How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

I'm suggesting the attitude is "I should be allowed to do X (where X= irresponsible, dangerous behavior) regardless of who is affected by it, and I'll justify it by saying that they just don't like X instead of admitting that X is dangerous an irresponsible and I should defer to the safety of others."

You can plug any kind of irresponsible, dangerous behavior in for X that you like. I like to compare to the extreme, so murder it is. See my other examples like radiation, above.

I'm suggesting the attitude is "I should be allowed to do X (where X= irresponsible, dangerous behavior) regardless of who is affected by it, and I'll justify it by saying that they just don't like X instead of admitting that X is dangerous an irresponsible and I should defer to the safety of others."

You can plug any kind of irresponsible, dangerous behavior in for X that you like. I like to compare to the extreme, so murder it is. See my other examples like radiation, above.

It comes across more as mocking than enlightening. But please continue your refusal to notice shades or grey and subtleties, because clearly everything is either all good or all bad. Or as some put it, everything that isn't banned is mandatory.

That's the way analogies work.

It is also the way satire works.

C.S. Lewis this ain't.

Wellllll, you got that right!

We obviously can bicker back and forth endlessly but for me, studies such as this-
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.a ... id=1140093
From those NOT back by the cigarette industry clearly show that second hand smoke harms.
The willingness for smokers to ignore and deny such studies only illustrates their own addiction. They rail on and on about crying kids or alcoholics or car fumes but I bet if someone one were to walk their Great Dane into their yard for a dump and refuse to pick it up they would have their knickers in a wad and guns loaded totally disregarding the Great Dane's rights and bodily needs.
Sheesh.

[Robin Garr]

C.S. Lewis this ain't.

Jonathan Swift? That "Modest Proposal" thing wasn't exactly subtle ...

We obviously can bicker back and forth endlessly but for me, studies such as this-
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.a ... id=1140093
From those NOT back by the cigarette industry clearly show that second hand smoke harms.
The willingness for smokers to ignore and deny such studies only illustrates their own addiction. They rail on and on about crying kids or alcoholics or car fumes but I bet if someone one were to walk their Great Dane into their yard for a dump and refuse to pick it up they would have their knickers in a wad and guns loaded totally disregarding the Great Dane's rights and bodily needs.
Sheesh.

If you trust studies like this, then you must support concealed carry of handguns because everywhere it's been legalized the murder rate has gone down. You're not against "science" right?

I'm generally very skeptical of epidemiological studies, and especially meta analyses like this one. It's very difficult to control for methodological and population differences. Figure 3 shows the the weightings used, with the largest weights given to the most short term collections ( a year or less).

I think this period of time also correlates with increased bourbon drinking, so it might also be a good candidate to explain the AMI reduction. Especially, sense the largest reductions (see Table 1) appear to correlate fairly well with whiskey drinking locales.

And then there are the other 57 studies sited that support their findings.
And BTW, you really don't want to know what I think of men (or anybody else) that have a need to carry a weapon into a Walmart or a doctors' office. (Exception taken for law officials.)

I'm suggesting the attitude is "I should be allowed to do X (where X= irresponsible, dangerous behavior) regardless of who is affected by it, and I'll justify it by saying that they just don't like X instead of admitting that X is dangerous an irresponsible and I should defer to the safety of others."

You can plug any kind of irresponsible, dangerous behavior in for X that you like. I like to compare to the extreme, so murder it is. See my other examples like radiation, above.

And I'm suggesting that every other activity you are there to engage in (eating, drinking, even sitting in the sun) are more dangerous than being exposed to second hand smoke in an open air venue.

Just say your argument is thin at best and we'll move on.

And I'm suggesting that every other activity you are there to engage in (eating, drinking, even sitting in the sun) are more dangerous than being exposed to second hand smoke in an open air venue.

Part health, part annoyance. If the person beside me is getting too much sun, I don't have to breath in their skin, etc.

I'm assuming you've established the facts assumed in your post without aid of epidemiological studies, since they are inherently unreliable, or so I'm told.

And I'm suggesting that every other activity you are there to engage in (eating, drinking, even sitting in the sun) are more dangerous than being exposed to second hand smoke in an open air venue.

Part health, part annoyance. If the person beside me is getting too much sun, I don't have to breath in their skin, etc.

I'm assuming you've established the facts assumed in your post without aid of epidemiological studies, since they are inherently unreliable, or so I'm told.

Almost entirely annoyance. I just want that to be admitted freely here without the lame health excuses.

I think the studies regarding smoking have already been linked in this thread. I know I've already linked one for obesity.

Here's another for alcoholism. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/13_0293.htm.

I'm not bothering to research sun related cancer vs second hand smoke related cancer but I'm willing to guess it sides with my point.

And I'm suggesting that every other activity you are there to engage in (eating, drinking, even sitting in the sun) are more dangerous than being exposed to second hand smoke in an open air venue.

Part health, part annoyance. If the person beside me is getting too much sun, I don't have to breath in their skin, etc.

I'm assuming you've established the facts assumed in your post without aid of epidemiological studies, since they are inherently unreliable, or so I'm told.

Almost entirely annoyance. I just want that to be admitted freely here without the lame health excuses.

I think the studies regarding smoking have already been linked in this thread. I know I've already linked one for obesity.

Here's another for alcoholism. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/13_0293.htm.

I'm not bothering to research sun related cancer vs second hand smoke related cancer but I'm willing to guess it sides with my point.

Gary, you keep mentioning alcoholism. You have in several posts now. I agree, alcoholism is a horribly destructive addiction. I lived with an alcoholic for 12 years. I have a vast collection of horror stories as I sense you may, given your multiple references to it. And yet - every time my alcoholic spouse took a drink, he never pored any down my throat. He never made me drink as well. I was able to keep my own sobriety in check regardless of how much he drank. Cigarette smoking does not allow that. Smokers do not get a "free pass" on second hand smoke simply because there are other additions out there as well. That is reminiscent of a squally child whining to his mom, " but all the other kids are doing ( fill in the blank ) ."

I will reintegrate - do what you want to yourself, you have no civil liberties that say you may cause harm to others. Period. English words. Easy to understand.

Carla, I mention alcohol and obesity over and over because they are both more destructive to your health than tobacco. Every study agrees with this. And there is absolutely no evidence supporting any health issues resulting from second hand smoke in an outdoor arena.

Yes, I've said it seven different ways because the point isn't coming through. So one more time... my second hand smoke on an outdoor patio has yet to be proven to do you any harm.

So go ahead and argue that it's annoying and you don't like it, but let's not play the health card.

[Robin Garr]

Almost entirely annoyance. I just want that to be admitted freely here without the lame health excuses.

So this whole long thread is basically a control thing for you?

Speaking for myself, I've never denied that I favor smoking restrictions because I consider other people's smoke an intrusion on my personal space.

But I also have a right to speak as a member of the community, and there I feel the data on second-hand smoke as a hazard is sufficiently inferential, at least, to justify protective measures for those who are required to work in that environment.

Of course, I'd also favor labor organizing for restaurant workers, and I'm sure that discussion would start quite a ruckus around here.

I hadn't even looked at this thread until it hit six pages, then I suspected it had turned into a classic hotbytes political discussion. It's been awhile. Carry on!

Roll your eyes all you want. This isn't about my need to be right. This is about my rejection of the hive mind's attempt to spread disinformation, and disguising personal preference as an infringement of rights.

I would have the same attitude if we were talking about creationists, global warming or pro life advocates.