Smoking Ban!!! - Page 6

Halfcan · 11-14-2005, 11:36 PM

Full Smoking ban in Fairway KS.

Does anyone care?

**AustinChief** · 11-15-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

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

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

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

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

angel · 11-15-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

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

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

most colognes
the only one that I've found so far that doesn't bother me is Old Spice

angel · 11-15-2005, 12:01 PM

so, this ban forbids smoking in a privately owned bar even if the owner would like to allow smoking

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

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

Logical · 11-15-2005, 12:10 PM

AustinChief,

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

Frazod · 11-15-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

While you're calling me a "worthless asshole", I wonder if you could take a break and fix your fucking BB.

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

**jAZ** · 11-15-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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

Acutally, you are wrong. It's based upon liability which can be determined by absolute measures of health risk, but not necessarily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

...so we are once again back to waiting for any shred of proof that ETS is a significant health risk

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

**AustinChief** · 11-15-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad Logicslav

AustinChief,

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

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

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

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

--Kyle

**AustinChief** · 11-15-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

Acutally, you are wrong. It's based upon liability which can be determined by absolute measures of health risk, but not necessarily.

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

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

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

**jAZ** · 11-15-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angel

...in your own car, in your own home...

does not equal

Quote:

Originally Posted by angel

...in your own restaurant

The resuraunt is not a "private" entity such as your home. You are licenced to conduct business with the PUBLIC by the state. Without that license, you don't have a legal busienss and cannot conduct such profit-seeking ventures.

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

NewChief · 11-15-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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

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

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/fin...inalreport.htm

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

**jAZ** · 11-15-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

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

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

Well, as you chose to emphasize the word "proof" then I will make sure to point out the very contradiction between the term "shred" and "proof". A Proof is absolute, shred is small and typically used to describe "evidence".

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

Eleazar · 11-15-2005, 12:25 PM

Shred and proof are not a contradiction. A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case. It's like saying if you have a slice of pie the rest of the pie can't exist.

**jAZ** · 11-15-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

Shred and proof are not a contradiction.

Maybe not the best choice of words. Let's just say it's an oxymoron like Jumbo Shrimp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case.

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

**AustinChief** · 11-15-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewChief

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/fin...inalreport.htm

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

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

not exactly the best science...

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

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

--Kyle

**Bob Dole** · 11-15-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochise

Shred and proof are not a contradiction. A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case. It's like saying if you have a slice of pie the rest of the pie can't exist.

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

11-14-2005, 11:36 PM
Halfcan In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $7327995	Smoking Ban!!! Full Smoking ban in Fairway KS. Does anyone care?
Posts: 43,200

11-15-2005, 12:01 PM	#78
angel so cute Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Small Town Kansas Casino cash: $10004900	so, this ban forbids smoking in a privately owned bar even if the owner would like to allow smoking even though I am completely against smoking- this isn't right I like that it is banned in public areas, but in your own car, in your own home, or in your own restaurant- it's your choice what you allow and don't allow
Posts: 1,264

11-15-2005, 12:10 PM	#79
Logical Screw U if U can't take a joke Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $10004900	AustinChief, Sorry but smoke of any kind is a health risk to anyone with asthma and several other breathing disorders. Smoike again of any kind can bring on Asthma attacks, constriction of the lungs etc.
Posts: 31,579

11-15-2005, 12:25 PM	#87
Eleazar Beyond the Rapids Join Date: May 2003 Location: Langley, VA Casino cash: $-370000	Shred and proof are not a contradiction. A shred would be a small part of an overall convincing case. It's like saying if you have a slice of pie the rest of the pie can't exist.
Posts: 80,659