Smoking while playing

[Roadking2003]

> @myspinonit said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @Curtdr said:

> > > We know that second-hand smoke is NOT just an "unpleasant smell."

> >

> > **Actually it is harmless.** And quite pleasant to many people.

> >

> >

> What? You are incorrect. Do a quick Google.

> Here's one to save you looking it up: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

> Second hand smoke from the burning end is MORE dangerous than it is for the person smoking. Third-hand smoke (residue left on furniture, steering wheels etc. etc.) is also a concern now.

 

Harmless.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#7e86c3ac65d4

 

[PappyVanWinkle53]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @Quasimoto said:

> > > @myspinonit said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @Curtdr said:

> > > > > We know that second-hand smoke is NOT just an "unpleasant smell."

> > > >

> > > > **Actually it is harmless.** And quite pleasant to many people.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > What? You are incorrect. Do a quick Google.

> > > Here's one to save you looking it up: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

> > > Second hand smoke from the burning end is MORE dangerous than it is for the person smoking. Third-hand smoke (residue left on furniture, steering wheels etc. etc.) is also a concern now.

> > >

> > > And... if you smell something it's the molecules you are smelling. Google that too if you want. That and the second-hand smoke health issue (and fire hazard) also covers your issue with cities like mine that ban smoking in "open spaces"---city Park property which includes municipal golf courses, city parks and beaches.

> > >

> >

> > I have no problem with these bans for public places, and I smoke cigars.

> > However, we now seem to be in some kind rights infringement territory now. If the master of the house (public administration) decrees that it is illegal to consume a legally licensed and purchased product, then the master needs to provide another venue for people to indulge their legal product. Think of bars for alcohol. So the beaches and parks need to be divided into zones of permitted and not permitted.

>

> The problem with your comparison is that the act of consuming alcohol does not, in and of itself, have the ability to harm someone else. Smoking, on the other hand, **does have the ability to harm someone else**. This is one of the main reasons that most places in the US have bans on smoking in restaurants.

 

You bring up a good point. However, just because something has "the ability" to harm someone, it does not mean that it will. There are many things in this world that have the ability to harm someone if used improperly. Again, I go back to being courteous of others both on an off the golf course......it's really not that hard.

 

[Philomathesq]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @myspinonit said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @Curtdr said:

> > > > We know that second-hand smoke is NOT just an "unpleasant smell."

> > >

> > > **Actually it is harmless.** And quite pleasant to many people.

> > >

> > >

> > What? You are incorrect. Do a quick Google.

> > Here's one to save you looking it up: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

> > Second hand smoke from the burning end is MORE dangerous than it is for the person smoking. Third-hand smoke (residue left on furniture, steering wheels etc. etc.) is also a concern now.

>

> Harmless.

>

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#7e86c3ac65d4

>

 

Your definition of harmless seems to be very, very limited. The article you sight states only that second hand smoke has a negligible, if any, effect on lung cancer rates. However, the article also states that the vast majority (93.1%) of deaths caused by secondhand smoke are not from cancer, but from heart disease. So, while the article provides support that secondhand smoke won't kill you with cancer, it does nothing to claim that other risks (like heart disease, asthma, etc.) are not caused by secondhand smoke.

 

Your argument is akin to saying that knives are harmless because 99% of people who die in combat die from either gunshot wounds or explosions.

[Philomathesq]

> @"Crazy About Golf" said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @Quasimoto said:

> > > > @myspinonit said:

> > > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > > @Curtdr said:

> > > > > > We know that second-hand smoke is NOT just an "unpleasant smell."

> > > > >

> > > > > **Actually it is harmless.** And quite pleasant to many people.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > What? You are incorrect. Do a quick Google.

> > > > Here's one to save you looking it up: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

> > > > Second hand smoke from the burning end is MORE dangerous than it is for the person smoking. Third-hand smoke (residue left on furniture, steering wheels etc. etc.) is also a concern now.

> > > >

> > > > And... if you smell something it's the molecules you are smelling. Google that too if you want. That and the second-hand smoke health issue (and fire hazard) also covers your issue with cities like mine that ban smoking in "open spaces"---city Park property which includes municipal golf courses, city parks and beaches.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I have no problem with these bans for public places, and I smoke cigars.

> > > However, we now seem to be in some kind rights infringement territory now. If the master of the house (public administration) decrees that it is illegal to consume a legally licensed and purchased product, then the master needs to provide another venue for people to indulge their legal product. Think of bars for alcohol. So the beaches and parks need to be divided into zones of permitted and not permitted.

> >

> > The problem with your comparison is that the act of consuming alcohol does not, in and of itself, have the ability to harm someone else. Smoking, on the other hand, **does have the ability to harm someone else**. This is one of the main reasons that most places in the US have bans on smoking in restaurants.

>

> You bring up a good point. However, just because something has "the ability" to harm someone, it does not mean that it will. There are many things in this world that have the ability to harm someone if used improperly. Again, I go back to being courteous of others both on an off the golf course......it's really not that hard.

>

 

Your point is well-taken and my statement was definitely more broad than it could have been. I think this topic seems to bring out passionate beliefs on either side and I probably got wrapped up in it.

[Roadking2003]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @myspinonit said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @Curtdr said:

> > > > > We know that second-hand smoke is NOT just an "unpleasant smell."

> > > >

> > > > **Actually it is harmless.** And quite pleasant to many people.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > What? You are incorrect. Do a quick Google.

> > > Here's one to save you looking it up: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

> > > Second hand smoke from the burning end is MORE dangerous than it is for the person smoking. Third-hand smoke (residue left on furniture, steering wheels etc. etc.) is also a concern now.

> >

> > Harmless.

> >

> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#7e86c3ac65d4

> >

>

> Your definition of harmless seems to be very, very limited. The article you sight states only that second hand smoke has a negligible, if any, effect on lung cancer rates. However, the article also states that the vast majority (93.1%) of deaths caused by secondhand smoke are not from cancer, but from heart disease. So, while the article provides support that secondhand smoke won't kill you with cancer, it does nothing to claim that other risks (like heart disease, asthma, etc.) are not caused by secondhand smoke.

>

> Your argument is akin to saying that knives are harmless because 99% of people who die in combat die from either gunshot wounds or explosions.

 

Most studies use people in close proximity such as the same house or car. Smoke on a golf course disperses very quickly and is totally harmless to golfers on the course.

[chippa13]

If you can smell it then you are breathing it in.

In order for drinking to have the same annoyance effect as smoking, everytime I am drinking something I would have to dip my fingers into the beverage and flick some drops into your face. Dollars to donuts says that you wouldn't appreciate that.

[jholz]

You folks all realize that you are ingesting way more toxins and carcinogens from vehicle exhaust and other pollutants by just walking around in populated areas, don't you?

 

I can understand that cigarette/cannabis smoke can be unpleasant and completely defend your right not to be subjected to it if you so choose, but the whole "you are giving me cancer or harming my health" argument is a pretty weak one.

[Carl Spackler3]

I find the range of smoke to be much less than the range of music. As long as I am TRULY not affected by either go ahead

[chippa13]

> @jholz said:

> **You folks all realize that you are ingesting way more toxins and carcinogens from vehicle exhaust and other pollutants by just walking around in populated areas, don't you?**

>

> I can understand that cigarette/cannabis smoke can be unpleasant and completely defend your right not to be subjected to it if you so choose, but the whole "you are giving me cancer or harming my health" argument is a pretty weak one.

 

So sure, let's add some more to the equation. I love the type of rationalizing logic in comments like this.

[AdamJ]

you re absolutely right

[rexroh]

I prefer not to play with smokers. However one of my regular four is a smoker and often will have 2 or 3 a round. I just try to keep upwind of him.

He is an ex fireman and I have seen him in action resuscitating a fellow golfer. If I have a heart attack on the course he would be the one I want around. He claims that while fighting fires he has sucked in gases far worse than nicotine So it is too late to stop now.