42,000/year killed by secondhand smoke

[Don Quixote]

I have smoked for years. I have never smoked inside my home. You can't legislate against natural selection, no matter how much sense it makes to you.

do you drive and if so do you smoke in your car and do your children/spouse ride in your car

i realize that smoking is an addiction (nicotine), it is the strongest addiction known...if you have children, think of the example that you are setting for them or do you consider it evolution in action or a form of aversion therapy for them

 

[Don Quixote]

HELL NO. The press mangles science and makes it seem schizophrenic. That is a big reason why the right rejects science entirely while many on the left just confuse the hell out of it. A scholarly source like the journal this was published in will list all their doubts and the limitations of the study. The mainstream press just wants the headline and soundbites.



Yes. They are addicts and will even tell themselves that they use to satiate the stress caused by child rearing.



Screw cnn or any other station you like too. They are all number one in my book. I am not interested in helping them. Obviously, I used that for effect but it does not change my position or the main point. You are taxing the poor to help the rich.



I am sorry for your pain, but punishing him would not have helped anyone. It is certainly a disgusting habit and I have no doubt second hand smoke does some little bit of harm. At least the body of this article was careful enough to acknowledge that the deaths were PRECIPITATED by second hand smoke. But the headline was misleading, which is par for the course in the mainstream press. It does not CAUSE 42,000 deaths a year and that is not what the study indicates. I guarantee you the science journal did not use such a blatantly misleading headline.



Those are valid points. Maybe, they should be included in the commercials that ALREADY exist instead of the crappy scapegoating. That is, why not tell people what their habits cost THEM and their loved ones in real terms. It is far more effective than demonizing the smoker or other market participants. They might tune it out as preachy but that sort of preaching works better than fire and brimstone which only promotes hate.

I can tell you the reason. There is no vested interest (other than the media/preacher) that will profit from that approach because it is effective. Better to outlaw it entirely so the legal and prison systems can make money off of it.

our older daughter bought a house and had to replace the electrical switch/plug plates, molding in addition to repainting and generally cleaning the place because the previous occupant was a heavy smoker and the tobacco residue had permeated the entire house, even behind things where you would not think it could go, like built in light fixtures

when the san francisco opera house was refurbished, the glass parts of the corridor lights were washed...originally, they had thought that they were smoked glass - they were partially correct, the glass had years of tobacco residue and after they were washed, they were much brighter

the rest of the lighting was replaced except for the main chandelier which was refurbished...and cleaned

perhaps there should be a law requiring the disclosure if the previous owner of a home or car was a smoker

as for making it illegal, prohibition does not work well, however, forbidding smoking in public use places or multifamily dwellings is a good idea

 

[Don Quixote]

Incredible. You started smoking, you stop. What the hell are you buying stuff like that for. I had my first cigarette at the age of 9. By 14 I was a regular. I gave up on April 15 2008. I have never smoked nor wanted to smoke since then. I have convinced myself that I do not like the smell of smoke. My friends all gave up at about the same time. None of us 'smell' of smoke any more. Our wardrobes to not stink of tobacco and our palates appreciate good food and wine. Enough incentive for anyone.
All I have to give up now is my natural habit of being nice to people like you, but I can feel success coming on.

for a while i was addicted to tournament bridge

the main problem was that when i came home i and my clothes stank of tobacco smoke from the large number of smokers at the tournaments

 

[Don Quixote]

Are you joking?

Why should you be able to get insurance? Based on your other post in this thread you should pay out of your pocket until at least 2015 (that's when they say your lungs will be healed). Maybe, longer since you were smoking at such a young age.

Also, why should any amount of alcohol be toleratedand how exactly are you going to determine what amount qualifies you as an alcoholic?

there are alpha and beta alcoholics

one drinks to excess because they like alcohol or how it makes them feel, but can stop whenever they want

and the other cannot take even one drink without drinking to excess

as for banning it, i think that all recreational drugs should be legal, however, there should also be a requirement that using them in a way that infringes on others rights should be punishable by law...like driving under the influence

 

[Don Quixote]

I can't answer that. My question was a simple 'closed' (yes/no) question. I asked if a smoker can get insurance in America. Simple question. No hidden meaning. No humour.
My second point concerned the immense waste of hospital resources caused by boozed or drugged up weekend revellers. So I think that, since I clearly did not express myself in a way you could understand further attention to the subject could only bring discord and that was not my aim so topic closed as far as I am concerned.
However, thank you for trying.

to answer your question, i would say that there should be universal health care, including treatment for addicts which is also a mental health issue