Ravenwood - 02/17/05 06:45 AM
Reader Raina from Illuminaria's Voice emails this disturbing article from USA Today.
Next week marks the 15th anniversary of smoke-free domestic airline flights, but frequent fliers may still be getting a dangerous dose of secondhand tobacco smoke.They are literally claiming that you could die from merely walking by an airport smoking lounge. Now, I've been in my share of airports. (Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec, Belfast, London, Munich, San Francisco, Oakland, New York, Newark, Chicago, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC, Baltimore, Atlanta, Norfolk, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Tampa, Orlando, and New Orleans to name a few). In those airports, I've probably seen only one (maybe two) smoking lounges per terminal. They are usually glass enclosed with a door. What little smoke that could possibly leak out is miniscule. It's akin to the amount of exhaust fumes you get from the car in front of you while sitting at a stop light. But wait, there's more:Most of the USA's large hub airports continue to allow smoking in some areas, says a recent report by private health experts and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...
Ron Davis, co-author of the report, says the air inside most large hub airports is unhealthy, putting travelers and workers at elevated risk for cancer and death from secondhand smoke. Public health experts say the smoking lounges available at several airports - regardless of the type of ventilation system - don't contain all smoke.
Dean Burri, a cigar smoker in Clearwater, Fla., who owns a health insurance company, says smoking should be allowed "inside closed, ventilated rooms" at airports. "The non-smokers don't have to breathe the smoke, and the smokers have a place to smoke," he says.And I have to hold my ears when listening to people like Johnson whine about smoking. Just because he's dumb enough to believe he'll keel over and die from a whif of second hand smoke, is no reason to trample the rights of property owners to cater to the smoking public.That logic doesn't work with many non-smoking business travelers who believe secondhand smoke endangers their health. They're calling on airport authorities to ban smoking everywhere inside their facilities.
Bob Johnson, an Orlando-based software instructor for a home-building company, says he quit smoking 20 years ago, and it shouldn't be allowed in airports. "I have to hold my breath when walking through smoking areas," he says.
A lit cigarette emits 250 toxic compounds, including more than 60 carcinogens, says co-author Terry Pechacek, an associate director at CDC. Davis and Pechacek warn that even a single exposure to secondhand smoke can be harmful.Uh oh. If you've been exposed to any environmental tobacco smoke at all, you could drop dead tomorrow. That sounds pretty damning. That is until you read about what's in our drinking water.
Over 2,100 contaminants have been found in drinking water. Of those 2,100, 190 are known to cause adverse health effects. In total, 97 carcinogens, 82 mutagens and suspected mutagens (cause cell mutations), 23 tumor promoters and 28 acute and chronic toxic contaminants have been detected in U.S. drinking water.So according to the people that sell water filters, drinking water has 50% more carcinogens than secondhand smoke. They appear to have one up on the people who sell temperance.
What's really at issue is the total prohibition of smoking. Like I said before, it won't be long before cigarettes and tobacco are banned outright in some cities and states. A national ban won't be far behind, and soon tobacco will be treated as an illicit drug.
When that happens, everyone will just stop smoking, right? Wrong. Cigarettes and tobacco products will go underground. As enforcement increases, prices will skyrocket and trafficking will be a lucrative business. It will also lead to more serious crimes, like murder, and money laundering. In general, crime will increase, and rather than profiting with tax revenue, governments will be spending millions to try to keep our streets tobacco free. Ironically, instead of being less accessible, cigarettes and tobacco will be more accessible than ever; especially to young children.
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (11) top link me
Let me state up front that I am aware of the logical holes in the argument I am about to present. Nonetheless, here goes:
Those of us who pay taxes bear the public health burden posed by cigarette smoke, whether first- or second-hand. I firmly believe that an addictive drug such as tobacco needs to be marginalized as much as possible in order to reduce the ultimate cost to society- both in terms of dollars and of lives lost to a voluntary addiction.
Who else BUT government has the ability to turn smokers into pariahs? This is, from where I sit, a matter of creating a public health situation that benefits the largest number of people.
It will be a great day when a tobacco company has to hold a bake sale in order to sell a pack of cigarettes....
Posted by: Jack Cluth at February 17, 2005 8:57 AMThis is, from where I sit, a matter of creating a public health situation that benefits the largest number of people.
I suppose you will be having a wheat grass salad for lunch today then? Afterall, shoving that burger down your throat doesn't benefit the largest number of people.
As a taxpayer and someone who bears the burden of public health, I think we should sit down and talk about your diet. I'd like to have more input into what you are putting into our body.
(Is that a hard enough hit with the clue bat?)
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 17, 2005 9:51 AMhehe... nice. Let's talk about his issue of taxpayers bearing the burden of public health.
IF WE DIDN'T PUT UP WITH SOCIALISM IN AMERICA, WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION!!!
The taxpayers should have nothing to do with public health, and neither should the government! It's not their right to demand a healthy public. The government's place is simply to keep us free and nothing more!
Posted by: Dan Newbanks at February 17, 2005 11:38 AMI think it is funny that they quote the CDC, since it is the CDC that finally had to admit that there is ZERO evidence that second-hand smoke has any adverse health effects, carciniogenic or otherwise. Are there carcinogens in tobacco smoke? Yup. Is there any evidence that anyone breathes in enough second-hand smoke to produce any carcinogenic effects? Nope, none.
Posted by: Phelps at February 17, 2005 1:42 PMPhelps, facts don't matter when a situation becomes politicized. You are correct--- NO EVIDENCE EXISTS to demonstrate that second-hand smoke harms anyone. But this big lie has been told often enough that a majority of people now believe it.
This ain't scientific. It's political.
Posted by: Acidman at February 17, 2005 3:41 PMAnd Jack Cluth needs to be dragged off and shot for being a socialist pissant.
Posted by: Acidman at February 17, 2005 3:43 PMI read the other day that lighters and matches will soon be banned on planes. Of course, since I can't smoke at any of the airports I go to (except Manchester - with the glass enclosed smoking areas), I guess it really doesn't matter.
I was all against taxing fatty foods and letting people sue McDonalds for their fatness and health problems, until I read Cluths comment. If we put taxes on unhealthy food, we could quit raising the ciferette tax everytime some politicianeeds the money to "balance the budget" (yeah, like a balanced budget is going to happen).
Posted by: bogie at February 18, 2005 4:35 AMJack: On the other hand, think of all the social security payments the government will save when the smokers kick off early.
Posted by: markm at February 18, 2005 9:59 PMI rather like the Finn's idea of a dedicated smoking area within an airport.
It was a large sign that said "dedicated smoking area" in several languages, and a half dozen ashtrays in the middle of the hallway.
Posted by: geekWithA.45 at February 19, 2005 11:54 PMMy Father, who spent 30 years in the Marines and has been retired for nearly 30 more, laughs at all this "second-hand smoke" crap. He says that according to that data, he died 30 years ago. He spent a majority of his military career in offices where the air was "blue with smoke", as he puts it. He doesn't smoke, has no respiratory ailments and, for being over 80, is in better health and condition than I am at 54.
I find it amazing that all the health nazis seem to be able to smell a cigarette at 1 mile but then you'll see them scarfing down a burger, fries and a Coke at Mickey D's on a daily basis.
On an added note, I live in Las Vegas and have had, on several occasions, Californicator tourists pull up next to me at a light and say I should put my cigarette out. My usual comment is "F$%# you. Go back to your tree-hugging, tofu-farting, health-nazi state and don't tell me what I can and can't do in my own state."
Posted by: Dan at June 5, 2005 5:09 PMI think that it interesting that Salt Lake, home of the Mormans have a smoking lounge and Chicago's O' Hare does not. Maybe that is why I will do whatever it takes to avoid using O'Hare.
I wonder what the taxpayer cost is of running smokers through TSA security multiple times in a day because they have to go outside to smoke? The cost is not only for passengers, but also for employees as well.
Posted by: Web at July 9, 2005 9:07 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
