That's Fit

Cancer sticks are out, smoke-free restaurant air is in. At least that's the trend in 23 states instituting statewide restaurant smoking bans. I live in one of those states, and also work one evening in a restaurant. I love no more smokey haze. Other than a few complaining patrons as the 2008 ban neared in Illinois, I haven't heard one complaint since.

An intriguing new study adds even more justification to restaurant smoking bans -- they keeps a whole bunch of teens from developing the habit. Researchers tracked 2,791 kids aged 12 to 17 who lived throughout Massachusetts. When the study began in 2001 no statewide restrictions existed, however approximately 100 cities/towns had varying kinds of smoking bans. After following the teens for four years, researchers determined in the towns without bans or where smoking was only allowed in a designated smoking area, nearly 10 percent became smokers. In towns with restaurant smoking bans, just under 8 percent of the teens developed the habit.

Strong bans make a big difference to teens. In this study, the chances of an experimental-smoking teen turning into a smoker was reduced by 40 percent. Also, since Massachusetts' statewide restaurant smoking ban was instituted in mid-2004, high school smoking rates have dropped from 21 percent of students in 2005 to 18 percent in 2007. May smoking bans be here to stay.

For those sipping appletinis from their sleek leather barstools, but not exactly enjoying the experience thanks to a statewide smoking ban nicotine fit, there's a new drink in town -- the nicotini.

Why not? If Obama runs around campaigning with nicotine gum in his suit pocket, why shouldn't a bar patron enjoy a nicotine-infused cocktail? One Chicago bartender is mixing up a flurry of nic-cocktails for addicted patrons. Order up a lemongrass nicotine fizz or a nicotine chocolatini at the Viet Bistro and your cravings will be fed thanks to drinks made from a sugar cane juice base steeped with Flying Dutchman tobacco.

While you're not inhaling carcinogens, how much nicotine do these drinks actually serve up to your bloodstream? Nicotine poisoning is serious -- it is possible to overdose when simultaneously combining nicotine gum or patches with smoking. Whether nic-cocktails are a gimmick or here to stay, has anyone ordered one, yet?

Whenever there's a story about a public smoking ban or a lawsuit involving secondhand smoke, we usually get one or two commenters who think it's unfair that smokers are under such duress. I can see the logic in some of their arguments, but yet I can't get past the fact that smoking doesn't only harm the smoker.

Take, for instance, this story from Michigan. A young woman recently died from an acute asthma attack while working as a waitress in a smoky bar. Smoke is a trigger for many asthmatics, though this is the first recorded case of a death that can be directly linked to secondhand smoke.

Asthmatics can avoid eating and socializing in smoky establishments, but what about the people who work there? There's a bar in my town that's become locally famous, because they banned smoking shortly after one of their longtime waitresses was diagnosed with heart disease. They didn't want to lose her, so they made their patrons quit smoking. Now they're more popular than ever.

Although I've written on smoking bans extensively in the last few months, countries and municipalities are finally getting the picture worldwide. That is, the general public does not like exposure to tobacco smoke (mostly from cigarettes) and smoking in public places needs to be discontinued.

To those that argue second-hand smoke poses no threat, I'd like to challenge that 'assumption' -- are there verifiable facts from credible sources that back up such a claim? If so, I'd love to investigate them.

It kind of pains me in the worst way when I see patients and employees (such as nurses, of all people) in and around hospitals and medical establishments smoking. And, smoking where other patients have to wade through the toxic mess that is cigarette smoke just to get into a place of healing. Sounds like an oxymoron. Stress can be beat in other ways (it's the common excuse I hear from smokers) -- like fitness and meditation. Hospitals should be one place where smoking should be tossed out the window. Agreed?

If you're a smoker, do yo subscribe to the belief that second-hand smoke causes no damage when inhaled by non-smokers? While some smokers I know defend the position that there are no ill effects from second-hand smoke, I just don't buy it.

Apparently, many researchers agree with me, as a recent round of research has added to the body of evidence that second-hand smoke is indeed dangerous, even in small amounts.

This new research showed that second-hard smoke can "can harm the function of the arteries in children," among other things. Adding to that, the inhalation of second-hand smoke was found to be "harmful to the cardiovascular system of healthy schoolchildren." What about adults who breathe in second-hand smoke? I would venture to guess the disadvantages are pretty much the same.

As smoking bans continue to pop up worldwide, are there possible repercussions to these bans that are just now being seen? For example, the clustering of smokers outside clubs and restaurants that forms a secondhand smoke cloud that non-smokers must pass through?

Many non-smoking establishments I know of won't permit smoking within 25 or even 50 feet of door openings used by the public. Should the same strategy be used by establishments where smokers crowd outside doors to smoke?

Only the vocal non-smoker crowd will be served here, but if you're not all that excited about wading though smoke to get into your favorite non-smoking restaurant, what would you do?

Smoking bans are popping up all over the globe these days, from the U.S. to across Europe. Are these bans being brought upon by customer requests or some kind of political motive?

Regardless of the reason, there's no doubt that banning smoking in public places does good for the public health. Even if you are a smoker, do you agree with that statement? If not, why?

The European Commission thinks that there will be a rising ban on public smoking based on 88 percent of citizens backing that sentiment. That's citizen sentiment in a landslide.

Is the banning of smoking in many venues leading to an increase in littering? In the UK, this is what authorities are finding out, as tons of extra litter are building up inside the country every day due to increasing smoking bans in certain restaurants and other social locations.

While I'm sure that smoking has not increased since smoking bans were placed in the UK, how is more litter being generated here? Easy answer: because proper trash receptacles in all those former smoking locations are no longer being used. There is a difference between trash and litter, after all.

So, what should Britain do? Install smoking butt receptacles all over the country to collect those butts as smokers continue smoking outside all the new "smoke-free" zones?

It appears that the city of New Delhi in India is outlawing smoking in cars completely, as opposed to the banning of smoking with children-containing vehicles.

The ban, which goes into effect on April 9, is in response to conclusions that "any" distraction to a driver is "dangerous". While screaming kids in the backseat can easily be called a distraction, so can smoking -- but only one is being outlawed here. Car stereos will probably still be legal, though (that was a joke).

Do you agree or disagree with this stance by New Delhi?

I wrote about the smoking ban possibly coming to Texas public spots just recently, North Carolina is also considering a ban as well at several public venues.

A broad ban on smoking at businesses and public places in North Carolina has been passed by a state House of Representatives committee as of this week.

As usual, opponents of the measure said business owners should be able to decide how to run their own enterprise. This is true, and customers can vote against "smoking allowed" places (like restaurants) with their dollars.

But, at places where non-smokers need to be, toxic smoke is not all that dissimilar to asbestos in terms of being inhaled. On that vein, Rep. Verla Insko stated that "We don't have asbestos in buildings any more ... It's a health risk." Well said.

Smoking bans are becoming quite popular in states here in the U.S. and countries around the world as well. How far should these bans go, though?

In Sydney, Australia, the Sydney council has added public venues like parks and bus stops as smoke-free zones, which is sure to set off a firestorm of controversy with smokers who are finding less and less places to light up.

Although there are many of the belief that public gathering places should be free of all smoking-related carcinogens as an endangerment to non-smokers, where can smokers turn to get that nicotine fix? It's becoming harder and harder outside of one's private domicile.

It seems like many U.S. states -- like New Mexico -- are fervently attacking smoking in public places, as 17 states so far have introduced (and passed in many cases) legislation that makes smoking in many public places against the law. I'm all about personal freedom, but what second-hand smoke crosses my path in a public place, I'm going to stand up for my health.

As Texas also considers a ban, will more states consider anti-smoking legislation soon? Remember that public smoking bans generally apply to bars, restaurants, stores and other public workplaces.

The right to smoke in private and in any amount should never be taken away from the American public in my opinion. But, the freedom of non-smokers to enjoy public places without fearing for their health is a top concern for many non-smokers.

There is talk in countries around the world on the concept of banning smoking in public places. On one hand, not subjecting non-smokers to the bad effects of secondhand smoke is a very good idea. On the other hand, there are those that fear for the civilized world if cigarettes are banned from almost all public places.

The addiction to nicotine is no laughing matter, and it's one that has caused millions of smokers to give up in frustration when trying to quit only to fall back into the habit. There are also quite a few psychological reasons that quitting smoking fails so often (how cigarettes "relax" oneself).

Would banning cigarettes (like in China) really cause countrywide upheaval? If so, it goes to show just how dangerous drugs can be when consumed by a good portion of the population into a completely addictive state. Make no mistake about it -- tobacco is a drug, and the cigarette is probably the best refined version of it.

An Australian Senator seems to want and end smoking in cars in that country (and continent). Now, I am for smoking bans in public places where non-smokers can receive damaging second-hand smoke, but this looks like it goes to far.

Smoking will never be outlawed for private places most likely in much of the world, as smokers are free to smoke all day long in the privacy of where they live if they so choose. A think a car fits that guideline.

The Senator does bring up a good point -- and that is, smoking in cars can harm the children in those cars. Do you agree? It's hard to dispute that kids won't be harmed by enclosed-space second-hand smoke. But can private citizens be banned from smoking in cars as a result? What if a proposed law like this was to come to the U.S.?

After all the bans on smoking in public places here in the U.S., the European Union has urged nations within that bloc to do the same -- and many countries are following along to the better health of their own citizens.

Smoking in public places may seem like a "right" to many, but when that smoke crosses some invisible barrier and affects other patrons, that is where the line must be drawn.

Ireland, Italy and Sweden have already banned smoking in public places -- which European country is next?