PDA

View Full Version : Local Springfield Vote to Repeal Smoking Ban


luv
06-05-2012, 08:17 AM
Not sure how many CPers in DC are in Springfield, but don't forget to vote today. The big issue is number 1 on the list. The vote to repeal the smoking ban in Springfield. There have been several television and radio ads that make it sound like you're killing people if you vote yes, but that's just what I'm going to do. Anyway, go vote. It's your right.

http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-springfield-voters-decide-today-on-whether-or-not-to-repeal-smoking-ban-20120605,0,6330641.story

Springfield voters decide today on whether or not to repeal smoking ban

County Clerk Richard Struckhoff estimates turnout to be in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 percent.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - The smoking ban has been a hot-button issue in Springfield since it was passed.

But after residents were able to get over 2,100 signatures on a petition to REPEAL the ban; the city was forced to put it on a June ballot.

A 'yes' vote to repeal the ban would mean smoking would be allowed in private clubs, bowling alleys, and pool halls, as well as in bars or restaurants where at least 50 percent of the sales come from alcohol.

If voters vote 'no', the smoking ban would stay in place as is. The ban would still have the exemptions that city council passed in May, which include cigar bars or tobacco shops, bingo parlors, private clubs and on stage for theatrical productions.

Greene County Clerk Richard Struckhoff estimates the election is costing the cities involved between $80,000 and $100,000.

"Each of the entities that are on the ballot has to pay the bill for the election so it's not costing the county anything or the state, or the federal government," Struckhoff said.

Struckhoff estimates turnout to be in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 percent. It was 18 percent when the original ban was passed in April of 2011.

InChiefsHell
06-05-2012, 08:24 AM
I just quit smoking not long ago. Prior to that, I must say I enjoyed going to bars and not coming home smelling like crap. Having said that, I hope they repeal the ban. Let the establishment owners decide. Simple as that.

luv
06-05-2012, 01:52 PM
I just quit smoking not long ago. Prior to that, I must say I enjoyed going to bars and not coming home smelling like crap. Having said that, I hope they repeal the ban. Let the establishment owners decide. Simple as that.

It was a close vote last year when the ban passed. I still think it will be a close vote. On one hand, the people who are against repealing the ban have definitely had the louder voice around town with signs and ads. On the other hand, you might have people who didn't vote last time who didn't think something like that could ever pass voting this time.

If it's legal, then it should be up to the business owner. They know the types of customers they want to cater to. If they get more smokers than nonsmokers, then they should be able to allow it. Economically speaking, it just makes more sense to leave it up to the business owner. Forcing something like this on everyone has caused businesses to go under. That's less taxes being paid and more people unemployed.

InChiefsHell
06-05-2012, 02:10 PM
It was a close vote last year when the ban passed. I still think it will be a close vote. On one hand, the people who are against repealing the ban have definitely had the louder voice around town with signs and ads. On the other hand, you might have people who didn't vote last time who didn't think something like that could ever pass voting this time.

If it's legal, then it should be up to the business owner. They know the types of customers they want to cater to. If they get more smokers than nonsmokers, then they should be able to allow it. Economically speaking, it just makes more sense to leave it up to the business owner. Forcing something like this on everyone has caused businesses to go under. That's less taxes being paid and more people unemployed.

Not to mention its just downright Un-Merican...

Fish
06-05-2012, 02:39 PM
Surely they can point to the drastic rise in overall health since the smoking ban was enforced as proof of its success....

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 03:05 PM
I just quit smoking not long ago. Prior to that, I must say I enjoyed going to bars and not coming home smelling like crap. Having said that, I hope they repeal the ban. Let the establishment owners decide. Simple as that.

To be honest, I don't see most business owners opening up to smoking even if it is repealed, besides bars.

Smoking tears up ceilings, walls, carpet, as well as other equipment.

FishingRod
06-05-2012, 03:06 PM
I believe that owners and business are perfectly in their right to require certain dress or behavior in their bars. I’m sure the market it perfectly capable of sorting out the smoking or nonsmoking or smoking sections all on their own. What a crazy idea.

Garcia Bronco
06-05-2012, 03:17 PM
That's dumb. I smoke too, but even I will not go into your smokey ass place of business.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 03:28 PM
Surely they can point to the drastic rise in overall health since the smoking ban was enforced as proof of its success....

Oh to the contrary, the rise of frost bite outside of bars were through the roof.

InChiefsHell
06-05-2012, 05:09 PM
To be honest, I don't see most business owners opening up to smoking even if it is repealed, besides bars.

Smoking tears up ceilings, walls, carpet, as well as other equipment.

Indeed. But they can if they want to, which is the way it should be.

luv
06-05-2012, 07:19 PM
Smoking ban was not repealed. 63.46% to keep it to 36.54% to repeal it.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2012, 07:45 PM
Good on Springfield

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 07:47 PM
Yes! More freedom to kill yourself, and take everyone else around you down with you! Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom!

(Oh, you don't want to smell like dog shit when you go out? don't go out. fine, i won't. if you're dumb enough to smoke, you deserve what you get...which is death. a slow, painful, unenjoyable death.)

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 07:49 PM
can someone explain to me why we still allow the sale of cigarettes? i mean, really. we can ban trans fats...but touch my cigs and you die!

seriously...explain it to me like i'm a five year old. why do we allow the sale of a product that causes a whole host of diseases even if you don't get the cancer?

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 07:50 PM
Smoking ban was not repealed. 63.46% to keep it to 36.54% to repeal it.

On the average there are more non-smokers than smokers. Did the vote surprise you?

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 08:17 PM
can someone explain to me why we still allow the sale of cigarettes? i mean, really. we can ban trans fats...but touch my cigs and you die!

seriously...explain it to me like i'm a five year old. why do we allow the sale of a product that causes a whole host of diseases even if you don't get the cancer?

Because of the money.

luv
06-05-2012, 08:19 PM
On the average there are more non-smokers than smokers. Did the vote surprise you?

I'm a non smoker who voted to repeal it. My dad doesn't smoke, and he also voted to repeal it. I just thought it would have been closer.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 08:32 PM
I'm a non smoker who voted to repeal it. My dad doesn't smoke, and he also voted to repeal it. I just thought it would have been closer.

I lived in a house for a long time inhaling second hand smoke, if I wanted to eat I had to be in the house. If I have guests that want to smoke they are politely told to leave the house, if it's raining they get to sit in their car not in my garage. I don't believe it's OK for someone to force their habits on me, no matter where I am.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 08:37 PM
I lived in a house for a long time inhaling second hand smoke, if I wanted to eat I had to be in the house. If I have guests that want to smoke they are politely told to leave the house, if it's raining they get to sit in their car not in my garage. I don't believe it's OK for someone to force their habits on me, no matter where I am.

So now we're in favor of big government?

Interesting.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 08:39 PM
So now we're in favor of big government?

Interesting.

How does big governmetn take a play in this? Just because those that do not smoke are free from smelling that crap? The lawsuits that got the laws passed regarding smoking in public places were stared by individuals that contracted cancer, etc., and sued in court and won. the precident was not because Joe Biden wanted to control what you do. (he does want to control you, but he doesn't want you to realize it.)

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 08:42 PM
How does big governmetn take a play in this? Just because those that do not smoke are free from smelling that crap? The lawsuits that got the laws passed regarding smoking in public places were stared by individuals that contracted cancer, etc., and sued in court and won. the precident was not because Joe Biden wanted to control what you do. (he does want to control you, but he doesn't want you to realize it.)

So business owners can't decide for themselves? So a person can't chose which restaurant to frequent? Lawsuits didn't get the laws passed, elections did.

AustinChief
06-05-2012, 08:46 PM
I lived in a house for a long time inhaling second hand smoke, if I wanted to eat I had to be in the house. If I have guests that want to smoke they are politely told to leave the house, if it's raining they get to sit in their car not in my garage. I don't believe it's OK for someone to force their habits on me, no matter where I am.

I agree.. so quit telling a private property owner how to run his business. He doesn't come in to your house and tell you what rules you can have.. what gives you the RIGHT to tell him?

Brock
06-05-2012, 08:50 PM
T0m Cash - Another fake bible thumper posing as a conservative.

healthpellets
06-05-2012, 08:53 PM
Because of the money.

damn it. so simple. :clap:

chiefzilla1501
06-05-2012, 09:00 PM
On the average there are more non-smokers than smokers. Did the vote surprise you?

Doesn't that then suggest that the right for a few to exercise their rights comes at the expense of those who don't agree with that right? Corporations have every right to pollute the hell out of water near their plant. Does that mean we should let them?

Brock
06-05-2012, 09:06 PM
Doesn't that then suggest that the right for a few to exercise their rights comes at the expense of those who don't agree with that right? Corporations have every right to pollute the hell out of water near their plant. Does that mean we should let them?

Because smoke in a bar is the same as tuolene in the public water supply.

luv
06-05-2012, 09:14 PM
"A 'yes' vote to repeal the ban would mean smoking would be allowed in private clubs, bowling alleys, and pool halls, as well as in bars or restaurants where at least 50 percent of the sales come from alcohol."

A yes vote wouldn't even lift the ban in all restaurants. Only those whose sales were at least 50% alcohol. To me, that would include bars and clubs, and not restaurants. It's weird to not have smoke in a bar, bowling alley, or pool hall.

Iz Zat Chew
06-05-2012, 09:19 PM
"A 'yes' vote to repeal the ban would mean smoking would be allowed in private clubs, bowling alleys, and pool halls, as well as in bars or restaurants where at least 50 percent of the sales come from alcohol."

A yes vote wouldn't even lift the ban in all restaurants. Only those whose sales were at least 50% alcohol. To me, that would include bars and clubs, and not restaurants. It's weird to not have smoke in a bar, bowling alley, or pool hall.

It might be wierd but it is nice.

AustinChief
06-05-2012, 09:33 PM
It might be wierd but it is nice.

It's also a gross violation of the principles of private property.. something that USED to be important in this country. Instead private property rights are ceded to the government. Yipee.

Brainiac
06-05-2012, 09:49 PM
I agree.. so quit telling a private property owner how to run his business. He doesn't come in to your house and tell you what rules you can have.. what gives you the RIGHT to tell him?
Um, nobody is going into anybody's house and telling them that they can't smoke.

AustinChief
06-05-2012, 09:53 PM
Um, nobody is going into anybody's house and telling them that they can't smoke.

Seriously? You couldn't follow my argument? Please go back and read what I wrote. Or are you of the mind that all private property used for business should just be collectivized and run by the State? private property is private property, if I own a bar, I should get to set the smoking rules just like in my own home.

TrebMaxx
06-05-2012, 09:55 PM
Um, nobody is going into anybody's house and telling them that they can't smoke.

Not yet.

TrebMaxx
06-05-2012, 09:57 PM
Seriously? You couldn't follow my argument? Please go back and read what I wrote. Or are you of the mind that all private property used for business should just be collectivized and run by the State? private property is private property, if I own a bar, I should get to set the smoking rules just like in my own home.

You have hit the nail on the head. Let the owners of their own private business determine whether to allow smoking or not to. What will be next? The size of the sodas?

Brainiac
06-05-2012, 09:59 PM
Seriously? You couldn't follow my argument? Please go back and read what I wrote. Or are you of the mind that all private property used for business should just be collectivized and run by the State? private property is private property, if I own a bar, I should get to set the smoking rules just like in my own home.
I call bullshit on that.

There are all kinds of rules that bars and restaurants have to follow that don't have to be followed in private residences: liquor laws, health laws, labor laws, tax laws, ... etc. Regulating smoking in these types of public places is certainly not unprecedented and is hardly the end of the world that you're trying to make it out to be.

luv
06-05-2012, 10:32 PM
It's also a gross violation of the principles of private property.. something that USED to be important in this country. Instead private property rights are ceded to the government. Yipee.

On a hot topic for a news station on facebook, several of the comments are that it's not the government, but the people, who have made the decision. They don't see it as government intrusion at all.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 03:53 AM
How many of the people replying to this thread are smokers?

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 04:46 AM
Good on Springfield

Huh. I never knew you were a liberal.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 04:52 AM
All of these conservatives feel ENTITLED to go wherever they want under their own conditions.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 05:00 AM
All of these conservatives feel ENTITLED to go wherever they want under their own conditions.

I would like to see the data you've collected to validate that statement.

I'm pretty sure there is not a huge differential between republicans and democrats in the smoking arena.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 05:36 AM
I would like to see the data you've collected to validate that statement.

I'm pretty sure there is not a huge differential between republicans and democrats in the smoking arena.

Way to miss the point. I EXPECT it from Democrats. Choosing convenience of aroma (all in the name of health of course. Gasp! But think of the kids!) over personal liberties (property owner, not smokers) is pathetic for any true Republican. Entitlements win again. But at least it's not welfare mommas this time.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 05:52 AM
Because smoke in a bar is the same as tuolene in the public water supply.

It is an inconvenience to many to protect the rights of a few.

I'll give a better example. If you buy a house, does that give you license to play your music at full volume with the windows open at 3 am?

Where did we get this idea that property owners shouldn't have some useful restrictions?

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 06:03 AM
It is an inconvenience to many to protect the rights of a few.

I'll give a better example. If you buy a house, does that give you license to play your music at full volume with the windows open at 3 am?

Where did we get this idea that property owners shouldn't have some useful restrictions?

Right. We just conveniently forget about them serving alcohol which people consume and then directly go out and kill people. Let's focus on the stuff people bring with them that may or may not kill you decades later. What a joke. Just say it for what it is. Smoke stinks and you don't want to smell it. The manipulation attempts in the name of health are weak sauce at best.

healthpellets
06-06-2012, 06:07 AM
How many of the people replying to this thread are smokers?

former smoker.

InChiefsHell
06-06-2012, 06:17 AM
How many of the people replying to this thread are smokers?

Former smoker. And I hate the ban. I like going into a bar and coming out not smelling like an ashtray. But that's no reason to make it a fucking law. Try outlawing gay bars because you think it's not a good influence on the community. Watch the reaction. You'd be run out on a rail and rightly so. It's a legal activity. If it's so fucking bad, then it should be illegal. There is no way a conservative can look at this and say it's the American way.

And the second hand smoke argument is bullshit. There's no way to quantify its effects. It's just another control argument.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 06:21 AM
Former smoker. And I hate the ban. I like going into a bar and coming out not smelling like an ashtray. But that's no reason to make it a ****ing law. Try outlawing gay bars because you think it's not a good influence on the community. Watch the reaction. You'd be run out on a rail and rightly so. It's a legal activity. If it's so ****ing bad, then it should be illegal. There is no way a conservative can look at this and say it's the American way.

And the second hand smoke argument is bullshit. There's no way to quantify its effects. It's just another control argument.

Second hand smoke is BS? My wife gets physically sick when she is exposed to smoke for more than a few minutes. Rare case? Maybe but when you could smoke anywhere our activities were limited.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 06:29 AM
Right. We just conveniently forget about them serving alcohol which people consume and then directly go out and kill people. Let's focus on the stuff people bring with them that may or may not kill you decades later. What a joke. Just say it for what it is. Smoke stinks and you don't want to smell it. The manipulation attempts in the name of health are weak sauce at best.

No, first, the argument revolves around a defensive premise that secondhand smoke doesn't affect health. I think the argument is weak because i think it takes a tremendous leap in faith to believe that many people smoking en masse doesn't pollute the air in a confined space. But I understand limited data on that point. Fine. But even if you follow that argument, there are people who feel nauseous over it, even if psychological. There are plenty of people who would never walk into that establishment if they had their kids around because they at least think it's bad for you to be surrounded by smoke. In other words, you have to restrict access to people who should have free choice to eat or drink wherever they want. And for restaurants to comply, they have to set up cost prohibitive smoking and non smoking sections. Back in the day, restaurants would lose customers because someone wanted non smoking and it wasn't available. And vice versa.

I don't care about the drinking thing for several reasons. 1) many establishments make money off of drinking. It seems pretty clear that establishments are making more money by being non smoking. They don't sell cigarettes in most bars. 2) we aren't banning cigarettes when you go to an establishment. We are asking to walk out the door and smoke outside. The smokers I know tell me they don't mind it and actually enjoy chit chatting with other fellow smokers. 3) drinking is not generally a nuisance in most establishments. It only becomes a nuisance when a drinker doesn't hold personal responsibility. You'll probably find a lot more incidences of a smoker driving a customer out of a restaurant than a drinker creating a nuisance in that restaurant. Granted, bars and pubs are different, but those places are marketed in such a way that people walk in knowing what to expect.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 06:32 AM
Former smoker. And I hate the ban. I like going into a bar and coming out not smelling like an ashtray. But that's no reason to make it a fucking law. Try outlawing gay bars because you think it's not a good influence on the community. Watch the reaction. You'd be run out on a rail and rightly so. It's a legal activity. If it's so fucking bad, then it should be illegal. There is no way a conservative can look at this and say it's the American way.

And the second hand smoke argument is bullshit. There's no way to quantify its effects. It's just another control argument.

Amen.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 06:36 AM
No, first, the argument revolves around a defensive premise that secondhand smoke doesn't affect health. I think the argument is weak because i think it takes a tremendous leap in faith to believe that many people smoking en masse doesn't pollute the air in a confined space. But I understand limited data on that point. Fine. But even if you follow that argument, there are people who feel nauseous over it, even if psychological. There are plenty of people who would never walk into that establishment if they had their kids around because they at least think it's bad for you to be surrounded by smoke. In other words, you have to restrict access to people who should have free choice to eat or drink wherever they want. And for restaurants to comply, they have to set up cost prohibitive smoking and non smoking sections. Back in the day, restaurants would lose customers because someone wanted non smoking and it wasn't available. And vice versa.

I don't care about the drinking thing for several reasons. 1) many establishments make money off of drinking. It seems pretty clear that establishments are making more money by being non smoking. They don't sell cigarettes in most bars. 2) we aren't banning cigarettes when you go to an establishment. We are asking to walk out the door and smoke outside. The smokers I know tell me they don't mind it and actually enjoy chit chatting with other fellow smokers. 3) drinking is not generally a nuisance in most establishments. It only becomes a nuisance when a drinker doesn't hold personal responsibility. You'll probably find a lot more incidences of a smoker driving a customer out of a restaurant than a drinker creating a nuisance in that restaurant. Granted, bars and pubs are different, but those places are marketed in such a way that people walk in knowing what to expect.

So after all this, you're saying it should be up to consumers to decide what's best for individual business owners. You're ENTITLED to enter their premises, on YOUR conditions. Fine. Let's abolish the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

And thank you for dropping the obnoxious, pretentious, argument of health care. It just doesn't fly

InChiefsHell
06-06-2012, 06:47 AM
Second hand smoke is BS? My wife gets physically sick when she is exposed to smoke for more than a few minutes. Rare case? Maybe but when you could smoke anywhere our activities were limited.

Yes, it is a rare case. Sorry that your wife is so affected, that sucks. Back in the 50's nobody gave a shit about 2nd hand smoke. I imagine if people became physically ill, they just dealt with it or didn't go out much.

Work to make the activity illegal then, or start a smoke free by choice campaign to lobby bars to go smoke free of their own fruition. Seriously, having it done by a law (even if voted on by the people) is not how its supposed to work in America.

Before the Ban here in Omaha, there was a bar on 78th and Dodge that opened up and advertised itself as smoke free and family friendly. I liked that idea. They didn't last long, but I don't know that it was because of their smoking policy.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 06:54 AM
So after all this, you're saying it should be up to consumers to decide what's best for individual business owners. You're ENTITLED to enter their premises, on YOUR conditions. Fine. Let's abolish the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

And thank you for dropping the obnoxious, pretentious, argument of health care. It just doesn't fly

When the majority of consumers believe a regulation is smart (60+% supported the ban), then yes. This went through the right process. They tried a regulation. If people hate it, they have a right to turn it down. And in the end, we are finding that both businesses and consumers benefit. I am not a fan at all of over regulation, but I think it's ridiculous to say regulations don't have their place as long as they benefit both the business and consumer, or unless there is clear statistical evidence that shows that something is negatively affecting health or safety or business profitability. In this case, it's the former. It feels like the latter too, regardless of limited evidence.

We aren't even talking about a smoking ban. People are allowed to smoke outside.

Garcia Bronco
06-06-2012, 08:49 AM
So after all this, you're saying it should be up to consumers to decide what's best for individual business owners. You're ENTITLED to enter their premises, on YOUR conditions. Fine. Let's abolish the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

And thank you for dropping the obnoxious, pretentious, argument of health care. It just doesn't fly

You can't refuse service for any reason in most states. For example, You can't refuse service because of race in Colorado. You can't refuse service because of gender or gender "assignment" in New Mexico.

Bob Dole
06-06-2012, 09:00 AM
To be honest, I don't see most business owners opening up to smoking even if it is repealed, besides bars.

Smoking tears up ceilings, walls, carpet, as well as other equipment.

Who the fuck puts carpet in a bar?

Fish
06-06-2012, 09:11 AM
Second hand smoke is BS? My wife gets physically sick when she is exposed to smoke for more than a few minutes. Rare case? Maybe but when you could smoke anywhere our activities were limited.

Yeah... normally people who claim things like that are completely full of shit. If a person can be affected to that degree from second hand smoke, they wouldn't be able to handle other normal aerial irritants without wearing a mask at all times. Usually those kinds of people are selfishly lying about a non existent medical issue to influence the behavior of others.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 09:22 AM
Yeah... normally people who claim things like that are completely full of shit. If a person can be affected to that degree from second hand smoke, they wouldn't be able to handle other normal aerial irritants without wearing a mask at all times. Usually those kinds of people are selfishly lying about a non existent medical issue to influence the behavior of others.

No one has ever been allergic to smoke.

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 09:26 AM
For my part, I don't see what the issue is if smokers have to go outside. You have to go into the bathroom to take a leak, so why is it unreasonable to make people go to another location to perform this action? If I ran a bar it would be outside-only too for the smoking crowd.

It shouldn't be a question of law, however. No one forces someone to work in a place where smoking occurs. Nobody forces you to eat at that restaurant.

Fish
06-06-2012, 09:41 AM
No one has ever been allergic to smoke.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but that is actually a true statement.

Second hand smoke cannot be an allergen. Second hand smoke is nothing but carbon, there are no histamines present. And one cannot really be allergic to carbon in our carbon based world.

All allergens (the particles that trigger allergic reactions) contain some sort of proteins produced by either by plants, fungi, animals or insects. It is the protein in allergens that trigger an allergic reaction – and truth be told, there is no protein in cigarette smoke. The combustion (burning) of the tobacco leaves, paper and additives in a cigarette destroys the chances of cigarette smoke being considered an allergen. All of the particles put off by a cigarette are carbon (not that inhaling carbon is good for you either).

Since second-hand smoke isn’t a true allergen, it does not create the same immune response (i.e. allergy attack) that a grain of pollen would. Or course there is no denying that smoke can aggravate and irritate underlying allergies, but it really cannot be considered the cause of them. Your mast cells (the cells that cry “wolf” whenever a particular allergen come in contact with them), only keep tabs on the protein signatures of potentially dangerous body invaders, like germs and by accident, allergens. This means that there is no histamine (the chemical your body makes to battle allergens) to cause your runny nose, sneezing, and increased mucous production.

http://www.airqualitytips.com/144/the-truth-about-secondhand-smoke-allergies/

qabbaan
06-06-2012, 09:49 AM
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but that is actually a true statement.

Second hand smoke cannot be an allergen. Second hand smoke is nothing but carbon, there are no histamines present. And one cannot really be allergic to carbon in our carbon based world.


Yep. That is what I mean. It does not contain allergens. It does not produce an immune response as per an allergy. No one is allergic to smoke.

Saulbadguy
06-06-2012, 01:43 PM
Yeah... normally people who claim things like that are completely full of shit. If a person can be affected to that degree from second hand smoke, they wouldn't be able to handle other normal aerial irritants without wearing a mask at all times. Usually those kinds of people are selfishly lying about a non existent medical issue to influence the behavior of others.

It's psychosomatic, but it can be true.

Inspector
06-06-2012, 02:59 PM
I prefer the owner of the property have the final say what happens in their property. I also do not think it is right for anyone to be forced to go inside of the property if they choose not to.

I am not a smoker.

J Diddy
06-06-2012, 04:08 PM
Who the **** puts carpet in a bar?

Although I'm sure there is a bar somewhere with carpet in it, I wasn't speaking about bars. I was speaking as to why an owner of a business wouldn't allow it again.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 06:06 PM
I think this is like the Rooney rule. Was hugely instrumental in getting restaurants to realize they're more profitable by barring it. That would have never happened without government intervention. Now, I think it may have out served its purpose. Even if you gave restaurants the right to allow smokers, I bet most wouldn't go back to it.

Brainiac
06-06-2012, 06:38 PM
Yeah... normally people who claim things like that are completely full of shit. If a person can be affected to that degree from second hand smoke, they wouldn't be able to handle other normal aerial irritants without wearing a mask at all times. Usually those kinds of people are selfishly lying about a non existent medical issue to influence the behavior of others.

You obviously don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. My ex-wife and my daughter both have asthma, and secondhand smoke causes them to cough, wheeze, and gasp for air. Oh wait, they must be selfishly lying when they do that because they want laws passed to ban smoking.

Don't be a dumbass.

Brainiac
06-06-2012, 06:44 PM
I'm curious: Has any smoking ban EVER been repealed? I did a little Google searching on this topic. I found several pro-smoker web sites declaring how wonderful it is whenever the enactment of a smoking ban is postponed or whenever an amendment is proposed to weaken an existing smoking ban, but I haven't found any examples of a smoking ban that has actually been repealed.

Face it smokers, the majority has spoken. We don't want your disgusting, noxious, and unhealthy secondhand smoke in our lungs.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 06:53 PM
I'm curious: Has any smoking ban EVER been repealed? I did a little Google searching on this topic. I found several pro-smoker web sites declaring how wonderful it is whenever the enactment of a smoking ban is postponed or whenever an amendment is proposed to weaken an existing smoking ban, but I haven't found any examples of a smoking ban that has actually been repealed.

Face it smokers, the majority has spoken. We don't want your disgusting, noxious, and unhealthy secondhand smoke in our lungs.

Helena, MT
Galveston, TX
Norfolk, VA
Putnam County, WV
Campbell County, KY

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 06:55 PM
You obviously don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. My ex-wife and my daughter both have asthma, and secondhand smoke causes them to cough, wheeze, and gasp for air. Oh wait, they must be selfishly lying when they do that because they want laws passed to ban smoking.

Don't be a dumbass.

He's basing his opinion on facts and medical data.. where you are basing yours on hyperbole, personal prejudice and hysteria. Who is being the dumbass?

luv
06-06-2012, 07:02 PM
When the majority of consumers believe a regulation is smart (60+% supported the ban), then yes. This went through the right process. They tried a regulation. If people hate it, they have a right to turn it down. And in the end, we are finding that both businesses and consumers benefit. I am not a fan at all of over regulation, but I think it's ridiculous to say regulations don't have their place as long as they benefit both the business and consumer, or unless there is clear statistical evidence that shows that something is negatively affecting health or safety or business profitability. In this case, it's the former. It feels like the latter too, regardless of limited evidence.

We aren't even talking about a smoking ban. People are allowed to smoke outside.

Which is much more obnoxious then having them smoke inside in a designated area. Every person entering or exiting the restaurant has to walk righ through about five people smoking outside the front door.

luv
06-06-2012, 07:05 PM
It is an inconvenience to many to protect the rights of a few.

I'll give a better example. If you buy a house, does that give you license to play your music at full volume with the windows open at 3 am?

Where did we get this idea that property owners shouldn't have some useful restrictions?

Completely different. The sound coming from the premises is considered trespass. Typically, smoke inside a building does not drift over to other properties. In your scenario, the neighbor has no choice but to be exposed to the music...without entering onto the premises. With smoking, you must choose to go inside to be affected. Point is, you have a choice.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 07:06 PM
Which is much more obnoxious then having them smoke inside in a designated area. Every person entering or exiting the restaurant has to walk righ through about five people smoking outside the front door.

Not necessarily. Many smokers I know will intentially smoke away from the front doors of a resturant. There are some assholes, but there are assholes in every walk of life.

luv
06-06-2012, 07:06 PM
Small bars and bowling alleys outside of Springfield are rejoicing though.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 07:08 PM
Which is much more obnoxious then having them smoke inside in a designated area. Every person entering or exiting the restaurant has to walk righ through about five people smoking outside the front door.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I can't remember many times where I've run into that situation. When I do, I'm exposed to it for 2-3 seconds tops. Honestly, for as many times as I go to bars, I don't even know where people smoke anymore because I don't even notice it's happening. Especially when it's outside vs. being in a confined space.

luv
06-06-2012, 07:09 PM
Not necessarily. Many smokers I know will intentially smoke away from the front doors of a resturant. There are some assholes, but there are assholes in every walk of life.

And people who smoke inside aren't necessarily assholes either. You can't stand someone smoking from the opposite side of the freaking restaurant, through partitions, then go someplace else. There are plenty of places who don't get 50% of their profits from alcohol (in other words, don't have a bar).

luv
06-06-2012, 07:10 PM
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I can't remember many times where I've run into that situation. When I do, I'm exposed to it for 2-3 seconds tops. Honestly, for as many times as I go to bars, I don't even know where people smoke anymore because I don't even notice it's happening. Especially when it's outside vs. being in a confined space.

I never noticed someone lighting up a cigarette inside of a restaurant at the bar. I ALWAYS noticed it upon entering or exiting the restaurant after the ban was put into place.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 07:14 PM
And people who smoke inside aren't necessarily assholes either. You can't stand someone smoking from the opposite side of the freaking restaurant, through partitions, then go someplace else. There are plenty of places who don't get 50% of their profits from alcohol (in other words, don't have a bar).

I'm one of those people that respect the choices of others, they choose to allow smoking inside the resturant then I choose to go elsewhere.

luv
06-06-2012, 07:15 PM
I'm one of those people that respect the choices of others, they choose to allow smoking inside the resturant then I choose to go elsewhere.

Only now, one of you has no choice.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 07:29 PM
I never noticed someone lighting up a cigarette inside of a restaurant at the bar. I ALWAYS noticed it upon entering or exiting the restaurant after the ban was put into place.

You'd have to know people who are bothered by it. I've always been immune to it. I have people in my family that get headaches or feel nauseous when they smell it. In bars, you ALWAYS notice it. I remember wearing a shirt for an hour at happy hour and having to wash it because it reeked of cigarette smoke. I came from a small town. In a small town, you don't have much of a choice about bars and restaurants. If you wanted a non-smoking bar or restaurant, you were limited to a few options.

The thing is, for people who are bothered by smoke, it is an absolute inconvenience for them to be around a smoker. Their entire night is ruined. For a smoker, they're inconvenienced for maybe 5 minutes. And frankly, a lot of my friends don't find it to be an inconvenience. It's as natural to them as going to the restroom or walking to the bar to get a beer.

It seems silly to argue about a rule the majority of people aren't upset about, especially given that in the reverse instance there are a lot of people who hate it. Again, maybe it's like the Rooney Rule and it's outserved its purpose. But when the majority of the people turn down the repeal, that's a democratic majority of people voicing that they're fine with the rule. Frankly, I'm sure a good chunk of those who voted for the repeal really didn't care too deeply if the repeal didn't go through.

luv
06-06-2012, 07:36 PM
You'd have to know people who are bothered by it. I've always been immune to it. I have people in my family that get headaches or feel nauseous when they smell it. In bars, you ALWAYS notice it. I remember wearing a shirt for an hour at happy hour and having to wash it because it reeked of cigarette smoke. I came from a small town. In a small town, you don't have much of a choice about bars and restaurants. If you wanted a non-smoking bar or restaurant, you were limited to a few options.

The thing is, for people who are bothered by smoke, it is an absolute inconvenience for them to be around a smoker. Their entire night is ruined. For a smoker, they're inconvenienced for maybe 5 minutes. And frankly, a lot of my friends don't find it to be an inconvenience. It's as natural to them as going to the restroom or walking to the bar to get a beer.

It seems silly to argue about a rule the majority of people aren't upset about, especially given that in the reverse instance there are a lot of people who hate it. Again, maybe it's like the Rooney Rule and it's outserved its purpose. But when the majority of the people turn down the repeal, that's a democratic majority of people voicing that they're fine with the rule. Frankly, I'm sure a good chunk of those who voted for the repeal really didn't care too deeply if the repeal didn't go through.
17.8% of registered voters actually got out and voted (of which I am one). It saddens me to see that so many people don't exercise such a simple right. I also have a feeling that those who are complaining that loudest are not among us who actually voted.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 07:40 PM
You'd have to know people who are bothered by it. I've always been immune to it. I have people in my family that get headaches or feel nauseous when they smell it. In bars, you ALWAYS notice it. I remember wearing a shirt for an hour at happy hour and having to wash it because it reeked of cigarette smoke. I came from a small town. In a small town, you don't have much of a choice about bars and restaurants. If you wanted a non-smoking bar or restaurant, you were limited to a few options.

The thing is, for people who are bothered by smoke, it is an absolute inconvenience for them to be around a smoker. Their entire night is ruined. For a smoker, they're inconvenienced for maybe 5 minutes. And frankly, a lot of my friends don't find it to be an inconvenience. It's as natural to them as going to the restroom or walking to the bar to get a beer.

It seems silly to argue about a rule the majority of people aren't upset about, especially given that in the reverse instance there are a lot of people who hate it. Again, maybe it's like the Rooney Rule and it's outserved its purpose. But when the majority of the people turn down the repeal, that's a democratic majority of people voicing that they're fine with the rule. Frankly, I'm sure a good chunk of those who voted for the repeal really didn't care too deeply if the repeal didn't go through.

I am 100% behind your convenience argument. I smoke and I PREFER to smoke outside. (much easier to strike a conversation with a random girl) IF I owned a bar, I'd build a nice outdoor smoking patio and ban smoking inside... because I OWNED the bar and it would be my right to decide. The fact is, it's not about me and it's not about you. It's about the property owner. I don't think that mob rule should override private property rights without VERY compelling reasons.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 07:45 PM
I think until tobacco is deemed illegal anyone that owns a business should have the right of allowing it to be smoked in his establishment.

Not a fan of social engineering.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 07:59 PM
I am 100% behind your convenience argument. I smoke and I PREFER to smoke outside. (much easier to strike a conversation with a random girl) IF I owned a bar, I'd build a nice outdoor smoking patio and ban smoking inside... because I OWNED the bar and it would be my right to decide. The fact is, it's not about me and it's not about you. It's about the property owner. I don't think that mob rule should override private property rights without VERY compelling reasons.

I think there are reasons for this ban. It just so happens that the data isn't perfect. We know smoking is bad for you. Not up for debate. There are plenty of studies by the CDC that at least claim differences in air quality and "respired suspended particles." Is the data perfect? No. Is there enough data to think there could be truth in it? Yeah.

More importantly, I am a big fan of a bottom-up political process. I like that there was one city that tested out, and others noticed that people didn't get too upset about it once it was enacted. Since then, it slowly trickled everywhere until it's become pretty much a national phenomenon.

So what you see here is a regulation against a "potential" health hazard that is not being seen as an inconvenience to most people. "Potentially" it is improving overall health.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 08:02 PM
I think until tobacco is deemed illegal anyone that owns a business should have the right of allowing it to be smoked in his establishment.

Not a fan of social engineering.

The Rooney Rule was social engineering, and it helped to rapidly escalate promotions to african-american coaches. In contrast, the NCAA had no such rule, and their rate of minority hires is shockingly horrendous. Has the rule outserved its purpose? Yes. Was it worth it to have an intervention to rapidly accelerate the number of hires? Absolutely yes.

I see the smoking rule as the same way. I don't have a problem with them reversing the rule because I think businesses now see that it's in their best interest to really restrict smoking areas. But I think this is one of those cases where an intervention ended up being surprisingly in the best interest of all parties affected.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 08:04 PM
Only now, one of you has no choice.

You know, I think you are wrong on more than one front. First, Springfield, MO. is not the whole world, not even the whole state of MO. Second, everyone has a choice. Second, if your choice is to smoke you get to play by the rules that are currently out there.

luv
06-06-2012, 08:07 PM
You know, I think you are wrong on more than one front. First, Springfield, MO. is not the whole world, not even the whole state of MO. Second, everyone has a choice. Second, if your choice is to smoke you get to play by the rules that are currently out there.

I don't smoke.

luv
06-06-2012, 08:08 PM
I'd be interested to see what kind of difference it would have made had this issue been on a ballot along with others items of importance that would have drawn more voters out. It was literally the only issue on the ballot.

mlyonsd
06-06-2012, 08:13 PM
The Rooney Rule was social engineering, and it helped to rapidly escalate promotions to african-american coaches. In contrast, the NCAA had no such rule, and their rate of minority hires is shockingly horrendous. Has the rule outserved its purpose? Yes. Was it worth it to have an intervention to rapidly accelerate the number of hires? Absolutely yes.

I see the smoking rule as the same way. I don't have a problem with them reversing the rule because I think businesses now see that it's in their best interest to really restrict smoking areas. But I think this is one of those cases where an intervention ended up being surprisingly in the best interest of all parties affected.Tobacco is a legal substance. Every business owner should be able to allow that substance in their establishment. Period IMO.

stevieray
06-06-2012, 08:17 PM
zilla1501..eleventy billion posts defending putting your career over raping a child, eleventy billion posts convicting GZ before trial...and now eleventy billion posts whining about (coughcough) cigarette smoke?

LMAO

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 08:23 PM
Tobacco is a legal substance. Every business owner should be able to allow that substance in their establishment. Period IMO.

Pollutants are caused by legal substances too. That doesn't mean it doesn't create a mass public harm if a business or factory decides to dump a bunch of it in the air or water. That doesn't give them license to dump toxic waste wherever they want to. They own their property. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want with it?

Again, I get that people are uncertain about the data, but there is some of it out there and it's like that data has been invalidated yet. If there's that shred of belief and you can solve it in a way that is believed to be that inconvenient, then I don't see the harm. Especially if the process starts at a local level, then trickles into the state level based on success.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 08:33 PM
Again, I get that people are uncertain about the data, but there is some of it out there and it's like that data has been invalidated yet. If there's that shred of belief and you can solve it in a way that is believed to be that inconvenient, then I don't see the harm. Especially if the process starts at a local level, then trickles into the state level based on success.

You do realize that is ass backwards, right?

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 08:36 PM
You do realize that is ass backwards, right?

Where has the data been conclusively invalidated? There is enough negative research out there to create reason to believe, and enough positive research to give reason to doubt.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 08:52 PM
zilla1501..eleventy billion posts defending putting your career over raping a child, eleventy billion posts convicting GZ before trial...and now eleventy billion posts whining about (coughcough) cigarette smoke?

LMAO

Sorry to thread swerve. But I'm not going to allow that kind of ridiculous spin. I think everybody at Penn State who did nothing is a monster, including Paterno. Never wavered from that. I'm not going to scapegoat McQueary as everyone else has given that he allegedly did stop the incident and he reported it to several authorities who did nothing. He was a whistleblower stuck in a system of crooked, powerful authorities. I stand by that. By the way, this case hasn't gone to trial, so about convicting people before trial...

I also have eleventy billion posts saying both were idiots and that this was going to be an uphill battle for Trayvon to win, but that I think there's enough to take an educated guess that GZ was overzealous. I stand by that.

I think the debate on this thread has been good and civilized. I'd like to get back to that without pointing fingers at individual posters.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 08:54 PM
Where has the data been conclusively invalidated? There is enough negative research out there to create reason to believe, and enough positive research to give reason to doubt.

Science doesn't work that way. I can't conclusively prove that you aren't a transgendered unicorn... so do I still go on the assumption that you are? I think you are, therefore you must prove to me that you aren't, right?

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 09:10 PM
Science doesn't work that way. I can't conclusively prove that you aren't a transgendered unicorn... so do I still go on the assumption that you are? I think you are, therefore you must prove to me that you aren't, right?


Fair enough, but most people don't work off of perfect data. Sometimes you have to work off hypotheses. I think it's a fair hypothesis that there is "potential" for secondhand smoke to be a health hazard, especially when inhaled en masse. Maybe large potential.

I would feel different if this was dumped on the federal or state level first. Or if it meant people didn't have ability to smoke on a night out. I like that it was tested on a local level and found to be a win-win for businesses and consumers, where both sides benefited from it. I'm not a big fan of over-regulation, but believe in moderation they have their place, and this happens to be one that benefits most people and businesses, at low inconvenience to anyone, and with potential to maybe protect of those who are exposed to the unhealthy behavior of others.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 09:14 PM
I don't smoke.

You still didn't get it. I give up.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 09:15 PM
Fair enough, but most people don't work off of perfect data. Sometimes you have to work off hypotheses. I think it's a fair hypothesis that there is "potential" for secondhand smoke to be a health hazard, especially when inhaled en masse. Maybe large potential.

I would feel different if this was dumped on the federal or state level first. Or if it meant people didn't have ability to smoke on a night out. I like that it was tested on a local level and found to be a win-win for businesses and consumers, where both sides benefited from it. I'm not a big fan of over-regulation, but believe in moderation they have their place, and this happens to be one that benefits most people and businesses, at low inconvenience to anyone, and with potential to maybe protect of those who are exposed to the unhealthy behavior of others.

As I have said many times.. it doesn't bother me as a consumer. It bother's me from the property rights angle. In reality, what bothers me the most are the lying shitheads who try to skew science and claim an unproven health hazard simply because they don't like smoke. You have shown yourself to be on the opposite end of that spectrum and have a reasonable view on things. I don't agree with you but I certainly can see your point and it isn't devoid of merit.

Oh and to be clear, I don't claim that it is healthy.. I only claim that there is definitely not proof of significant health risks. There well may be some day... but that data doesn't exist now.

luv
06-06-2012, 09:17 PM
You still didn't get it. I give up.

Well, I don't get what your point is by saying I'm wrong since Springfield is not the world or state. Maybe explain that to me. I can choose to move?

Second, I'm not talking about the smokers here. I'm talking about business owners.

luv
06-06-2012, 09:21 PM
As I have said many times.. it doesn't bother me as a consumer. It bother's me from the property rights angle. In reality, what bothers me the most are the lying shitheads who try to skew science and claim an unproven health hazard simply because they don't like smoke. You have shown yourself to be on the opposite end of that spectrum and have a reasonable view on things. I don't agree with you but I certainly can see your point and it isn't devoid of merit.

That's what I'm trying to say. In my eyes, it's hardly even about smoking (especially since smoking is legal). It more about putting laws into place that put more restrictions on business/property owners. Are you going to tell a clothing store they can't sell plaid pants because they're not in style? Sorry, you can't sell broom skirts because there should be no hippies. I mean, what's next?

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 09:23 PM
Well, I don't get what your point is by saying I'm wrong since Springfield is not the world or state. Maybe explain that to me. I can choose to move?

Second, I'm not talking about the smokers here. I'm talking about business owners.

luv, we were talking about people making choices and living with the consequences of those choices. You responded that you don't smoke, that was never in question.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-06-2012, 09:27 PM
I mean, what's next?

First it's going to be food consumption by the obese due to the "heavy financial strains" they put on the health care system, and at some point we'll morph into child rearing and parenting followed up by breeding restrictions.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 09:32 PM
First it's going to be food consumption by the obese due to the "heavy financial strains" they put on the health care system, and at some point we'll morph into child rearing and parenting followed up by breeding restrictions.

It is a brave new world.

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 09:55 PM
That's what I'm trying to say. In my eyes, it's hardly even about smoking (especially since smoking is legal). It more about putting laws into place that put more restrictions on business/property owners. Are you going to tell a clothing store they can't sell plaid pants because they're not in style? Sorry, you can't sell broom skirts because there should be no hippies. I mean, what's next?

There are a lot of regulations on business that are a great thing. I agree that they need to be held in moderation. It's ridiculous for a business to get yelled at because their flowers don't perfectly match or because a plant is extending 2 inches past their territory. I also despise stupid regulations that require small businesses to hire expensive lawyers to comply.

But again, this is a regulation that benefits businesses. So even if we talk about violating rights, they are better off after than they were before, and that realization wouldn't have happened if Beverly Hills didn't test it out in a controversial smoking ban years ago.

dirk digler
06-06-2012, 09:57 PM
As I have said many times.. it doesn't bother me as a consumer. It bother's me from the property rights angle. In reality, what bothers me the most are the lying shitheads who try to skew science and claim an unproven health hazard simply because they don't like smoke. You have shown yourself to be on the opposite end of that spectrum and have a reasonable view on things. I don't agree with you but I certainly can see your point and it isn't devoid of merit.

Oh and to be clear, I don't claim that it is healthy.. I only claim that there is definitely not proof of significant health risks. There well may be some day... but that data doesn't exist now.

What do you think of the studies Phillip Morris has done that showed second-hand smoke was 2-6 more toxic than mainstream?

chiefzilla1501
06-06-2012, 10:01 PM
First it's going to be food consumption by the obese due to the "heavy financial strains" they put on the health care system, and at some point we'll morph into child rearing and parenting followed up by breeding restrictions.

I will really disagree with you here, because there is a massive amount of statistical evidence of obesity's cost on the health care system. That's going to require a massive shake-up in responsibility exercised by both consumers and businesses.

To say we should do nothing is like saying we shouldn't quarantine a person with an infectious, deadly disease because we are violating their basic freedom. I largely support fiscal conservatism, but we have to realize that has to be about both cutting costs as well as controlling them.

luv
06-06-2012, 10:06 PM
But again, this is a regulation that benefits businesses. So even if we talk about violating rights, they are better off after than they were before, and that realization wouldn't have happened if Beverly Hills didn't test it out in a controversial smoking ban years ago.

How is this benefiting business owners? Several in this area have already closed, and it looks like a few more will too. Explain how great this is to them.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 10:30 PM
What do you think of the studies Phillip Morris has done that showed second-hand smoke was 2-6 more toxic than mainstream?

Also disproved.. those were about sidestream smoke and the problem is that the "more toxic" argument didn't account for ppm or a myriad of other factors. I'd have to go back and dig up the actual data if you want to debate it.. but other than propagandists, I have never heard a serious researcher try to use those as evidence.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 10:33 PM
How is this benefiting business owners? Several in this area have already closed, and it looks like a few more will too. Explain how great this is to them.

I think he is going off the fact that no statistical evidence shows a long term financial harm to the bar/restaurant sector. Of course some businesses will be hurt, others will do better. It ends up being a wash in almost every case. It only "benfits" owners if you look at extra costs dealing with overall air quality. Otherwise, like I said, it's a wash.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-06-2012, 10:34 PM
Can't be posted enough


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GHIT2or-F9o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

dirk digler
06-06-2012, 10:53 PM
Also disproved.. those were about sidestream smoke and the problem is that the "more toxic" argument didn't account for ppm or a myriad of other factors. I'd have to go back and dig up the actual data if you want to debate it.. but other than propagandists, I have never heard a serious researcher try to use those as evidence.

So their own study that they hid for years was dis-proven? I find that hard to believe.

Especially on their own web site they admit it is bad.

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/Secondhand_Smoke/default.aspx

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 10:58 PM
So their own study that they hid for years was dis-proven? I find that hard to believe.

Especially on their own web site they admit it is bad.

As I said in the other thread. You want to debate the science, show me DATA. So far, no one except DanT has come close to doing that... and even he admitted that the vast majority of studies show nothing close to proof. As a matter of fact he only produced ONE study that showed a statistically significant impact(on only one of 6 categories of possible risk) and it was just barely.

InChiefsHell
06-07-2012, 06:01 AM
So their own study that they hid for years was dis-proven? I find that hard to believe.

Especially on their own web site they admit it is bad.

Here's the whole thing:

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.

Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes around them.

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

Reads like something the gubment put a gun to their head to write on their website. Seriously, they would probably get fined if they didn't. And if you read closely, you'll realize that they are not themselves admitting that it's bad, only that the conclusions are sufficient to warrant regulation. The public should be "guided by the conclusions" not follow them to the letter. In other words, it might be, it might not be, but since it's the gubment, we have to say this shit.

Saulbadguy
06-07-2012, 06:30 AM
That's what I'm trying to say. In my eyes, it's hardly even about smoking (especially since smoking is legal). It more about putting laws into place that put more restrictions on business/property owners. Are you going to tell a clothing store they can't sell plaid pants because they're not in style? Sorry, you can't sell broom skirts because there should be no hippies. I mean, what's next?

Wow, what a terrible post.

Brainiac
06-07-2012, 07:05 AM
As I said in the other thread. You want to debate the science, show me DATA. So far, no one except DanT has come close to doing that... and even he admitted that the vast majority of studies show nothing close to proof. As a matter of fact he only produced ONE study that showed a statistically significant impact(on only one of 6 categories of possible risk) and it was just barely.
I'm not going to debate the science with you. I'm done with that. If you truly believe that cigarette smoking is NOT harmful, there's not a hell of a lot left to say, except this. You can choose to assume the risks of smoking. That's fine. You know the risks, you know the benefits you derive from smoking, you make your choice, and you take your chances. Nobody has even suggested denying you that right.

However, you don't have the right to make that choice for me or for my family. You don't have the right to assume those risks for other people. It's as simple as that.

The majority of voters agree with me on this, and that is proven pretty conclusively every time another city implements a smoking ban. You can remain in denial all you want, and you can smoke 10 packs of cigarettes every day if you want. Nobody's stopping you. You just can't do it around me. It's a common saying that your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins, and that is the perfect analogy regarding smokers' rights.

You keep talking with smug superiority about the rules of science, and how it's the responsibility of the people who claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous to prove their case beyond any doubt that you can conjure up. Fortunately, that is not the standard that is required to implement public policy to protect people from health hazards. The best available evidence indicates that secondhand smoke is harmful. An overwhelming majority of people find it convincing. It doesn't matter that it doesn't meet the burden of proof that you insist upon. It's good enough to convince reasonable people. It's not good enough to convince unreasonable people who are addicted to the product and have a strong desire not to be convinced. But that's OK, because reasonable people are in the majority.

I realize that there is absolutely nothing I can say that I will ever convince you on this issue, and that's fine. I don't need to convince you. I just need people like you to be prevented from making the choice for me and my family to assume those risks.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-07-2012, 07:09 AM
I will really disagree with you here, because there is a massive amount of statistical evidence of obesity's cost on the health care system. That's going to require a massive shake-up in responsibility exercised by both consumers and businesses.

To say we should do nothing is like saying we shouldn't quarantine a person with an infectious, deadly disease because we are violating their basic freedom. I largely support fiscal conservatism, but we have to realize that has to be about both cutting costs as well as controlling them.

LMAO. All. Over. A. Dollar. Bill. Fuck your liberties.

healthpellets
06-07-2012, 07:20 AM
Only now, one of you has no choice.

well boo-fu*cking-hoo.

what gives anyone else the "right" to go somewhere and expose others to dangerous carcinogenic chemicals?

how bout those poor waitresses?

"oh, well go get a different fucking job."

no, screw that. how bout just being able to work in an environment that won't kill you. too much to ask?

Mr. Flopnuts
06-07-2012, 07:55 AM
well boo-fu*cking-hoo.

what gives anyone else the "right" to go somewhere and expose others to dangerous carcinogenic chemicals?

how bout those poor waitresses?

"oh, well go get a different fucking job."

no, screw that. how bout just being able to work in an environment that won't kill you. too much to ask?

Thank you for not driving a car.

InChiefsHell
06-07-2012, 07:57 AM
well boo-fu*cking-hoo.

what gives anyone else the "right" to go somewhere and expose others to dangerous carcinogenic chemicals?

how bout those poor waitresses?

"oh, well go get a different fu*king job."

no, screw that. how bout just being able to work in an environment that won't kill you. too much to ask?

Better not let anyone work in any job that may be hazardous for your health, like a coal mine or a construction job. The risks are there. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of the wait staff.

This is just ridiculous. It's a legal activity. Make it illegal or stfu when someone chooses to allow a legal activity to take place in their establishment.

I will say this though, at least it's a small local issue. If the Feds were in on it, I'd blow a damn gasket.

Saulbadguy
06-07-2012, 08:23 AM
Better not let anyone work in any job that may be hazardous for your health, like a coal mine or a construction job. The risks are there. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of the wait staff.

This is just ridiculous. It's a legal activity. Make it illegal or stfu when someone chooses to allow a legal activity to take place in their establishment.

I will say this though, at least it's a small local issue. If the Feds were in on it, I'd blow a damn gasket.

FALLACY IN BOLD

J Diddy
06-07-2012, 08:28 AM
FALLACY IN BOLD

Coal mining and construction aren't hazardous jobs?

Seems like I remember coal mines collapsing and I have a friend whose father fell off a ladder and hit his head. He was dead within minutes. They have their risks. However, there is nothing without risk.

Saulbadguy
06-07-2012, 08:36 AM
Coal mining and construction aren't hazardous jobs?

Seems like I remember coal mines collapsing and I have a friend whose father fell off a ladder and hit his head. He was dead within minutes. They have their risks. However, there is nothing without risk.

Yikes. Are you that stupid?

J Diddy
06-07-2012, 08:57 AM
Yikes. Are you that stupid?

Apparently you didn't get my gist, which was that there is risk in everything. But by all means carry on.

:rolleyes:

Fish
06-07-2012, 08:58 AM
You obviously don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. My ex-wife and my daughter both have asthma, and secondhand smoke causes them to cough, wheeze, and gasp for air. Oh wait, they must be selfishly lying when they do that because they want laws passed to ban smoking.

Don't be a dumbass.

No clue what I'm talking about huh? You sound like someone who has heard lots of complaining. I don't blame you for defending them. But smoke is still not an allergen. It's a convenient excuse. And unless you care to show otherwise, your just ignorantly calling names...

Saulbadguy
06-07-2012, 09:03 AM
Apparently you didn't get my gist, which was that there is risk in everything. But by all means carry on.

:rolleyes:

I'm calling you stupid because you don't know what a fallacy is, apparently.

JonesCrusher
06-07-2012, 09:13 AM
Better not let anyone work in any job that may be hazardous for your health, like a coal mine or a construction job. The risks are there. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of the wait staff.

This is just ridiculous. It's a legal activity. Make it illegal or stfu when someone chooses to allow a legal activity to take place in their establishment.

I will say this though, at least it's a small local issue. If the Feds were in on it, I'd blow a damn gasket.

How about the cab drivers or toll workers. They spend all day sucking on everyone's tailpipe.

healthpellets
06-07-2012, 09:40 AM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.

Brainiac
06-07-2012, 09:43 AM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.
Rep

vailpass
06-07-2012, 10:11 AM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.

At your funeral while they are reading the eulogy about a good life ended too soon due to a stress heart attack I'll enjoy a Marlboro Light in your honor.

Fish
06-07-2012, 10:14 AM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.

LMAO....

"Your personal decisions should embarrass you! Heathens! You should be ashamed! Jump off a cliff!"

LMAO....

Listen to yourself you judgmental douche...

Do you tell the fat man nomming on a cheeseburger to jump off a cliff, or hide in his home? Do you see someone drinking a soda, and tell them they're stupid and weak? Do you stop the kid riding his bike without a helmet and judge him a moronic fool?

How about you worry about you and yours and quit trying to make personal decisions for others. It affects you as much as someone farting while standing next to you on the sidewalk.

chiefzilla1501
06-07-2012, 10:51 AM
LMAO....

"Your personal decisions should embarrass you! Heathens! You should be ashamed! Jump off a cliff!"

LMAO....

Listen to yourself you judgmental douche...

Do you tell the fat man nomming on a cheeseburger to jump off a cliff, or hide in his home? Do you see someone drinking a soda, and tell them they're stupid and weak? Do you stop the kid riding his bike without a helmet and judge him a moronic fool?

How about you worry about you and yours and quit trying to make personal decisions for others. It affects you as much as someone farting while standing next to you on the sidewalk.

personal decusions are affecting others. bloomberg projects that obesity will drive up to 66 billion in increqses in health care costs. additional.

smoking is different because users pay a tax. to me, that balances out the cost they are addinv to the system.

FishingRod
06-07-2012, 10:58 AM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.



I think it is a reaction to Nanny-State, smarmy jackasses, that due to the ridicule suffered in high school from bringing their sushi in a Shawn Cassidy lunch box, get their jollies from supporting needless legislation that inconveniences others. But that is just a guess.

chiefzilla1501
06-07-2012, 11:03 AM
LMAO. All. Over. A. Dollar. Bill. **** your liberties.

obesity is costing america 190 billion a year in health care costs. 50 million are insured.

obviouely an imperfect calculation, but obesity is adding almost $4000 in cost to the system per insured. higher health care costs means higher premiums, and its crippling pivate health care firms. so yeah, im sorry if healthier eaters would like for obese people to put down the cheeseburger, but insurance works in such a way that responsible people pay when others act recklessly.

healthpellets
06-07-2012, 11:30 AM
At your funeral while they are reading the eulogy about a good life ended too soon due to a stress heart attack I'll enjoy a Marlboro Light in your honor.

if it were a Red, i'd be impressed.

healthpellets
06-07-2012, 11:31 AM
LMAO....

"Your personal decisions should embarrass you! Heathens! You should be ashamed! Jump off a cliff!"

LMAO....

Listen to yourself you judgmental douche...

Do you tell the fat man nomming on a cheeseburger to jump off a cliff, or hide in his home? Do you see someone drinking a soda, and tell them they're stupid and weak? Do you stop the kid riding his bike without a helmet and judge him a moronic fool?

How about you worry about you and yours and quit trying to make personal decisions for others. It affects you as much as someone farting while standing next to you on the sidewalk.

you must have mistaken this for the obesity thread. i can see how you made that mistake.

vailpass
06-07-2012, 11:46 AM
if it were a Red, i'd be impressed.

Those things set my ears to ringing.

Brainiac
06-07-2012, 11:59 AM
Do you tell the fat man nomming on a cheeseburger to jump off a cliff, or hide in his home? Do you see someone drinking a soda, and tell them they're stupid and weak? Do you stop the kid riding his bike without a helmet and judge him a moronic fool?

How about you worry about you and yours and quit trying to make personal decisions for others. It affects you as much as someone farting while standing next to you on the sidewalk.
The difference is that all of the personal decisions you mentioned won't give me or my family lung cancer or heart disease, and they won't trigger an asthma attack. This is where I disagree with Chiefzilla. He apparently views the effect that those people will have on his insurance rates as being as important as the effect that secondhand smoke has on the lungs and hearts of nonsmokers. I don't agree with banning personal decisions just because they affect insurance rates. I do agree with banning personal decisions that cause harm to innocent bystanders.

Fish
06-07-2012, 12:30 PM
The difference is that all of the personal decisions you mentioned won't give me or my family lung cancer or heart disease, and they won't trigger an asthma attack. This is where I disagree with Chiefzilla. He apparently views the effect that those people will have on his insurance rates as being as important as the effect that secondhand smoke has on the lungs and hearts of nonsmokers. I don't agree with banning personal decisions just because they affect insurance rates. I do agree with banning personal decisions that cause harm to innocent bystanders.

Really? Riding in a vehicle, on roads with other drivers, exposes people to a great deal of carbon monoxide, along with nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur oxides, and hydrocarbons, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. And diesel exhaust releases a great deal more of these chemicals than second hand smoke. You're also exposed to these same chemicals by burning wood in a wood stove or your gas furnace. And to a degree, cooking steaks on your backyard grill. You come in contact with many more aerial irritants in daily life, than you do specifically from second hand smoke.

Yet second hand smoke gets all the hate, while the haters hop in their gas guzzling SUV and drive their hypocritical asses around town. Ohh those poor innocent bystanders. Whoa is them.... Let's make more laws.

FishingRod
06-07-2012, 02:10 PM
The difference is that all of the personal decisions you mentioned won't give me or my family lung cancer or heart disease, and they won't trigger an asthma attack. This is where I disagree with Chiefzilla. He apparently views the effect that those people will have on his insurance rates as being as important as the effect that secondhand smoke has on the lungs and hearts of nonsmokers. I don't agree with banning personal decisions just because they affect insurance rates. I do agree with banning personal decisions that cause harm to innocent bystanders.

Really long but what the hell


By Terry Simpson, M.D., F.A.C.S. | Your Doctor’s Orders



Terry Simpson MD
The 1964 Surgeon General Report, which declared that the inhalation of cigarettes would likely cause lung cancer and heart disease, had a profound impact in the United States. This report started America thinking that the practice of inhaling cigarette smoke was unhealthy and began a long series of studies, lawsuits, and laws, that changed the face of America from a primary smoking society—where over 60 percent of adults in the U.S. smoked—to a number that is now about 30 percent.

On June 27, 2006, long after the first Report and yet likely based on its long-lasting impact, Surgeon General Richard Carmona issued the following statements regarding second hand smoke:

(a) The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.
(b) Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals, and is itself a known human carcinogen.
(c) There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 40 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.

The Surgeon General also stated that 49,000 deaths per year were caused by second hand smoke. As a surgeon, I was stunned, because I had never seen an autopsy report listing second hand smoke as the cause of death. Nor had I seen this as a secondary cause of death. So I asked six pathologists if they had ever listed second hand smoke as a cause of death – not one had. In my years of clinical practice, I have seen patients die from many devastating diseases, and yet I have never seen anyone who has been disabled by, or has died as a result of, second hand smoke. This was my first clue that perhaps there was more hyperbole than science involved in the reports issuing from the Surgeon General’s Office. To give a contrast: 33,000 people die per year of pancreatic cancer – all of the pathologists have listed pancreatic cancer as a cause of death.

Composition of Smoke
Second hand smoke, also called Environmental Tobacco Smoke, is a combination of Mainstream Smoke, which is exhaled by smokers and Sidestream Smoke, which is released directly from the burning tip of cigarettes or cigars. Sidestream smoke is the primary constituent of environmental tobacco smoke, providing most of the vapor phase and over half the particles. Hence, at events such as “The Big Smoke”, the majority of particulate matter comes from sidestream smoke. Exhaled mainstream smoke contributes between 15 and 43 percent of the particulate matter in environmental tobacco smoke. Sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and a higher alkalinity than mainstream smoke, and as a result has a different chemical composition.

During environmental tobacco smoke formation, both sidestream smoke and exhaled mainstream smoke are diluted by many orders of magnitude and subsequently undergo physical transformation and alterations in chemical composition. For example, nicotine and many other semi-volatile compounds of tobacco smoke tend to be present in the particle phase of inhaled mainstream smoke, but evaporate into the vapor phase as exhaled mainstream smoke is rapidly diluted during the formation of environmental tobacco smoke.

Second Hand Smoke and Lung Cancer
If second hand smoke exposure is a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, then we should expect to see increased numbers of cancer cases in non-smokers who are exposed to regular doses of second hand smoke. Has there been an increase in the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers over the last 40 years? The answer is quite simply… No.

Data from national mortality studies show that rates of lung cancer among non-smoking women remained stable between the 1950’s to the 1980’s (very few women smoked during those years) and didn’t rise until substantial numbers of women started smoking in more recent years. These non-smoking women were included in numerous studies as control groups for examining lung cancer rates in their smoking spouses. As anti-smoking logic would dictate, the longer one is exposed to second hand smoke the more we should see a rise in lung cancer. However, when we examine the data from the studies noted above, we do not see such a rise in cancer rates for these non-smoking women.

In 1992, second hand smoke was labeled a Class A carcinogen: one that causes lung cancer and is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans annually (U.S. EPA, 1993). However, there were no autopsies, no bodies, nor one person that could be claimed as a victim. The EPA did not base their classification on their own independent study but examined over thirty epidemiological studies (i.e., studies that attempt to correlate various risk factors with early death in different populations). Eleven of those studies were done in the United States, and of those eight found a positive risk, three found a negative risk but none of them were statistically significant (that is, none of the U.S. studies could make the statement that there was a causal relationship between second hand smoke and cancer).

In medical research, a statistical confidence level of 95% means that there is only a five percent chance that a significant finding could be due to chance (i.e., a random result). In their interpretation of the epidemiological studies, the EPA made a critical procedural statistical alteration. They changed the confidence level to 90%. This statistical manipulation made it more likely that their findings would show significant negative health effects of second hand smoke, but also made more likely the potential for erroneous conclusions. Furthermore, the EPA did not take into consideration the factors independently associated with both the development of lung cancer and exposure to second hand smoke, factors that certainly could account for the purported relationship between second hand smoke and early death. Finally, they did not attempt to assure that the subjects were properly identified into the correct experimental group. The EPA left several important questions unanswered such as: Were the exposed cases truly ill with primary lung cancer? Had the subjects been smokers previously? Were they truly exposed to second hand smoke? And, did the subjects accurately report their exposure levels?

The EPA also classified second hand smoke as a carcinogen based on chemical “similarities” between inhaled mainstream smoke and environmental tobacco smoke. Their logic was that since inhaled tobacco smoke is a carcinogen, environmental tobacco smoke must also be. Inhaled mainstream smoke, however, contains chemicals at concentrations of up to one million times those found in environmental tobacco smoke (which is a combination of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke). Further, deep inhalation affects the degree of exposure to those chemicals, as well as the deposition of those chemicals into the respiratory passages of the smoker. One of the frustrating issues is we do not know the chemical, or chemical compounds responsible for the link to lung cancer and/or heart disease. This leads to another difficult issue – the length of exposure to the chemical might not yield a linear relationship to the formation of cancer (also known as the exposure-risk relationship). Single dose exposure likely does not yield 100 percent incidence of carcinoma. For example, low exposures of materials in drinking water does not yield disease, but higher and longer exposures of materials – such as arsenic, certainly produce disease. Much as a single aspirin may produce the effect of headache relief, a large dose of aspirin will be toxic. What was not evident in many of these studies was a dose-response curve to second hand (passive) smoking and disease.

At the behest of Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Ca), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) spent two years examining reports and came up with the following conclusions regarding second hand smoke and lung cancer (Redhead and Rowberg, 1995):

(a) The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.
(b) It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to second hand smoke.
(c) If there are any lung cancer deaths from second hand smoke, they are likely to be concentrated among those subjected to the highest exposure levels (e.g., spouses).
(d) The absolute risk, even to those with the greatest exposure levels, is uncertain.

The CRS found that, what was considered an “obvious” conclusion by the EPA was, in fact, flawed. The EPA reasoned that if the smoke inhaled by a smoker was close enough in composition to that which is exhaled, then if one was carcinogenic the other must also be carcinogenic. This assumption is chemically incorrect and was rejected.

The CRS examination of the various studies concluded that someone exposed to significant second hand smoke—a spouse for example—might increase their risk of dying from lung cancer to 2/10 of one percent, while those who are exposed on the job would have less risk: 7/100 of one percent.

The most devastating opinion about the EPA’s decision to classify second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen, came from Federal Judge William Osteen who interviewed scientists for four years and in 1998 opined,

The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information… [The EPA] deviated from its risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasons; and left significant questions without answers… Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings, were subordinate to EPA’s [goal of] demonstrating [that] ETS was a Group A carcinogen… In this case, the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; 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…and to influence public opinion… While doing so, [the EPA] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s researched evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. (Osteen, 1998)

Because the EPA report was “advisory” and not “regulatory,” Judge Osteen’s indictment was reversed. However, it is important to note that the decision was reversed on a technical distinction, not the merits of the EPA’s report.

In another large-scale study, and in contradistinction to the EPA conclusions, the World Health Organization International Agency on Cancer published a report concluding that there was no statistically significant risk of lung cancer in non-smokers who lived or worked with smokers (Boffetta, et al, 1998). This study was the product of ten years of data gathered from seven European countries.

Health Risks of Second Hand Smoke
In a study spanning 16 U.S. cities, the U.S. Department of Energy researchers placed monitors on nonsmoking bartenders and waiters who worked in smoke-filled bars and restaurants to measure the amount of environmental tobacco. The conclusion was that the monitors detected minuscule amounts of tobacco products. (Jenkins, et al, 1999) The harm that might come from such minuscule amounts of exposure was calculated as “none” to “improbable harm”. The anti-tobacco forces have condemned this study because it was partly funded by the R.J. Reynolds Company. Later, a group of individuals visited the establishments and concluded that since they saw few individuals smoking, the study was flawed. In spite of this study being done by Oak Ridge National Laboratories, it was painted with a broad brush because of the funding from the tobacco industry.

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is considered by many authorities to be an important component of indoor air pollution in part because it is often viewed as being equivalent to mainstream cigarette smoke (MS). It has been clearly demonstrated that ETS is not the same as MS. Side stream cigarette smoke (SS) is a major contributor to ETS. Side-stream smoke is generated under different conditions than MS, and as a result, has a different relative chemical composition. Exhaled MS, the second primary contributor to ETS, is a different material from that which leaves the cigarette butt and enters the lungs. Exhaled MS has been substantially depleted in vapor-phase constituents, and the particulate matter is likely to have increased its water content in the high-humidity environment of the respiratory tract. As the cigarette smoke, both SS and exhaled MS, enters the atmosphere, it is diluted by many orders of magnitude and subsequently undergoes both physical transformation and alterations in its chemical composition. Upon standing, or during air exchange from other sources, ETS continues to change… (Guerin, et al, 2000)

The science and chemistry of this field of research are complex, and if the conclusions reached do not meet with current public policy, the research scientist is often stereotyped as being “pro-tobacco”. Because these studies are expensive, and because tobacco companies often supply the grant funds to purchase the supplies, anti-tobacco advocates will often say this is equivalent to bribing the researchers. They sometimes fail to mention, however, the anti-tobacco-funded individuals who personally receive thousands of dollars to vent anti-tobacco research and lend their name to the anti-tobacco movement. One of those individuals, Stanton Glantz, a Ph.D. whose field of expertise is aerospace engineering, attempted to convince the EPA to accept that there were over 50,000 deaths a year, from cardiac events, attributed to second hand smoke. The Congressional Research office examined the statistics related to second hand smoke and cardiac events and determined that those numbers were implausible (Gravelle and Redhead, 1994)

FishingRod
06-07-2012, 02:10 PM
And yet, the anti-smoking advocates continue to march their cause…
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) withdrew a 12-year-old petition that smoking be banned from all indoor workplaces. The withdrawal was based on a lack of evidence. The decision was taken to court in an attempt to force OSHA to reverse its decision. OSHA stated that it would regulate based on permissible levels of the various ingredients in environmental tobacco smoke, and the lawsuit was withdrawn on the grounds that OSHA would do nothing. (Henshaw, 2001)

It’s no wonder OSHA decided to withdraw its complaint, since even its own people couldn’t agree on a position. In 1997, Acting Assistant Secretary of OSHA, Greg Watchman aired his own view:

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded. (Letter from Greg Watchman, 1997)

As with arsenic content in drinking water, for example, setting scientific numbers to permissible levels would compel the scientific community to make real statements as to levels that are acceptable. Given that science had already answered the question with a number of chemicals in tobacco, such a regulation would be a blow to all anti-smoking advocates and their contention that there is no “safe” level of second hand smoke.

With no scientific evidence to back his statement, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proclaimed that bartenders inhale the equivalent of half a pack of cigarettes a day. In fact, a study from the U.K. showed that the average London bartender inhaled the equivalent of six cigarettes annually (about one quarter of a pack). (Matthews and MacDonald, 1998)

Perhaps one of the better studies was published in the British Medical Journal by epidemiologist James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat (2003). Their study of 35,000 Californians showed that lifelong exposure to a husband or wife’s smoke produced no increased risk of coronary heart disease or lung cancer among the non-smoking spouses. As with most who oppose the anti-tobacco lobby, Enstrom was forced to defend his study on the basis that it had received funding from a tobacco company. The study was condemned as biased, even though it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the statistics were not flawed, and the conclusions were sound.

When the cigar lounge at Seattle’s El Gaucho restaurant was closed because smoking in public places in the state of Washington became illegal, one of the reasons cited was to “protect the workers”. The premise of this law has no evidence. Suffice it to say, there is far more evidence to ban the sale of alcohol in bars and restaurants than cigar smoking. Every day in every major city there are deaths from people who have consumed alcohol and driven. Alcohol is directly responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year and an estimated 2.3 million years of lost life. Alcohol prohibition didn’t work. So why attempt to prohibit tobacco?

The press frequently overlooks inconsistent data when reporting about environmental tobacco smoke. The most recent example was when a group of radiologists noted that one-third of patients who had never smoked, but were exposed to “high levels” of second hand smoke, showed MRI changes in their lungs similar to the changes seen in smokers. What failed to make the mainstream news was that two-thirds of the patients who were listed as non-smokers, but exposed to “high levels” of second hand smoke, paradoxically, had lower diffusion through the lungs than the “low exposure” group. That is, they showed the opposite of changes seen with heavy smokers. Again, what made the news in most circles was that this was more proof about the negative effects of environmental tobacco smoke. What did not make the news was that the paradoxical report might prove the opposite of their conclusion. (Science Daily, 2007)

The Surgeon General was incorrect. Second hand smoke may be an irritant and an annoyance, but it’s not a cause of death. There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious—the science isn’t there. As much as they want to ban all smoking in all places, the health risk is grossly overstated. Whenever someone dies of lung cancer, such as Diane Reeves, the late wife of Christopher Reeves, the anti-smoking lobby uses the news as a media circus. They want to relate the unfortunate death to something… even if such a relationship has no basis in solid scientific research.

In 1633, the Catholic church condemned Galileo for asserting that the Earth revolves around the sun. Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid being burned at the stake. This was a clear conflict between faith and science.

References

Boffetta, P., Agudo, A., Ahrens, W., et al. (1998). “Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. 90, No. 19:1440–50.
LINK
Download PDF

Enstrom, J. E. and Kabat, G. C. (2003, May 17) “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.” British Medical Journal, 326(7398): 1057.
LINK
Download PDF

Gravelle, J. G., and Redhead, C. S. (1994, March 23). Congressional Research Office Memorandum “Discussion of Source of Claims of 50,000 Deaths from Passive Smoking.” “in response to request for information on the possible source of an estimated premature 50,000 deaths from passive smoking effects.”
LINK

Guerin, M. R., Jenkins, R. A., Tomkins, B. A. (2000). “The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement.” (Second Ed.) CRC Press.
LINK

Henshaw, J. L. (2001). “Withdrawal of Proposal.” U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Notice, Indoor Air Quality – Federal Register #66:64946.
LINK

Jenkins, R. A., Palausky, A., Counts, R. W., Bayne, C. K., Dindal, A. B., and Guerin, M. R. (1999). “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Sixteen Cities in the United States as Determined by Personal Breathing Zone Air Sampling.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. Oct-Dec;6(4):473-502.
LINK

Letter from Greg Watchman, Acting Ass’t Sec’y, OSHA, to Leroy J Pletten, PhD, July 8, 1997.

Matthews, R., and MacDonald, V. (1998). “Passive Smokers Inhale Six Cigarettes a Year.” UK News Electronic Telegraph, Issue 1178.
LINK

Osteen, W. L., United States District Judge (1998). “Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.” United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Winston-Salem Division, 6:93CV00370, 89-90.
LINK
Download PDF

Redhead, C. S. and Rowberg, R. E. (1995, November 14) CRS Report for Congress. “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk.”
LINK
Download PDF

Science Daily. (November 27, 2007). “Second hand smoke damages lung, MRIs show.”
LINK

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993) “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. ” National Institutes of Health. Monograph 4, NIH Publication No. 93-3605, August 1993.

luv
06-07-2012, 02:15 PM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.
I'm not defending smokers. I'm defending the rights of business owners.

J Diddy
06-07-2012, 02:22 PM
I'm calling you stupid because you don't know what a fallacy is, apparently.

Fallacy defined: a deceptive, misleading or false notion

How is what he said a fallacy? That coal mines are not safe? Or that construction is not safe?

Both of those questions are truths. By claiming they were a fallacy, you were stating they were not.

I get what you were saying, but there is more than one definition for the word.

FishingRod
06-07-2012, 02:26 PM
The short winded point to all of it is, if we are really enacting legislation to look out for the public health, we would be far better off banning Alcohol being served in bars than worrying about 2nd hand smoke. Not smoking in public places is not some horrible assault on my personal freedoms, we run into worse nanny-state crap every day it is just that the reasons for it are not supported by fact or science but more honestly it just an example of Schadenfreude

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 03:28 PM
I'm not defending
smokers. I'm defending the rights of business owners.Pretty much the same thing at this point, remember you voted to repeal - in defense of the smokers?

Saulbadguy
06-08-2012, 08:37 AM
Fallacy defined: a deceptive, misleading or false notion

How is what he said a fallacy? That coal mines are not safe? Or that construction is not safe?

Both of those questions are truths. By claiming they were a fallacy, you were stating they were not.

I get what you were saying, but there is more than one definition for the word.
wow.

"Better not let anyone work in any job that may be hazardous for your health, like a coal mine or a construction job."

He was implying that since we banned smoking in restaurants to protect the public (and workers), we should ban coal mining and construction jobs.

stevieray
06-08-2012, 08:47 AM
why are people so damn passionate defending smokers/smoking? are you f*cking stupid? or do you still live in the 1950s and refuse to believe the science behind the dangers?

smokers should be embarrassed, and should be hiding in their homes behind locked doors so that the rest of the world doesn't recognize them for being the stupid, weak individuals that they are.

people should hide their smoking lest they be judged a moronic fool for continuing to behave in a way that is incompatible with sustained life function.

yet we demand smokers "rights" so they can flaunt their idiocy in public places.

brilliant.

if you care so little about your life that you continue to smoke, save the rest of us billions of dollars and just jump off a cliff today.

cut! do it one more time, but this time with some emotion!

LMAO

J Diddy
06-08-2012, 11:44 AM
wow.

"Better not let anyone work in any job that may be hazardous for your health, like a coal mine or a construction job."

He was implying that since we banned smoking in restaurants to protect the public (and workers), we should ban coal mining and construction jobs.

View Post
"Better not let anyone work in any job that may be hazardous for your health, like a coal mine or a construction job. The risks are there. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of the wait staff."

You forgot the last 2 sentences. They state that the risks are there just as they are there for construction and coal mining. The most important thing he said that backs up what I'm saying is "nobody is holding a gun to the head of the wait staff."

This implies all jobs have risks and nobody is forcing them to work there. The first line is drenched with sarcasm.

InChiefsHell
06-09-2012, 08:22 AM
J Diddy...gets sarcasm. Thank God somebody is paying attention. You said it better than I did I guess.

One last time, you idiots, it's not about smokers rights. It's about the government stepping in and stopping what is otherwise a perfectly legal activity (one which benefits them due to the huge taxes they take from it). This is about the rights of the business. Everyone knows the shit is bad for you. Yet it's still legal...hmmmm...why is that??

You fuckers better think about the implications. If you feel like you need the government to rescue you from the fucking legal activity that they sanction, you are an idiot. You should hide in your house in shame, etc etc.

RNR
06-09-2012, 08:51 AM
cut! do it one more time, but this time with some emotion!

LMAO

LMAO

chiefzilla1501
06-09-2012, 09:39 AM
The difference is that all of the personal decisions you mentioned won't give me or my family lung cancer or heart disease, and they won't trigger an asthma attack. This is where I disagree with Chiefzilla. He apparently views the effect that those people will have on his insurance rates as being as important as the effect that secondhand smoke has on the lungs and hearts of nonsmokers. I don't agree with banning personal decisions just because they affect insurance rates. I do agree with banning personal decisions that cause harm to innocent bystanders.

No, we're on the same page with this. As I've said before, I think smokers do create a societal cost (my health care pays for their decision), but that cost is covered because they have to pay taxes on cigarettes in order to smoke. I am a really big fan of the cigarette tax. But en masse, it creates an interesting scenario. How many employees and casual bar-goers had health damages in the past because of secondhand smoke, and what was the total health cost of that? I imagine pretty high.

If there is reasonable proof that secondhand smoke affects the health of others, then that makes smoking an externality ("a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices[1] and is incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit"). Pollution is a great comparison. Businessowners who own property should have every right to pollute like crazy (air, water, toxic waste disposal, etc...). It's completely stupid that the government tells these business owners what to do, right? Or would people agree that the long-term cost to all people of pollution is worth the inconvenience placed on business owners to be more sensible in how they dispose of waste? There are tons of ways the government tells businesses what to do that are great for us. Health code standards. Safety code standards. Price discrimination. Etc....

What about the rights of patrons? If we're talking about individual rights, shouldn't healthy people who want to eat and want to work in a bar have a right to eat and work wherever they like? Now, I'm not necessarily a firm believer in that, but it's different here because you're able to improve access to more people at a very small if any inconvenience to a small group of people, I don't see the problem.

Now, I find luv's point interesting that there are some businesses that do rely on smoking. I think casinos are another interesting example. This isn't necessarily an easy issue. Like I said, this is an interesting rule in that like the Rooney Rule, it was hugely instrumental in many restaurants realizing they can be more profitable and that consumers as a whole aren't bothered by smoking bans. But like the cigarette tax and liquor license laws, I think the appropriate solution would be to charge a hefty tax or fee to allow smoking in that establishment, or to require a very controlled environment with clear standards for what smoking spaces in an establishment would look like. Even if that requires each of these bar owners to buy a terrific health insurance package for people who work there.