PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Ban!!!


Halfcan
11-14-2005, 10:36 PM
Full Smoking ban in Fairway KS.


Does anyone care?

greg63
11-14-2005, 10:46 PM
…Depends on who you are. Me - I'm not a smoker so it wouldn't affect me, but I don't see this as a positive for smokers in Fairway. :shrug:

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-14-2005, 10:48 PM
I'm a smoker, but I have no travel plans that involve Fairway KS.

luv
11-14-2005, 10:58 PM
Do you get arrested if you get caught? lol

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-14-2005, 11:02 PM
Do you get arrested if you get caught? lol

Yes, including a full body cavity search.

unlurking
11-14-2005, 11:05 PM
Do you get arrested if you get caught? lol
Funny, I hear the fine for smoking in Boulder, CO is the same price, whether it's tobacco or weed.

luv
11-14-2005, 11:06 PM
Yes, including a full body cavity search.
Depending on who's searching, that could be fun.

Miles
11-14-2005, 11:06 PM
It should be the bars choice whether or not it wants to be smoke free.

chefsos
11-14-2005, 11:16 PM
There's been a smoking ban in every public building in Delaware, including bars, for a couple of years. You learn to live with it. Going outside the club to smoke in February at midnight generally leads you to determine just how badly you want that cigarette.

There is one bar owner who thumbed his nose at the ban, received and continues to receive fines for it, and ultimately ran for governor on essentially that platform.

He got, I believe, 11 votes.

Frazod
11-14-2005, 11:43 PM
It's been almost three months to the day since I quit. And I still think all these anti-smoking fascist c#cksuckers should go eat a dick.

Glad to know I won't be turning into one of those reformed hypocrit ex-smoking assholes.

luv
11-14-2005, 11:45 PM
I don't even smoke, but I think banning it in bars is ridiculous.

Dunit35
11-14-2005, 11:48 PM
I hate the smell of it inside places. I cant stand the smell at all, it gets all over your clothes and drives me nuts. I wouldnt mind hanging out in a bar where you had to smoke outside.

Logical
11-14-2005, 11:48 PM
All I can say is I am delighted CA has been smoke free in public buildings for almost a decade now.

Great

chefsos
11-14-2005, 11:56 PM
I hate the smell of it inside places. I cant stand the smell at all, it gets all over your clothes and drives me nuts. I wouldnt mind hanging out in a bar where you had to smoke outside.
Be careful what you ask for. We usually wait outside for one of you non-smokers so we can drop stamped out butts into your coat pockets. :)

Dunit35
11-14-2005, 11:59 PM
Be careful what you ask for. We usually wait outside for one of you non-smokers so we can drop stamped out butts into your coat pockets. :)

I really dont care if other people smoke inside, If I smoke I wont do it inside cause of the smell and I dont want to bother other people. I can always tell when I was at the bar.

chefsos
11-15-2005, 12:07 AM
I really dont care if other people smoke inside, If I smoke I wont do it inside cause of the smell and I dont want to bother other people. I can always tell when I was at the bar.
Yeah, same here. I would kinda rather smoke outside, whether it was the law or not. Sit at the bar with a smoke, and the cloud just hangs around you. It's easier to see the band, too, when they're not obscured by the fog.

Mr. Flopnuts
11-15-2005, 12:17 AM
Full Smoking ban in Fairway KS.


Does anyone care?


I'm surprised this is happening in the midwest. That's scary. Washington state voters just passed an initiative that bans smoking within 25 feet of any public building whatsoever, obviously no smoking inside either. Bars and Casinos included. Welcome to fascism. Seat belts, smoking, pot, and domestic violence..........okay so domestic violence is bad, mmkay.

ENDelt260
11-15-2005, 12:38 AM
and domestic violence..........okay so domestic violence is bad, mmkay.

Hey, sometimes a gal's gotta be reminded to shut the f*ck up and listen.

cdcox
11-15-2005, 12:54 AM
I've always been a non-smoker. Two public places where smoking should be alway be allowed are bars and anywhere out side. The "no smoking entrances" to buildings are pure facism. You aren't going to get cancer in the 3 seconds it take to enter a building.

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-15-2005, 01:00 AM
The "no smoking entrances" to buildings are pure facism. You aren't going to get cancer in the 3 seconds it take to enter a building.

That's a great point, because it isn't about getting cancer, it's that anti-smokers don't like the smell. They gained momentum with the tobacco settlement a few years ago and now nowhere is safe.

Demonpenz
11-15-2005, 01:00 AM
you have to smoke so far away at my work that i bet you can't get out there and smoke and be back at your desk in your 15 minute break

Bacon Cheeseburger
11-15-2005, 01:04 AM
you have to smoke so far away at my work that i bet you can't get out there and smoke and be back at your desk in your 15 minute break

My wife can't smoke anywhere on company property, not even inside her car.

luv
11-15-2005, 01:19 AM
Hey, sometimes a gal's gotta be reminded to shut the f*ck up and listen.
You'd have to hit me hard, cuz I won't shut up. I'd definitely have a response.

Fruit Ninja
11-15-2005, 03:29 AM
Been banned in bars here in cali for a while. If you need a smoke just go outside. I hated that shit bieng blown in my face. Smells like crap.

luv
11-15-2005, 03:34 AM
Smoking can do just as much damage and smell just as bad outside as it can a few tables over. Good thing they haven't banned it in bingo halls. The little old ladies would have to start knitting clubs or something.

It should be up to the owner of the establishment, not a law to follow. If you don't like going somewhere because people smoke, then don't go there.

Rausch
11-15-2005, 03:35 AM
It should be up to the owner of the establishment, not a law to follow. If you don't like going somewhere because people smoke, then don't go there.


You'd make a horrible fasci-......er........Liberal.

Kraut
11-15-2005, 06:39 AM
There's been a smoking ban in every public building in Delaware, including bars, for a couple of years. You learn to live with it. Going outside the club to smoke in February at midnight generally leads you to determine just how badly you want that cigarette.

There is one bar owner who thumbed his nose at the ban, received and continues to receive fines for it, and ultimately ran for governor on essentially that platform.

He got, I believe, 11 votes.
I go to Delaware every summer to vacation and you do learn to live with it. But there is one place that I go to that it just kills me not to be able to smoke inside and that is the Starboard. The greatest bar in the world in my opinion.

KCTitus
11-15-2005, 07:04 AM
I want to thank Chiefsplanet for being non-smoking. It's made for a much cleaner BB experience.

Fried Meat Ball!
11-15-2005, 07:32 AM
My wife can't smoke anywhere on company property, not even inside her car.
I'm not sure that that law (others like it are becoming more prominent) won't be challenged. There's got to be some sort of precident where yes, you're on private property, but you're within your OWN private property smoking. As long as the windows are up, she ought to be able to smoke in her own damn car. Geez.

NewChief
11-15-2005, 07:42 AM
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the smokers
and I did not speak out
because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

ROFL

Sorry, I know that some of you take this stuff seriously. Here in Fayetteville, it was voted on. The voters voted for the smoking ban.

Garcia Bronco
11-15-2005, 08:54 AM
Geeze...give up cigarettes....they're terrible for you....they will kill you.....but before that happens...your family will get to see your tired, smelly, whining, wrinkled ass carry around and oxygen tank before your pathetic ending. And why should they care as you willfully destroyed yourself? Because they're family and they have to...and look at what you did to them in the process....all because you couldn't give it up. Better hope the power doesn't go out....or you won't be able to get oxygen like that dead guy in New Orleans after Katrina.

Garcia Bronco
11-15-2005, 08:56 AM
I've always been a non-smoker. Two public places where smoking should be alway be allowed are bars and anywhere out side. The "no smoking entrances" to buildings are pure facism. You aren't going to get cancer in the 3 seconds it take to enter a building.

True...but it can get on to cloths...and why sghould I walk around all day smelling like somebody elses bad habit.....please back off the doors...take a walk smokers....it's good exercise.

jspchief
11-15-2005, 09:00 AM
It's not an issue that I actively engage, but I do like to see these bans implemented.It's not about my health. It's about not liking the smell of it.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 09:04 AM
Zee smocking must be doing outside zee bar. Sieg Heil!

NewChief
11-15-2005, 09:10 AM
Zee smocking must be doing outside zee bar. Sieg Heil!

See post, 30. I'd already invoked Godwin's, although my invocation was intentional and TiC, so you win..or something.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 09:15 AM
See post, 30. I'd already invoked Godwin's, although my invocation was intentional and TiC, so you win..or something.

I can't wait for them to outlaw obesity. That will make things a lot easier on my senses and get rid of a public health nuisance.

NewChief
11-15-2005, 09:19 AM
I can't wait for them to outlaw obesity. That will make things a lot easier on my senses and get rid of a public health nuisance.

Yeah. Because, you know, fat people's odor is carcinogenic and damages other people..oh wait..no it doesn't. Find a better analogy.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:20 AM
To anyone here that supports a smoking ban because they "don't like the smell of it".. you are worthless a$$holes... end of story.

Is it your ****ing right to tell me as a business owner what I allow in MY bar? I guess you can hide behind "majority rule"... of course that same logic would dictate that if the majority didn't like blacks.. you could vite to ban them, as well.

This country was PRIMARILY founded upon property rights issues (see Locke)... and sh!t like this is ignorant(at best) and fascist(Hitler was one of the first to outlaw smoking).

Can any of you legitimately say that this is a PROPER use of the law? "because you don't like it".. well eat a dick, stay the **** home or go to a nonsmoking bar... don't whine to your city council like a bitch.

In my opinion, you better have a DAMN good reason to create a law... because taken to its logical conclusion.. law equals violence.

Do any of you truly think it is your right to force an owner of a private business to cater to your olfactory whims?

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:22 AM
Yeah. Because, you know, fat people's odor is carcinogenic and damages other people..oh wait..no it doesn't. Find a better analogy.

nice try... but dead wrong... take a toxicology class before you swallow the crap in the press( mostly funded from the insurance crowd)... there have been two major meta-studies on ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and BOTH showed no statistically significant risk.

NewChief
11-15-2005, 09:23 AM
Do any of you truly think it is your right to force an owner of a private business to cater to your olfactory whims?


No, but I expect a business to provide a safe work environment for its workers and those who enter the place. If a factory, restaurant, or bar were filled with asbestos, would the government allow it?

Cochise
11-15-2005, 09:23 AM
Yeah. Because, you know, fat people's odor is carcinogenic and damages other people..oh wait..no it doesn't. Find a better analogy.

It wouldn't be much more of a stretch to find junk science that says sitting next to a fat guy at dinner is going to give me cancer.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 09:24 AM
No, but I expect a business to provide a safe work environment for its workers and those who enter the place. If a factory, restaurant, or bar were filled with asbestos, would the government allow it?

Nobody is forcing anyone to work there. Plenty of alternative places of employment abound. They're free to go work someplace else.

jspchief
11-15-2005, 09:26 AM
To anyone here that supports a smoking ban because they "don't like the smell of it".. you are worthless a$$holes... end of story.

Is it your ****ing right to tell me as a business owner what I allow in MY bar? I guess you can hide behind "majority rule"... of course that same logic would dictate that if the majority didn't like blacks.. you could vite to ban them, as well.

This country was PRIMARILY founded upon property rights issues (see Locke)... and sh!t like this is ignorant(at best) and fascist(Hitler was one of the first to outlaw smoking).

Can any of you legitimately say that this is a PROPER use of the law? "because you don't like it".. well eat a dick, stay the **** home or go to a nonsmoking bar... don't whine to your city council like a bitch.

In my opinion, you better have a DAMN good reason to create a law... because taken to its logical conclusion.. law equals violence.

Do any of you truly think it is your right to force an owner of a private business to cater to your olfactory whims?

--KyleWhile you're calling me a "worthless asshole", I wonder if you could take a break and fix your f*cking BB. 4321

NewChief
11-15-2005, 09:28 AM
Nobody is forcing anyone to work there. Plenty of alternative places of employment abound. They're free to go work someplace else.

All I'm asking is if, under current law, business owners must clean up a work environment filled with asbestos? I'm not asking about what you'd prefer or what a libertarian society would prefer or how free market economics would deal with the issue. I'm asking about current law.

Everyone acts like this is some kind of slippery slope where they're going to come for fat people next. My understanding is that employers have been under a burder to provide as safe of a work environment as possible for a long time, so it's not like some new precedence is being set.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:29 AM
While you're calling me a "worthless asshole", I wonder if you could take a break and fix your f*cking BB. 4321

I did not directly call anyone out.. but the statement I made remains.. if anyone feels that their convenience overrides my property rights.. they are worthless(in my opinion) and represent everything wrong with teh direction America is headed.

I have no idea if this is your opinion or not... I would seriously hope not.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:32 AM
All I'm asking is if, under current law, business owners must clean up a work environment filled with asbestos? I'm not asking about what you'd prefer or what a libertarian society would prefer or how free market economics would deal with the issue. I'm asking about current law.

Everyone acts like this is some kind of slippery slope where they're going to come for fat people next. My understanding is that employers have been under a burden to provide as safe of a work environment as possible for a long time, so it's not like some new precedence is being set.

Agreed, if you make the safe-work environment argument and can also PROVE that ETS has a significant health risk... then that is a fair and legitimate argument... the problem is that no study showing that has every stood up in court.

(see what happened to the EPA study in 1993)

BIG_DADDY
11-15-2005, 09:33 AM
I did not directly call anyone out.. but the statement I made remains.. if anyone feels that their convenience overrides my property rights.. they are worthless(in my opinion) and represent everything wrong with teh direction America is headed.

I have no idea if this is your opinion or not... I would seriously hope not.

Amen

jspchief
11-15-2005, 09:35 AM
I did not directly call anyone out.. but the statement I made remains.. if anyone feels that their convenience overrides my property rights.. they are worthless(in my opinion) and represent everything wrong with teh direction America is headed.

I have no idea if this is your opinion or not... I would seriously hope not.Like I said, it's not something that I have an active voice in either way. But I don't mind that it's being banned in places.

IMO, it's like really bad body odor. Maybe it's your right to smell like crap, but that doesn't mean I like to smell you. And I wouldn't mind something that bans people who smell bad. We could just send them to France.

I realize the "health" issue is the bullshit way for them to legislate it. It's probably a hell of a lot less about health and more about just not liking it. That's probably not the way to impose laws on this country either. But I can't help but enjoy walking into an establishment that doesn't smell like an ashtray. I'm selfish that way.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:36 AM
Here is a good article that explains the second hand smoke myth http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:38 AM
Like I said, it's not something that I have an active voice in either way. But I don't mind that it's being banned in places.

IMO, it's like really bad body odor. Maybe it's your right to smell like crap, but that doesn't mean I like to smell you. And I wouldn't mind something that bans people who smell bad. We could just send them to France.

I realize the "health" issue is the bullshit way for them to legislate it. It's probably a hell of a lot less about health and more about just not liking it. That's probably not the way to impose laws on this country either. But I can't help but enjoy walking into an establishment that doesn't smell like an ashtray. I'm selfish that way.

I somke and I actually enjoy the ban here in Austin.. it forces me outside where I a get to have contrived conversations with random chicks... but my anger is directed at the use of LAW to enforce it.

NewChief
11-15-2005, 09:39 AM
Agreed, if you make the safe-work environment argument and can also PROVE that ETS has a significant health risk... then that is a fair and legitimate argument... the problem is that no study showing that has every stood up in court.

(see what happened to the EPA study in 1993)

I'm no scientist, but I have read some on this issue. Most of the debunking (by people like junkscience.com) of ETS seems to be agenda-driven as well. Steve Milloy, the dude as junkscience, has been on the payroll of Tobacco and Oil companies for a long time. This is my problem with current scientific enquiry: so much is agenda driven. I'm willing to recognize that both sides have an agenda to push, just as with other debates like global warming, evolution, etc. So the problem lies in finding truly objective sources with little agenda. I did find this on a quick search. Not sure if the American Council of Science and Health is agenda drive or not, but I'll throw it out:

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.346/pub_detail.asp
Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Health Risk or Health Hype?

Posted: Saturday, May 1, 1999

Executive Summary

Active smoking has been recognized as a major cause of disease and death for at least 40 years. But in the past 20 years a growing body of evidence has shown that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—in other words, second hand smoking—may also be a threat to health.

Scientists have documented the presence of some of the toxic and carcinogenic components of environmental tobacco smoke in the hair and body fluids of nonsmokers exposed to tobacco smoke, and an extensive database on the health effects of ETS now exists. Numerous epidemiological studies have examined the associations between ETS exposure and acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) health effects. But debates still continue about the validity of the scientific methods used to establish causality for chronic diseases—lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, for example—reported in nonsmokers living or working with smokers. [b]Study limitations and sometimes-equivocal results have led many observers to question whether the health risks that the studies have shown to be associated with environmental tobacco smoke are, indeed, real. [b]

In this report the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) evaluates the large body of evidence that exists regarding the health effects of ETS. ACSH's analysis yields the following conclusions:

Irritation of the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract is the most common and firmly established adverse health effect associated with exposure to ETS.

Exposed infants and children, in particular, are at increased risk of respiratory infections, middle-ear effusion (fluid inside the eardrum), and the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory symptoms.

Exposed adults are at increased risk for respiratory ailments; ETS may aggravate the symptoms of preexisting asthma and emphysema.

Extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that ETS exposure is a weak risk factor in the development of lung cancer in nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.

Epidemiological evidence also suggests that ETS is a weak risk factor for heart disease in nonsmoking spouses of smokers and in nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.

Other reported links between ETS and chronic disease (breast cancer, cervical cancer, and leukemia, for example) have not been scientifically established and are not addressed in this report.

The scientific evidence that tobacco smoke in indoor environments is associated with acute and chronic respiratory illnesses, particularly in children, supports the adaptation of measures designed to reduce or prevent exposure to ETS. Such strategies may include increasing ventilation, eliminating the source of ETS by reducing active smoking, and limiting levels of exposure through indoor smoking restrictions. Prevention efforts should target highly exposed individuals (such as children and nonsmoking spouses of smokers, and workers in smoke-filled workplaces) and certain populations that are especially vulnerable to the risks of ETS.


It is at least somewhat indicative of being objective because it admits the shortcomings in current findings as well.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 09:39 AM
*** edit - austinchief took care of my argument for me.

I don't see what's so hard about all this. Let a privately run business determine if it wants to be smoking or non-smoking. That way people who can't stand smoke can go to their places and people who don't mind or who are smokers can go to their places. People who don't want to work around it can work at non-smoking places, and people who don't mind can go to the smoking places.

But that's not good enough, is it? The anti-smoking nazis aren't content to have their own restaurants and bars to go to, and let the smokers have theirs. They want them ALL to comply with their will.

To me it seems like a pretty clear-cut "my opinion is more important than yours" position.

Bob Dole
11-15-2005, 09:44 AM
I can't wait for them to outlaw obesity. That will make things a lot easier on my senses and get rid of a public health nuisance.

Not to mention drive down Bob Dole's healthcare premiums.

Ban the fat ****s!

NewChief
11-15-2005, 09:46 AM
Here is a good article that explains the second hand smoke myth http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/ToxicToxicology.htm

--Kyle

Interesting. Here's a link to documents found in the offices of Phillip Morris execs that show their plan of attack to debunk ETS research as well. Not saying that the validates the second-hand smoke argument, but it does show intent on the part of the industry.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2021159478-9480.html

Some interesting quotes from the documents:

Any strategy must begin with the fact that the Surgeon General and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -- the preeminent health and scientific authorities in the U.S. if not the world -- have concluded ETS is harmful to the health of non-smokers. The tobacco industry has little public credibility and virtually none when compared to these authorities. In order to have any hope of breaking the scientific conclusion on this issue, we should pursue several aggressive programs simultaneously:

(1) NAS Reveiw: Go back tot he members of the NAS committee on ETs and the NAS generally with all the new studies and the criticism of the old studies. Ask for a reconsideration of the earlier report. This process will take time and effort, but it should start a debate in the scientific community over the issue. A linchpin in this approach is to discredit the Hirayama Study on which the NAS's conclusion depends.

(2) Media Controversy: Place our NAS campaign in the context of all businesses subject to bad science. Make it clear to the popular science media that ETS is just another case in which politics and ideology combined with science to assault certain individuals and businesses. We need to challenge popular notion that science is objective, value-free and without error.

(3) Risks in Context: Whether or not we succeed in discrediting the notion that ETS is a health risk, we can place the risk in context and thereby minimize it. Thus, non-smokers may still believe ETS is a health risk, but on a par with driving a car, shovelling snow, etc. Low risk makes ETS an annoyance issue which can be handled with courtesy and tolerance. Using authoritative sources on risks we would disseminate information on this to the media, political and business decision-makers.

(4) The "Cover-Up": Right now the industry is clearly the villian in the public mind and the Health Establishment, the good guys (white coats with white hats). If we take a page from the left-wing conspiracy theorists, we could fashion an argument that the Reagan Administration, as part of its pro-business anti-labor activity, has created a smoke-screen to conceal its neglect of occupational illness and injury. Scientists, who question the conclusion that workers are most at risk because of their (or their colleagues') personal lifestyles, are ostracized and intimidated by government funding agencies. The media love cover ups. If we stress the _process_ by which ETS was first linked to health risks, then a rehearing will be easier to obtain. More importantly, if the process becomes suspect, the conclusion does also. A Republican pro-business conspiracy also becomes very useful when lobbying Democratic legislators on this issue.

(5) Eye for an Eye: Every time a work appears in the media associating ETS with health risk, we must respond. We will retain sufficient consultants to have more than one respondent, but no matter how obscure the pbulication or how broad the distribution, we must respond. If an Associated Press wire story quotes the Surgeon General on ETS and runs in 500 newspapers, we should send a letter to the editor of each paper. The thrust of each response should be thet _new scientific evidence/analysis_ has changed the consensus on ETS and whoever is asserting otherwise is out of touch. In this way, we are raising the scientific credibility issue each time ETS is mentioned. This program should extend to the electronic media as well.

(6) Prizes and Critiques: Either through CIAR, TI or PM we should fund a series of awards (big dollars) to various academic disciplines for the best methodological critique of the ETS health risk assertion. For example, we would give $10,000 prizes for the best statistical critique of using weak science to make social policy. These awards would be offered only to professional disciplines through either their associations or journals. All entries would become our property and provide us with a reservoir of names and criticisms of possible use later. In addition, the entrants would have to prepare research papers for the prize. They would probably seek to public these papers in the future, thus putting more favorable research in the publication stream.

Finally, we would identify dozens of statisticians and the like who are willing (for compensation) to attack the ETS research.

(7) Dissemination of Research: Each new CIAR or other ETS study which supports our position should be packaged in a familiar style relevant to the target audience. These would be sent on a regular basis to all science editors, political leaders, corporate personnel departments, chambers of commerce, and public health officials with a place to write or phone for further information. That place would be a PM/CIAR-funded public relations firm which could then respond or refer the caller directly to the scientific authors. The idea here is to plant doubt in the minds of decision-makers on the ETS issue.

(8) Targeted Evidence Packages: All the scientific evidence we have should be grouped into packages with an executive summary as a cover page for specific audiences: airline executives, service businesses, manufacturing businesses, government bureaucrats, elected officials, small business, labor unions, media and so forth. This package would ease our ability to respond quickly to crisis situations.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 09:46 AM
Full Smoking ban in Fairway KS.


Does anyone care?
Full Smoking Ban?

I doubt that. I don't think that's even constitutional.

Banning smoking in public places? Seems reasonable to me. Though I'd rather see this solution allowing people to smoke while in public.

<img src="http://www.patrickkellogg.com/travel/images/Space%20Suit.jpg" width=237 height=329>

If you are willing to keep your smoke to yourself, then I'm willing to sit next to you in a bar. In fact, I'd respect you quite a bit.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 09:48 AM
I'm no scientist, but I have read some on this issue. Most of the debunking (by people like junkscience.com) of ETS seems to be agenda-driven as well. Steve Milloy, the dude as junkscience, has been on the payroll of Tobacco and Oil companies for a long time. This is my problem with current scientific enquiry: so much is agenda driven. I'm willing to recognize that both sides have an agenda to push, just as with other debates like global warming, evolution, etc. So the problem lies in finding truly objective sources with little agenda. I did find this on a quick search. Not sure if the American Council of Science and Health is agenda drive or not, but I'll throw it out:


It is at least somewhat indicative of being objective because it admits the shortcomings in current findings as well.

I agree that everyone seems to have an agenda.. which is why I try to ignore the conclusions of the studies and just look at the figures (and methods used to obtain them) ... I have yet to see a single study that shows me anything close to proof that ETS is a significant risk factor. Since the burden of proof is on the person trying to abridge my property rights... I am still waiting on one of them to show a study that can't be easily debunked.

Garcia Bronco
11-15-2005, 09:50 AM
Anytime you have to make a law to get the majority of folks to do the right thing is a bad situation indeed...

angel
11-15-2005, 09:51 AM
if second-hand smoke doesn't do anything to me,
then why do I leave smoke-filled bars with watery eyes, stomach ache and sore throats all the time?
anytime I'm around someone who is smoking, I try not to let it bother me, but ultimately, I end up with these symptoms.

redhed
11-15-2005, 09:52 AM
There's only one bar in Fairway, and 3 restaurants. The bar is one of the restaurants.
I'm stuck on this one, because I like the ban. I don't think it should be a legislative issue. These are private businesses, fer cryin' out loud!
I guess it would be a different story if the pollution was all internally contained by the polluter, but you've gotta breathe sometime.

Garcia Bronco
11-15-2005, 09:53 AM
I agree that everyone seems to have an agenda.. which is why I try to ignore the conclusions of the studies and just look at the figures (and methods used to obtain them) ... I have yet to see a single study that shows me anything close to proof that ETS is a significant risk factor. Since the burden of proof is on the person trying to abridge my property rights... I am still waiting on one of them to show a study that can't be easily debunked.

You seem to know a great deal about research methods....at best only a correlational study could be used to say ETS is significant...but that would be a hard study to sell any day of the week. And ethically challeged otherwise.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 09:56 AM
Ah well. It's fun to argue about but we all know that eventually cigarettes will be illegal and marijuana will be completely legal. Just reversing our public policy hypocrisy I guess. ROFL


Damnit jAZ resize that pic :cuss:

jAZ
11-15-2005, 10:00 AM
I agree that everyone seems to have an agenda.. which is why I try to ignore the conclusions of the studies and just look at the figures (and methods used to obtain them) ... I have yet to see a single study that shows me anything close to proof that ETS is a significant risk factor.
I assume that you admit that you reach this conclusion based upon your agenda (that you admit you have).

jAZ
11-15-2005, 10:01 AM
Damnit jAZ resize that pic :cuss:
Already done.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 10:01 AM
if second-hand smoke doesn't do anything to me,
then why do I leave smoke-filled bars with watery eyes, stomach ache and sore throats all the time?
anytime I'm around someone who is smoking, I try not to let it bother me, but ultimately, I end up with these symptoms.

Some people are very sensitive to smoke.. any kind of smoke... The symptoms (watery eyes, sore throat due to mucous drainage and stomach ache from the drainage as well) are a typical allergic response but it isn't an actual health risk.

If I had Bell's Palsy (which causes hyperacusis or sensitive hearing) I would not like going to noisy bars with loud bands... but I wouldn't presume to make a law about it... I would just go to bars that are less noisy.

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 10:03 AM
I assume that you admit that you reach this conclusion based upon your agenda (that you admit you have).
Of course, but the burden of proof is on those wanting to create new laws and take away rights.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 10:10 AM
Of course, but the burden of proof is on those wanting to create new laws and take away rights.
Fair enough, but those who have their own agenda of opposition to this change (such as yourself) will likely have an inaccurately high burden of proof so as to protect their agenda.

That's why I propose the Space Suit solution. You retain your property right (if that's what it is) and I retain my right not to smoke involutarily in the same public forum you claim a right to smoke.

As an aside, what do smokers think about littering laws? Should the same property rights allow you to toss out your big mac wrapper onto the streets, or should the public have the right to restrict such actions by law?

NewChief
11-15-2005, 10:20 AM
Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a scientist to decipher numbers, so I have to go by what conclusions of studies. Here's some studies I found that seem to point to health problems being linked to ETS.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/finalreport/finalreport.htm

Yes, I realize they're by the People's Republic of California. Sorry. Still seem to be pretty thorough.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 10:25 AM
Fair enough, but those who have their own agenda of opposition to this change (such as yourself) will likely have an inaccurately high burden of proof so as to protect their agenda.

That's why I propose the Space Suit solution. You retain your property right (if that's what it is) and I retain my right not to smoke involutarily in the same public forum you claim a right to smoke.

As an aside, what do smokers think about littering laws? Should the same property rights allow you to toss out your big mac wrapper onto the streets, or should the public have the right to restrict such actions by law?
It isn't the SMOKERS rights .. no one has a "right" to smoke... it is the PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE BAR OWNER.

Littering is perfectly legal if it is on PRIVATE property and sanctioned by the owner of said property.

Bob Dole
11-15-2005, 10:27 AM
if second-hand smoke doesn't do anything to me,
then why do I leave smoke-filled bars with watery eyes, stomach ache and sore throats all the time?
anytime I'm around someone who is smoking, I try not to let it bother me, but ultimately, I end up with these symptoms.

Oddly enough, most women's perfume has the same effect on Bob Dole.

angel
11-15-2005, 10:29 AM
Oddly enough, most women's perfume has the same effect on Bob Dole.
yeah, perfume and cologne give me a stomach ache- but not the scratchy throat

BIG_DADDY
11-15-2005, 10:35 AM
It isn't the SMOKERS rights .. no one has a "right" to smoke... it is the PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE BAR OWNER.

Littering is perfectly legal if it is on PRIVATE property and sanctioned by the owner of said property.

Having had this law in The Peoples Republic of California for some time now I have to say I like not having to smell cigarette smoke all the time. That being said I still don't think it is right to force owners to comply with a law like that.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 10:38 AM
It isn't the SMOKERS rights .. no one has a "right" to smoke... it is the PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE BAR OWNER.

Littering is perfectly legal if it is on PRIVATE property and sanctioned by the owner of said property.
Remember that the owner surrenders some absolute property rights when they choose to open their property to the public for commericial purposes. It's not like the owner of the building or the business is just inviting friends and family over to drink his liquor (or BYOB). He's operating a publicly authorized (and sanctioned) commericial venture.

The absolute property rights that you are citing are somewhat limited once you open a commerical venture that exists solely to sell products to the general public. Banning smoking in such a venue is just a different such limitiation.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 10:40 AM
Littering is perfectly legal if it is on PRIVATE property and sanctioned by the owner of said property.
Also, should I take this to mean that you are OK with the public banning smoking on public property (freeways, city streets, publicly owned sidewalks, inside and out of gov't buildings, etc)?

Extra Point
11-15-2005, 10:43 AM
I promise not to smoke in Fairway restaurants. I also promise not to combust, nor explode.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 10:49 AM
Go vote on my poll, smoking debators:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=129055

Cochise
11-15-2005, 10:51 AM
yeah, perfume and cologne give me a stomach ache- but not the scratchy throat

All kinds of cologne? Or just too much or the overdone kinds?

The really light kinds of womens' perfume I like, but the heavier ones (like the older ladies here at the office wear) might as well be a metric ton of pollen sitting next to me.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 10:57 AM
Also, should I take this to mean that you are OK with the public banning smoking on public property (freeways, city streets, publicly owned sidewalks, inside and out of gov't buildings, etc)?

I agree with PUBLIC property being subject to a vote on smoking or not... no problem there.

However, your argument that a property owner surrenders certain rights etc etc only stands up IF you prove that there is a health risk... you can't just create arbitrary laws abridging property rights because the majority wants them.

Again, the ONLY legitmate claim would be based on health issues for the bars employees (everyone ELSE in the bar is there by choice and has no "right" to be smoke free) so we are once again back to waiting for any shred of proof that ETS is a significant health risk

angel
11-15-2005, 10:59 AM
All kinds of cologne? Or just too much or the overdone kinds?

The really light kinds of womens' perfume I like, but the heavier ones (like the older ladies here at the office wear) might as well be a metric ton of pollen sitting next to me.
most colognes
the only one that I've found so far that doesn't bother me is Old Spice

angel
11-15-2005, 11:01 AM
so, this ban forbids smoking in a privately owned bar even if the owner would like to allow smoking

even though I am completely against smoking- this isn't right

I like that it is banned in public areas, but in your own car, in your own home, or in your own restaurant- it's your choice what you allow and don't allow

Logical
11-15-2005, 11:10 AM
AustinChief,

Sorry but smoke of any kind is a health risk to anyone with asthma and several other breathing disorders. Smoike again of any kind can bring on Asthma attacks, constriction of the lungs etc.

Frazod
11-15-2005, 11:14 AM
While you're calling me a "worthless asshole", I wonder if you could take a break and fix your f*cking BB. 4321

Wow. I couldn't quite believe this response to the founder of our BB. Add "ingrate prick" to "worthless asshole."

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:15 AM
IHowever, your argument that a property owner surrenders certain rights etc etc only stands up IF you prove that there is a health risk... you can't just create arbitrary laws abridging property rights because the majority wants them.
Acutally, you are wrong. It's based upon liability which can be determined by absolute measures of health risk, but not necessarily.
...so we are once again back to waiting for any shred of proof that ETS is a significant health risk
Now you've set a different standard... merely 'any shred of proof'. We'll there's plenty of shreds of proof. Before you just didn't feel that they measured up to your standards. It seems that you've just lowered your standards.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:15 AM
AustinChief,

Sorry but smoke of any kind is a health risk to anyone with asthma and several other breathing disorders. Smoike again of any kind can bring on Asthma attacks, constriction of the lungs etc.

That is correct... for people that are highly sensitive to it... which is a very very low percentage.. and as you say, smoke of ANY kind... we have BBQ places (if you can call them that) here that are as smokey as any bar would be. Do we ban that as well?

To pass muster it must be a GENERAL health risk... there are plenty of people with Bell's Palsy or William's Syndrome that can not go to loud bars... it is a very real health risk for them... should we outlaw live music as well?

This is a property rights issue plain and simple.... no one DRAGS people into smokey bars and makes them sit there.

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:18 AM
Acutally, you are wrong. It's based upon liability which can be determined by absolute measures of health risk, but not necessarily.

Now you've set a different standard... merely 'any shred of proof'. We'll there's plenty of shreds of proof. Before you just didn't feel that they measured up to your standards. It seems that you've just lowered your standards.

I had to... I'm trying to talk to you about this. (ohh snap!)

Ok seriously, I do require more than a shred but I have yet to even see your so called shreds of proof.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:20 AM
...in your own car, in your own home...does not equal
...in your own restaurant
The resuraunt is not a "private" entity such as your home. You are licenced to conduct business with the PUBLIC by the state. Without that license, you don't have a legal busienss and cannot conduct such profit-seeking ventures.

If you don't charge for your beer, don't charge for your food and just invite selected people over to your building with a kitchen to eat and drink... then I would agree with you (that in your car = in your bar)... but I don't know that I've ever been to such a place.

NewChief
11-15-2005, 11:21 AM
I had to... I'm trying to talk to you about this. (ohh snap!)

Ok seriously, I do require more than a shred but I have yet to even see your so called shreds of proof.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/finalreport/finalreport.htm

I posted it in another thread, but there's quite a bit of data in that report. If you're talking about infallible proof...well... some people are waiting on proof of evolution before we teach it in the schools, too.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:22 AM
I had to... I'm trying to talk to you about this. (ohh snap!)

Ok seriously, I do require more than a shred but I have yet to even see your so called shreds of proof.
Well, as you chose to emphasize the word "proof" then I will make sure to point out the very contradiction between the term "shred" and "proof". A Proof is absolute, shred is small and typically used to describe "evidence".

I can provide many shreds of evidence. I don't know that anyone can provide merely shreds of proof. It's either a proof or it's not. There is no gray in such language.

Cochise
11-15-2005, 11:25 AM
Shred and proof are not a contradiction. A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case. It's like saying if you have a slice of pie the rest of the pie can't exist.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:30 AM
Shred and proof are not a contradiction.
Maybe not the best choice of words. Let's just say it's an oxymoron like Jumbo Shrimp.
A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case.
That's called "evidence". The overall convincing case is closer to the term "proof" though "proof" is absolute and irrifutable.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:32 AM
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/finalreport/finalreport.htm

I posted it in another thread, but there's quite a bit of data in that report. If you're talking about infallible proof...well... some people are waiting on proof of evolution before we teach it in the schools, too.

That is a conclusion culled from reading the conclusions of multiple other META-studies... some of which I recognized as having ALREADY been debunked and thrown out for reaching conclusions that the data didn't support. One study actually used school absenteeism when comparing smoking households versus nonsmoking...

not exactly the best science...

In a perfect world... I want to see a study that quantifies the exact amounts of certain carcinigen required to cause a significant cancer risk. Then I want to see the study showing that carcinigen is definitely present in the "victim" and that is was put there by ETS.

That is not going to happen... so at least show me a comparitive study that doesn't collapse under close scrutiny.

--Kyle

Bob Dole
11-15-2005, 11:32 AM
Shred and proof are not a contradiction. A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case. It's like saying if you have a slice of pie the rest of the pie can't exist.

Slices of pie should be banned. They should be forced to serve the entire pie.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:33 AM
A good read from NZ. (The citiations are given by number and available in the document linked here.)

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PUza6BJsGOoJ:www.ash.org.nz/pdf/SecondhandSmoke/HealthEffects/RiskControl.pdf+Passive+smoking+in+New+Zealand:+Health&hl=en

The public health problem
The major public health problems linked to passive smoking are shown in Table 1. A subjective rating of the strength of the evidence is included also. This assessment is made on the basis of recent reviews of the health effects of passive smoking by agencies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency 1the United States Surgeon General 2and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. 3

Other diseases and conditions that are associated with passive smoking, but not so strongly, include stroke, low birthweight, and respiratory tract cancers other than lung cancer.

Are these associations causal? The weight of the evidence suggests strongly that passive smoking is a cause of illness. For example, of the 35 studies of childhood lower respiratory illness published up to the end of 1995, after controlling for a wide range of confounding factors, 31 reported higher rates of illness among children exposed to ETS. lt is known that ETS contains many of the same toxic agents that are inhaled directly by active smokers. There are data from clinical studies (showing, for example, that children with asthma experience less severe symptoms when their parents reduce smoking),4and a convincing piece of evidence for pet lovers: dogs are 60% more likely to suffer lung cancer if they come from a household that contains smokers. 5

How big is the public health problem due to passive smoking? The burden of illness maybe substantial because exposure to ETS is common and levels of exposure are frequently high. In a national New Zealand telephone survey carried out in June 1996, 57% of non-smoking adults (15 years and over) reported that they had been exposed to ETS in the previous two days. Of those in paid employment, 14% reported that smoking was permitted in their workplace, and over a third of workers said they were exposed to ETS in lunch or tea breaks (Figure 1) 6

The National Health and Medical Research Council has estimated that in Australia passive smoking causes about 9% of childhood asthma and 13% of lower respiratory tract illness in children under 18 months. 3Passive smoking was estimated to cause more than 90 deaths each year (including 78 deaths due to ischaemic heart disease and 12 due to lung cancer), as well as 5000 admissions to hospital and direct costs of about $14 million. This estimate was a conservative one, based on ETS exposures at home only, excluding effects of passive smoking on ex-smokers, and including only illnesses where the evidence for an effect of passive smoking was regarded as very strong. If these figures are translated to New Zealand on a per capita basis, as seems reasonable since smoking rates and disease patterns are similar in the two countries, passive smoking would lead to at least 20 deaths per year, 1000 admissions to hospital, and millions of dollars of healthcare costs. An earlier New Zealand analysis, using a different approach, gave an estimate of 273 deaths per year due to passive smoking. 7The true size of the problem is likely to fall somewhere between these figures.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:36 AM
Maybe not the best choice of words. Let's just say it's an oxymoron like Jumbo Shrimp.

That's called "evidence". The overall convincing case is closer to the term "proof" though "proof" is absolute and irrifutable.

poor word choice on my part... but you get the picture

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:36 AM
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a major assessment of the respiratory health risks of passive smoking ( Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders EPA/600/6-90/006F). The report concludes that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.

Background
EPA studies of human exposure to air pollutants indicate that indoor levels of many pollutants often are significantly higher than outdoor levels. These levels of indoor air pollutants are of particular concern because it is estimated that most people spend approximately 90 percent of their time indoors.

In recent years, comparative risk studies performed by EPA and its Science Advisory Board have consistently ranked indoor air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public health. EPA, in close cooperation with other federal agencies and the private sector, has begun a concerted effort to better understand indoor air pollution and to reduce peoples' exposure to air pollutants in offices, homes, schools and other indoor environments where people live, work and play.

Tobacco smoking has long been recognized as a major cause of death and disease, responsible for an estimated 434,000 deaths per year in the United States. Tobacco use is known to cause lung cancer in humans, and is a major risk factor for heart disease.

In recent years, there has been concern that non-smokers may also be at risk for some of these health effects as a result of their exposure ("passive smoking") to the smoke exhaled by smokers and smoke given off by the burning end of cigarettes. As part of its effort to address all types of indoor air pollution, in 1988, EPA's Indoor Air Division (now the Indoor Environments Division) requested that EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) undertake an assessment of the respiratory health effects of passive smoking. The report was prepared by ORD's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.

The document has been prepared under the authority of Title IV of Superfund (The Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986), which directs EPA to conduct research and disseminate information on all aspects of indoor air quality.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:38 AM
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:40 AM
poor word choice on my part... but you get the picture
Fair enough, and I guess I do in fact get the point. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't going to be held to some false standard (ie, evolution isn't proven, but it's one of the most observed and supported scientific theorys in existance... it's certainly not a hypotesis).

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:43 AM
The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.
This article seems to actually suggests that there is more evidence supporting the case for health risks from 2nd hand smoke than from absestos.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:45 AM
A good read from NZ. (The citiations are given by number and available in the document linked here.)

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PUza6BJsGOoJ:www.ash.org.nz/pdf/SecondhandSmoke/HealthEffects/RiskControl.pdf+Passive+smoking+in+New+Zealand:+Health&hl=en (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:PUza6BJsGOoJ:www.ash.org.nz/pdf/SecondhandSmoke/HealthEffects/RiskControl.pdf+Passive+smoking+in+New+Zealand:+Health&hl=en)


Typical "study" funded by the insurance industry... Again... you are quoting an article which is paraphrasing the conclusion of previous studies and META-studies...
5. Reif JS, Dunn K, Ogilvie GK, et al. Passive smoking and canine lung cancer
risk. Am J Epidenriol 1992: 135: 234-9.


One of the references used for their data was...

5. Reif JS, Dunn K, Ogilvie GK, et al. Passive smoking and canine lung cancer risk. Am J Epidenriol 1992: 135: 234-9.

I would LOVE to see that whole study...

AeroSquid
11-15-2005, 11:47 AM
Most of the studies that show second hand smoke is dangerous were financed by drug companies who want people to buy their patches and gum. Drug companies totally own our government. If the smoking ban in Fairway annoys you let the Mayor know, I did.

Mayor

John W. St. Clair, Jr.

6009 Reinhardt

66205

Phone (913)262-0350 Ext. 201

jstclair@fairwaykansas.org

NewChief
11-15-2005, 11:51 AM
Most of the studies that show second hand smoke is dangerous were financed by drug companies who want people to buy their patches and gum.

And much of the push to disprove the harm of second hand smoke has been financed by the tobacco industry.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 11:51 AM
Typical "study" funded by the insurance industry... Again... you are quoting an article which is paraphrasing the conclusion of previous studies and META-studies...
5. Reif JS, Dunn K, Ogilvie GK, et al. Passive smoking and canine lung cancer
risk. Am J Epidenriol 1992: 135: 234-9.


One of the references used for their data was...

5. Reif JS, Dunn K, Ogilvie GK, et al. Passive smoking and canine lung cancer risk. Am J Epidenriol 1992: 135: 234-9.

I would LOVE to see that whole study...
Other than citing once study that *sounds* funny to you, feel free to explain in detail the specific refutations you have to the actual studies that underlie these EPA determinations.

I'm sure it's not all resting on your objection to an animal study.

fan4ever
11-15-2005, 11:51 AM
All I can say is I am delighted CA has been smoke free in public buildings for almost a decade now.

Great

Public buildings? Absolutley. Private businesses like bars, bowling alleys, etc? Unconsitutional, although no one ever seems to want to battle it on those grounds. You shouldn't be able to tell a private business that it can't allow a legal activity on it's premises. How about letting free enterprize dictate the market? If a non-smoking atmosphere is so important to so many, certainly smoke-free sports bars would be booming with business. A sports bar I go to has a non-smoking section with it's own "Smokeater" air conditioning system, and it gets moderate to little use. Yes I smoke, and if you expect me to go to a bar and watch a Chiefs season like this one without burning a few, I say you're sadistic.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:52 AM
This article seems to actually suggests that there is more evidence supporting the case for health risks from 2nd hand smoke than from absestos.

Ahh the infamous EPA reports...

Read up on what the EPA tried to pass off as FACT ...
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

The EPA has SERIOUS credibility issues for me.. and this incident was just one of MANY times they flat out lied and published the results that they wanted not the results they had found.

Next study...?

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 11:55 AM
Other than citing once study that *sounds* funny to you, feel free to explain in detail the specific refutations you have to the actual studies that underlie these EPA determinations.

I'm sure it's not all resting on your objection to an animal study.

SHOW ME ONE STUDY.. all you have given me are meta-studies and articles from people paraphrasing other people's conclusions...

Read this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html and tell me that you can't see why I am skeptical. I always reserved judgement on this issue until the WHO study... after that debacle I was firmly on the side of those highly skeptical about "proof" of the dangers of ETS.

ROYC75
11-15-2005, 12:02 PM
Personally, I wish they would ban smoking , period.

For that matter, get rid of cigs and cigars completely, nothing good comes from them.

KcMizzou
11-15-2005, 12:03 PM
For that matter, get rid of cigs and cigars completely, nothing good comes from them.
Yeah. Lets get rid of candy bars and cheeseburgers too damnit.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 12:04 PM
SHOW ME ONE STUDY.. all you have given me are meta-studies and articles from people paraphrasing other people's conclusions...
There are 33 pages of citations at the bottom of publication which is the major source for the article I quoted and linked to.

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793

NewChief
11-15-2005, 12:05 PM
Ahh the infamous EPA reports...

Read up on what the EPA tried to pass off as FACT ...
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

The EPA has SERIOUS credibility issues for me.. and this incident was just one of MANY times they flat out lied and published the results that they wanted not the results they had found.

Next study...?

Where is the proof for all the FACTs that this site lists? He says things like:


Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.

and

Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant.


Him saying this, doesn't make it so. Where is the proof that they ignored 2/3 of the data?

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 12:06 PM
Here is a quote from the Judge who ruled against the EPA
"EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion," Osteen wrote.


And here is another article about this issue (and other lies from the EPA) http://www.sepp.org/reality/pseudosci.html

and a more in depth explanation of epidemiology

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epid.html

jAZ
11-15-2005, 12:08 PM
SHOW ME ONE STUDY.. all you have given me are meta-studies and articles from people paraphrasing other people's conclusions...

Read this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html and tell me that you can't see why I am skeptical.
You take the stilted opinions put forth by the a paid libertarian advocate over the EPA and its many, many, many studies cited.

I guess you are right. We all have our agendas.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 12:09 PM
Where is the proof for all the FACTs that this site lists? He says things like:



Him saying this, doesn't make it so. Where is the proof that they ignored 2/3 of the data?

He is quoting from the 80+ page long judgement by Judge Osteen... I can try to find the entire judgement if you want to read it... I have before.. it is not a fun read!

Once again though, I do not need to prove jack all... I only need to disprove or discredit reports that make the claim that ETS is a significant health risk. The EPA study is a straw man... do we want to move on to the WHO study? Or does anyone require more "proof" that the EPA study was flawed?

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 12:13 PM
You take the stilted opinions put forth by the a paid libertarian advocate over the EPA and its many, many, many studies cited.

I guess you are right. We all have our agendas.

no jackass.. I take the opinion of a federal judge to have some merit... but even then, not enough to convince me without some fact behind it... well , Judge Osteen provided that...
anytime a studies conclusion is issued BEFORE the study is done is a problem... anytime the standard basis for judging a risk(95) has to be "adjusted"(90) to prove your results.. you have a problem anytime you cherry pick the studies you use and mix and match results... you have problemDo you honestly want to continue to defend the EPA study? I'm telling you, it is an unwinnable argument...

NewChief
11-15-2005, 12:14 PM
You take the stilted opinions put forth by the a paid libertarian advocate over the EPA and its many, many, many studies cited.

I guess you are right. We all have our agendas.

Yeah, this is sort of my viewpoint as well. A libertarian advocate on the payroll of tobacco companies doesn't need scientific studies, he just has to poke holes and make statements. The EPA on the other hand must be iron clad. I understand the reasoning (burden of proof on EPA), but pardon me if I take the word of someone who has actually done some studies over payed advocates who make a living "debunking" science that disagrees with the agenda of their corporate masters.

penguinz
11-15-2005, 12:16 PM
I agree with PUBLIC property being subject to a vote on smoking or not... no problem there.

However, your argument that a property owner surrenders certain rights etc etc only stands up IF you prove that there is a health risk... you can't just create arbitrary laws abridging property rights because the majority wants them.

Again, the ONLY legitmate claim would be based on health issues for the bars employees (everyone ELSE in the bar is there by choice and has no "right" to be smoke free) so we are once again back to waiting for any shred of proof that ETS is a significant health risk
I am sorry but you are a complete idiot if you think that inhaling smoke of anykind does not pose a health risk.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 12:19 PM
Here is the full judgement on the EPA's "findings"..

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

92 pages long...here is an exerpt

Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer. This should have caused EPA to reevaluate the inference options used in establishing its plausibility theory. A risk assessment is supposed to entail the best judgment possible based upon the available evidence. See Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 24. Instead, EPA changed its methodology to find a statistically significant association. EPA claimed, but did not explain how, its theory justified changing the Agency's methodology. with the changed methodology and selected studies, EPA established evidence of a weak statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 12:23 PM
I am sorry but you are a complete idiot if you think that inhaling smoke of anykind does not pose a health risk.
I'm sorry... Dr. Penquinz... what university do you teach toxicology at? You got your degree in epidemiology from where?

Funny how a study done by the WHO showed you to be the complete idiot if you believe there IS a health risk...

I don't base my opinions on popular thought or press releases... I want facts.. and as of yet .. no one is providing them

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 12:28 PM
Yeah, this is sort of my viewpoint as well. A libertarian advocate on the payroll of tobacco companies doesn't need scientific studies, he just has to poke holes and make statements. The EPA on the other hand must be iron clad. I understand the reasoning (burden of proof on EPA), but pardon me if I take the word of someone who has actually done some studies over payed advocates who make a living "debunking" science that disagrees with the agenda of their corporate masters.

I don't take his word at face value either... but the EPA has almost no credibility after the cock-up that was the 1993 study...

Can we all agree to throw out the EPA study now? Or do we need to rehash everything that Judge Osteen saw that was wrong with it?

Lurch
11-15-2005, 12:31 PM
I don't take his word at face value either... but the EPA has almost no credibility after the cock-up that was the 1993 study...

Can we all agree to throw out the EPA study now? Or do we need to rehash everything that Judge Osteen saw that was wrong with it?

I'm sensing you have strong feelings on this matter. Heh.

Feelings that I, as a nonsmoker, share. I don't like smoke and I'm annoyed by smoke, but we don't need to be Nazis about it. And some of the second hand smoke studies seem to be junk science of sorts.

jAZ
11-15-2005, 12:32 PM
I don't take his word at face value either... but the EPA has almost no credibility after the cock-up that was the 1993 study...

Can we all agree to throw out the EPA study now? Or do we need to rehash everything that Judge Osteen saw that was wrong with it?
You might ask the Republicans currently controlling the EPA and the whitehouse why they haven't removed the study from their website... I'm sure if your selective citiations tell the entire story, their would be more than enough justification for Bush's selected leadership to act accordingly.

Bob Dole
11-15-2005, 12:33 PM
Yeah. Lets get rid of candy bars and cheeseburgers too damnit.

Bob Dole would go for that.

Nothing good comes from those damned things. They should be banned altogether.

Lurch
11-15-2005, 12:34 PM
You might ask the Republicans currently controlling the EPA and the whitehouse why they haven't removed the study from their website... I'm sure if your selective citiations tell the entire story, their would be more than enough justification for Bush's selected leadership to act accordingly.

Are you always an ass, or just most of the time?

jAZ
11-15-2005, 12:39 PM
I am sorry but you are a complete idiot if you think that inhaling smoke of anykind does not pose a health risk.
I don't know if I'd agree with the "smoke of anykind" statement... but I do think you'd have to be an idiot to think that the smoke that wafts off the lit end of the cigarette is any different (in it's health risk) than that which is pulled though the filter and inhaled by the smoker.

I don't think cancer cares so much which end of the cigarette you smoke. Does it?

jAZ
11-15-2005, 12:41 PM
Are you always an ass, or just most of the time?
Neither, only occasionally... and certainly not in that post.

It's as legit a question as anything else. If the study is so objectively discredited... why wouldn't a conservative president who's shown to be no-non-sense about attacking "bad" science be willing pull down such a "bad" study?

BIG_DADDY
11-15-2005, 12:43 PM
I've got a hip new avy for you Kyle.

Lurch
11-15-2005, 12:44 PM
Neither, only occasionally... and certainly not in that post.

It's as legit a question as anything else. If the study is so objectively discredited... why wouldn't a conservative president who's shown to be no-non-sense about attacking "bad" science be willing pull down such a "bad" study?

Political correctness. The media and feel-good anti-smokin types would launch a whithering attack, regardless of the President behind it. Smokers are evil, smoking is evil; anything not maintaining that position, is the work of evil corporate America or bad people.....according to the political correctness police.

NewChief
11-15-2005, 12:45 PM
but I do think you'd have to be an idiot to think that the smoke that wafts off the lit end of the cigarette is any different (in it's health risk) than that which is pulled though the filter and inhaled by the smoker.

I think their point is that the majority of people who are exposed to second hand smoke are exposed it in much smaller PPM (parts per million to use a stream ecology term, not sure if it's appropriate in air quality, too) than a smoker for a couple of reasons:
1) A smoker may smoke 2 cigs an hour for 12 waking hours a day, exposing himself to 12 hours worth of smoke. A casual diner out eating will be exposed to maybe 1 hour of smoke.

2) The smoke the smoker is exposed to would be more diluted by "fresh" air than that which is sucked directly through the cancer stick.

Not saying I agree. Just saying.

Bob Dole
11-15-2005, 12:51 PM
but I do think you'd have to be an idiot to think that the smoke that wafts off the lit end of the cigarette is any different (in it's health risk) than that which is pulled though the filter and inhaled by the smoker.

Actually, you'd need to be a closed-minded idiot who hasn't done much research to think that it's exactly the same.

Lurch
11-15-2005, 12:56 PM
Actually, you'd need to be a closed-minded idiot who hasn't done much research to think that it's exactly the same.

If the shoe fits?

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 01:01 PM
You might ask the Republicans currently controlling the EPA and the whitehouse why they haven't removed the study from their website... I'm sure if your selective citiations tell the entire story, their would be more than enough justification for Bush's selected leadership to act accordingly.

SELECTIVE? How is using Osteen's judgement selective? Instead of arguing the facts have you now turned to burying your head and throwing up vagueries and partisan attacks...???

jAZ
11-15-2005, 01:01 PM
Political correctness. The media and feel-good anti-smokin types would launch a whithering attack, regardless of the President behind it. Smokers are evil, smoking is evil; anything not maintaining that position, is the work of evil corporate America or bad people.....according to the political correctness police.
Ok, there might be some explanation, but that's basiclly BS.

This is the same administration that over-rode the scientists at the EPA in their findings on global warming. He's shown he's willing to do it before. Why not now?

Logical
11-15-2005, 01:01 PM
That is correct... for people that are highly sensitive to it... which is a very very low percentage.. and as you say, smoke of ANY kind... we have BBQ places (if you can call them that) here that are as smokey as any bar would be. Do we ban that as well?

To pass muster it must be a GENERAL health risk... there are plenty of people with Bell's Palsy or William's Syndrome that can not go to loud bars... it is a very real health risk for them... should we outlaw live music as well?

This is a property rights issue plain and simple.... no one DRAGS people into smokey bars and makes them sit there.

--KyleI guess I don't care so much about bars, but restaurants, and other places of business that Asthmatics would be denied along with the others. Asthmatics are actually a fairly decent percentage of the population.

Lurch
11-15-2005, 01:03 PM
I guess I don't care so much about bars, but restaurants, and other places of business that Asthmatics would be denied along with the others. Asthmatics are actually a fairly decent percentage of the population.

I'm allergic to feces. So certain people ought to be banned from public places because they are assholes?

Logical
11-15-2005, 01:04 PM
Public buildings? Absolutley. Private businesses like bars, bowling alleys, etc? Unconsitutional, although no one ever seems to want to battle it on those grounds. You shouldn't be able to tell a private business that it can't allow a legal activity on it's premises. How about letting free enterprize dictate the market? If a non-smoking atmosphere is so important to so many, certainly smoke-free sports bars would be booming with business. A sports bar I go to has a non-smoking section with it's own "Smokeater" air conditioning system, and it gets moderate to little use. Yes I smoke, and if you expect me to go to a bar and watch a Chiefs season like this one without burning a few, I say you're sadistic.

You misunderstand the meaning of public, public is any place the general public gathers, like a restaurant, etc.

The only thing that is truly private is a club with private membership. I am not sure how CA rules on those.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 01:05 PM
I think their point is that the majority of people who are exposed to second hand smoke are exposed it in much smaller PPM (parts per million to use a stream ecology term, not sure if it's appropriate in air quality, too) than a smoker for a couple of reasons:
1) A smoker may smoke 2 cigs an hour for 12 waking hours a day, exposing himself to 12 hours worth of smoke. A casual diner out eating will be exposed to maybe 1 hour of smoke.

2) The smoke the smoker is exposed to would be more diluted by "fresh" air than that which is sucked directly through the cancer stick.

Not saying I agree. Just saying.

That is the basic jist.

The thing that kills me is the "common sense" aspect that so many people try to use... Unfortunately for them, science doesn't give a rats ass about what makes "sense" to the average joe... it makes "sense" to think the world is flat.. quantum mechanics make very little "sense" to most people.. but that doesn't invalidate it.

I have yet to hear someone with a background in epidemiology or toxicology argue this point with a straight face.

--Kyle

Logical
11-15-2005, 01:05 PM
I'm allergic to feces. So certain people ought to be banned from public places because they are assholes?If you would not stick your head up their asses you would not have a problem.ROFL

jAZ
11-15-2005, 01:06 PM
I think their point is that the majority of people who are exposed to second hand smoke are exposed it in much smaller PPM (parts per million to use a stream ecology term, not sure if it's appropriate in air quality, too) than a smoker for a couple of reasons:
1) A smoker may smoke 2 cigs an hour for 12 waking hours a day, exposing himself to 12 hours worth of smoke. A casual diner out eating will be exposed to maybe 1 hour of smoke.

2) The smoke the smoker is exposed to would be more diluted by "fresh" air than that which is sucked directly through the cancer stick.

Not saying I agree. Just saying.
I'm sure that's to a large extent a very meaningful piece of the big picture. I have no doubt about that. But that said, the 2nd-hand-smoke-is-a-lie-types would then have to concede that the is at least some risk, and then only be able to bicker over where to draw the line in the sand.

Right now, we are stuck arguing that there is no risk. Which seems foolish to me.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 01:07 PM
Ok, there might be some explanation, but that's basiclly BS.

This is the same administration that over-rode the scientists at the EPA in their findings on global warming. He's shown he's willing to do it before. Why not now?

Don't be an ass... you know why... he has no dog in that fight... why would he CARE? Pander to smokers and get in trouble with insurance, big drug companies and teh non smoking crowd... why bother? What is there to gain?

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 01:13 PM
I'm sure that's to a large extent a very meaningful piece of the big picture. I have no doubt about that. But that said, the 2nd-hand-smoke-is-a-lie-types would then have to concede that the is at least some risk, and then only be able to bicker over where to draw the line in the sand.

Right now, we are stuck arguing that there is no risk. Which seems foolish to me.

It may SEEM foolish but once you study toxicology abit.. you will understand why. Here is a nice article on the basic tenet of toxicology, "the dose makes the poison" http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/176

Another example of California nanny state mentality

--Kyle

Frazod
11-15-2005, 01:13 PM
At this point, about the only thing that could make me take up smoking again would be the joy it bring me to force some of the people who have posted on this thead to breathe in my secondhand smoke. :grr:

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 01:59 PM
Has anyone read all the links I have posted and still believes teh EPA study has validity? The same EPA study that California used to push its smoking laws?

I really want to see how many people are THAT influenced by the media that even after being presented with facts and examples of falsified conclusions, they still refuse to doubt the "accepted" truth...

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 01:59 PM
I won't say that ETS doesn't cause health risks.. I WILL say that no one has shown that it does...

NewChief
11-15-2005, 02:01 PM
Has anyone read all the links I have posted and still believes teh EPA study has validity? The same EPA study that California used to push its smoking laws?

I really want to see how many people are THAT influenced by the media that even after being presented with facts and examples of falsified conclusions, they still refuse to doubt the "accepted" truth...

I researched it then got caught up at work. I think there were definite flaws in the EPA study. That being said, I think there are plenty of other studies that show health risks from second hand smoke. You claim that meta analysis means nothing, but that meta analysis is based on individual studies that show evidence of health risks. I'm definitely going to be doing more research, though. I'm considering using this as a debate topic for my debate class this semester. There's some great information out there, for sure.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 02:30 PM
I researched it then got caught up at work. I think there were definite flaws in the EPA study. That being said, I think there are plenty of other studies that show health risks from second hand smoke. You claim that meta analysis means nothing, but that meta analysis is based on individual studies that show evidence of health risks. I'm definitely going to be doing more research, though. I'm considering using this as a debate topic for my debate class this semester. There's some great information out there, for sure.

I have tons more info if you want it... I don't claim that meta studies are useles.. I just claim that they are NOT the studies themselves and very easily manipulated and mnore often than not.. they only use the studies that they know will support the desired outcome.

Take a look at the full WHO study... that was almost as big a fiasco as the EPA lie. If you really are going to use this in a debate ... you will want to brush up on toxicology and epdemiology... nothing too in depth.. but it helps when you are slugging through the various studies...

I used to think the same as you do now.. after much more research I have yet to find a well documented study on humans that shows a 3+ relative risk.

I have had this argument hundreds of times over the last 4-5 years and not once has evidence come to light to support the overwhelming media insistence that ETS is harmful...

Here is the official WHO conclusion...
http://www.data-yard.net/2/11/jnci.htm
and here is what they tried to claim was the conclusion...(after they were caught burying the study)
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

(here is the full study http://www.data-yard.net/2/12/1440.pdf )


and here is agood article on dosage levels http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F08%2F16%2Fnsmok16.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=189852

beavis
11-15-2005, 02:38 PM
I'm telling you, it is an unwinnable argument...
It is if he chooses to ignore every fact you throw at him.

JOhn
11-15-2005, 02:42 PM
At this point, about the only thing that could make me take up smoking again would be the joy it bring me to force some of the people who have posted on this thead to breathe in my secondhand smoke. :grr:
ROFL ROFL

penguinz
11-15-2005, 03:19 PM
I'm sorry... Dr. Penquinz... what university do you teach toxicology at? You got your degree in epidemiology from where?

Funny how a study done by the WHO showed you to be the complete idiot if you believe there IS a health risk...

I don't base my opinions on popular thought or press releases... I want facts.. and as of yet .. no one is providing them

--KyleGod damn you are a total moron. Breathing in any smoke is not healthy to do. That is just common sense.

As far as your studies you keep referencing... Anyone can find studies that support their side of an issue no matter what the issue is.

Brock
11-15-2005, 03:24 PM
Second hand smoke may have killed tens of people. Ban smoking now!

Frazod
11-15-2005, 03:27 PM
Second hand smoke may have killed tens of people. Ban smoking now!

ROFL

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 03:43 PM
God damn you are a total moron. Breathing in any smoke is not healthy to do. That is just common sense.

As far as your studies you keep referencing... Anyone can find studies that support their side of an issue no matter what the issue is.

Wow... you are actually making everyone dumber just by posting here...

You honestly prefer "common sense" over hard science? Please oh please be from somewhere other than Kansas City... I'm not sure I could take that.


If you took TWO minutes of your time to expand your miniscule knowledge base... you may find that there is alot more to toxicology than "common sense" would dictate.

Any amount of neurotoxin in you body woul be bad for you right? What about a little bit of a steroid hormone that is often used as a rodenticide(that means it kills rats)?

Those are not healthy right??? Well wrong... caffeine is a neurotoxin and Vitamin D is a steroid hormone .. both of which in small quantities are beneficial to the body.

The cardinal rule is "The dose makes the poison".. I never claimed inhaling cmoke is healthy.. just that amounts under a certain level do NOT effect the body at all...

So, you see, this total moron has done the research and studied in the field.. I prefer to trust the data over your common sense.

I will admit that alot of things in toxicology don't make sense at first.. but they are true none the less... and just because you call me names and want it to be different .. doesn't change the facts.

--Kyle

Cochise
11-15-2005, 03:46 PM
haha. penguins got pwnt

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 03:51 PM
God damn you are a total moron. Breathing in any smoke is not healthy to do. That is just common sense.

As far as your studies you keep referencing... Anyone can find studies that support their side of an issue no matter what the issue is.

Yes, studies that may fool the blind, ignorant and lazy.. but none that will stand up to peer review or serious inquiry. I have not given you any studies that prove my point.. I have only shown how the other studies have been proven false. It really isn't even a question of "studies".. it is a question of your assertion being based on no scientific foundation and one that makes assumptions that go against the basics of toxicology.

I challenge you to find one study that WILL hold up.. it isn't as easy as you bilthely stated.

--Kyle

penguinz
11-15-2005, 04:21 PM
I do not see how someone can argue that inhaling second hand smoke is not a health hazzard.

Do you agree that it is a health hazzard for the person who is smoking the cigarette?

penguinz
11-15-2005, 04:22 PM
haha. penguins got pwnt
All that has happened is you proved to be a fool by thinking you are cool using 'l337' speak.

AustinChief
11-15-2005, 04:41 PM
I do not see how someone can argue that inhaling second hand smoke is not a health hazzard.

Do you agree that it is a health hazzard for the person who is smoking the cigarette?

There is ample evidence of the toxic levels of certain chemicals in DIRECTLY inhaled smoke... now, you have brought up a good point... emphysema, cancer, etc etc are much more driven by genetic factors... smoking definitely doesn't help of course... Of all smokers out there (I think this figure is correct) 3% will develop lung cancer this is in fact way higher than nonsmokers... so much higher that it "proves"(epidemiologically speaking) that smoking causes lung cancer.

Now, in the case of ETS, no study comes CLOSE to this ... and in fact the levels of smoke in the air is so minute as to not possibly reach toxic levels.... and if something is not at a toxic level... that means your body will either process it or it has a short enough environmental half-life not to matter.

Here is an article explaining that the average nonsmoker who is exposed on a regular basis to secondhand smoke only ends up with about 6 cigs worth of smoke a year... spread out over a whole year... that doesn't sound like toxic levels to me

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/nsmoke18.xml/

Katipan
11-15-2005, 10:52 PM
Hey, sometimes a gal's gotta be reminded to shut the f*ck up and listen.

settle down, jason kidd

fan4ever
11-16-2005, 11:21 AM
You misunderstand the meaning of public, public is any place the general public gathers, like a restaurant, etc.

The only thing that is truly private is a club with private membership. I am not sure how CA rules on those.

Sorry I'm responding to this so late.

I see your point; there is still a distinction. For example I'm allowed to drink in a bar, but if I'm chugging a beer walking down the street, I can be stopped and even arrested for drinking in public, which they can't do in the bar. The public may congregate there, but it is not public property.

fan4ever
11-16-2005, 11:40 AM
I don't know if anyone is still responding to this topic, but I believe many are dancing around the truth on this issue. Smoking bans have the support of people who don't like smoking/smokers. I know, not exactly and epiphany, but I really believe in most cases they aren't all that worried about those people who have to work in those conditions; it's just a good arguing point. I think we as a society have become incredibly intolerant of each other. It's not good enough that almost every restaurant has a non-smoking section; they want smoking just gone, and there isn't a venue where it would be acceptable. OK, I'll go up into my attic and have a smoke, but I have a few demands. Turn down your damn car stereo! I don't like that rap song, and it's affecting how I feel...it's making me angry. And that t-shirt! Whipping on my political party! Take it off before my blood pressure spikes! And you; with the cell phone! Shut up and hang the damn thing up! I don't want to listen to your stupid conversation while waiting in line at the movies; you're making me nauseous.

In the words of a brilliant theologist; "Can't we all just get along?"

Mr. Flopnuts
11-16-2005, 01:46 PM
Been banned in bars here in cali for a while. If you need a smoke just go outside. I hated that shit bieng blown in my face. Smells like crap.


Here's an idea. Go to one of the 3 million local non smoking establishments where the owners DECIDED to not allow smoking. For instance you want to go to the bar but they all have smoking right? No not even close. Most chain restaurants do not allow smoking on the premises. Other than bars you'll have no lack of choices for non smoking refuge. But our society is far too selfish to concern themselves with civil liberties and freedoms when something as important as our own PERSONAL comfort is concerned. Our ancestors would call us all "Sally men" if they could see this shit. "Eww I hate the smell of it, ban it outright." ROFL

Mr. Flopnuts
11-16-2005, 01:49 PM
There is ample evidence of the toxic levels of certain chemicals in DIRECTLY inhaled smoke... now, you have brought up a good point... emphysema, cancer, etc etc are much more driven by genetic factors... smoking definitely doesn't help of course... Of all smokers out there (I think this figure is correct) 3% will develop lung cancer this is in fact way higher than nonsmokers... so much higher that it "proves"(epidemiologically speaking) that smoking causes lung cancer.

Now, in the case of ETS, no study comes CLOSE to this ... and in fact the levels of smoke in the air is so minute as to not possibly reach toxic levels.... and if something is not at a toxic level... that means your body will either process it or it has a short enough environmental half-life not to matter.

Here is an article explaining that the average nonsmoker who is exposed on a regular basis to secondhand smoke only ends up with about 6 cigs worth of smoke a year... spread out over a whole year... that doesn't sound like toxic levels to me

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/18/nsmoke18.xml/




Furthermore, if we're that concerned with the toxins we're breathing in due to second hand smoke, we better ban all automobiles too. They put out thousands of times the toxins that smokes do. That probably won't fly though, because non smokers drive. ROFL

Inspector
11-16-2005, 01:50 PM
Too bad there isn't a chunk of land somewhere on Earth that could be claimed by folks wanting to form a new country where the citizens had freedoms. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, do what they want. And if it's private property?

And no - I'm not a smoker if that matters.

I just find myself disaapointed by the lies my civics teacher taught us about what the United States was supposed to be about.

That liar.

stevieray
11-16-2005, 01:55 PM
it's not about smoke, it's about setting the stage to eliminate "undesirables".

Mr. Flopnuts
11-16-2005, 07:57 PM
Too bad there isn't a chunk of land somewhere on Earth that could be claimed by folks wanting to form a new country where the citizens had freedoms. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, do what they want. And if it's private property?

And no - I'm not a smoker if that matters.

I just find myself disaapointed by the lies my civics teacher taught us about what the United States was supposed to be about.

That liar.



Nice post. It's refreshing to see people who understand the theory of civil liberties even when they're not convenient. I don't want to put peoples kids through school after spending so much time, money, and effort on making sure I didn't have any. However rest assured all those parents who sucked up all my taxes for all those decades will cry, whine, piss, and moan when it comes time for tax dollars to treat my cancer. Tough shit. Both ways.

Halfcan
11-16-2005, 10:16 PM
I look at it as this simple reasoning:

I want my kids to have it better than I did. I can clearly remember everyone in my family sitting around and chain smoking after Thanksgiving. People smoked on Airplanes, on TV, and the grocery store, and of course every restaurant. My parents still smoke and I am having to slowly watch them grow old and decline in health. Fact is smoking is a slow death-and I don't want it around my kids. Which has happened this last decade with most public places banning smoking. A total ban in all public places in KC is next-just like most major US cities.

I worked as a dealer at Harrah's and was subject to rude smokers for 6 years. You give them a bad hand and they blow smoke in your face. When they allowed cigar smoking, I quit. I had frequent colds and went home every night smelling of smoke. I say ban cigs altogether.

Why is weed-which is grown naturally, illegal and cigs full of man made addictive chemicals legal? Weed smells better, has medicinal qualities, and makes you feel good. Just the opposite of cigs.

fan4ever
11-17-2005, 11:48 AM
Too bad there isn't a chunk of land somewhere on Earth that could be claimed by folks wanting to form a new country where the citizens had freedoms. As long as they don't hurt anyone else, do what they want. And if it's private property?

And no - I'm not a smoker if that matters.

I just find myself disaapointed by the lies my civics teacher taught us about what the United States was supposed to be about.

That liar.

About 4 years ago I watched a HBO comedy special with a British comedian named "Izzy" or something like that. His special was called "Dressed to Kill" and he did his performance in drag and was very funny. He was not a conservative in the least. It was filmed in California, and at one point he started to light up a cigarette. As he did so, you could hear some people in the audience groan. He stopped, looked and the audience and said, "Oh yeah, you don't allow smoking here in CA. You know, back in England we get a chuckle over you people. 200 years ago you kicked our asses for your freedoms, and today we're sitting back watching you take them away from each other".

Mr. Flopnuts
11-17-2005, 01:36 PM
About 4 years ago I watched a HBO comedy special with a British comedian named "Izzy" or something like that. His special was called "Dressed to Kill" and he did his performance in drag and was very funny. He was not a conservative in the least. It was filmed in California, and at one point he started to light up a cigarette. As he did so, you could hear some people in the audience groan. He stopped, looked and the audience and said, "Oh yeah, you don't allow smoking here in CA. You know, back in England we get a chuckle over you people. 200 years ago you kicked our asses for your freedoms, and today we're sitting back watching you take them away from each other".



Amen

Mr. Flopnuts
11-17-2005, 01:39 PM
I look at it as this simple reasoning:

I want my kids to have it better than I did. I can clearly remember everyone in my family sitting around and chain smoking after Thanksgiving. People smoked on Airplanes, on TV, and the grocery store, and of course every restaurant. My parents still smoke and I am having to slowly watch them grow old and decline in health. Fact is smoking is a slow death-and I don't want it around my kids. Which has happened this last decade with most public places banning smoking. A total ban in all public places in KC is next-just like most major US cities.

I worked as a dealer at Harrah's and was subject to rude smokers for 6 years. You give them a bad hand and they blow smoke in your face. When they allowed cigar smoking, I quit. I had frequent colds and went home every night smelling of smoke. I say ban cigs altogether.

Why is weed-which is grown naturally, illegal and cigs full of man made addictive chemicals legal? Weed smells better, has medicinal qualities, and makes you feel good. Just the opposite of cigs.



This is a good post. It shows things from the other side of the fence. I will state again though, that in 2005 there are plenty of places where you can go to never have to deal with second hand smoke. To take the choice away from the owners of business establishments is treason. It entirely goes against our constitution. This isn't the first time or the last time this has happened though right? We just don't give a shit as a collective society until it affects us personally. Much like this does for me in the state of Washington. If this was about Homosexual rights in milatary I'd say it's pretty clear on what the constitution would say about that, however I wouldn't give enough of a shit to post about it.

reddick
11-17-2005, 04:26 PM
Good!! People that smoke are trashy losers. I hope it gets banned everywhere.

AustinChief
11-17-2005, 04:33 PM
To anyone here that supports a smoking ban because they "don't like the smell of it".. you are worthless a$$holes... end of story.

Is it your ****ing right to tell me as a business owner what I allow in MY bar? I guess you can hide behind "majority rule"... of course that same logic would dictate that if the majority didn't like blacks.. you could vite to ban them, as well.

This country was PRIMARILY founded upon property rights issues (see Locke)... and sh!t like this is ignorant(at best) and fascist(Hitler was one of the first to outlaw smoking).

Can any of you legitimately say that this is a PROPER use of the law? "because you don't like it".. well eat a dick, stay the **** home or go to a nonsmoking bar... don't whine to your city council like a bitch.

In my opinion, you better have a DAMN good reason to create a law... because taken to its logical conclusion.. law equals violence.

Do any of you truly think it is your right to force an owner of a private business to cater to your olfactory whims?

--Kyle

...to repost my feelings on anyone who wants to make LAWS that violate a business owwer's property rights just because "they don't like it"...

What has this country come to?

I am becoming thoroughly intolerant of intolerance.

Mr. Kotter
11-17-2005, 05:51 PM
...to repost my feelings on anyone who wants to make LAWS that violate a business owwer's property rights just because "they don't like it"...

What has this country come to?

I am becoming thoroughly intolerant of intolerance.

Would this be a bad time to ask about dividing the ChiefsPlanet Lounge into smoking and non-smoking sections? :hmmm:

DaneMcCloud
11-17-2005, 06:11 PM
To take the choice away from the owners of business establishments is treason. It entirely goes against our constitution.

I don't see where it's stated in the Constitution where smoking should be legal everywhere. Smoking isn't a "Right". It's a priviledge. And it's become a priviledge throughout the US only under certain circumstances. It seems from the replies here that most smokers don't want to recognize that smoking is banned in public places is because it IS a public health hazard. For every study saying that "Secondhand smoke isn't as bad as portrayed", there's people dying from continued exposure to secondhand smoke. Try having allergies to cigarette smoke, then tell me that it's not harmful.

It's ludicrous for anyone to think that bars and restaurants will lose ANY business because smoking is not allowed! What, smokers in the midwest aren't going to want social interaction or good food because they can't smoke? Give me a break! There's been a ban in California for 10 years, and believe me, every restaurant and nightclub is jam packed every single night. I can't tell you how nice it is to go out and not have to dry clean or wash my clothes just because I went to a bar or restaurant. In KC, that's EXACTLY what my wife and I had to do last month because the ventilation was so poor that we both stunk, had headaches in the morning, as well as the "burnt" lung feeling. Anyone here that thinks that second hand smoke isn't harmful isn't being intellectually honest.

Dane
~sticking his feet in the "fire"

AustinChief
11-18-2005, 11:26 AM
Anyone here that thinks that second hand smoke isn't harmful isn't being intellectually honest.

Dane
~sticking his feet in the "fire"

No, what is intellectually dishonest(or maybe just lazy) is to accept that second hand smoke is harmful because you WANT to believe it is.. not based on ANY facts. Do the research, brush up on toxicology, dig a little deeper than what is spoon fed to you from the media.

Here is a FACT for you.. the President/Founder of the American Council on Science and Health, Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sci.D., M.P.H. ...

a women who wrote a book titled "A Smoking Gun - How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder" .. has stated that the evidence linking ETS and health conserns is extremely "scanty"... this coming from a women who WANTS there to be evidence but is HONEST enough to admit that nothing conclusive is out there.


Please don't talk to me about intellectual honesty until you have taken the time to do the research... I have never seen ANYONE make the effort and not come to the same conclusion... the problem is that everyone would rather be spoon fed information then do the research

AustinChief
11-18-2005, 11:38 AM
and Dane.. you are correct, there is no "right to smoke" .. but there are rights for property owners to decide how they run their businesses... if you can PROVE (no one has yet to do so in an american court) that ETS has harmful effects beyond being irritating... than maybe you have a legal leg to stand on.. otherwise this is pure majority bullying.

Here is a great argument that I wish I had though of myself...
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page16.asp In the beginning of the article, the author talks about the "name three" principle... (a more in depth explanation is here http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html )

If millions of people have died from ETS... name three.

--Kyle

AustinChief
11-18-2005, 12:04 PM
And here is some more info for anyone who cares about the FACTS...

NUMBER OF CIGARETTES REQUIRED TO REACH A THRESHOLD LIMIT FROM ETS IN A SEALED, UNVENTILATED 100m3 ENCLOSURE AT STANDARD TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/howmany.html

The dose makes the poison... look at this from a SCIENTIFIC view... from the view of a toxicologist.

--Kyle

Inspector
11-18-2005, 01:31 PM
Kyle -

In regards to your recent posts on this thread:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Halfcan
11-18-2005, 07:07 PM
Great post Austin Chief.

So who is a smoker on here-go ahead fess up.

DaneMcCloud
11-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Kyle,

I understand and respect your viewpoint. But why is it that Surgeon General of the US is urging people not to smoke? Why is it that anytime I go to a doctor, the first thing they ask is "Do you smoke?" (which I don't and never even tried it). When my father was 45, the doctor said to stop smoking; you're killing yourself. There's not a single doctor in the world that says smoking is healthy and not harmful.

Now whether or not you chose to believe that second hand smoke is harmful is your decision. But I can personally attest to the fact that every time I visit a smokey bar, my eyes dry up, I get headaches and my throat is sore the next day. There's no way in the world that anyone can convince that long term exposure to smokey bars and restaurants won't affect my health. I've felt it firsthand.

Dane

Halfcan
11-18-2005, 08:33 PM
Dane, great post. Smoke, whether it is first or second hand is harmful. I worked in it and was sick often. Since I quit that environment, I have not been sick at all.

On the other hand, I think Pot should be legal. What do you guys think?

stevieray
11-18-2005, 09:47 PM
let's ignore the facts because we don't like the way it smells.

RNR
11-18-2005, 10:48 PM
How about I own the place and you can smoke in here, or I own the place and you can not smoke here? Or has this pc bullshit got to the point that the government must make the choice for us?

AustinChief
11-19-2005, 03:22 PM
Kyle,

Now whether or not you chose to believe that second hand smoke is harmful is your decision. But I can personally attest to the fact that every time I visit a smokey bar, my eyes dry up, I get headaches and my throat is sore the next day. There's no way in the world that anyone can convince that long term exposure to smokey bars and restaurants won't affect my health. I've felt it firsthand.

Dane

The argument is not about PRIMARY smoke.. only ETS.

So dry eyes and a sore throat are precursers to what deadly disease? Irritation does not a health risk make. If you look WAAAY back in this thread I brought out the point that people who suffer from Bell's Palsy have to deal with EXTREME discomfirt when exposed to loud noises (i.e. a live band). Should we outlaw live music in bars for them? People with meningitis are often very sensitive to light... should we require that bars install no higher than 40 watt bulbs?

You have NOT felt it firsthand... what you have felt is discomfirt due to a sensitivity to smoke. If you work at an onion cutting plant (I know I made that up) wouldn't you leave work every day with a certain amount of discomfirt? Does that mean it is a "health risk"?

The point is that your "discomfirt" does not equal a public health risk. Once again I challenge you to show a legitimate relative risk factor. Just because you "feel" it is a health hazard or the media tells you that it is.. doesn't make it so.

Over-Head
11-19-2005, 03:26 PM
Full Smoking ban in Fairway KS.


Does anyone care?

Been that way here in NL for a LONG time now.
Sucks too. :mad:

RNR
11-20-2005, 09:33 AM
But I can personally attest to the fact that every time I visit a smokey bar, my eyes dry up, I get headaches and my throat is sore the next day. There's no way in the world that anyone can convince that long term exposure to smokey bars and restaurants won't affect my health. I've felt it firsthand.

Dane
Hey I have a idea why don't you stay away from those type of places, and heck while I am on a roll, how about people who are not bothered by them be able to go to them?

Mr. Flopnuts
11-22-2005, 01:17 PM
Kyle,

I understand and respect your viewpoint. But why is it that Surgeon General of the US is urging people not to smoke? Why is it that anytime I go to a doctor, the first thing they ask is "Do you smoke?" (which I don't and never even tried it). When my father was 45, the doctor said to stop smoking; you're killing yourself. There's not a single doctor in the world that says smoking is healthy and not harmful.

Now whether or not you chose to believe that second hand smoke is harmful is your decision. But I can personally attest to the fact that every time I visit a smokey bar, my eyes dry up, I get headaches and my throat is sore the next day. There's no way in the world that anyone can convince that long term exposure to smokey bars and restaurants won't affect my health. I've felt it firsthand.

Dane


Another funny thing that doctors say is, "Okay you stubbed your toe. Go ahead and put a bandage around it, keep it elevated, and most importantly, quit smoking. That is what it will take to make it better." Dane I've been reading your posts for months and you seem like an intelligent individual. It's obvious you're a non smoker and don't like being around it. I can respect that. However please tell me you know an agenda when you see one.

Halfcan
01-03-2008, 07:49 PM
The Smoking Ban has KILLED the bar scene in Independence.

4 bars have went under so far.

On New Years-every bar in town was empty.

KCMO is passing a Ban next.

Do you think this is fair to the business owners????

jjchieffan
01-03-2008, 09:49 PM
I know you smokers will hate me for it, but I am all for smoking bans. My reason is that I am allergic to cigarette smoke. If I am around cigarette smoke, I start sniffling, sneezing, and getting a runny nose. If I spend much time in a place where cigs are smoked, my allergies just go apeshit.

Bacon Cheeseburger
01-03-2008, 10:12 PM
I know you smokers will hate me for it, but I am all for smoking bans. My reason is that I am allergic to cigarette smoke. If I am around cigarette smoke, I start sniffling, sneezing, and getting a runny nose. If I spend much time in a place where cigs are smoked, my allergies just go apeshit.
Here's a thought, don't go to places that allow smoking. There's plenty of them that don't.

alanm
01-03-2008, 10:13 PM
Just wait. The fascists will be coming after alcohol again. You wait.
They won't stop at tobacco. Hope you all enjoy the property tax hikes.

alanm
01-03-2008, 10:17 PM
The Smoking Ban has KILLED the bar scene in Independence.

4 bars have went under so far.

On New Years-every bar in town was empty.

KCMO is passing a Ban next.

Do you think this is fair to the business owners????
The anti smoking Nazi's don't care. It's all about them. Just ban cigarettes all together. I'm all in for prohibition and shit. Can't wait to start a life of crime. :thumb:

alanm
01-03-2008, 10:45 PM
Personally, I wish they would ban smoking , period.

For that matter, get rid of cigs and cigars completely, nothing good comes from them.
Then you can get rid of alcohol next. Nothing good come from that either.
Roy banning tobacco will only bring the rise of Organized Crime pt. II.
Big Gov tried it once. Didn't work. and it won't work again. The only result will be to turn ordinary citizens into criminals. Which is apparently what people want.

smittysbar
01-03-2008, 10:57 PM
Owning a bar myself, I will say that I think it is BS that they think they can tell you how to run your business.

This just passed in Kirksville. I will tell you some of these bars are really hurting now. One has closed completely and others are soon to follow. One guy put on his billboard out front "where are all you non smokers?" Pretty funny

HonestChieffan
01-03-2008, 11:04 PM
What will you lungers to be do when they ban all smoking at Arrowhead? Finally we will be able to walk to a concession stand or the can and not have to walk through a cancerous cloud of smoke.

Bacon Cheeseburger
01-03-2008, 11:13 PM
What will you lungers to be do when they ban all smoking at Arrowhead? Finally we will be able to walk to a concession stand or the can and not have to walk through a cancerous cloud of smoke.
Yes, because we all know you immediately get cancer upon any type of contact with cigarette smoke. Dumbass.

kcfanXIII
01-03-2008, 11:16 PM
i worked at a bar/grill in blue springs. loved working the smoking section after indep and ls passed their bans. practically doubled my money when those that wanted to smoke while having a drink/dinner drove the extra distance to blue springs. i'm a smoker, and do my best to not support businesses that ban smoking. its like saying, i don't want your money.

Valiant
01-04-2008, 12:29 AM
Should be up to bars/restaurants, it is coming soon to KC and I told my friend who owns a bar by parkville just to add a case that sells cigars or smokes so she can be a smokeshop also..

Valiant
01-04-2008, 12:30 AM
What will you lungers to be do when they ban all smoking at Arrowhead? Finally we will be able to walk to a concession stand or the can and not have to walk through a cancerous cloud of smoke.


Should really get a mod to change your name to dumbestChieffan for a week or so...

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:20 AM
In Overland Park too!!!! Long over due. Nonsmokers are huge majority and have had to endure the vices of a minority for long enough.

:thumb: :clap:

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:22 AM
The economy has more to do with bars failing right now than a smoking ban does. If business owners want to own smoking clubs let them open private smoking clubs where smokers can bask in a haze filled heaven.

Smoker's Hut, McSmokers, Smoking Inn, Buffalo Smokers, Fox and Smoke. The possibilities are endlesss.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-04-2008, 07:40 AM
Gee welcome to democracy where 50.1 % of the peeps control 49.9%.

Bowser
01-04-2008, 08:51 AM
If smoking bans can pass in Chicago, LA, and New York, I don't think it passing around these parts will be the death knoll for bar owners.

stevieray
01-04-2008, 09:01 AM
until they ban cigarettes instead of smoking, I'm convinced it's about money, nothing more.

Bowser
01-04-2008, 09:05 AM
until they ban cigarettes instead of smoking, I'm convinced it's about money, nothing more.

Why, you're not going all health insurance conspiracy theorist on us, are you?

;)

Uncle_Ted
01-04-2008, 09:26 AM
The bars will do just fine if the ban is made state-wide in MO and KS. What kills bars is when their own communities ban it, but surrounding communities don't.

Personally I like the smoking bans, because I hate smelling like an ashtray after I leave a bar, not to mention the watery eyes, sore throat, and nasal irritation. But even though I'm a card-carrying liberal, from a policy standpoint I think outright bans are problematic. The people who advocate them are usually not willing to put their money where their mouths are. If there were such a huge groundswell in favor of this, then the market would align itself accordingly to take advantage of this need. But instead voluntarily smoke-free establishments are relatively rare. IF so many people thought that it was that important, then they'd vote with their wallets and there would be more bars rushing to fill the "non-smoking" niche.

Mr. Laz
01-04-2008, 09:41 AM
Does anyone care?

nope

Bacon Cheeseburger
01-04-2008, 10:03 AM
Why, you're not going all health insurance conspiracy theorist on us, are you?

;)
What's funny about my health insurance, is that they will gladly pay for my smoking related illnesses (after my deductible is covered), but my prescription coverage doesn't cover stop smoking drugs such as Chantix. Makes a lot of ****ing sense to me.

Bacon Cheeseburger
01-04-2008, 10:04 AM
In Overland Park too!!!! Long over due. Nonsmokers are huge majority and have had to endure the vices of a minority for long enough.

:thumb: :clap:
Yep, you're right seeing that we were holding you at gunpoint forcing you to go into those bars. Dumbass.

sedated
01-04-2008, 10:07 AM
I don't like it in bars (when not serving food).

There is a certain expectation of being smokey when you enter.

I don't mind having a patio or something outside, it really encourages being social. But it sucks balls in the dead of winter.

Bob Dole
01-04-2008, 10:14 AM
To take the choice away from the owners of business establishments is treason. It entirely goes against our constitution.

I don't see where it's stated in the Constitution where smoking should be legal everywhere. Smoking isn't a "Right". It's a priviledge. And it's become a priviledge throughout the US only under certain circumstances. It seems from the replies here that most smokers don't want to recognize that smoking is banned in public places is because it IS a public health hazard.

Vote to ban smoking in public places all you want, since your tax dollars (and Bob Dole's) are supporting it.

Bob Dole's favorite bar is owned by Jack and Meredith Mills. Not DaneMcCloud and Bob Dole. Bob Dole would never suggest that he has some inherent right to tell Jack and Meredith how they must run their business. Why do you feel that it's your right to do so?

Bob Dole
01-04-2008, 10:17 AM
In Overland Park too!!!! Long over due. Nonsmokers are huge majority and have had to endure the vices of a minority for long enough.

:thumb: :clap:

Tyranny is still tyranny, no matter who is the tyrant.

KC Kings
01-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Vote to ban smoking in public places all you want, since your tax dollars (and Bob Dole's) are supporting it.

Bob Dole's favorite bar is owned by Jack and Meredith Mills. Not DaneMcCloud and Bob Dole. Bob Dole would never suggest that he has some inherent right to tell Jack and Meredith how they must run their business. Why do you feel that it's your right to do so?

They are told to do so for the same reason they are told that if they take a crap, they need to wash their hands before they make you a sandwich. Should a person really have to be told that? Why should my tax dollars go to making sure your sandwich is feces free? If we get rid of smoking bans, the Health Department Food Protection Program is next. But don't stop their, let's oust OSHA, Federal Employee Restrictions, and any other program that tells your bar owner how to run the establishment for the good of mankind.


I am not concerned about the effects of second hand smoke that might affect me while I am in a smoking establishment, I don't like the smell. Cigarette smoke stinks, and the people that smoke them stink. I love BW3 but won't eat in the restaraunt again until they get rid of smoking because the whole place smells like an ashtray.

Could I deal with it if I had to? Sure, but I don't have to. I think smokers smell as bad as fat guys that don't wear deodorant or old people that crap their diapers and sit around all day until somebody changes it for them. I am not going to pay to eat a meal in the company of anybody that stinks.

BTW I went to the new bar next to the Sprint Center called McFadden's the other night, and the place was packed! Apparently the non-smoking policy they have hasn't kept away too many customers or hurt the business. And the best part is that the next day when I put on my coat, it didn't smell like an old ladies crusty arse from being saturated in cigarette smoke night.

KC Kings
01-04-2008, 11:50 AM
What's funny about my health insurance, is that they will gladly pay for my smoking related illnesses (after my deductible is covered), but my prescription coverage doesn't cover stop smoking drugs such as Chantix. Makes a lot of ****ing sense to me.

My company does not allow smokers anywhere on the campus, will not hire you if you smoke, and you have to sign a document that says that if you do start smoking you will be terminated. It is all about the health problems and lack of productivity directly related to smoking, and I understand that.

The funny thing is, we have a McDonalds built in the basement and I can take a break every hour to walk my fat ass down the hall for a double cheeseburger. It's ok to be unhealthy because you eat too much, but NOT because you smoke too much.

Bacon Cheeseburger
01-04-2008, 11:56 AM
They are told to do so for the same reason they are told that if they take a crap, they need to wash their hands before they make you a sandwich. Should a person really have to be told that? Why should my tax dollars go to making sure your sandwich is feces free? If we get rid of smoking bans, the Health Department Food Protection Program is next. But don't stop their, let's oust OSHA, Federal Employee Restrictions, and any other program that tells your bar owner how to run the establishment for the good of mankind.
Ahhh...the wild exaggeration. A favorite tactic of the anti-smoking nazi.

I am not concerned about the effects of second hand smoke that might affect me while I am in a smoking establishment, I don't like the smell. Cigarette smoke stinks, and the people that smoke them stink. I love BW3 but won't eat in the restaraunt again until they get rid of smoking because the whole place smells like an ashtray.
You solved your own problem there, good for you.

Could I deal with it if I had to? Sure, but I don't have to. I think smokers smell as bad as fat guys that don't wear deodorant or old people that crap their diapers and sit around all day until somebody changes it for them. I am not going to pay to eat a meal in the company of anybody that stinks.
Since we're talking about sensory discomforts, I don't like to have to listen to someone's screaming kid while I'm dropping a c-note on a nice meal. Are we going to ban small children from restaurants next?

chiefsfan987
01-04-2008, 12:14 PM
If smoking bans can pass in Chicago, LA, and New York, I don't think it passing around these parts will be the death knoll for bar owners.

Out here in Seattle after they banned smoking our sales went up, not down. I think people grossly underestimate the amount of people who won't go into an establishment because its smokefilled.

KC Kings
01-04-2008, 12:32 PM
Ahhh...the wild exaggeration. A favorite tactic of the anti-smoking nazi.


You solved your own problem there, good for you.


Since we're talking about sensory discomforts, I don't like to have to listen to someone's screaming kid while I'm dropping a c-note on a nice meal. Are we going to ban small children from restaurants next?

Wild exaggeration? Only if the old man had recently had cabbage. Cigarette smoke smells like BO and ass. The difference is, if you sit in a bar next to a guy with BO, all of your clothes don't smell like BO 2 hours later.


I did solve my own problem, and as all of the studies have shown, as soon as they ban smoking these establishments will enjoy the increase in business from all of the others that have previously solved our own problems.


Personally, I have never dropped a $100 on a meal anyplace other than Chucky Cheese or Dave and Busters where annoying kids are expected. I have had to listen to screaming kids at a $30 a plate mothers day brunch at the Hotel Philips, and I have had to sit through screaming kids in a movie. I spank my kids, therefore they are well behaved and I don't think a ban on all children is needed, but if a person has kids that are out of line and disturbing the other customers, by all means they should be made to leave. My yougest is 14 months now and only cries when you aren't feeding him fast enough, but when he was a baby if he started crying one of us took him out to the car. O'Charlies, Chilli's, anywhere, not just $100 a meal places.

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 12:50 PM
Vote to ban smoking in public places all you want, since your tax dollars (and Bob Dole's) are supporting it.

Bob Dole's favorite bar is owned by Jack and Meredith Mills. Not DaneMcCloud and Bob Dole. Bob Dole would never suggest that he has some inherent right to tell Jack and Meredith how they must run their business. Why do you feel that it's your right to do so?

I don't feel it's my right to tell people what to do. But living in a smoke-free state for more than 11 years, it's quite nice to go to bars, nightclubs and restaurants without smelling and inhaling smoke. And I think that once the ban has been in place for a few months, people will being to flock back into the bars. That's certainly been the case in more populated cities like LA, SF, NY, Miami, Chicago, etc. Kansas City should be no different.

And since my last post in 2005 relating to my smoke irritation, I've been diagnosed as an asthmatic. My parents smoked during the 18 years I lived with them and I was never properly diagnosed. When I visited with my doctor in March 2007, my lung capacity was 42%! All those years of being exposed to smoke certainly didn't help my lungs and even through aggressive medication, I'm still 25% shy of normal lung capacity. I may never have normal lung functions. And I've never smoked once in my life.

I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Drink your brains out but don't kill me with your car while drunk. Snort cocaine, shoot heroin and take crystal meth until you die, just as long as you don't blow up my house in the process with your meth lab. Smoke pot and cigarettes all you want, but please refrain from doing so in a public place where it can affect the health of others.

And while I can certainly understand that it sucks for those people who are used to smoking in public places, I think the long-term benefits to non-smokers outweighs the inconvenience of stepping outside for smokers.

Until they ban outdoor smoking in your area (which has already been banned in Beverly Hills, with more cities to follow).

Bob Dole
01-04-2008, 12:55 PM
And while I can certainly understand that it sucks for those people who are used to smoking in public places, I think the long-term benefits to non-smokers outweighs the inconvenience of stepping outside for smokers.

Until they ban outdoor smoking in your area (which has already been banned in Beverly Hills, with more cities to follow).

This illustrates the problem. You apparently consider a privately owned business a "public place". It is not.

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 01:29 PM
This illustrates the problem. You apparently consider a privately owned business a "public place". It is not.

It is a privately owned business in a public location, right? It's not a privately owned business on personal property or residence, is it?

If it's a privately owned business in a public location, that public locale is bound by city, state and federal laws. The mere fact that it's a privately held company doesn't mean it's exempt from laws set forth by those governing bodies. Zoning is zoning.

If the city, state or federal government passed a law restricting smoking in a private residence, I'd be fervently against that. But it's not. And it is a public health issue when more than 400,000 people per year die from smoking-related illnesses in the US alone.

If countries in Europe such as England, Ireland and Italy can successfully ban public smoking and not feel the effects, I believe that Kansas City will be just fine.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 03:03 PM
Yep, you're right seeing that we were holding you at gunpoint forcing you to go into those bars. Dumbass.

Actually, I refused to go to most bars because of the smoking. Now, I'll be frequenting such establishments because I can go there and not be sick with asthma and a URI or have my hair and clothing smell like an ashtray for days no matter how much I try to wash the smell out.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 03:05 PM
As long as your car is parked in the parking lot then do NOT whine to me about being prohibited from smoking in private clubs.

Go to your car and smoke yourself silly...preferably with the windows still closed. I have no right to stop you there and you can enjoy your smoke without it infringing on those of us who don't want to smell or breathe it.

StcChief
01-04-2008, 03:27 PM
Illinois is smoke free in public places.

Valiant
01-04-2008, 05:18 PM
As long as your car is parked in the parking lot then do NOT whine to me about being prohibited from smoking in private clubs.

Go to your car and smoke yourself silly...preferably with the windows still closed. I have no right to stop you there and you can enjoy your smoke without it infringing on those of us who don't want to smell or breathe it.


Or just let the business owners decide..

Halfcan
01-04-2008, 05:22 PM
Owning a bar myself, I will say that I think it is BS that they think they can tell you how to run your business.

This just passed in Kirksville. I will tell you some of these bars are really hurting now. One has closed completely and others are soon to follow. One guy put on his billboard out front "where are all you non smokers?" Pretty funny

I have going to a bar called Bogarts for 20 years- and the ban put them under. On the door it said...

Retired Early!

Thanks City of Indep for the Smoking Ban.




Its a real shame.

Halfcan
01-04-2008, 05:23 PM
San Fran you can smoke weed in public-but around here you can't even smoke a cig.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 05:26 PM
Owning a bar myself, I will say that I think it is BS that they think they can tell you how to run your business.

This just passed in Kirksville. I will tell you some of these bars are really hurting now. One has closed completely and others are soon to follow. One guy put on his billboard out front "where are all you non smokers?" Pretty funny

I couldn't agree more. Your bar, your call.

No one is forced to enter.

Valiant
01-04-2008, 05:29 PM
It is a privately owned business in a public location, right? It's not a privately owned business on personal property or residence, is it?

If it's a privately owned business in a public location, that public locale is bound by city, state and federal laws. The mere fact that it's a privately held company doesn't mean it's exempt from laws set forth by those governing bodies. Zoning is zoning.

If the city, state or federal government passed a law restricting smoking in a private residence, I'd be fervently against that. But it's not. And it is a public health issue when more than 400,000 people per year die from smoking-related illnesses in the US alone.

If countries in Europe such as England, Ireland and Italy can successfully ban public smoking and not feel the effects, I believe that Kansas City will be just fine.


Not once you enter the building its not.. Only reason why this is going on is because nonsmoking nazi's are on a jihad against private businesses to conform to their will..

Let the damn business owners decide... Give decent tax breaks to bars/restaurants for being nonsmoking, dont force them..



As for laws, we can go back in the books of laws passed that were so insanely stupid that no one adheres to them...

400k people died supposedly of smoking, big ****ing whoop.. 56million+ people die on average every year... wow not even 1% of the total..

You want to be a nazi like everybody else.. Lets ban gambling.. It ruins millions of lives every year..

Alcohol???

When does it stop??



I am not even a smoker for crying out loud..

Halfcan
01-04-2008, 05:33 PM
Ban all bars, boobies, weed, drugs, sex, fun, music, laughter.

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 05:54 PM
Not once you enter the building its not.. Only reason why this is going on is because nonsmoking nazi's are on a jihad against private businesses to conform to their will..

Let the damn business owners decide... Give decent tax breaks to bars/restaurants for being nonsmoking, dont force them..



As for laws, we can go back in the books of laws passed that were so insanely stupid that no one adheres to them...

400k people died supposedly of smoking, big ****ing whoop.. 56million+ people die on average every year... wow not even 1% of the total..

You want to be a nazi like everybody else.. Lets ban gambling.. It ruins millions of lives every year..

Alcohol???

When does it stop??



I am not even a smoker for crying out loud..

First off, if other cities and states across America (let alone, the world) have banned smoking in public places due to health reasons, why should Kansas City be exempt?

Secondly, a building that zoned as commercial space does not automatically become a private, residential zone once it's occupied. A private company may be run in that area but it does not mean that it's excluded from existing city and zoning laws.

You obviously cannot differentiate the difference between areas zoned as private residence and those zone as public areas. If a city grants a license to a place of business such as a bar or restaurant in a business zoned area, it doesn't matter whether or not it's a publicly owned building or a privately owned company that either leases or owns the property. It's still a commercial zone, subject to laws set forth by the city, state and federal government. It's not some "sanctuary" immune to the law.

Thirdly, do you complain and feel that businesses other than bars, such as grocery stores, shopping malls and office buildings are run by "nazis" because smoking isn't allowed in those establishments?

Speaking of "gambling", did you know that in Las Vegas, it's not legal to smoke in restaurants and bars outside of the casinos? Additionally, it's only going to be a matter of time before ALL the hotels and casinos in Las Vegas are smoke free.

But I guess to you, the state of Nevada (and all the other states in the union) in addition to many European countries are run by "nazis"?

FAX
01-04-2008, 05:59 PM
Is it possible to play poker without a cigar?

I've never tried it.

FAX

Bump
01-04-2008, 06:04 PM
I'm a smoker and Lawrence had just banned smoking and I liked it better. I don't mind stepping outside to smoke at all and my clothes didn't smell like ass and I didn't constantly breathe in 2nd hand smoke. So as a smoker, I didn't mind it at all. Some bars there had a patio or a beer garden outside too. It's really not a big deal.

Frazod
01-04-2008, 06:11 PM
I haven't smoked in over 2 1/2 years. I don't like the smell of smoke or being around it.

But since I'm not a fascist or a mindless media lemming, I still think these bans are bullshit. And I'm still apalled by how many people cheer the endless erosion of our personal liberties.

:shake:

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 06:20 PM
I haven't smoked in over 2 1/2 years. I don't like the smell of smoke or being around it.

But since I'm not a fascist or a mindless media lemming, I still think these bans are bullshit. And I'm still apalled by how many people cheer the endless erosion of our personal liberties.

:shake:

How is this an erosion of a personal liberty?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'd just really like to hear your reasoning.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:32 PM
Or just let the business owners decide..

Why? They can't decide how long to keep food that is rancid, whether or not their female servers must wear tops, or if roaches are an acceptable form of life in a kitchen...

there are regulations that establishments must abide by. I see a smoking ban as no different.

ClevelandBronco
01-04-2008, 06:39 PM
Why? They can't decide how long to keep food that is rancid, whether or not their female servers must wear tops, or if roaches are an acceptable form of life in a kitchen...

there are regulations that establishments must abide by. I see a smoking ban as no different.

Yes, but you are a totalitarian idiot, so it hardly matters what you see.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:40 PM
Not once you enter the building its not.. Only reason why this is going on is because nonsmoking nazi's are on a jihad against private businesses to conform to their will..



Alcohol???

When does it stop??



I am not even a smoker for crying out loud..

I'm sorry, but as long as a building/business needs a public entity like a city or state government business license to operate then it's not a 'private' business, IMO.

Frazod
01-04-2008, 06:41 PM
How is this an erosion of a personal liberty?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'd just really like to hear your reasoning.

How is it not? How can you even ask that?

Tobacco is LEGAL. It is legally grown, processed, and sold. Now, people who want to smoke are not allowed to - not because there are people there who object to the danger or the smell, but because the government says they can't. I've been in lots of bars where EVERYBODY smokes. Nobody minds. Not every bar in America is some trendy dance club filled with whining yuppies, you know. If I want to smoke, and everybody else around wants to smoke, or at least doesn't mind the smoke, or respects the fact that other people enjoy it, who are you, or the government, or the nazi cocksuckers at the American Cancer Society to tell them that they can't? It's ridiculous.

This could have been handled differently. We could have smoking and non-smoking establishments, determined by citizens exercising free will and reasonable behavior. Instead, that choice has been shoved up our asses by extremists who have somehow managed to manipulate the government to do their bidding.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:43 PM
Yes, but you are a totalitarian idiot, so it hardly matters what you see.

Yeah, and luckily I 'see' more smoking bans on the horizon.

Smokers have their homes and their cars as their PRIVATE property to smoke. Anyplace else is public and if the public decides it doesn't want smoke then the 20% of those who partake just have to realize their days of quelling the will of the majority are O-V-E-R!!!!!

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 06:46 PM
Why? They can't decide how long to keep food that is rancid, whether or not their female servers must wear tops, or if roaches are an acceptable form of life in a kitchen...

there are regulations that establishments must abide by. I see a smoking ban as no different.

In Los Angeles County, in addition to the health inspector's reports at each restaurant, each eating establishment is given a rating from A-C that must displayed prominently at the front entrance and behind the bar (if the bar serves food). Once a restaurant is rated a C more than 3 times in a 3 month period, the restaurant license is revoked.

Additionally, detailed information can be found on the health inspector website (insects, improper temperature storage, etc.).

I seriously miss these ratings when we're out of town. Suffice to say, my wife and I have never and will never eat at any restaurant that isn't an A. We've actually driven across town to eat and found out it was a B upon arrival.

Now, we always call beforehand.

Logical
01-04-2008, 06:46 PM
How is it not? How can you even ask that?

Tobacco is LEGAL. It is legally grown, processed, and sold. Now, people who want to smoke are not allowed to - not because there are people there who object to the danger or the smell, but because the government says they can't. I've been in lots of bars where EVERYBODY smokes. Nobody minds. Not every bar in America is some trendy dance club filled with whining yuppies, you know. If I want to smoke, and everybody else around wants to smoke, or at least doesn't mind the smoke, or respects the fact that other people enjoy it, who are you, or the government, or the nazi one who sucks the peniss at the American Cancer Society to tell them that they can't? It's ridiculous.

This could have been handled differently. We could have smoking and non-smoking establishments, determined by citizens exercising free will and reasonable behavior. Instead, that choice has been shoved up our asses by extremists who have somehow managed to manipulate the government to do their bidding.

While what you say may be correct, the converse can also be true. First you can still smoke just not in public places, like it or not bars are in fact public places. This law has been in effect all over California for years and not a single bar closed down. Seem that people can still drink even if they are not smoking and the bars were getting the revenue from the people drinking.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:49 PM
In Los Angeles County, in addition to the health inspector's reports at each restaurant, each eating establishment is given a rating from A-C that must displayed prominently at the front entrance and behind the bar (if the bar serves food). Once a restaurant is rated a C more than 3 times in a 3 month period, the restaurant license is revoked.



Sounds like it would be good for businesses who keep themselves clean. Those who do should be rewarded for their efforts with more customers.

FWIW, I'm glad we see eye to eye on something. ;)

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 06:53 PM
How is it not? How can you even ask that?

Tobacco is LEGAL. It is legally grown, processed, and sold. Now, people who want to smoke are not allowed to - not because there are people there who object to the danger or the smell, but because the government says they can't. I've been in lots of bars where EVERYBODY smokes. Nobody minds. Not every bar in America is some trendy dance club filled with whining yuppies, you know. If I want to smoke, and everybody else around wants to smoke, or at least doesn't mind the smoke, or respects the fact that other people enjoy it, who are you, or the government, or the nazi cocksuckers at the American Cancer Society to tell them that they can't? It's ridiculous.

This could have been handled differently. We could have smoking and non-smoking establishments, determined by citizens exercising free will and reasonable behavior. Instead, that choice has been shoved up our asses by extremists who have somehow managed to manipulate the government to do their bidding.

Alcohol is legal. Why can't I walk around any city in America with a beverage in my hand? I'm not driving? Is THAT a personal liberty that has been revoked?

How about open container laws? In many states as recently as the 80's, it was perfectly legal to have open alcoholic beverages while driving. Is that yet another personal liberty that has been revoked?

It seems to me that people who can't understand the anti-smoking laws can't seem to grasp the public health concerns. If I come over and kick you the stomach causing you to have long-term medical issues, that's illegal. I would be fined and probably serve a jail sentence. But these same people who are against anti-smoking laws seem to feel it's okay to irritate another persons, eyes, ears, mouth and lungs with second-hand smoke. I just don't get it.

For example, if you decide to drink a bottle of whiskey at a bar, yet I choose not to drink, the only person who gets drunk is you. Conversely, if you decide to smoke a cigarette, we both inhale the smoke.

Why should I inhale smoke just because YOU chose to smoke? And why should I find another place to be?

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 06:54 PM
Sounds like good it would be good for businesses who keep themselves clean. Those who do should be rewarded for their efforts with more customers.

FWIW, I'm glad we see eye to eye on something. ;)

Don't get used to it, Buddy ROFL ROFL

Frazod
01-04-2008, 06:55 PM
I always love the people who are so pompous and arrogant to think they speak for the will of public. There's an armband that comes with that attitude, you know.

Personally, I support freedom of choice and reasonable compromise. But there's no place for that in a totalitarian state.

And since there's no reasoning with extremists, there's really no need to continue posting on this thread.

Big smile.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 06:56 PM
Don't get used to it, Buddy ROFL ROFL

Trust me, I realize someone as delusional as yourself must get a moment of clarity every now and then. You've probably been drinking...


:p

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 07:04 PM
I always love the people who are so pompous and arrogant to think they speak for the will of public. There's an armband that comes with that attitude, you know.

Personally, I support freedom of choice and reasonable compromise. But there's no place for that in a totalitarian state.

And since there's no reasoning with extremists, there's really no need to continue posting on this thread.

Big smile.

Are you saying that I'm pompous and arrogant and speak for the public? Are you saying that we live in a totalitarian state? Seriously (on all counts?).

I'm not an extremist. I went to bars from age 18 to age 27 in the Kansas City area that were completely filled with smoke, night after night. I didn't complain. I didn't ask bar owners to change their policies. I just went and enjoyed myself.

Since 1997 in California, there has been a no smoking ban in restaurants and nightclubs. I'm not talking about "trendy dance clubs" (teh ghey), I'm talking about bars, hangouts, music joints, etc. Attendance has not decreased. I still go out but without the irritant of cigarette smoke and the need to immediately shower upon return to my home.

If anything, you're the extremist in this situation. If countries word-wide have been effectively banning smoking for years without issue, why do you feel that's a violation of your liberties? It's not like the entire world is singling YOU out. It's happening everywhere.

And on a further note, I asked for your view of this issue based the assumption that you would bring some sort of legal viewpoint to the discussion, considering that you're a paralegal.

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 07:04 PM
Trust me, I realize someone as delusional as yourself must get a moment of clarity every now and then. You've probably been drinking...


:p

Nope, not drinking. I'm taking a break from composing music for a new television commercial.

Does that make me delusional? :p

chagrin
01-04-2008, 07:07 PM
I'm taking a break from composing music for a new television commercial.

Does that make me delusional? :p


No, but it certainly makes you pretentious, in the true definition of the word.

I'd do the little :p thingy back there too, but I'm not joking.

memyselfI
01-04-2008, 07:11 PM
Nope, not drinking. I'm taking a break from composing music for a new television commercial.

Does that make me delusional? :p

No, it makes you a slacker. Get back to work. :D

bango
01-04-2008, 07:12 PM
I am jumping in here late, very late, but can someone explain the bans that include the outdoors. Here in Downtown Spokane if you want to smoke you had better keep on the move, if you are stopped with a cig in mouth it is a ticket. I get indoors, but outdoors. If someone tosses a butt on the street it is littering and I can see the ticket for that.

DaneMcCloud
01-04-2008, 07:37 PM
No, but it certainly makes you pretentious, in the true definition of the word.

I'd do the little :p thingy back there too, but I'm not joking.

That comment was directed towards Denise due to our sparing over music uses.

Sorry to make you feel belittled.

Considering your obvious dislike of me (and this isn't the first post in that direction), you should put me on ignore.

Logical
01-04-2008, 09:03 PM
No, but it certainly makes you pretentious, in the true definition of the word.

I'd do the little :p thingy back there too, but I'm not joking.Oh come on, working on music for commercials hardly equates with a pretentions explanation of an activity.

Logical
01-04-2008, 09:08 PM
I am jumping in here late, very late, but can someone explain the bans that include the outdoors. Here in Downtown Spokane if you want to smoke you had better keep on the move, if you are stopped with a cig in mouth it is a ticket. I get indoors, but outdoors. If someone tosses a butt on the street it is littering and I can see the ticket for that.Some cities have bans in public congregation areas, so when you are at Qualcomm or a concert a large concentration of smoking is not legal. I have never heard of a place where it is illegal everywhere outdoors, in fact locally El Cajon created quite a stir when a councilman proposed such a widespread and general ban.

So all that being said no I cannot explain what they are doing in Spokane.