Bill calls for more Alaska non-smokin...

Bill calls for more Alaska non-smoking areas

There are 67 comments on the KTOO-TV Juneau story from Feb 28, 2014, titled Bill calls for more Alaska non-smoking areas. In it, KTOO-TV Juneau reports that:

The measure by Anchorage Republican Lindsey Holmes includes a ban on electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, in those places.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KTOO-TV Juneau.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#42 Mar 4, 2014
SMOKE FREE NOW wrote:
<quoted text> Off topic stinky Pete
Nope, not at all. Your simple reluctance to answer the question doesn't qualify it as "off topic".
UR KiddingRight

Weimar, TX

#43 Mar 4, 2014
Since OSHA was dragged into this -

"OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS." https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show...

I have a question that perhaps one of the posters here may be able to help with. If ETS/SHS has the ability to attack a nonsmoker with the same devastating results as it does the smoker, why does it not show up when a person is tested for tobacco use in a insurance or work screen?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#44 Mar 4, 2014
UR KiddingRight wrote:
I have a question that perhaps one of the posters here may be able to help with. If ETS/SHS has the ability to attack a nonsmoker with the same devastating results as it does the smoker, why does it not show up when a person is tested for tobacco use in a insurance or work screen?
Smokers are more likely to get a smoking related illness than a non smoker exposed to ETS. Cotinine, the metabolite for nicotine, does show up in non smokers, just not at the same level as smokers. It even shows up in the children of smokers.

Flies eat steaming piles of sheet, smokers inhale stinking toxins and their breath smells the same afterwards.

How can you tell the difference between a smoker and a dog turd? The dog turd does not follow you when you move away from the stench.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#45 Mar 4, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
Flies eat steaming piles of sheet, smokers inhale stinking toxins and their breath smells the same afterwards.
How can you tell the difference between a smoker and a dog turd? The dog turd does not follow you when you move away from the stench.
Translation: I've got no good argument, so I'll just deflect and talk about how I don't like the smell of smoke.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#46 Mar 4, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation: I've got no good argument, so I'll just deflect and talk about how I don't like the smell of smoke.
Thought you would enjoy the humor. I answered the question BEFORE I made the jokes.
Dump you Car Ashtray

Winnipeg, Canada

#49 Mar 4, 2014
Wouldn't you know it, the last frontier, a wilderness wonderworld, littered with butts. I've been on hiking trails and bic lighters are tossed down. Campsites full of butts. Disgusting animals. Addicts should be banned from these areas.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#50 Mar 4, 2014
Dump you Car Ashtray wrote:
Wouldn't you know it, the last frontier, a wilderness wonderworld, littered with butts. I've been on hiking trails and bic lighters are tossed down. Campsites full of butts. Disgusting animals. Addicts should be banned from these areas.
Since the butts are harmless, the smoker who is observed dropping one should be made to eat all of the butts in sight. The bic lighters need to be put out of sight, too, somehow. I will leave it up to you to figure out how smokers should dispose of those.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#51 Mar 4, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
The bic lighters need to be put out of sight, too, somehow. I will leave it up to you to figure out how smokers should dispose of those.
Typical liberal mindset. If you don't like something, ban it! If you can't ban it, make it as inaccessible as possible

You libs really are a nasty, miserable group of people.
The Right To Litter

Winnipeg, Canada

#52 Mar 4, 2014
Hey man no nanny state's gonna tell me not to litter in the pristine wilderness. We pay taxes. Fisrt ban the birds and bears and fish that crap out there and the trees that drop leaves. Why is it always legally smoking rednecks who have to change?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#53 Mar 4, 2014
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical liberal mindset. If you don't like something, ban it! If you can't ban it, make it as inaccessible as possible
.
Those bic lighters would definitely be inaccessible where I would put them:

(_o_)
BAN SMOKING NOW

Winnipeg, Canada

#54 Mar 4, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Those bic lighters would definitely be inaccessible where I would put them:
(_o_)
I'm not sure that's a punishment. I hear many smokers are gay or latent.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#55 Mar 4, 2014
BAN SMOKING NOW wrote:
<quoted text> I'm not sure that's a punishment. I hear many smokers are gay or latent.
Maybe if we lit them first.
BUTTHEADS

Winnipeg, Canada

#56 Mar 4, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if we lit them first.
Molotov word be proud Bud
UR KiddingRight

Weimar, TX

#57 Mar 5, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Smokers are more likely to get a smoking related illness than a non smoker exposed to ETS. Cotinine, the metabolite for nicotine, does show up in non smokers, just not at the same level as smokers. It even shows up in the children of smokers.
Flies eat steaming piles of sheet, smokers inhale stinking toxins and their breath smells the same afterwards.
How can you tell the difference between a smoker and a dog turd? The dog turd does not follow you when you move away from the stench.
So a person using a patch or gum would show up as a smoker? What is the difference between smoking related and smoking caused?

Answers are greatly appreciated. Antismoking smears don't really help. I have found 3 groups of people smokers, nonsmokers & antismoker. I am in the nonsmoking column. And I have to say the antismoker have been far more rude than the smokers.
Antismokers Rule

Winnipeg, Canada

#58 Mar 5, 2014
UR KiddingRight wrote:
<quoted text>So a person using a patch or gum would show up as a smoker? What is the difference between smoking related and smoking caused?
Answers are greatly appreciated. Antismoking smears don't really help. I have found 3 groups of people smokers, nonsmokers & antismoker. I am in the nonsmoking column. And I have to say the antismoker have been far more rude than the smokers.
Not rude, honest

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#59 Mar 5, 2014
UR KiddingRight wrote:
<quoted text>So a person using a patch or gum would show up as a smoker?
Actually they would be considered a tobacco user which is a flag when insurance or some jobs are concerned. If someone is using the patch or gum, it generally means theyare trying to quit which would be a temporary situation. Once they have wuit they can wait a few weeks and their tests will show up as a non tobacco user.
UR KiddingRight wrote:
<quoted text> What is the difference between smoking related and smoking caused?
'
It is a matter of semantics. Smoking related refers to an illness that strikes smokers with a higher frequency than non smokers. Generally it is used more on an individual basis than on a group basis. A smoke with heart disease would have a smoking related illness. Heart disease occurs in smokers with a greater frequency than non smokers, but it is difficult to point to smoking as the sole cause of the heart disease in any one individual. Smoking caused generally refers to illnesses that occur in smokers at a higher level than in other groups when all other confounders are accounted for. This would refer to the excess cases rather than all cases. You would be talking about group sizes of thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands and millions. An understanding of the law of large numbers here would help explain it. Insurance companies use this method for determining rates. Banks use this method with other parameters to determine credit worthiness.

That being said, there are some illnesses which strike smokers with far greater frequency than the population as a whole. Lung cancer and COPD both fall into this category and this difference in frequency remains when all sorts of other variables are accounted for including education, income, marital status, race, gender, location, diet, exercise. The list could and does go on. The use of statistics in epidemiology points to smoking being the causative agent, hence the Surgeon General's wording that smoking causes cancer.
UR KiddingRight

Weimar, TX

#60 Mar 5, 2014
Antismokers Rule wrote:
<quoted text> Not rude, honest
Honestly! Rude.
UR KiddingRight

Weimar, TX

#61 Mar 5, 2014
bud_schmones wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they would be considered a tobacco user which is a flag when insurance or some jobs are concerned. If someone is using the patch or gum, it generally means theyare trying to quit which would be a temporary situation. Once they have wuit they can wait a few weeks and their tests will show up as a non tobacco user.
<quoted text>'
It is a matter of semantics. Smoking related refers to an illness that strikes smokers with a higher frequency than non smokers. Generally it is used more on an individual basis than on a group basis. A smoke with heart disease would have a smoking related illness. Heart disease occurs in smokers with a greater frequency than non smokers, but it is difficult to point to smoking as the sole cause of the heart disease in any one individual. Smoking caused generally refers to illnesses that occur in smokers at a higher level than in other groups when all other confounders are accounted for. This would refer to the excess cases rather than all cases. You would be talking about group sizes of thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands and millions. An understanding of the law of large numbers here would help explain it. Insurance companies use this method for determining rates. Banks use this method with other parameters to determine credit worthiness.
That being said, there are some illnesses which strike smokers with far greater frequency than the population as a whole. Lung cancer and COPD both fall into this category and this difference in frequency remains when all sorts of other variables are accounted for including education, income, marital status, race, gender, location, diet, exercise. The list could and does go on. The use of statistics in epidemiology points to smoking being the causative agent, hence the Surgeon General's wording that smoking causes cancer.
Thanks, much appreciated. It should either be smoking caused or not. If a person smokes a hang nail seems to be considered "smoking related." I feel that the medical side has fell into "when in doubt blame it on smoking" and it is getting counter productive. SHS is supposed to be so deadly, yet people who lived through the heyday of SHS (40s, 50s, 60s, & 70s) are unbelievably healthy. To listen to some, nobody should be living past the age of 60 because of all the SHS they were exposed to. I just feel the hype is being overdone.

Don't get me wrong, I hate being around smoke. But I did something crazy for many years. If I wanted to eat and one place permitted smoking and another one didn't guess where I went. I have had no problem doing this for at least the last 25 years without any smoking bans. It seemed some people wanted whining rights. Now people are whining about people smoking outside. I truly feel some people are not happy unless they have something to whine about.

I am tickled to death people smoke. With all the taxes they pay we should really treat them as royalty not 7th class citizens. I really think the big hoohaw about the E cigarettes is because they don't generate the tax revenues the politicians have become so addicted to. What vice will be next to donate to the coffers?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#62 Mar 5, 2014
UR KiddingRight wrote:
<quoted text>. SHS is supposed to be so deadly, yet people who lived through the heyday of SHS (40s, 50s, 60s, & 70s) are unbelievably healthy. To listen to some, nobody should be living past the age of 60 because of all the SHS they were exposed to. I just feel the hype is being overdone.
Getting back to the statistics of the matter.

People who are exposed to SHS are more likely to get a smoking related illness when compared to people who are not exposed to SHS. That does not mean that everyone who is exposed to SHS will become ill, just like not everyone who smokes will become ill. As a population, we have been getting healthier in the past 100 years and this holds true for smokers as well as non smokers. Exposure to SHS can cause illness, including immediate health problems for someone whose health is impaired. This includes short term exposure. SHS has triggered asthma attacks and heart attacks among other acute health problems. Obviously these people were not healthy to begin with.

As far as smoking v. nonsmoking establishments, prior to smoking bans there were a lot of places where there was no non smoking option for people who did not want to be exposed to SHS. That is why smoking bans were enacted. They were also enacted to protect the people who work there because for many that was the only job they could get. As far as outdoor bans, smokers have only themselves to blame. So many smokers seem to think that the world is their ashtray and that it is okay to litter. The amount of smoking related litter is amazing and that tends to be the driving force behind many of the outdoor bans. When an outdoor ban is proposed it is because of ETS AND litter. I have camped at many campsites where the smokers have been too lazy to even throw the butts in the fire.

With e-cigs, there simply is not enough information to say that they are safe. I highly doubt that a strawberry flavored ecig has all natural flavors. What happens to those chemicals when they are heated to a high temp? Also, most of those devices are made in place like China and I have a hard time trusting the Chinese to make anything safe. Since the safety of the devices is at issue, those of us who do not partake in them are reluctant to let them in where we have worked hard to eliminate second hand smoke. If the government decides they want to tax them- and they probably will, you will see tax stamps on the devices and the inhalants just like smokes and alcohol.
antismokers are trolls

Myersville, MD

#63 Mar 5, 2014
It's a fact.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alaska Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Alaskan Bush People' are 'On the Prowl' on Dis... (Feb '15) Dec '17 Sweetlady327414 73
News Small quake near Anchorage widely felt in Alaska (Jul '06) Dec '17 Chris Deile 3
News Palins look to land and sea to build wealth; es... (Oct '08) Dec '17 Italo 6
News Estimates show Palin assets top $1 million (Oct '08) Dec '17 Palmermomma 3
News Yukon Men: Is Tanana presented realistically en... (Aug '12) Dec '17 Furface 67
News Trading post life: An interview with Anna Vande... (Jun '06) Dec '17 Shelley 7
isaacang Oct '17 fioisaac 1
More from around the web