pa None Smoking!

Nurses General Nursing

Published

PA just passed that it will be a none smoking state and resturants and bars have to comply within 2 years!! :balloons: WOOOHOOOO:balloons:

Specializes in NICU.
The difference betwixt talking about religion and talking about smoking is that in religion you accept the tenets as articles of faith. No need to do that with smoking, as science has proven to us time and again that smoking and second hand smoke will kill us. Nuff said.

Exactly! Hard to compare secondhand smoke with religious beliefs or "cow junk" ...... since when has "cow junk" been proven to cause cancer? :uhoh21:

Up Vote Up Vote ×

"I think the key difference is that asbestos and lead are things that are completly hidden and you would be exposed to without your consent. If you want to have a beer and or dinner and dont want to be exposed to smoke then you can easily choose an establishment that does not allow smoking. of course there are fewer of them than places that allow smoking. If all these people who vote against smoking would vote with their dollars by choosing non smoking establishments then they would have far more choices of places that where smoke free, and thier individual choices would not be forced on others"

I live in Iowa and we are not a smoke free state as yet which means my choices in the "market" are limited to pretty much zero. I would be happy to put my "money" to work but without this law that is not my option. I'm sure there are others out there with the same problem.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Urgent Care.
The difference betwixt talking about religion and talking about smoking is that in religion you accept the tenets as articles of faith. No need to do that with smoking, as science has proven to us time and again that smoking and second hand smoke will kill us. Nuff said.

No, the discussion is not if smoking is bad for you, of course it is. None of my posts have disputed that (nor anyone else's)

The real issue of this thread is Gov't (Big Brother) intrusion on personal freedoms and personal property rights "for the greater good". Of course somethings are illegal, the whole point of this thread is where the line is drawn between your choices and Govt control.

And that is an individual Moral / ethical decision made by each of us. Much like religion.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.
No, the discussion is not if smoking is bad for you, of course it is. None of my posts have disputed that (nor anyone else's)

The real issue of this thread is Gov't (Big Brother) intrusion on personal freedoms and personal property rights "for the greater good". Of course somethings are illegal, the whole point of this thread is where the line is drawn between your choices and Govt control.

And that is an individual Moral / ethical decision made by each of us. Much like religion.

Bugger the ''greater good''. I don't want people smoking around me because it stinks to high heaven, it stings my eyes and it could cause me to get cancer. As it happens, those are the same reasons so many others hate it too. It is a disgusting habit, but that's not why it's illegal. It is illegal because it can cause harm to people around you. It isn't a matter of Big Brother looking over us, it is a matter of ''us'' telling the smokers to take it elsewhere, because we're good and sick of it. Yes, some things are illegal. In many states, smoking in public is one of those things. Thank God.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Nurse Scientist-Research.

First of all I hate smoking, the smell of it, the allergy-type reactions I get and headaches, I avoid it if at all possible. Never been a smoker, raised in a family of non-smokers (so I'm not defending dear old dad or something).

Is second-hand smoke really an unacceptable health risk? If it is (which I accept it as being) then how far should the government go to protect the public? I say if you believe something stick by it. Ban not only public smoking but smoking where any other human is present. . .i. e. . . protect the innocent children. No smoker should be allowed to have children in their home, smoking parents would have to submit hair samples of their children to prove they are nicotine free. Their kids if anyone don't have the choice to walk away and choose another environment to live in.

Ok, really though, I hate smoking and it creeps me out when I prepare a fragile preemie going home on oxygen and apnea monitor when I smell the strong odor of cigarettes on all of the parent's belongings. They need protection from toxic smoke far more than a typical bartender. But how far are we going to go?

Employees should be informed of the risks of certain jobs, but how far should the government be involved in protecting wait-staff from exposure to 2nd hand smoke? Many jobs have inherent dangers that people accept because they want to reap the benefits (higher pay) associated with that job. Think commercial fishing, private security contracting in the Middle East, etc. . .

My personal beliefs are supporting less government, more personal regulation. This smoking ban is way too much government.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER/Trauma.
:smokin:

and non-smokers have no constitutional obligation to frequent an establishment that allows smoking.

Let the market dictate smoking policy, if the people dont want to go where there is smoke, then go where there is none. if enough non smokers choose non smoking establishments then that is what the owners will do, they have to make money.

:smokin:

Too bad the general population is such a herd of cattle and feels that is is the job of the government to be the drover and tell them what do to and be in control to "protect" them all the time.

STAND UP AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS AND VOTE WITH YOUR $$$. If more people would do that then we wouldnt need to be wasting so much of our $$$ on enforcing all these rules so many feel they "need" to protect them.

TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY

moooooooo

Could not have said it better...

I await stricter enforcement of anti-spitting, blood purity and sneezing laws to contain the spread of infectious diseases.

-Roy (Who just quit smoking for the 10th time. 3+ weeks and counting)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.
First of all I hate smoking, the smell of it, the allergy-type reactions I get and headaches, I avoid it if at all possible. Never been a smoker, raised in a family of non-smokers (so I'm not defending dear old dad or something).

Is second-hand smoke really an unacceptable health risk? If it is (which I accept it as being) then how far should the government go to protect the public? I say if you believe something stick by it. Ban not only public smoking but smoking where any other human is present. . .i. e. . . protect the innocent children. No smoker should be allowed to have children in their home, smoking parents would have to submit hair samples of their children to prove they are nicotine free. Their kids if anyone don't have the choice to walk away and choose another environment to live in.

Ok, really though, I hate smoking and it creeps me out when I prepare a fragile preemie going home on oxygen and apnea monitor when I smell the strong odor of cigarettes on all of the parent's belongings. They need protection from toxic smoke far more than a typical bartender. But how far are we going to go?

Employees should be informed of the risks of certain jobs, but how far should the government be involved in protecting wait-staff from exposure to 2nd hand smoke? Many jobs have inherent dangers that people accept because they want to reap the benefits (higher pay) associated with that job. Think commercial fishing, private security contracting in the Middle East, etc. . .

My personal beliefs are supporting less government, more personal regulation. This smoking ban is way too much government.

Personal regulation would be a grand thing if it were actually exercised. These bans are necessary because so often, people don't regulate themselves and the harm their behaviors cause others. If we could rely solely on people behaving responsibly, we wouldn't need to have any laws at all, would we?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in critical care transport.
Personal regulation would be a grand thing if it were actually exercised. These bans are necessary because so often, people don't regulate themselves and the harm their behaviors cause others. If we could rely solely on people behaving responsibly, we wouldn't need to have any laws at all, would we?

I agree, but I also believe people should be able to smoke or do other things if it doesn't involve me. In some simple way, it becomes survival of the fittest- those that don't take care of themselves live shorter lives.

I have had people walk in and smoke around me and my child, and that doesn't sit well with me, because a child doesn't have a choice. It would be the same as if I went to sit beside someone and started popping off some rank gassy farts (and THAT isn't cancer causing). In our culture, that would be unacceptable.

I don't care what people do in their own homes, as long as it doesn't involve harming my child or me.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Cardiac.

Originally Posted by Balder

Let the market dictate smoking policy, if the people dont want to go where there is smoke, then go where there is none. if enough non smokers choose non smoking establishments then that is what the owners will do, they have to make money.

Could not have said it better...

-Roy

Funny, I don't see lawmakers having any issues or problems passing these laws. These laws are being spread all over the country. I think the people, and the market, has spoken.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU.
Funny, I don't see lawmakers having any issues or problems passing these laws. These laws are being spread all over the country. I think the people, and the market, has spoken.

Exactly!!!

If anything, they'll see more people willing to go out to their restaurants because they can breathe fresh air. Those people with asthma, allergies, etc are now able to go out to eat.

The only problem the smoking ban caused here was that it was only implemented in certain cities (within a HUGE metropolis). So you can't smoke in Chandler, but if you drive just a mile or 2 down the road (around the Chandler/Phx border), and go to a restaurant in Phx, then you can smoke. So those businesses (in Chandler) were losing out to the Phx businesses. But when we get the AZ state wide ban, smokers won't have a choice .... they won't be able to just go down the road to a smoking restaurant. They can chose to stay at home and smoke all they dang well please :)

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Given the fact that most 'baby-boomers' and lots of their children grew up in homes of smokers and were in a society where smoking took place freely, just how in the world have so many millions survived the "second-hand smoke kills" phenomona? Research is a multi-billion dollar industry that produces conflicting results so they can justify their existence and continue raking in the $$$. It's hard for me to take any of it very seriously, certainly not enough to create the myriad of laws that govern behavior.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, DEI.
Given the fact that most 'baby-boomers' and lots of their children grew up in homes of smokers and were in a society where smoking took place freely, just how in the world have so many millions survived the "second-hand smoke kills" phenomona? Research is a multi-billion dollar industry that produces conflicting results so they can justify their existence and continue raking in the $$$. It's hard for me to take any of it very seriously, certainly not enough to create the myriad of laws that govern behavior.

Right. The researchers are lying. Not those virtuous tobacco companies. Gotta watch out for the American Cancer Society... they're out to corrupt the minds of our young 'uns!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment