and lowered health costs.

 

http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/1220/106/

 

DENVER - Colorado has been smoke-free for almost one year, and already the significant health impacts are being seen in workplaces around the state. A recent study by the State Tobacco Education and Prevention Partnership (STEPP) found that the air pollution in hospitality venues including bars and restaurants has improved by nearly 70 percent since the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act took effect last July.

 

The effects of secondhand smoke are no longer in doubt. Last year, the Surgeon General issued a report that concludes there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that eliminating smoking in indoor places protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12649

 

WASHINGTON -- Smoking bans are effective at reducing the risk of heart attacks and heart disease associated with exposure to secondhand smoke, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. The report also confirms there is sufficient evidence that breathing secondhand smoke boosts nonsmokers' risk for heart problems, adding that indirect evidence indicating that even relatively brief exposures could lead to a heart attack is compelling.

LBBC, I am for efforts at curtailing second-hand smoke as you are, but there is no way, NO WAY, that the effects upon health can have been measured in less than one year.

LBBC, I am for efforts at curtailing second-hand smoke as you are, but there is no way, NO WAY, that the effects upon health can have been measured in less than one year.

 

 

Why? When a person quits smoking they can tell a huge difference within days.

Why? When a person quits smoking they can tell a huge difference within days.

As a person that has quit smoking I will have to disagree with that. I also have 2 other people in my office that have quit smoking that would disagree with that. When you quit smoking it basically puts your body through hell. Your metabolism slows way down and you pretty much feel like poo as your body begins purging all of the toxins. Plus your body is fighting the chemical addiction. Anyone that says they actually feel better right after they quit smoking most likely has convinced themselves they should feel better. It took me sometime to actually start to feel better and that process would have been much quicker had I began exercising right when I quit.

As a person that has quit smoking I will have to disagree with that. I also have 2 other people in my office that have quit smoking that would disagree with that. When you quit smoking it basically puts your body through hell. Your metabolism slows way down and you pretty much feel like poo as your body begins purging all of the toxins. Plus your body is fighting the chemical addiction. Anyone that says they actually feel better right after they quit smoking most likely has convinced themselves they should feel better. It took me sometime to actually start to feel better and that process would have been much quicker had I began exercising right when I quit.

 

 

I've never smoked so I can't personally comment on it, but there have been 3 or 4 girls in the office who quit, and after a day or two stated that they could notice a dramatic improvement. There is also scientific evidence that you'll see medical improvement almost immediately after you smoke your last cigarette.

 

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/afterquitting/a/after_quitting.htm

I'm talking more about macro health reporting. It usually takes a year or even two to get medical providers to even report medical results, and then additional time to collate them, test them, and publish them.

 

A year is too soon.

I'm talking more about macro health reporting. It usually takes a year or even two to get medical providers to even report medical results, and then additional time to collate them, test them, and publish them.

 

A year is too soon.

 

But you'd have to agree that a smoking ban couldn't hurt, right?

But you'd have to agree that a smoking ban couldn't hurt, right?

I would say that it definitely hurts. It allows the government to make decisions for individuals, business owners, and society as a whole...which is quite detrimental.

But you'd have to agree that a smoking ban couldn't hurt, right?

 

I'm with formerky. If you don't like second-hand smoke, don't go into a smoking establishment. I am OK with certain, time, place, and manner regulations, but the government ban is far too intrusive.

 

Should we ban Big Macs because they have no redeeming value?

 

The government control outweighs the beneficial effects, IMVHO.

I'm with formerky. If you don't like second-hand smoke, don't go into a smoking establishment. I am OK with certain, time, place, and manner regulations, but the government ban is far too intrusive.

 

Should we ban Big Macs because they have no redeeming value?

 

The government control outweighs the beneficial effects, IMVHO.

 

 

It was placed on the ballot in Ohio. The people have spoken. I don't see that as government control.

I've never smoked so I can't personally comment on it, but there have been 3 or 4 girls in the office who quit, and after a day or two stated that they could notice a dramatic improvement. There is also scientific evidence that you'll see medical improvement almost immediately after you smoke your last cigarette.

 

http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/afterquitting/a/after_quitting.htm

I don't doubt that your body begins to heal immediately and you begin to become healthier right away. It took a few weeks from me to get over the chemical addiction enough and for my body to get over the shock to start to feel better.

I would say that it definitely hurts. It allows the government to make decisions for individuals, business owners, and society as a whole...which is quite detrimental.

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

The government is in our lives too much as it is, we don't need more of it.

It was placed on the ballot in Ohio. The people have spoken. I don't see that as government control.

I still see it as a milder form of government control because you are dealing with business owners and the government shouldn't be regulating smoking inside their businesses. People can already regulate that by simply not going to places that allow smoking.

 

I do prefer to see these bans brought to fruition by a public ballot as opposed to legislators passing the ban. Though it seems legislators are much more likely to add a public ballot for an issue that's adds government control as opposed to one for freedoms (i.e. Casino's, Liquor Sales, Medical Marijuana, etc.).

I would say that it definitely hurts. It allows the government to make decisions for individuals, business owners, and society as a whole...which is quite detrimental.

 

I'm with formerky. If you don't like second-hand smoke, don't go into a smoking establishment. I am OK with certain, time, place, and manner regulations, but the government ban is far too intrusive.

 

Should we ban Big Macs because they have no redeeming value?

 

The government control outweighs the beneficial effects, IMVHO.

 

I meant a smoking ban couldn't be harmful to health. That's what the original post was about, right? That banning smoking had led to positive health. It's not always a big government argument guys.

I would say that it definitely hurts. It allows the government to make decisions for individuals, business owners, and society as a whole...which is quite detrimental.

 

What he said.