Shirley Turner(D-Ewing), and John Adler(D-Cherry Hill), have introduced S-1089 - and in the Assembly, Jim Wheelan(D-Atlantic County) and Reed Gusciora(D-Trenton) have introduced A2067- to include Atlantic City casinos in Our Fair State's Smoke Free Air Act, which goes into effect April 15.
Why should casino workers not get the protection from secondhand smoke that the rest of Our Fair State gets? The casinos should never have gotten an exemption in the first place, so let's get them in now.
The bill is supposed to be in the Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee soon. Make your voice heard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Quick, Sharon! Disable comments on this post before... oh, bloody hell...
--Christian
I'm curious: what's the official reason for the casino exemption? Is there one?
"The casinos should never have gotten an exemption in the first place, so let's get them in now."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
see what i mean?
yes folks! the tyranny of government taken to the totalitarian end....
lets translate that
"WE CANT LET THOSE CASINOS GET AWAY WITH LIBERTY TO CONTROL THEIR PROPERTY! LET'S SPREAD THIS GOVERNMENT TYRANNY EVERYWHERE!"
in other words, if one person has his liberty over his property taken, lets make sure everyone has theirs taken.
now that's productive...pfft
I'm not aware of an official reason for casino exemption, except for economic hardship and extensive lobbying. Philly is looking to sell their first slot licences, and there are more Native American casinos now, so AC has lots of competition these days. They're afraid if they're smoke-free they will lose business across the river, and to Foxwoods.
With the casino exemption, over 40,000 casino employees don't have the protection from secondhand smoke that the rest of workers in Our Fair State will. That's completely unfair, and should be rectified. Their health is just as important as the barkeeps in my favorite brewpub.
I have a hard time buying an "economic hardship" complaint from such big money businesses as casinos. But that's what i figured, and the competition IS a new element.
But smoking as a selling point?
"Atlantic City: Cough Up Your Life Savings!"
Hey Sunshine, you don't own a liquor store, do you?
230 years ago a revolution was started to end the tyrannical rule of another government, maybe it is time for the everyday man and woman to rise up and start another.
The governor knew that the smoking ban would hurt business in the casinos, they pay the state alot of money. He doesn't care about the small businessman that might close due to people staying home. When NY outlawed smoking in bars something like 30% of the bars in NYC closed.
The funniest part of this whole mess is that the casino workers are the ones that cried the loudest for this ban.
The 30% of NYC bars going under is bogus. There's no data to support that whatsoever. However, here's copius evidence that the ban has no effect on overall restaurant and bar business:
Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues --- El Paso, Texas, 2002 "No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas, after the city's smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002. These findings are consistent with the results of studies in other municipalities that determined smoke-free indoor air ordinances had no effect on restaurant revenues."
Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinance on Restaurant Sales -- West Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994 "The findings in this report are consistent with assessments using similar methods in other locations that have reported that the implementation of smoke-free ordinances has not been associated with adverse economic effects on restaurants."
Packet Publications Article Quoting a Rutgers University study including NYC, California and El Paso: "Likewise, a 2005 study published through Rutgers University found that smoking bans in California, El Paso and New York City had no detrimental effects on restaurant and bar income. In fact, the Rutgers report claims "business either stayed the same or increased slightly.""
Survey on New Jersey's Proposed Clean Indoor Air Act "We asked New Jersey residents if a smoking ban would impact their restaurant dining, and we found a net gain of 800,000 more adults dining out more often, as opposed to less often."
I could go on and on. Actual, not anecdotal, research shows that an indoor smoking ban would be not at all harmful and possibly a bit beneficial for business in Our Fair State.
The casino workers deserve to be protected, just like everybody else.
This quote is from one of the articals that you posted,
"The Rutgers study went deeper than just New York, California and El Paso and looked at the effects of smoking bans in smaller, nonmetropolitan areas. It found that in small towns, even those the size of Lawrence, Kan., which boasts a population of 80,000, "business drops drastically" where public smoking bans took hold. It continues, "A lot of restaurants and bars have to shut down from the lack of clientele base."
The reason for the difference, according to the Rutgers report, is that while large metro areas offer more than just a place for drinking and smoking (warm weather in California, theater in New York), small towns do not.
"With small municipalities and towns these customers go to the tavern to relax and just get away from home, because they can't go to upscale restaurants or do not want to go into a city. (T)here are more casual smokers, who if they can't smoke at their relaxing spot, would rather stay home," the report states."
I guess that the term "business drops drastically" doesn't mean anything.
And a couple paragraphs after that, same article:
"The Rutgers report reminds, however, that long-term effects are impossible to tell due to the fact that most of the nation's smoking bans have been enacted only in the past few years. It also cautions against its own sources of information about the doom smoking bans bring to small towns — many of the surveys it cited were paid for by tobacco companies."
Tobacco companies are a little invested in the failure of smoking ban laws, so reports they sponsor don't have much weight. The Rutgers researchers were very quick to mention this.
I'm unable to find the actual Rutgers report online, just the mention in the press. If I find it, I'll let you know. Let me know if you find that 30% reduction in business in NYC you claimed happened.
If you read the other articles, there are probably other paragraphs that you could pull out of context that would support your point, but I'm going to pay attention to the overall results of the studies- the smoking ban is not overall bad for business.
Sure, I don't mind waiting to see the long term effects of this law, but, just think about this, how many towns in NJ have a population of less than 80,000, and then figure out all the businesses that this law effects in these towns, I'm not just talking about bars and resturants. How about bowling alleys, pool halls, well basically everywhere that is not a casino floor.
Do you think that they can handle any amount of time that "business drops drastically"? most recreational places in smaller towns run at a smaller profit margin so that they can lure customers into thier businesses and spend money.
Lets just say for the moment that the word "drastically" means a 25% drop in business, which is a big drop but not really drastic. Now to a small businessman, what cost $1.00 to make lets say $1.40 a $0.40 profit, now with a 25% drop in business it will cost him about $1.30 to make that same $1.40.
Now lets talk about other economic casualties. If businesses do close or even cut back so that they can stay in business, how many jobs are you and the left wing liberals willing to sacrafice, to prove this didn't hurt anyone.
With the economy and the job market the way it is, who knows how many people will get hurt.
Don't get me wrong, I don't work in the bar or resturant business, I'm a contractor in South Jersey, and I know that this law will effect me.
So smoking bans don't hurt anyone.
BOUNCER'S KILLER CONVICTED
November 17, 2004
A Queens martial-arts expert was convicted yesterday of killing an East Village bouncer in a melee that began when the victim ordered a clubgoer to stop smoking.
Get the whole story at
http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_047171325.html
Here is a short list of bars, resturants and taverns that have affected by smoking bans.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm
I'm sorry the like for the one story was wrong here is the right one.
http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_047171325.html
It keeps cutting off the html at the end
http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_047171325.html
1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_047171325.html
First: the bouncer. Do you really think no bouncers have ever gotten hurt, except for regarding the smoking ban? If so, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. The cause of this man's death was the crazy bar patron who stabbed him, not the second hand smoking ban.
The "Smoker's club" link is what I was talking about when I said actual research, not anecdotal research, shows that an indoor smoking ban would be not at all harmful and possibly a bit beneficial for business in Our Fair State. That anecdotal list, which I've seen several other places, has barowners suggesting the smoking ban killed their business. If it's so bad, so horrible, why are there only 10 bars and restaurants listed in NYC that have closed? Am trying to find a statistic on how many bars/restaurants there are in NYC, but I'm willing to bet that those ten losses aren't exactly statistically significant. (Let me know if you find that 30% statistic you originally claimed.)
I live in one of those small towns of which you speak, but I can't drive more than one mile in any direction without hitting another town, and less than five without hitting another. Not in the urban jungle of NE or SW New Jersey, here in the center where there are still rural areas left. My point is, the idea of NJ having small towns where there's only one or two social outlets is simply not applicable to most of NJ. Again, I have to refer to the Restaurant Sales study and the Smoking Ban Impact study which I quoted on 1/24- There will not be an overall negative impact on restaurant sales due to the smoking ban.
However, while there is minimal risk to bar/restaurant business, there are very real risks to workers consistently exposed to secondhand smoke.
Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease "approximately 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from ischemic heart disease among never-smokers and long-term former smokers are estimated to have occurred annually in the United States as a result of ETS exposure..."
Secondhand smoke facts "Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons.
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans.
Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97)."
The Center for Disease Control's Secondhand Smoke Facts "Secondhand smoke causes other respiratory problems in nonsmokers: coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function." "Laws restricting smoking in public places have been implemented with few problems and at little cost to state and local government. Private businesses that ban smoking incur few costs."
Again, I could go on and on. (Eeek, looking at the length of this comment, it appears I have.) Thank you, anon., for correcting the 1010Wins link. I also apreciate how this comments thread has been kept civilized, as others I have read (and hosted) have not done.
Sorry about the long post
New study sends secondhand smoke myth up in flames.
A 40-year study of Californians, the largest study on secondhand smoke to date, has reached the conclusion that anti-tobacco extremists have been dreading: their claims about the health risks from secondhand smoke are bogus.
The study was published in the May 17 issue of the highly respected British Medical Journal. American medical rags didn't dare publish anything that doesn't support their all-out assault on smokers and the tobacco industry. Rest assured, the only data that will ever see the light of day in American health media will be the usual junk science that keeps the grant money flowing and the politics going their way.
The anti-tobacco extremists are howling that the study was funded by tobacco money. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the American Cancer Society initiated the 40-year study and maintained the original database. The results are based on the ACS's own numbers. The ACS did follow-up until 1972, after which follow-up was conducted at UCLA with funding from anti-tobacco money gained through taxes on cigarettes. That means smokers kept the study going.
In 1997, when anti-tobacco nannies learned that the study would prove that their hysterical claims about secondhand smoke were unfounded, they yanked the funding. For only the last two years of the study, funding was provided by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which indeed received its funding mainly from tobacco companies but which also no longer exists. To call this a study funded by Big Tobacco is ludicrous to anyone with a modest amount of common sense.
This study is bad news for anti-tobacco groups who've based their demands for smoking bans entirely on the myth that secondhand smoke poses a health risk to non-smokers. The anti-tobacco crusade is upset because this study was conducted according to reputable scientific standards, a notion completely foreign to anti-tobacco groups. What's ironic is that the firestorm of controversy that they themselves are igniting might just prompt the media to finally look into the sordid history of junk science that the entire anti-tobacco crusade is based on.
If you would like to read the whole report go to.
kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf
When I posted that list I never said that it was a compleat list nor does the web site claim that it is compleat. I Beleive that It is just a cross-section, and I posted it just to show that smoking bans can hurt the small businessman and the people that are employed by them.
this was copied from
www.kbsd6.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=KBSD/MGArticle/BSD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031785250943
Wichita club tries to ban smoking
Kim Hynes
KWCH 12 Eyewitness News
Friday, September 23, 2005
If you go to a Wichita bar, you probably expect to leave smelling like smoke. A new club Center Stage tried to change that.
The bar opened earlier this month with a ban on smoking. It was supposed to be a place to drink and enjoy music without a cloud of smoke. The bar owner didn't want to believe smoking and drinking had to go together.
But she says for every 1 happy non-smoker who came through the door, 8-10 would leave because they couldn't smoke. Plus she says the non-smokers were usually non-drinkers. "That's great for them, but it doesn't pay the bills. After going through a few days with extremely low sales, I realized Wichita isn't ready for a non-smoking club," bar owner Kathy Sullivan said.
Every new business takes time to get off of the ground. Sullivan hoped a smoke free environment would set them apart in Old Town, she says it just didn't work.
Right now, Lawrence is the only city in Kansas with a smoking ban in bars. Several other communities don't allow smoking in restaurants.
I think my post may be even longer, sorry.
Here's some other studies you may find helpful:
A Prospective Study of Passive Smoking and Coronary Heart Disease: "...these data suggest that regular exposure to passive smoking at home or work increases the risk of CHD among nonsmoking women." (CHD is corinary heart disease. This study is from the long-standing Nurses' health study.) Published in the Circulation, a cardiology-focused medical journal.
Environmental tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease. A position paper from the Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care, American Heart Association "The effects of environmental tobacco smoke on cardiovascular function, platelet function, neutrophil function, and plaque formation are the probable mechanisms leading to heart disease. The risk of death due to heart disease is increased by about 30% among those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at home and could be much higher in those exposed at the workplace, where higher levels of environmental tobacco smoke may be present. Even though considerable uncertainty is a part of any analysis on the health affects of environmental tobacco smoke because of the difficulty of conducting long-term studies and selecting sample populations, an estimated 35,000-40,000 cardiovascular disease-related deaths and 3,000- 5,000 lung cancer deaths due to environmental tobacco smoke exposure have been predicted to occur each year." Also from Circulation.
American Journal of Epidemiology 1998; vol. 147, pp. 932-939 : (abstract no longer on web site, but outlined here): " An analysis of studies of occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease, which estimated an increased risk of heart disease of 20-30% among exposed workers, causing 1,710 deaths annually among workers aged 35-69."
Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: "...ETS meets the criteria of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for classifying substances as potential occupational carcinogens [Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1990]. NIOSH therefore recommends that ETS be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen in conformance with the OSHA carcinogen policy, and that exposures to ETS be reduced to the lowest feasible concentration."
You've already stated you're a contractor, not an MD or PhD in public health. You have no place calling these publications "rags" and "junk science" with a complete lack of experience.
The Witchita case is interesting, in a way, because it shows that with alternatives (other smoking bars) people may use them. However, with the only other option in NJ being to drive over the bridge (or go to the casino, hopefully that will be rectified) there won't be as much of that. I again refer you to the NJ survey I mentioned 1/24: "We asked New Jersey residents if a smoking ban would impact their restaurant dining, and we found a net gain of 800,000 more adults dining out more often, as opposed to less often." No, every business in NJ won't suddenly lose 80% of their clients, as this Witchita club owner claimed happened to her.
To be fair to the other side on this (me? Imagine that!), that 1/24 NJ survey doesn't really convince me. What people say they'll do and what they'll actually do are very different things. It may be the only data on actual NJ residents until the ban goes into effect, but the case studies of other states and cities are stronger evidence, IMO.
The ban's still the right thing to do, though.
All I see is that you keep recycling the same info from the left wing liberal anti-smoking groups. Nothing new in the past couple of days. I give you a study done by, well started by the american cancer socity. I say started by because when the data didn't go thier way they gave up. I recently saw an article which quoted the British Medical Journal that stated that there isn't any evidence that anyone has died from second hand smoke. I just hop that I can find the link for you, but I already know what your reply will be.
In your 1/24 survey did you post a link to that? I must have missed that, but then again this ban affects more than just resturants.
Fine I agree there shouldn't be any smoking in resturants, I don't even smoke in my own home when I at the dinner table and someone is eating. Just leave every other place alone.
Sorry I found that survey.
I just don't get the math must be some new liberal anti-smoker math.
It says that they surveyed 496 adults in the mid-atlantic region, and only 118 in New Jersey how did they come up with, what was that number, oh yeah 800,000 more people going out to eat.
I also don't see in this survey. Would you support this ban if it includes your local bar? bowling alley, pool hall, or any other place that you would want to go to relax, unwind. I wonder what the suvery would look like then? don't you?
Even more slanted, is the fact that they took this survey in casinos, with the bulk (378 People) of the responses from out of state, NY, and Del. have smoking bans, and Penn. doesn't have casinos.
Why didn't they ask 1,000 people from NJ, and include questions about the other places that the ban would affect? The answer to that is that they would have gotten answers that they didn't want.
You know what the government should protect us from next. It will never happen, but, do you know what kills more people every year, and costs the taxpayer over $1,000,000,000 a year. No it's not smoking.
Now I can't link to this I heard it on CNN, or Fox News last week.
Oh yeah I almost forgot to let you all in on this little secret.
but there are more deaths contributed to alcohol every year in the US than anything else the net one on the list was half the amount of deaths.
Here is that link to the British Medical Journal artical about second hand smoke or as they call it environmental tobacco smoke (ets)
bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abridged/326/7398/1057?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=James+Enstrom&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1138367905158_6805&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1
Just another artical about the study
www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3065
This is in response to the post about second hand smoking facts: Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while ETS or secondhand smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off.
A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975—when having smoked obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges—the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. In scientific terminology, that's called a "tiny amount."
In other words your car speews out more of the stuff you quoted, do you want to outlaw cars too.
When you posted this did you read it there is an interresting word in it "predicted" They use that word because they don't have the research to back it up. see post about British Medical Journal which was funded by the American Cancer Socity which is now the American Heart Association. The data didn't go thier way so just make up the numbers and say that it's a "predicted" number, who's going to know.
Your Post:
Environmental tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease. A position paper from the Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care, American Heart Association.
In case you are wondering who paid for the research paper I listed from the British Medical Journal.
The American Cancer Socity funded it until 1972, they gave up as stated, because they didn't like the data. Then Anti-Smoking groups took over until 1997, they gave up for the same reasons. Finally tabacco companys funded the last 2 years, this became necessary when the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which was specifically set up to support this type of research, stopped their funding and no other sources were available.
I guess this thread just got a little less civilized.
With it being an Anonymous post you would have no right or reason to say "You have no place calling these publications "rags" and "junk science" with a complete lack of experience." It could have been a post from a Doctor or someone with the experience to make that claim.
Your right I am a contractor, now not an MD or a PhD, by the way a PhD is a degree not a profession, but I only need two more years of college for that, but not in the medical field.
I haven't personally called these publications "rags" and "junk science" They have always been quoted from people much better suited to say that, then you or I.
If I gave you the impression that I was trying to pass off my intelligence and my ability to fact find, as a doctor or a researcher, well you are mistaken and I'm sorry for that.
If I ever personally make a comment like that it would always have a disclaimer like "in my opinion" or "I believe".
I believe that the post you were refering to was the lead in to the report the was posted at kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf that I posted on 01/26 5:06pm and I'm sorry for not posting the URL for the lead in artical.
Most recent anon.: (could you all pick names and identify yourselves? It makes this a whole lot easier, and implies that you are not trolls.) Thanks for the link.
Your comment, posted 1/26 5:06PM, calls American medical journals "rags" in the fourth paragraph, and in the third to last paragraph you call the research about indoor smoking "junk science." There is no "In my opinion" attached- I'm guessing you mean that you took someone else's post from another thread and didn't credit it? I can't find the thread, the url in the last post is simply back to the report.
I am well aware that an PhD is not a job but it intones a certain ammount of study in a subject such as Public Health, as I suggested. You already stated in this thread that you were a contractor, that's why I said it.
Anon. from 1/27 7:20AM: I don't care if you drink; The only time I care if you drink is if you choose to drive, then you impact others and you should be jailled. I don't care if you smoke in your home, I don't care if you smoke in your yard, or in your cigar club. No one is trying to use NJ's indoor smoking ban to make cigarettes illegal; the ban is so workers don't have to breathe in secondhand smoke all day. If folks had to take in secondhand alcohol, then maybe your analogy makes sense, but it doesn't.
Anon. from 1/27, 9:13AM: Just so you know, The American Cancer Society has not become the American Heart Association. I bet they do work together on some things to better our health, though.
Another anon. (the same? who knows) stated that here we're only recycling the same anti-smoking rhetoric, but the same couple pro-smoking studies constantly get mentioned. Mainly, because there's only a few.
BTW, here's a new one for ya:
Forget smog, secondhand smoke a pollutant in California "The unanimous decision by the state Air Resources Board relied on a September report that found a sharply increased risk of breast cancer in young women exposed to secondhand smoke. It also links drifting smoke to premature births, asthma and heart disease, as well as other cancers and numerous health problems in children." Am unable to find a link to the Sept. study mentioned, it's probably not posted yet on the medical school's web site.
Anonymouses, I've enjoyed this debate and the other one, but we may have to agree to disagree. You can agree with your one study, I'll go with the medical experts and health groups and numerous scientific papers have to say. The ban is law in Our Fair State and will be in effect 4/15/06; I'm still hoping the casino workers get the protection by then. If you feel differently (and I know you do!) write your legislators to let them know how you feel.
I invite you back to TCONJL to comment as much as you wish, but I'll ask that from now on, you sign in with a name so we know who you are.
Wow, the concept of the secondhand drunk would make a great premise for a science fiction story. If people could aquire even a fraction of the inebriation of those around them, think how drunk bartenders would be. Since alcohol inspires feelings of generosity, they'd serve bigger drinks, thus creating a positive feedback loop.
Then again, many people might just show up at a bar hoping to save a few bucks by getting secondhand drunk, and merely order soda. It would have to be a secret superpower that only a few people had. Definitely one of those powers with a shadow side.
What if there were secondhand heroin, or secondhand aspirin?
I don't have a point, I'm just riffing. Well, come to think of it, I do.
Sharon, you said that someone else's drinking is not your concern unless they get behind the wheel of a car. Unfortunately, that's just what most bar patrons do at the end of the night. While drunk driving deaths have declined in the last couple of decades, it's still a huge problem. Count the number of designated drivers in any bar, then count the number of cars in the parking lot.
Not to mention the misery that a person with alcohol problems inflicts on his or her family. Unlike alcohol and other drugs, smoking doesn't impair judgment (unless you count the desire to keep smoking :-). I doubt anyone ever beat up his wife and kids as a result of chain smoking two or three cigs. No one ever lost their job because they kept showing up with a tobacco hangover.
This is not to say I think alcohol should be banned. (Good God, the very thought makes me twitchy.) But we shouldn't discount the public physical and mental health effects of that drug either. If you've ever known anyone with a drinking problem, you know that every other addiction (except maybe heroin) pales when the effects on others are taken into account.
You're right that most bar patrons will drive home. Some will be over the legal limit, and some will be under but still impaired. But, within the context of this discussion (a ban on indoor smoking as a hazzard to employees' health) alcohol does not have the same broadcast effect as tobacco smoke.
There are laws with regards to where you're allowed to drink too, just as the ban would limit where you're allowed to smoke. I can't smoke indoors because it affects others; I also can't drink behind the wheel or walking down main street, because it affects others.
The effect of drinking on others has legal limits, such as BAC limits with driving and public drunkenness laws that some towns have (we do.) The other effects of drinking too much, such as violence, abuse or distruction, also come with legal penalties. If you drink, you still have to control the effect of your behavior on the people around you. When you smoke in an indoor workplace, you aren't controlling the effect of your addicition on the people around you- you're inflicting it on them.
I'm not discounting the suffering of people who live and grow in homes and lives tainted by alcohol abuse. Trust me, at no point was my comment intended to dismiss that. Unfortunately, I am acutely aware of both the effects of a tobacco addiction and an alcohol one on loved ones; I lost one parent to each. I can't and won't argue that either addiction is worse, as they both cause suffering and death.
I just reread my comment, and sorry that it's a little disjointed to read. Up too late last night, too much coffee this moring...
I'm sorry, Sharon, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand. We share an unfortunate thing in common, I'm afraid, although I'm still lucky enough to have my mom. My condolences to you.
It's probably the fact that smoking's poisons are long-term rather than short-term that has kept it from being as strictly regulated as other drugs (including alcohol) up to this point. Humans are short-sighted, and it's probably a sign of our maturity that we can say, no, it's not okay to kill people little by little either.
If I sometimes sound like I'm arguing with myself, it's because I am. Often.
No, I don't!
Yes, I do!
Shut up!
sigh...see?
Both of me still thinks "Secondhand Drunk" would be a cool superpower.
Post a Comment