Case against secondhand smoke vanishes into thin air

[Loonman]

Despite the claims of anti-smoking groups that research studies have conclusively proved that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, the city councils of Arlington Heights, Evanston and Wheeling rejected smoking bans. The three Illinois municipalities have created significant restaurant industries that play an important role in their economies, and the council members concluded that the risks of loss of businesses were not worth the health benefits that some claimed would result from a ban on smoking.

more:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref22b.html

[johncoby2]

1. That is stupid

No city has lost revenue due to a smoking ban. In fact business hasnt been better. The "economic loss" argument is baseless.

[tx_dem41]

8. Care to back that statement up? n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. Come to San Francisco...

We've had a smoking ban in restaurants for well over a decade now, and recently enacted a ban in bars.

The restaurant industry in San Francisco is thriving as never before, and the bars don't seem to be hurting, either.

[tx_dem41]

54. One cite, doesn't back that statement up, you realize.

I can cite my town as being the opposite.

[Beaverhausen]

59. Can you back that up with any links?

[Touchdown]

55. SF is also a tourist destination.

It's next to impossible for restaurants and bars in your city to lose much more than a small amount of revenue. The sandy beaches and cool mountain trails of Minneapolis though...;)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

76. San Francisco...

is much more than a tourtist town. Believe it or not, there are regular folks here who like to eat out and go to neighboorhood restaurants and bars nowhere near tourist areas, and those places do just fine with the ban in place. I'd say that easily 80% of the food places in SF have nothing to do with tourism.

[Touchdown]

80. I know. I have sex with them in the bathhouses every time I go.

Then we go out to eat, because that works up an appetite.:evilgrin:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

111. Do we even HAVE any "bathhouses" anymore??

I thought those went out with the 80s, seriously. :) The only one I know of anynore is on Market Street across from Safeway.

[Touchdown]

121. They're not called that anymore.

and they require safe practices, so they're not the same that was shut down in the early 80s. I think they're called "safe sex clubs" or some other crap.

[Warren DeMontague]

243. Yep, those crazy San Francisco folks..

who would want to live there? I mean, besides everybody.

[Touchdown]

274. I would. I love the place.

Couldn't get rid of my car, but I'd rarely use it. I'd even quit smoking to move there...since I'd need the extra money for rent. LOL!

[Warren DeMontague]

289. Actually rents have gone down considerably

since around 2000, at least.

Of course, that's kind of like being the tallest midget in the circus.. It's still pretty expensive. Wonderful town, though.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

107. California...

Smoke-free environments haven't hurt restaurant, bar business

Thursday November 21, 2002 Mercury News San Jose

Restaurants and bars are doing a healthy business despite California's smoke-free workplace law, according to new figures released by state health officials today The report douses initial criticism that the ban would cripple businesses and stifle tourism.

In the middle of a bustling lunch shift at Gordon Biersch restaurant in San Jose, manager Courtney La Voie said the restriction hasn't cut into revenue. ``It hasn't affected business,'' said La Voie. ``People are going to go out to eat despite the fact that they can't smoke.''

The state figures released at a tobacco control conference in San Francisco show that sales taxes from restaurants and bars in the state rose to $35 million in 2000, up from $25 million in 1995, the year restaurants were ordered to become smoke-free zones. California ordered bar owners to outlaw smoking in 1998.

[northzax]

211. um, It's a state ban in California

so say you're in San Francisco and you want to go to a bar, you gonna drive ten hours to Nevada? no, you deal. Now, a town doesn't have that luxury. If someone wants to smoke, they'll drive the ten miles to another town.

[iconoclastNYC]

276. Good point.

That's probably why NY State passed a smoking ban a few weeks after New York City provided some leadership (and political cover) on the issue.

[Scout1071]

254. Come to a city where the temp hardly ever changes and is generally

quite pleasant?

How about you come out to Kansas City in mid January?

I don't mind smoking bans in cities where the weather is pleasant year round - i.e. California - but no way here.

We do have a few places that have glass encased, very well ventilated and separate from the non-smoking.

[iconoclastNYC]

277. Get's pretty cold in New York State, City

Ever been to Buffalo? Smoking ban here in bars and restaurants

[iconoclastNYC]

275. Same thing in NYC.

There was a short term drop off and it recovered. Smokers throwing little childish pissy fits for a while then they realized they can just go outside for thier fix.

[Rick Myers]

23. In Minneapolis, some bar sales are down 68%

due to a smoking ban. Atleast 16 bars have closed for good!

[Beaverhausen]

33. Do you have a link?

You might be interested in this one:

http://www.alamn.org/media/2005/04/minneapolis-smoking-ban-one-year-later.html

[SidDithers]

86. Now that's just rotten...

backing up your claims with actual research. Shame on you. :)

Sid

[progressivebydesign]

137. 87% of alcoholics smoke cigarettes. Just read that today.

Can explain some of the panic and irrational fears of smoking bans in bars. I'm still reeling from that link you posted.l. "30 cigarettes a day"!!!!??? WTF? I guess that's considered normal, but I have to think that there might be some health issues coming up for that fellow.

Here's my link about the actual economic toll on smoking bans, written from a Chamber of Commerce head who was initially skeptical of the ban: http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html

[iconoclastNYC]

278. Smokers are so damn selfish...stupid

From the link....

***
Others, such as 20-year-old Chelsea Welch, still take issue with the ban.
"You can't enjoy a dinner," she said. "You just got to get in and get out. It's just an inconvenience."
***

Having to go dryclean my coat after a night in a smoke-filled bar is inconvent. Chemotherapy is inconvenient too, dumbmass.

[progressivebydesign]

133. Give us PROOF! That is anecdotal. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

135. **crickets chirping**

[in_cog_ni_to]

189. That can't be possible. Non-smokers keep businesses going.

I don't think those bars closed and I certainly can't believe a 68% drop in business. That's just not true. :eyes: Lies! Lies! Lies!:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[gizmo1979]

229. Why can't you have both?

Can't you let the restaurants and bars choose?Wouldn't that be fair?Especially the bars.If you're at a bar Is your health in the front of your mind?Smokers pay alot of taxes,couldn't you just leave us one small bastion of peace?

[converted_democrat]

30. Uh, bars/ restaurants have lost vast amounts of money in our area......

do to the smoking ban. If they are losing money, than so is the city in the form of tax revenue...

[progressivebydesign]

151. Can we see a factual link to that?

http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html

[converted_democrat]

257. My husband owned the largest bar in our county for 7 1/2 years......

My best friend Casey currently owns a bar, and sits as a secretary on a group that most local bar owners belong to. They are all having hard times, many have had to stop serving food all together to beat the law. I know these people, my hubby is still good friends with all of them. One spot called "Amy's" has turned ownership 3 times in the last 8 months, and both Hide-away bars closed a little over a month ago. We know the bar owners, my husband was one of them, they are having really rough time, and it all started after the smoking bans.

See post #237

[Cults4Bush]

47. That is not what nearly every single bar owner in NYS was saying.

Not getting flamey just dont think that your conclusion is grounded in 100% fact.

[converted_democrat]

237. My best friend Casey owns a bar here in town, and they have a county

wide group, that most bar owners in the area belong to. (They pool resources for legal representation reasons.) She is the secretary, and has been for 2 years. (I have mentioned her in the past here on DU, go look up my previous posts, it was three or four months ago. (She helped me throw a fundraiser at her bar for a guy that was having hard times in my neighborhood.) My husband and I are very good friends with most of the bar owners due to the fact that my hubby owned the largest bar in the county for 7 1/2 years. It was a "car bar" called The Pits, like as in "pit stop." He sold it 1 year before we were married. We know the area, and we know the people personally. They are having hard times.

[MadisonProgressive]

120. Madison, WI did it this summer and businesses have been hurt

[Beaverhausen]

124. Prove it

[MadisonProgressive]

216. I'm sure this won't prove anything to you, but WTF.

http://www.channel3000.com/money/4764637/detail.html

http://www.channel3000.com/news/4684577/detail.html

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/12158274.htm

[Beaverhausen]

232. Ok you did provide links

so that's cool.

But these were right after the ban went into effect. Do you know if a few months later it is still as bad or have things evened out?

Here in Los Angeles that happened at first but once everyone got used to the new rules things got better.

[MadisonProgressive]

239. I know several local owners and they tell me things have

gotten a bit better, but they are still down 20-25% of their former business. People told them that there were MANY people that would go to bars if it wasn't for the smoke, but that turned out to be a big exaggeration. It seems that people that never went to bars have become quite adjusted to life without bars, smoke or not.

BTW, I'm not a smoker and I LOVE the smoking ban. I just can't help feeling sorry for some of the bar owners, particularly the ones living on the edges of town - as the smoking ban doesn't apply an inch across the city line. A lot of their regulars are now drinking (and smoking) in the suburbs.

[Beaverhausen]

247. It just seems so funny to me...

that smokers would actually drive farther away just to be able to smoke. EDIT: I mean smoke "inside" when they can just step outside.

I would think that once you find your own favorite neighborhood bar it would take more than just having to step outside to smoke to make you drive farther.

Again, everyone pissed and moaned here for a while but soon they just got used to it.

[opiate69]

249. hmm...

"It just seems so funny to me that smokers would actually drive farther away just to be able to smoke. EDIT: I mean smoke "inside" when they can just step outside."

Spoken like someone who has never had to stand outside in Western Washington (or, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Fargo, etc..) in January.

[Beaverhausen]

252. Not Washington, but I had to in Philadelphia

it gets pretty cold there. I put a coat on. Sometimes gloves and maybe even a scarf.

[cushla_machree]

290. remind me

Spoken like someone who has never had to stand outside in Western Washington (or, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Fargo, etc..) in January.

to cry about that later

[opiate69]

300. Sanctimonous much?

[converted_democrat]

272. You are missing the entire point.......

- I would think that once you find your own favorite neighborhood bar it would take more than just having to step outside to smoke to make you drive farther. -

The whole point is that they have to step outside. A bar owner makes money on each and every drink sold. If a person gets up from the bar for any reason, there is a pause in sale, and a good chance that they will keep walking once they go outside. In a bar that a person can smoke in, the only reason they get up is to go to the bathroom. They stay engaged with the bartenders, and with the other patrons of the bar, and are less likely to leave. Also, that 5 minutes it takes to go outside and smoke is a lull in sales for the bar owner. It does not sound like alot, but if you add up the time it takes to smoke 10 cigs that's 50 mins. of lost sales. Then add on top of that the number of smokers. Say you have 30 smokers, that are smoking 10 cigs a night, 5 mins. per cig. That is 1500 mins. of lost sales in a night for a bar-owner. (and that estimation is on the low side.) On weekends it isn't uncommon to have a 100 smokers or more, which would mean 5,000 mins. of lost sales in a single night.)

Also, we have found that people will drive farther to be able to smoke. Often when you tell someone that they can't smoke, they take it personally, like "they" are not wanted there. They don't care about the legal reasons, all they know is that "they" can't do what they are used to being able to do. They in turn go to where their activity is seen as acceptable, or where they feel they aren't being "punished."

[progressivebydesign]

154. Where's that link?

Here's one about another town: http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html

[in_cog_ni_to]

197. You don't have to prove jack shit. If THEY want the proof

let them find it.

[Beaverhausen]

198. Proof that businesses have not closed has been posted here

if you want to prove otherwise surely there is some proof. Go ahead, find it.

[400Years]

2. good, I hate stupid ass smoking bans

yeah, I know, those who want these bans are victims of those dastardly evil smokers. But hey, you know what, you spew tons more pollution in the air everyday with your car. I don't drive, so I guess I could take the self rightous attitude that you should stop driving. But since I'm not a holier than thou jerkoff, I'll avoid that type of behavior.
Oh, I don't smoke either.

[RandomKoolzip]

5. Lucky you.

You don't work in a restaurant where smoking is allowed, do ya?

[400Years]

15. I bike to work everyday with stinking ass pollution belching cars

but I'm not trying to ban people from driving them.

[Brotherjohn]

In today's world, until other options arise, cars are necessary. Smoking..

... is not.

[400Years]

29. I prefer a little tolerance so as to foster a free society

like a said I don't even smoke

[Brotherjohn]

46. When my children, who are both asthmatic to one degree or other...

... can't go to a public place (like everyone else can) without suffering physical damage, tolerance doesn't enter into it.

Before you say "then just don't go", I would put it to you that a lot of African-American's "just didn't go" to a lot of restaurants in the South a few years ago.

I consider being forced to breath secondhand smoke equivalent to assault. Possible future cancer aside, asthma attacks can kill. Plain and simple.

It's not a question of protecting someone's freedom to engage in smoking. It's a question of protecting someone's right to simply breath. You should be free to do whatever you want to in this country... as long as it doesn't harm others. Smoking harms others.

[400Years]

51. your arguement doesn't stand up to examination

driving pollutes the air and thus hurts others, hence driving should be banned.

[Brotherjohn]

60. Read below (I know you have, as you've responded to it).

In today's world, driving is necessary. Smoking is not. It is you who needs to do more examination, and not simply look at the issue one-dimensionally i.e. smoking =pollution, cars = pollution... "but we don't ban cars!"

Logic does not dictate that because smoking = pollution and cars = pollution, they are therefore identical. They are very different situations.

Myself and those who feel as I do generally encourage modes of transportation, energy use, etc. that pollute less.

As I tell my five-year-old son, who's fascinated by smokestacks, pollution, weather, etc. "Yes, we pollute, because we need energy. But we try to pollute as little as possible."

Transportation and energy generation produce pollution out of necessity (although certainly much more than is necessary and/or optimal). Smoking produces pollution purely for pleasure's sake, and pollution that does not only affect those who are choosing to engage in that pleasure.

[porphyrian]

68. Well then, what about smoking in bars?

No asthmatic children, and everyone that is there accepts the fact that just being there is dangerous, yet they accept that risk. Why is it alright to ban smoking in bars?

[Brotherjohn]

85. I'm not saying we should automatically ban smoking in ALL public places.

Despite my arguments above, I don't go that far.

I'm making the point that it's not as simple as "you can't take away my freedom... to smoke!" There are other freedoms, and harms done, in play here. Government regulation is almost always a balance between various freedoms, costs entailed, etc. Such is the case with smoking bans.

In public places where everyone should arguably be allowed to go (like restaurants, public buildings, events, airplanes, libraries), I think it's clear-cut: smoking should not be allowed. That's still just my opinion, and where I fall on the "balance" scale.

In a bar, it's less clear-cut. But I don't think the "dangerous" argument is why. Do we suspend assault laws in a bar because "everyone that is there accepts the fact that just being there is dangerous"? Do we not have rules of the road for the same reason? No. But the relative risks, costs, limited use of the venue, and freedom of someone to engage in smoking do come more into play.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if a community banned smoking in bars. But I think that should be up to the community.

[porphyrian]

94. I guess I'm wondering why it would ever be necessary.

If a community didn't want smoking in bars, those bars would close due to lack of business. Why make MORE laws restricting the freedoms of consenting adults when they are the only ones who are punished by them?

[Brotherjohn]

113. That assumes the bar depends on everyone in the community.

A bar, say a posh jazz club, could remain successful if only 500 smoking patrons frequent the place. Let's say all 100,000 other citizens of the community may even be non-smokers (an extreme argument to make the point). The bar would still not go belly-up. And thousands of desperate jazz-bos would be missing out on some great music unless they wanted to subject themselves to second-hand smoke.

Now I'm not saying the community should ban smoking. As I post above, here, at least only consenting adults are affected. Some adults have to consent to accept an additional risk to partake in the same benefit... but the issue is just less clear in a bar, and I can see fewer arguments for banning smoking.

But my main point to you is, a bar would not necessarily go out of business because a community didn't want smoking in bars. A bar might go out of business if that bar's most loyal patrons did not want smoking in bars.

[porphyrian]

118. I accept your caveat, but your example also assumes...

...that with a demand of 99,500 people, no one would open a non-smoking jazz bar in the same community, which defies logic. Why can't we all just get along and mind our own business in situations involving consenting adult behavior?

[Brotherjohn]

131. As I say, I don't find the issue so easy with bars. I can't say...

... we should ban smoking in bars (Although as I said, I wouldn't mind it, but I wouldn't campaign for it either.)

But when you're talking about more openly accessible, public places, there IS a situation where many (including children) are denied access unless they subject themselves to bodily harm.

And while restaurants are privately owned, I would revert to my argument above, that many private restaurants denied service to African-Americans in the past. African-American restaurants popped up to serve them, did they not? But that didn't make it right.

And yes, any non-smoker can still choose to go to a restaurant that allows smoking, but not without suffering unwanted bodily harm (as with African Americans in the Jim Crow South). A bit hyperbolic of an argument, perhaps, but the principle is the same.

[porphyrian]

142. You and I are in agreement about businesses...

...that either offer essential products and services (grocery stores, public transportation) or that are open to all citizens (restaurants, movie theaters) having to cater to non-smokers. My problems are with a) limiting the behaviors of consenting adults in a private business designed to cater to those adults and b) passing more laws to do so.

[Brotherjohn]

And actually, that doesn't defy logic. My community has about 250,000...

... people, and there's not a SINGLE jazz club.

[porphyrian]

144. How many of those 250,000 are into jazz, though?

If only 5,000 were, you'd have a club, or an incredible career opportunity.

[Brotherjohn]

159. You're probably right. That was just a throwaway point about my community.

In general, I think we agree about most. I am ambivalent leaning towards "I don't think it's worth a law" on the bar/consenting adult type situation. You put it well in your last post above this one.

Your use of logic leads me to believe you don't espouse the "there IS no second hand smoke risk" argument promoted in the OP. Am I right? That post (and the article to which it linked), IMHO, reeked of propaganda, pseudoscience and selective citing of statistics.

For starters, if 10 out of 48 studies showed a positive link (btwn 2nd-hand smoke and health risk), one showed negative, and the rest showed none... that means a helluva lot! And that's the studies they're citing to discount 2nd-hand smoke. Anyone with any experience in such clinical databases knows it's hard as hell to weed out the noise and demonstrate any link that's significant.

[porphyrian]

170. I'm not convinced that second hand smoke is worse...

...than first hand, but I think it's beside the point. All toxins have a detrimental effect on lifeforms over time. However, as adults, I believe it is our choice as to whether we should be allowed to ingest those toxins or not, as long as it's consentual, not the government's. I also have a problem with people who feel the need to pass laws to control this behavior just because they're bothered by the idea of it.

[Brotherjohn]

172. Oh, I don't think 2nd hand is worse than first. But I do think it's...

... harmful.

Hell, I know it, when an asthma attack is triggered by breathing in someone else's smoke. Issues of cancer aside (which I do think it can cause, but that's a harder conclusion to prove).

Yes, it is our choice to ingest whatever toxins we want, but only when others are not harmed (like, as you say, in a public place). That's not passing a law just because somone is bothered by the idea of it. That's passing a law to prevent direct bodily harm coming to others, who are NOT consenting.

[porphyrian]

176. Then we agree.

I am just more convinced we should oppose such bans on non-essential restricted-admission private establishments such as bars.

[progressivebydesign]

163. It's NOT restricting the smokers freedom. It's restricing others...

Can people not see this? Is it so difficult a concept to get? Smoking in a public place causes 1) cancer causing agents to propel into the air that others are breathing. It's a health problem. 2) it stinks and leaves everyone around you smelling like shit when they come home, as well. 3) it's not a right to smoke in public places. You have a right to smoke in your home, your car, outside, whatever. But when your "right" infringes on others, our rights come first. That is the right to visit any public place without risking our health. So by the logic posted here by smoking fans, I could walk into a bar and let off a Raid pesticide fogger? Could I bring my dogs into a restaurant? No? Why not? Oh yeah... health risks to employees and other diners.

[in_cog_ni_to]

196. It's not a right to drive a car and pollute my air either. Where does this

shit stop? One person's luxury is another's poison.

[iconoclastNYC]

281. Do you drive indoors? N/T

[porphyrian]

251. Bullshit.

Stop whining long enough to listen and think. Everyone in a smoking bar accepts that there is smoke there. You wouldn't go there anyway. There's absolutely no reason for you to control their behavior. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell consenting adults what to do on private property?

[susanna]

260. Well, you're thinking that "might makes right"...

When in fact the founders were completely against the "tyranny of the majority." Kinda strange, huh?

[susanna]

258. Ask any smoker;

it isn't always about pleasure. It's an addiction. That noted, how would you wean millions of addicts to your purity of thought? I am all ears.

[wuushew]

82. Your "debating" point will be mute in a post gasoline world

The tail pipe emissions of a hydrogen powered vehicle is pure H2O, and even an intermediate fuel like ethanol if combusted completely would produce water vapor, CO2 and perhaps some NOX.

Will your irritation with smoking bans persist when the world moves to cleaner forms of transportation?

[in_cog_ni_to]

194. I agree. The pollution from cars bothers me. n/t

[opiate69]

256. Here's a suggestion then...

Keep yourself and your asthmatic kids out of bars that allow smoking. Problem solved. Nice fallacious tack with the African-American thing too. :eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

192. Cars are not a necessity! They are a LUXURY. Just like cigarettes.

Bad excuse.

[RandomKoolzip]

25. Driving, unfortunately, is necessary for a lot of people.

Modernization and industrialization has made the phenomenon of workers who live far away from their homes the norm. Plus, goods need to be shipped from place to place, using motor vehicles, theus the economy would collapse if cars were banned. We SHOULD starty moving towards using cleaner fuels and alternative sources of energy to power those vehicles as soon as possible, however.

Smoking, on the other hand, is an unnecessary activity that causes cancer and other health problems, and damages the health of those who have to stand around in food service jobs for eight hours while carcinogen-riddled smoke billows around them. A smoking ban in restauants would be a reasonable step forward, IMO.

And this is coming from a guy who used to smoke two packs a day of Marlboro 100's....I quit smoking, and I don't need to keep run ning the health risk.

As for those who would go to a restauant and be upset that you were not allowed to smoke in there, I have two words: aw, gee.

[Brotherjohn]

27. Exactly. I was about to add, we DO also back increased fuel efficiency...

... standards, funding alternative sources of energy, and other measures which reduce the amount of pollution.

Not speaking for anyone else, but generally speaking of progressives, and myself, that is.

So no, we're not asking anyone to ban cars, but we are promoting transportation that produces less pollution.

[400Years]

34. sorry, I just can't get worked up over it

too many other more pressing issues to deal with like:
iraq
fascism
religious ideologues taking over the country
liars in the white house
and countless industries belching pollution into our environment

just doesn't even come up on the ol' radar.

[RandomKoolzip]

36. Then why the hell did you bring it up?!

You're the one who tried to make a point about car pollution.

[400Years]

39. because we are already choking to death on overregulation of

individual behavior by the government.

Perhaps if we didn't live in a country where just about every fucking thing you do is regulated, I wouldn't mind so much but this is just more picking on the individual as far as I am concerned.

I said I can't get worked up over your "case" for banning smoking not for the issue per se.

[RandomKoolzip]

44. The "individual" will be just fine.

What other things do you wish you could do that you can't do because of government regulation, BTW? Just curious, not trying to flame...because I hear freepers and libertarian-types use this argument all the time, and I alwys wonder what they're referring to.

[400Years]

49. pot is a big one because they use it to incarcerate so many people

[RandomKoolzip]

50. I'm an ex-pot smoker too, so we're in agreement there.

I think it ought to be legalized.


What else?

[400Years]

58. you can take this to all kinds of things such as the pat. act. etc.

there are all kinds of ways the government is picking on the rights of the individual such as hiding public information while collecting data on all of us, etc.

You know full well the assault on individual liberties in this country.

Just look at how people who protest the war get treated.
Gassed
beat up by cops
arrested
etc.
etc.

[susanna]

261. Well, modernization has made smoking...

...a much more public act, when it used to be a private one. Back in the day, folks would do it "on the farm," where non-smoking folks could not be offended. Globalization has stuck us in one anothers' faces to the extreme. My question to you: what is the answer?

[RandomKoolzip]

265. Genocide on all smokers!!!!

No, I'm kidding.

I don't have the answer. But nudging smokers in the direction of smoking outside instead of inside when they're at a restaurant is a start.

[RandomKoolzip]

266. Whoops!

typo in my post above..."Workers who live far away from their 'homes'" should read "Workers who live far away from their workplaces."

Like, Duh!

[MarsThe Cat]

28. that's one thing i don't understand-

why would ANYONE 'concerned' about second-hand smoke even apply to work at a restaurant?
I was a waiter for several years, and the smoking NEVER bothered me. not even in the break-room, where it was the WORST.
btw- I am NOT a tobacco-smoker...never have, never will.

[RandomKoolzip]

35. I started working in kitchens when I was a smoker.

Been a cook for about ten years. I quit smoking six years ago, and the guys who work here who smoke go outside to do it. Why shouldn't the customers?

[400Years]

37. partly becuase they pay your salary

I'm not against an owner not allowing smoking in his or her business but I don't think the government should get involved. let the patrons decide to go there or not.

Almost every restaraunt I've ever been in has a smoking and a non-smoking section.

[RandomKoolzip]

40. So some guy who pays my salary has the right to give me cancer?

[400Years]

42. So car drivers have a right to give me cancer?

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

294. If people were driving their cars inside public buildings

I'd support a ban on that too!

We're only telling you to spew your pollution outside, not quit smoking. Comparing it to driving a car makes no sense.

[MarsThe Cat]

43. and who exactly is forcing you to work there?

people change jobs/careers for health reasons all the time.

it's one of the joys of living in a free country.

[RandomKoolzip]

48. Well, fortunately, my restaurant has a smoking section.

But the servers who don't smoke have to be exposed to secondhand smoke, which I think is kinda bogus.

And it's not exactly easy to just "find another job."

[MarsThe Cat]

115. and when they APPLIED for their jobs-

was smoking allowed?

if so, they have nothing to complain about. people change jobs/careers every day for health reasons.
people concerned about second-hand smoke shouldn't apply for wait/bus positions at restaurants in cities/states without smoking bans.

it's a FREE country- nobody is FORCED to take any job.

[cushla_machree]

291. that is the lamest thing i have ever head

smoking is not a 'right.'

I am against the government banning smoking...but they are perfectly within their right when it involves public space. No one has a 'right' to pollute the commons, in this case the air you breathe in an enclosed space.

So it is just easy to quit and find another job? get real.

I worked in a restaurant for 4 years...we had a smoking and non-smoking section. However, that does nothing for the people who frequent the establishment and certainly not for those who work there. I should not be forced to get a new job because of someone else's addiction. Should i alter my life because someone needs a quick cocaine fix? Fat chance.

As long as second hand smoke is as dangerous as it is, any business that caters to the public should be smokefree. If they want to create a 'smoking room' for those poor poor smokers who can't go outside, spend the money and do it. But you cannot force your employees to have to breathe that in day in and day out. It is bad for even the employees who smoke themselves. Businesses can save money on clean up doing this as well...i can't tell you the hours i have spent scrubbing off yellow residue from the walls and fireplace of the restuarant.

If it is a free country, why should anyone be forced to breathe in something as dangerous as cigarette smoke? Telling people to move or get a new job is not a solution. When your addiction has the power to affect someone elses life like that...maybe the problem is YOU.

[MarsThe Cat]

41. because they're customers.

and they are within their rights.

you probably inhale more carcinogens over the stove, than from customers, anyway.

[RandomKoolzip]

56. True, but why should I have to inhale MORE than my share of carcinogens?

And why should my fellow servers and busboys have to be exposed to carcinogens?

I'm sorry, but it's just REALLY hard to sympathize with people who smoke in enclosed public spaces when they say their "rights" are being taken away. Regulation is not fascism or communism. Shit, we used to allow eight year olds to work in mine shafts for fourteen hours a day before labor laws and regulations in the mining industry, and the country never slid into communism because of it.

[400Years]

65. you're talking about the difference in reg. individ. behav. vs. corp.

We just happen to live in a country where people won't hesitate to regulate the behavior of the lowly individual but give corporate polluters all kinds of freedom.

[MarsThe Cat]

69. in regard to the servers and busboys-

nobody is forcing them to work there, and when they applied for the job, they knew what environment the work would be in.

[RandomKoolzip]

74. These people are usually working survival jobs.

If they COULD work in another field and survive on the wages paid, they would, for the most part. Hardly anyone aspires to be a "professional waiter" or a "career busboy." Moving to another KIND of job is not always an option.

Just because something has been a certain way for a long time, and been harmful, doesn't mean it can't be changed for the better.

In the meantime, is it really so awful to ask customers to step outside to smoke cigarettes?

[MarsThe Cat]

77. is it really awful to ask customers to step outside to smoke cigarettes?

in northern Illinois, in the winter...?

yes.

[greatauntoftriplets]

79. Isn't that exactly what they do at the office buildings where they work?

I know people who step outside of their own homes to smoke.

[RandomKoolzip]

83. Shit, I see DOCTORS smoking outside hospitals here in Chicago

in the wintertime.

Smokers know the risks. Not everyone wants to share those risks.

[MarsThe Cat]

96. DOCTORS smoking outside hospitals here in Chicago....

DOCTORS smoking...first-hand smoke...
and again- they aren't customers at the hospital, and hospitals aren't restaurants.

[MarsThe Cat]

90. "where they work"...

"outside their own homes"

those aren't customers.

[greatauntoftriplets]

98. My point is that people are accustomed to smoking outdoors.

Should Chicago start allowing smoking in stores as well, since the people who shop there are customers?

[MarsThe Cat]

106. i think that's more of a fire-code thing.

people walking thru stacks of flammable merchandise with lit cigs...not a good idea.
and not all smokers are accustomed to smoking outdoors in winter.

[RandomKoolzip]

81. Remember that scne in Reservoir Dogs with the "world's smallest violin?"

For some reason, Steve Buscemi's face is popping up in my imagination right now.

[MarsThe Cat]

109. and for some reason, i get the same image...

listening to a cook who works over a stove complaining about second-hand smoke from restaurant customers.

btw- is there a break room at your restaurant where waiters/busboys can smoke? the ones i worked at had them...and i was one of the few waitpeople who didn't smoke.

[RandomKoolzip]

262. No, they smoke outside.

When I venture out into the rest of the building, I sometimes have to go into the smoking section, where there is no ventilating hood over each individual smoker's head disposing of the smoke they exhale. Thus, the smoke is expelled into the room and it lingers.

The comparison might hold up if there were indeed ventilating hoods above each smoker's head like there are above our grill and fryers. But there aren't.

Plus, the smell from a nicely marinated ribeye sizzling over hot coals is a far more pleasant aroma than a Camel light with its ember somewhere near the filter, no?

[Beaverhausen]

101. put on a coat

cause if you live in illinois you probably own one.

[MarsThe Cat]

112. why do that?

when you can just sit at your table and enjoy your cigarette legally?

[Beaverhausen]

123. Because the other people around you have to breathe in the smoke

whether they choose to or not.

What is it about this issue that is so hard for you to comprehend?
You can smoke all you want...just step outside. Have a little consideration for other people.

[MarsThe Cat]

127. I'm not a tobacco-smoker/user...

and i have absolutely NO problem with smoking in bars & restaurants- they're private establishments that nobody who doesn't want to is forced to go into.
If a restaurant CHOOSES to be smoke-free- more power to them, and i support their right to do so 100%

[RandomKoolzip]

263. Because many of us are not enjoying YOUR cigarette, we are enduring it.

[MarsThe Cat]

71. good point-

perhaps cooks should be required to wear some kind of ventilator/full face mask when working over a stove.

would you support such legislation for a safer healthier workplace?

[RandomKoolzip]

78. We DO have a ventilator over the stove.

Regulation of the food service industry is such that a massive ventilator is over every smoke-producing item in the kitchen.

Like I said in another post, I CHOSE to become a cook. Not everyone who gets exposed to secondhand smoke in an enclosed area chooses to inahle it.

[MarsThe Cat]

89. then why don't the ventilators work on the second-hand smoke...

from the customers- that which you're so concerned about being subjected to yourself?

[RandomKoolzip]

93. Because have to leave the kitchen to get things on

the second floor, where the walk-in coolers are.

Plus, the servers and busboys I consdier to be friends of mine.

[MarsThe Cat]

102. so- second-hand smoke is the most dangerous thing-

you come in contact with at work?

& btw- do you wear gloves at work?

[RandomKoolzip]

267. No, the most dangerous thing I come into contact with at work is bacteria.

Thankfully, the governement regulates THAT too.

[porphyrian]

108. Because they aren't preparing the food? - n/t

[mondo joe]

7. Yes - there's pollution already so we shouldn't stop more.

.

[400Years]

11. the phony outrage is palpable

[mondo joe]

17. How do you feel about corporate dumping of toxins in air and water?

[400Years]

18. much worse than smoking, way way worse

[mondo joe]

20. Really? Worse in which ways?

I'd like to know the measures you use.

[400Years]

21. by volume

[NuttyFluffers]

298. and intensity (aka molarity)

sure there's bad shit in tobacco smoke, but refined arsenic, cyanide, ammonia, etc. is far worse in more potent ratios.

i'd like to see the measure of ppm of these "evil, dastardly" cigarettes compared to the whacked shit floating in the water in the bay i live by, let alone the spew by nearby industries.

[Beelzebud]

53. I'm a non-smoker, and I agree. Land of the FREE, and all that stuff...

Sure. crack down on individual smokers, while the corps are busy totally ruining our environment...

Just like bitching about welfare for citizens, and not caring that most welfare money goes to the corporations...

[400Years]

61. exactly

[Beaverhausen]

64. What is so difficult about stepping outside to smoke?

It is the law here in california and it works fine. It's just courtesy.

[MarsThe Cat]

122. have you ever eaten at the Signature Room?

it's on the 94th floor of the John Hancock building.

"stepping outside" can be a real nightmare, especially when there's a line for the elevator.

[Beaverhausen]

125. So don't eat there

No one is forcing you to go anywhere.

and yes, I've been there.

[MarsThe Cat]

129. i'm not a smoker...

and i have NO problem with smokers in bars and restaurants i frequent.

I would say the same thing to people who don't want to eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed- don't do it...eat somewhere else...no one is forcing you to go anywhere.

[Beaverhausen]

134. So because YOU have no problem with it, we should simply allow it

Glad you don't have a problem. Lots of people do and the easy solution is to make smokers go outside to smoke. simple. That way smokers and non smokers can go out to bars and restaurants and be happy.

It's done now in a lot of places and it works fine. No lost business, no big deal.

[MarsThe Cat]

138. i'm BY FAR not the only one who has no problem with it.

but because YOU do, we should simply NOT allow it?

[Beaverhausen]

145. I HAVE TO BREATHE- I don't have to breathe in your smoke

Hey, guess what? I DO smoke on occasion. And it is not a big deal to go outside. In fact it's nice to have an excuse to get away and get some air, maybe meet some other cool people.

[MarsThe Cat]

152. if it's your CHOICE to go outside, that's fine-

other people CHOOSE to remain at their table and enjoy their coffin-nails.

and other people CHOOSE not to go to restaurants/bars/establishments that allow smoking...it's a WONDERFUL system.

[Beaverhausen]

161. Everyone in a restaurant has to breathe. Some in the restaurant choose...

...to smoke. *They* should be the ones who accomodate the others who don't want to breathe in the smoke.

[MarsThe Cat]

166. since smoking in the restaurant is LEGAL and permitted-

those who don't want to breathe in smoke are FREE to dine at smoke-free(by choice) establishments, and smokers are free to dine at establishments that allow smoking.

that way EVERYONE is happy.

it's the system we have now, and it works GREAT.

[Beaverhausen]

171. In case you haven't noticed lots of places have banned smoking

Here in California it has been the law for many years and it's all working out fine. Another reason I love it here!

I think it's the law in NY also.

Edit:
wow! a lot more places banned it than I thought. Look here:

http://www.smokefreeworld.com/usa.shtml

[MarsThe Cat]

175. that's great- and i have noticed.

living in a FREE state, where private bars/restaurants have a choice about the rules in their places of business- i support the right of business to make theirs NON-smoking.
that way, both smokers and non-smokers have multiple choices as to where to take their business.
why do you support discriminating against some people?

[Beaverhausen]

177. because when someone smokes...everyone around them has to breathe it in

I don't support any discrimination. I believe that people can do whatever they want AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE ELSE.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beaverhausen]

183. I drive a Prius- very low emissions

and you are changing the subject. No one drives a car inside a bar or restaurant.

[MarsThe Cat]

187. but not ZERO emissions.

and it's very much the same subject- whether or not people should be "forced" to breathe in unhealthy emissions. there are LOTS of places where pedestrians are FORCED to breathe unhealthy auto emissions- and it's just not FAIR now, is it?
especially when there are obvious and already available alternatives- like bicycles and electric cars.

[Beaverhausen]

191. I don't drive it inside

you can keep arguing all you want but the smoking ban is coming to your town so you better get used to it.

[MarsThe Cat]

195. but there are plenty of pedestrians outside...on the sidewalk...

right next to the street where you are pelting them with your toxins, just so life can be a little more convienent for YOU. and you've never been in an enclosed parking structure? just how long have you been driving?

as to a smoking ban in my town- thankfully, no chance.

[mondo joe]

270. And the electorate is free to try to change that by outlawing driving, or

by minimizing it.

Right?

[mondo joe]

271. Discriminating against some PEOPLE????

Who said smokers can't use the businesses just like anyone else?

[progressivebydesign]

140. Land of the free? COOL.. then I'm free to NOT breathe smoke!

Thanks! I assume that's what you meant, cuz I'm free to breathe non-carcinogens when I want to visit a public place. hey.. if people want to smoke, great.. if they'd like to wear some type of suit to keep the cancer-causing smoke to themselves.. that would be even better. Think diving helmet.

[MarsThe Cat]

155. exactly- you're FREE to avoid restaurants that allow it.

what a country!

[Brotherjohn]

178. Like African-Americans were FREE to avoid restaurants that didn't...

... allow them a few years ago. Or, well, legally, they were technically allowed there. They'd just get their ass kicked if they went.

[Beelzebud]

181. What a silly comparison...

really. spare me that BS.

[Brotherjohn]

203. I don't think it's silly at all.

The corollary is not that people can choose to be African-American or not.

The corollary is that people who are, lets say, asthmatic (they were born that way) can "decide" not to go into a smoking restaurant, so they don't have an asthma attack. African-Americans (they were born that way) could "decide" not to go into Bubba's Grill in 1952, so they didn't get their ass kicked.

I don't think that's silly at all, or BS. You're saying people who might be harmed (through no fault of their own) by going someplace just shouldn't go there. THAT infringes on THEIR freedom.

The difference between us is, I believe, that you don't view someone blowing cigarette smoke into the air you're breathing as an aggressive, harmful act. I do.

You're probably also thinking another, more obvious difference is that people smoking aren't doing anything intentional to hurt other people. But please, they know it does, unless they're in denial.

[Beelzebud]

255. To compare this to segregation, and racism, is absurd.

[MarsThe Cat]

190. i never realized that being African-American was a matter of CHOICE.

why do you suppose so many people choose to be?

[Brotherjohn]

201. No. But neither is being asthmatic, or developing cancer due to 2nd-hand

...smoke.

The corollary is not that people can choose to be African-American or not.

The corollary is that people who are, lets say, asthmatic (they were born that way) can "decide" not to go into a smoking restaurant, so they don't have an asthma attack. African-Americans (they were born that way) could "decide" not to go into Bubba's Grill in 1952, so they didn't get their ass kicked.

[MarsThe Cat]

206. if you see a corrolary (or a corollary, for that matter)...

then you really have some cognitive dissonance to work out.

[Brotherjohn]

212. Sorry, I still do. I do have some SPELLING issues to work out, though.

Although I think the issue isn't as morally reprehensible (as dsicrimination in the Jim Crow South), I do think there is a parallel principle.

You can't say some people should just choose not to go somewhere others are allowed if it will harm them.

You're defending the right of some to engage in a physical act (which is harmful to others), yet not defending the right of others to, simply, breathe.

[MarsThe Cat]

215. blacks didn't have a RIGHT to go into all-white establishments

it wasn't just a matter of getting their "ass kicked"- they could/would also get ARRESTED- for BREAKING THE LAW.

i don't know of any asthmatics who'd get arrested for entering a restaurant where smoking was allowed- BUT if a smoker lit up where smoking wasn't allowed- he could be arrested.

so- the real corollary would be between Blacks in the Jim Crow south, and smokers in states where smoking is banned- although i wouldn't make it, because being a smoker is a choice, being black isn't.

[Brotherjohn]

218. In most places, it wasn't the law. It was just the way they did things.

They'd be arrested for any number of other things.

A difference is that the police may have gotten involved (though I was thinking more cases where the locals would just take matters into their own hands).

But those "police" were merely thugs. The parallel having to make a choice to avoid physical harm remains. I agree it's not as sinister, or institutionalized.

Please read my last post below (#214). I have to sign off now.

[MarsThe Cat]

224. it's still not the same-

physically assaulting someone is against the law.
smoking is not.

asthmatics have the option of MANY equal/comparable non-smoking establishments to choose from-
Blacks did not.

there is no overall animus toward asthmatics in every aspect of the society.
there was against blacks.

asthmatics could have the option of wearing a mask/oxygen supply to assist in breathing.
nothing would make a black more white.(although not completely true for light-skinned/albino blacks who with some cosmetic alteration might be able to pass for white, if they chose to live that way).

can you see how the corollary you're trying to establish is a little unrealistic, and even insensitive?

[Beelzebud]

182. If you are that worried about carcinogens you better move out of any city.

[Beelzebud]

184. Land of the free as in a business owner should not be forced into

rejecting his or her customers because they smoke.

If I own my own private business, what gives the government the right to tell me I can't allow smoking in it?

If a business owner wants to have a non-smoking establishment, then fine; but why mandate it with a law?

[Creideiki]

173. I'll happily stop driving

Fund a reasonable mass transit system. :)

[gizmo1979]

226. You go brother.

[iconoclastNYC]

280. I've never seen a car inside a bar.

That's the difference. Smoke doesn't get venihiliate it just hangs and gums up your lungs and stinks up your clothes.

Just because X is worse then Y doens't mean banning Y is stupid. It's still progress.

[ThoughtCriminal]

3. OK - I'll start

I'll bet every single one of those studies has ties to the tobacco industry. It only took me 20 seconds on Google to find the first one:

James E Enstrom & Geoffrey C Kabat
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/BMJ0503critique.html
"The authors were partially funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research (funded primarily from US tobacco companies). Both authors have received funding in the past from the tobacco industry."

There's also a rather scathing attack on methodology at the link.

[RandomKoolzip]

9. Yup.

Just like with Climate Change, the "scientists" who dispute the damage it causes are paid by PR firms funded by the industries who do the damage.

There's a great book called "Trust Us, We're Experts!" that exposes the think tank/PR system behind the pro-pollution aganda. Well worth a read.

[Brotherjohn]

16. This is typical thrice-warmed over RW talking points by people who don't..

... understand scientific research, and nevertheless cherry-pick statistics and studies to try to back up their points.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. The argument is made everywhere

and teh argumeent falls on its face when it does not amterialize.. stupid city councils.

[Beaverhausen]

6. oh really?

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html


Non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are at higher risk of getting cancer and other lung diseases. Health Canada estimates that more than 300 non-smokers die from lung cancer each year because of second-hand smoke.



If you are a non-smoker, avoid second-hand smoke.

Second-hand smoke is dangerous
Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than directly inhaled smoke. Second-hand smoke releases the same 4,000 chemicals as smoke that is directly inhaled, but in even greater quantity. Approximately 50 of these chemicals (carcinogens) cause cancer.



Cigarettes burn for approximately 12 minutes, but smokers usually only inhale for 30 seconds. As a result, cigarettes are spewing second-hand smoke into the air for non-smokers to breathe.



The smoke inhaled by the smoker first, and then exhaled, is called mainstream smoke.



The smoke that goes directly into the air from the end of a burning cigarette is called sidestream smoke.



Because second-hand smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:

2 times more tar
5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.
Health risks of second-hand smoke
Second-hand smoke is linked to the deaths of at least 1,100 Canadians every year.



The short-term effects include:

eye irritation
headache
nasal discomfort and sneezing
cough and sore throat
nausea and dizziness
increased heart rate and blood pressure
increased risk for people with heart disease (angina), asthma, allergies
Long-term effects include:

Reduced ability to take in and use oxygen.
Cancer of the lung. Research on second-hand smoke and the relationship with other cancers is in progress.
Heart disease and stroke.
Childhood asthma and other breathing difficulties.
Who is at risk
Non-smoking Canadians are put at risk because second-hand smoke circulates freely:

at home
at work
at school
in public places such as restaurants and bars
in vehicles such as the family car
The costs
In addition to the suffering and loss caused by second-hand smoke-related deaths and the direct medical costs associated with long-term illnesses, there are significant indirect costs related to second-hand smoke. These costs include:

increased absenteeism
decreased productivity
higher insurance premiums
higher cleaning costs
increased property damage resulting from tobacco use by smoking employees
*************************************
A "ban" on smoking in a public place doesn't mean you can't smoke, it just means you have to step outside to do it.

[Jose Diablo]

67. 300 non-smoker die from second hand smoke?

That's all? With a small number like 300, how can they attribute the cancer to second hand smoke. That small of a number would be little more than a statistical blip. As for the 'scientific studies' linking second hand smoke to illness, if all they can come-up with is a number like 300, then that is all so much baloney.

As for you can always step outside to smoke. Thats another way to say, don't be such a spoil sport, it's only a little inconvenience. The thing is though, what happens next is a ban of smoking in all public places. Then it become a ban on smoking in private cars. Then on and on until is 'only' a small step to ban smoking totally, and making the sale and possession of smoking material illegal. Thats how the Carie Nations of this world work. Step by step, with each step only a little more draconian.

If you want to see the results of Carie Nation's work, chart the rise of organized crime in America when a popular past time was made illegal over some tight-ass's idea of morality. The end result of this smoking ban through government activists will work-out the same way.

If establishments want to ban smoking, they can. Why have a law do it?

[Beaverhausen]

70. that study is from Canada

[SoCalDem]

73. The law is to prevent establishments ALLOWING it , while others do not

Smokers tend to be "bar people", and are likely to patronize bars that allow smoking. The ones who ban it felt that THEIR businesses would suffer because of THEIR choice to ban smoking, so of course they needed a law to prevent businesspeople from making their own choices for their businesses. (How it was in CA)..

Of course the chi-chi CigarBars allow smoking cigars, but then only rich people belong to those "clubs"..and goodness knows you can't go around restricting rich people..

Ahhhhnold built his own "smoking pavilion" at his office..

[Jose Diablo]

110. Ha, I thought so

The establishments that banned smoking were losing business so they brought in a law using their own people of a like mindset to restrict the other establishments right to allow smoking. One group of people forced another group of people to follow their own morality by using the law. With a batch of phony 'scientific' studies linking second hand smoke to illness.

If they tried to use the valid studies of actually smoking being harmful, people would have recognized them for what they were right from the get go. After all, what I do with MY lungs is MY business, thus the second hand smoke studies to give it all a appearance of legitimacy.

The ones that banned smoking could not make a go of it based on non-smoking and their own services, so they jerked the government into their little world of pettiness to force everyone else to follow what they thought was right. If this is not the very definition of forced morality, I don't know what is.

[SoCalDem]

114. There's a great Italian restaurant where we live

and back during the "smoking? non-smoking" days, there would always be long lines for a "smoking section" table, and the non-smokers rarely had to wait, but in rare cases where both were waiting, a non-smoker who was "ahead" of smokers waiting, would say "We'll take a smoking table" if it opens up first"..So much for "principles"...

[Jose Diablo]

128. I am surprised they didn't try for a law

that forced the Italian restaurant to hang ferns in the corner and serve baseball shaped hamburgers served on croissant rolls. It's an analogy trying to place this whole smoking/non-smoking thing in perspective.

[SoCalDem]

130. We still eat there, but we eat out on their patio (smoking allowed)

We actually prefer it..less crowded and not as many squalling kids:)

We are lucky to be blessed with nice weather year-round..and lots of places just added outdoor eating areas.. Who needs a dark,crowded interior anyway?

[Jose Diablo]

153. Don't ya just hate it when parents take ill mannered children out to eat

It's like why should I have to listen to a squalling brat and tolerate food flung in the air when I eat? If the children cannot behave in public, the parents should keep them home until they become a little civilized in their table manners. Yet the parents are so numb they think it's their right to subject others to their crummy kids. And the rest of us must just tolerate it.

And of course it's bad manners to complain in public about the little rug-rats. I am gonna stop being polite in this regard and call these parents out on this issue.

[SoCalDem]

We took our kids out to eat, but they behaved well (most of the time)

and we never went out to eat when they were tired.. I think some parents don;t realize that little kids do not enjoy restaurants as much as they do :)

same for theatres.. I hate it when people are too cheap to get a sitter, and then "shhhsh"" kids for an hour and a half during a movie that is NOT for kids..

[porphyrian]

164. We should pass a law banning bratty children?

Why should I have to put up with their behavior? If their brattiness only affected them, I wouldn't care, but this affects everyone in the restaurant...

:eyes:

[Jose Diablo]

207. Yes we should.

Why should the rest of us have to put-up with children that have no manners.

All children should be banned from eating establishments unless they attain the age of 12. This is the only way we in the majority can be sure to have our rights to eat in peace. They have no right to interfer with my right to have peace during my dinner.

Besides that, it is for the childrens benefit that the so called second hand smoke danger reached wide acceptance. Remember the ads to protect the children from second hand smoke? Banning children in restaurants will solve that problem too. See, children exposure to second hand smoke problem solved. Keep them out of restaurants.

Edit: While we are at it, ban them from grocery stores also. I am tired of getting home, only to find little grubby finger prints on my box of Rice Chrispies.

[NuttyFluffers]

299. they give high blood pressure and stress... very dangerous, y'know

young children are a health hazard to the other patrons. far worse than second hand smoke because high blood pressure and stress are silent killers and stroke and heart attack are faster killers than cancer! we must ban small children IMMEDIATELY from restaurants, for the safety of everyone!!! :o

:sarcasm:

[porphyrian]

301. In your sarcasm, you actually make my point. - n/t

[progressivebydesign]

156. Um. It's 38,000+ each year. thirty eight THOUSAND.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

[Jose Diablo]

199. You quoted the site

For the American Lung Association and they quoted California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997.

can we believe what the California Enviromental Protection Agency or will they quote another source.

You say its 38,000. Prove it with the orginal source so the rest of us can determine if what they say is true.

Edit: Besides that the quote at the American Lung association is 3000 for lung related disease and 35,000 for heart disease. Can that 35,000 be disputed as second hand smoke as the causitive agent, we will see.

The cancer rate in the USA is very high, even here in the USA as for lung disease 3000 is a statistical blip and could be look at with suspicion as propaganda with a hidden agenda.

[Brotherjohn]

10. Quoting Michael Fumento as an expert on health is like quoting Ann Coulter

... as an expert on foreign policy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Fumento

[jonnyblitz]

174. he wrote a book called "the myth of heterosexual AIDS"

he is a RW favorite. nt

[Creideiki]

12. The most damning second-hand smoke study I've read

had to do with increased risk of heart disease and heart attack. Meanwhile, the advertising I've heard in the Chicago area have concentrated on cancer risk.

Anecdotally, I can say that I am a non-smoker that worked at a restaurant with a smoking section that was unavoidable (it wrapped around the kitchen). I was definitely negatively impacted from the exposure. But that's only anecdotal.

Also, the three suburban councils that voted down the ban are much different from Chicago. In addition, if a smoking ban passes in Chicago, a similar vote in Evanston is much more likely with a different result. (The loss of revenue to Evanston would be almost entirely to the city.)

So, I think there's an issue of whether quality of life is important than economic concern. But that is only how I frame the issue personally.

[RandomKoolzip]

13. Michael Fumento?!

The right-winger who also claims that child pornography doesn't exist and that rape is not a problem?

Hmmmm...Don't think I'm gonna listen to a guy like that.

[tx_dem41]

14. Instead of the normal popcorn....I think this one is more appropriate

:smoke:

[Ediacara]

19. This is silly...

I really don't have a position for or against these bans in places like bars or casinos, but sheesh, it's almost a universal phenomenon that when restaurants ban smoking, business increases. It's a little iffy with bars and depends mostly on the clientelle of the bar and if there's an easily accessable smoking area (like an outdoor patio or something). The title of the article is awfully misleading though, as the link between secondhand smoke and cancer is well demonstrated...

[RandomKoolzip]

32. I think it's important to make a distiction between bars and restaurants.

You don't need to smoke in a restaurant. But a bar...shit, that's what they're made for. If you go to a bar EXPECTING not to run into something bad for your health (alkeehol, fights, drugs, loud noise, vomit, smoking, etc.) you are stupid.

[400Years]

45. you see, where I live they just banned smoking in ALL bars

they started first with restaraunts and now we've got smoke nazis going around to bars waiting for someone to fire up a ciggy and then they call the cops. do you want that shit in your town?

[RandomKoolzip]

63. If they get actual cops involved, then that's a little strange.

But I certainly wouldn't give a shit if the only place you were allowed to smoke was outside. And like I said, I'm an ex-smoker, and I was aware that I was damaging my health when I did it. I did it by choice. Not everyone who is exposed to secondhand smoke has a choice as to whether they can inhale it, if they have to share indoor space with a smoker.


But at a bar....Hmmm...cops? That's kinda shitty.

[400Years]

66. Yes, it's very shitty

[greatauntoftriplets]

72. Got a link??

n/t

[mrcheerful]

22. And you wonder why freepers think the way they do.

Its funny how the fact that our food contains 10,000 poisons is over looked by these anti-smoking freepers? To my way of thinking, after all its my opinion, anyone that allows the government to make laws to protect them are freepers just like wingnuts and born agains. What ever happened to keep your nose in your own business? Seems everyone has a self centered agenda to take another's freedoms away. This is truly the danger to the Constitution and americas freedom.

[tx_dem41]

26. When it comes to Government protecting citizens from something..

they can choose not to expose themselves to, I agree with you.

[GrumpyGreg]

31. I'm from Massachusetts where there are damned few freepers

yet smoking is banned just about everyplace.

I think most of the states with smoking bans are blue states so you can't blame freepers for this nonsense.

[mrcheerful]

62. Who said freepers were only in red states?

Or repukes for that matter. A freeper to me is anyone that looks to the government to make laws to protect them from themselves. We have helmet laws why? Because cars hit motorcyclists so we need to protect them, How do we do that? Do we make drivers more aware or better drivers? Nope we stick them to wearing helmets and if they get killed or injured without a helmet, insurance companies don't have to pay benefits. Thats just another example how freeper thinking gets going. The second part is only blaming what your against and thinking that you are now safe because you got rid of a symptom to a larger problem. Whats really funny is this is exactly the same thinking that was going on 80 years ago. Companies that were spewing hazardous toxic smoke out on towns they were built in, the companies answer to the problem, build smoke stacks higher, so those living down wind now get the toxins. Yep freeper thinking at its best.

[Brotherjohn]

119. That you're trying re-redefine freeper is evidence that you are a free...

.. thinker. :evilgrin:

[MarsThe Cat]

24. That really surprises me about Evanston...

we lived there for 15 years, until the growing and overwhelming pc-ity of the city and it's residents got to be too much.
i'm a VERY liberal person, but i'll never live in another Evanston.

i'm also kind of surprised about Wheaton doing it too- it's a very "christian" kinda town.

[fleabert]

38. here we go again...

same shit different day...

:popcorn:
and
:smoke:

[SoCalDem]

57. Smokers just need to start buying their smokes online from Indians

No shipping..no tax..about 50% cheaper too.. Starve the states of the revenues.. States want it both ways...They hunger for the money, and yet want to penalize the people sending them the money..

If they want smokers to "quit", they need to give up their tobacco-money fixes too:)

[wuushew]

104. I'm cool with that

The government's only form of income should be from progressive taxation. Down with regressivity.

[SoCalDem]

116. Seneca Indians have the best prices, and they arrive in just a few days

ciggies that cost me $35 plus tax in CA, cost $15.60 from the indians:)

[TahitiNut]

136. Be careful. States are accessing credit card records and going after ...

... the smokers for the state sales taxes. Some online indian smokeshops are dropping credit cards for this reason.

[SoCalDem]

143. Well money orders would work, no?

We have cut up most of our cards anyway.. I will probably order several cartons with a money order next time:)

[TahitiNut]

148. Yep. Smokeshops accept money orders and checks, too.

Money orders leave the least papertrail. In my opinion, states can take their obscene, exhorbitant sales tax lusts (on sales that don't even take place in their state!) and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

[Touchdown]

75. Since others here don't find your author credible.

Let me help you out...



http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/739 ...

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

----
http://reason.com/ogmyt.shtml

5. Secondhand smoke poses a grave threat to bystanders. The evidence concerning the health effects of secondhand smoke is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence concerning the health effects of smoking. The research suggests that people who live with smokers for decades may face a slightly higher risk of lung cancer. According to one estimate, a nonsmoking woman who lives with a smoker faces an additional lung cancer risk of 6.5 in 10,000, which would raise her lifetime risk from about 0.34 percent to about 0.41 percent. Studies of secondhand smoke and heart disease, including the results from the Harvard Nurses Study published in 1997, report more-dramatic increases in disease rates—so dramatic, in fact, that they are biologically implausible, suggesting risks comparable to those faced by smokers, despite the much lower doses involved. In any case, there is no evidence that casual exposure to secondhand smoke has any impact on your life expectancy. (See Chapter 5.)

This is from the WHO, whose findings have been supressed because they came up with nothing?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri ...

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

NY Daily News on the faultiness of the EPA's METASTUDY. The EPA never conducted a ETS study of their own. They merely cherrypicked the studies they liked and ignored the ones that contradicted their pre-determined findings...

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/zion.htm

In a devastating 94-page opinion, Judge William Osteen put the cat to the Environmental Protection Agency. These ideological hustlers are responsible for all the madness we've experienced since 1993, when, without a scintilla of evidence, they declared that secondhand smoke causes cancer.

This "finding" created civil war in America. Suddenly, it wasn't just the smoker who was endangered it was the person at the next table, even the tenant in the next apartment and the guy sitting next to you at Yankee Stadium.

Common sense should have put this into the garbage pail. If secondhand smoke killed, we'd all be dead, especially everybody who worked in newspapers a veritable smoke screen in the old days.

[RandomKoolzip]

84. Everyone here should google "Michael Fumento" and see what comes up.

[Touchdown]

88. I did. But a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[RandomKoolzip]

91. But a right wing hack paid by big tobacco usually isn't.

[Touchdown]

95. Willing to bet money on that?

[RandomKoolzip]

264. On what? That Fumento is a right wing hack employed by big tobacco?

Sure! How's five bucks sound?

[Touchdown]

273. No, on that the EPA is saying that second hand smoke...

is more deadly than first hand smoking.... and I was thinking more like $50.

[RandomKoolzip]

284. Uh....did I say that anywhere in my post?

I haven't typed the letters "E" "P" and "A" together in quite a while.

And shit, man...I'm a cook! You think I can afford a fitty buck bet on what I make?!

[RandomKoolzip]

87. Does the OP care to comment on any of this, BTW?

[Loonman]

92. I don't believe in secondhand smoke

Or human-caused climate change.

[Brotherjohn]

100. "Or human-caused climate change." NOW you're just gunning for more posts..

Aren't you?

[Loonman]

103. No just two things I refuse to give any credence to

Hogwash.

[wuushew]

126. Do you have a rational basis for this bias?

Science applies itself to all areas of study equally. The scientific principles that support global warming are just as valid as those that describe the behavior of an electric motor or various models of evolutionary change.

The consensus in the scientific community regarding global climate change is overwhelming. To deny it indirectly supports the Bush Administration.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kellanved]

141. so?

I don't believe in climate change caused by secondhand cigarette smoke.

The research indicates that secondhand cigarette smoke has other effects than global warming and that global warming has other causes than secondhand cigarette smoke.

[greatauntoftriplets]

146. Do you also believe that....

trees cause pollution?

Not believing in secondhand smoke or human-caused climate change are RW talking points.

[Loonman]

150. are RW talking points.

Thanks. No really.

[arwalden]

149. How Does One "Not Believe In" Second-Hand Smoke?

I don't understand. Are you denying that the smoke is actually there? Are you denying that it does not enter the lungs of others and stick there just the same as it does for smokers? If it can drift through the air and stick to monitors, windows, walls, furniture with a yellow sticky residue... how does it NOT enter the lungs of anyone who is in the room and accumulate there as well? Does not believing in second-hand smoke make it less real?

[progressivebydesign]

157. you forgot your sarcasm emoticon. ; ) n/t

[welshTerrier2]

97. bans, bars and businesses - no lost revenues

here's an article about the results of a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants and bars in Massachusetts ... read 'em and weep ...

the primary argument made by supporters of the law was that no employee should be subject to unhealthy working conditions ... second-hand smoke was considered unhealthy ...

if people want to smoke, that's fine with me ... just stay the hell away from me when you do ...

source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/04/04/restaurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/

Sales and employment at Massachusetts restaurants and bars grew slightly during the first six months of a statewide smoking ban, disproving predictions that the prohibition would inflict serious damage on the hospitality industry, Harvard researchers are scheduled to report today.

As part of the study, analysts from the Harvard School of Public Health tested the air in 27 bars and restaurants both before and after the ban went into effect last July 5. The result: Dangerous cancer-causing toxins plummeted by 93 percent once cigarettes, cigars, and pipes were banished. <skip>

Even the business alliance that once stood determinedly in opposition to the ban, sending it to repeated defeats on Beacon Hill, concedes that the law has had no persistent negative effects. <skip>

"We're serving a lot more food at the bar," Harrington said, over the clink of glasses and clatter of plates. "People like sitting at the bar, chatting and eating. They didn't do it before because there might be somebody sitting next to them smoking. That's been a major plus for our bar business."

[tx_dem41]

117. Its a statewide ban....the OP is about a citywide ban, so this is

comparing apples and oranges. It would have been interesting if the Harvard study had specifically looked at border towns that are competing against restaurants that are not subjected by a ban.

[progressivebydesign]

158. border towns? I got some info right here!

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

I lived there during this time, and believe me.. the bordering cities couldn't get their bans fast enough when the biz started leaving for the smoke-free town. Umm... 80% of us do not smoke. If I were a business person, I would do the math.

While it's true that 87% of alcoholics smoke, that would be problematic for bars that offer nothing but a warm seat and flowing liquor. for the bars that actually offer more than a place for an alcoholic to sit and smoke, then they would do well.

[tx_dem41]

160. Nothing about border towns in your link?

:shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

165. Where is your link proving how many businesses have closed?

One reason business doesn't decrease is because people who had in the past avoided places that allowed smoking now will go out and patronize these businesses.

[tx_dem41]

167. Tell that to the Greater Dallas Restaurant Association 2 years post-ban...

and the businessmen in Carrollton, TX that had to ease way back on their ban to get restaurants to again start opening in their city.

[greatauntoftriplets]

169. Got a link to that?

Please.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

99. I don't know about the air quality, to it just plain STINKS

[SidDithers]

105. Is the air any cleaner if you bury your head in the sand?...nt

Sid

[progressivebydesign]

132. Such bullshit. I've read nicotene chemically causes denial.

I have never seen so many people in denial, as smokers. Ridiculous claims that bans hurt business, and now I'll provide a link to back it up.. I'm just tired of this bullshit promoted by smokers that 1) second hand smoke does not cause harm 2) that businesses are harmed by bans. I happen to have lived in the city that was first to ban smoking inside public places. You won't want to read the letter I've linked if you're insisting on linking smoking bans to lost biz, it's written by the head of the Chamber in that town to Nebraska Senators considering a ban:

http://www.tobacco.org/News/010129garth.html

I won't even bother post the hundreds of studies that show second hand smoke kills, because I won't dignify that incredibly denial-based argument. I honestly did read that nicotene actually changes brain chemistry and leads to the vehement denial you see in people. I mean.. I have an acquantance who is caring for her mother, a life-long smoker, in her deathbed. The mother has emphysema (for years) and now cancer. The acquaintance caring for her mom still smokes... says that the thinks the cancer wasn't from smoking, must've been something else.. and the emphysema was probably from cleaning supplies or something else. It honestly changes your brain to deny the real risks. If I can find that medical info, I'll post as well. It can explain the intensely hostile attitude of smokers when you point out the facts.

[mrcheerful]

168. Just more BS

considering every study thats made is using contaminated subjects. Everyone is exposed to thousands of cancer causing agents from the day they are born so its impossible to say just smoking causes health problems. I suggest you read the labels on everything in your house then research what all of these chemicals do to peoples health before you jump on any band wagon. Then take samples of the air in and around your home, plus soil samples so you know what kind of toxic dump you call home really is and then see how much health risk is caused by second hand smoke. Most homes in the burbs are built on old farm lands, so you have a cocktail of every pesticide thats ever been used in the soil. Anyone thats lived by a truck route can tell you how clean the air is, especially after cleaning soot from diesel engines off everything in their houses. Or drive down any high way and look at the tops of trees, You are sucking all of that into your lungs too. The point I'm making is none of these studies look at those things they are focused on blaming cigarette smoke for everything. What anti-smokers are doing is exactly the same as the wing nuts do, ignore everything and focus on one cause.

[progressivebydesign]

147. But people here freak if wheelchair bound people are kept out?

Everyone deserves to visit public places. There should be proper access, and a healthy environment for all. I mean.. everyone, universally, freaks out if someone with a visible disability is discriminated against when trying to visit the same public places that the non visibly disable cannot. So, why is it okay to discriminate against people whose disability is of their lungs or heart when it comes to breathing second hand smoke? Why is it okay, here on DU, for people to tell those certified disable people that they just need to stay out of those places that have cigarette smoke, but rant if someone is denied access to that place because it does not have the proper entrances? EVERYONE should be allowed to visit ANY public place, regardless of their disability. Asthmatics, heart patients, smoke allergic, COPD, wheelchair bound, EVERYONE should be allowed access. WHy is there a double standard?

Because some smokers are selfish and unwilling to make any concessions for their fellow man's well being? Because they are in denial about the thousands of chemicals their addiction puts out into the air around them? Because they are truly libertarians at heart? Because they just have to have that cigarette with their beer? What is it? Why is it so hard for people to accept that second hand smoke can kill?

[Touchdown]

186. ANY concessions? Boy are you in full propaganda mode!

Just a small list of where smoking used to be permitted, but because of concessions, are no longer allowed, and now even punishable by law...

Doctor's Offices
Corner Diners
Busses
Airplanes
Movie Theaters
Banks
Retail Stores
Barber Shops
Hospitals
ambulances
Beauty Shops
Auto Shops
TV Studios- see Good Night and Good Luck for an eye opener.
....just about everywhere except for elevators and operating rooms, you get the point. Oh' I think we've made more than our share of concessions. When will you thank us? Ever?

SHS does NOT kill reliably, and there's no definitive, unimpeachable studies that show that it does. If it did, then everybody who lives through the 70s would be dead by now.

You smell smoke, I smell bullshit. You want to call everybody here right wingers who disagrees with you, when you are acting like a fundie witch-hunter yourself.

[Bridget Burke]

162. Houston has some wonderful places to eat.

And there's been a smoking ban in place since early September.

Alas for the poor, persecuted smokers.

[PatriotGames]

180. Why not require better ventilation systems?

[cushla_machree]

292. those never work

we had one in the bar where i worked. It circulated the air, but thats about it. Restaurants could save more money if they just went smoke-free. or at least designated a room for only smoking.

[enki23]

185. "taxpayer education foundation?"

jesus christ.

in any case, what some communities decided *politically* has nothing to do with the "case against secondhand smoke."

one could as easily point to a few cities which have decided otherwise, and call it "the case for smoking in public goes out the window."

[sendero]

188. I can stomach....

....smoking bans in restaurants, but bars?

That's simply ridiculous. Why not ban exhaust fumes at a Nascar track, or manure odors at a horse race track.

Anti-smoking people are some of the biggest zealots in the world, and like most zealots its not good enough that they not do it, they don't want anyone to smoke. Up theirs.

[Beaverhausen]

193. Because some people who go to bars don't smoke

So smokers can just go outside.

[sendero]

200. They can just..

.... go somewhere else. If they can't handle second hand smoke, they don't need to be drinking anyway. Bad for the health ya know.

[Beaverhausen]

202. Moderate drinking can actually be good for your health

I drink red wine and I usually only have one or two glasses. Good for the heart.

Second hand smoke...eh...not so much.

[in_cog_ni_to]

208. second hand smoke while having one or two glasses of wine

doesn't do jack shit to you.

[Beaverhausen]

221. How do you know?

[in_cog_ni_to]

228. How do you know it does? Read my below post. I'm not typing it again. n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

205. NO! NO! NO! They MUST impose THEIR wants on the WORLD!

THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE RIGHTS! DON'TCHA KNOW??? Total bullshit.

I don't like cars. They pollute, they make me cough, they make my clothes stink and they make my eyes burn. I want ALL cars banned NOW.

[sendero]

213. These people would disagree..

... and make all kinds of bullshit "health" arguments, but that's EXACTLY it.

"Porn is bad and I don't want it in my neighborhood, kids might get a hold of it and it is bad for you and it should be banned".

Most anti-smoking crusaders are no better than the typical religiously insane fool who thinks their idea of what is good and right should be adhered to by EVERYBODY.

And here in Dallas the smoking ban rhetoric had the distinct odor of the effete upper classes lording it over the blue collar unclean smokers. Fuck that bullshit.

If that crap is "liberal" call me something else. I don't want any part of anyone telling everyone else WTF to do - you don't like cig smoke, stay the fuck out of bars you don't belong there.

Oh and finally, I smoke on average 2 cigarettes a day. And my bar days are long over, I go to a nightclub/bar about once a year at the most.

[in_cog_ni_to]

219. Same here. We never go out to bars anymore.

I'll be damned if I will EVER support those zealots in their anti-smoking crusade. It's just not right. As long as it's legal, they just have to go elsewhere for a drink.

[mondo joe]

241. Just like those anti-pollution people always whining about emissions.

They are the ONLY people who have rights!

Why don't they let us decide for ourselves if we want to use catalytic converters or let factories pollute?

[in_cog_ni_to]

204. I agree. Non-smokers are the WORST. They drive cars, they sit at NASCAR

races, they breath much worse pollution all day long, yet smokers are the scourge of the earth? Fuck 'em all. If I want to smoke, I will smoke and blow the shit right in their whiny ass faces.:grr: PLUS, how can being exposed to an hours worth of second hand smoke in a day cause cancer? I have yet to see the proof of that. It's bullshit. There's never been any proof of a person getting cancer from going into a bar for a beer, sitting there for an hour and leaving. It's bullshit. I was raised by 2 parents who smoked and I smoke. I do not have cancer and THEY don't/didn't have cancer. My dad died last April from a head injury (at age 78!!!) and my mom is still alive and cancer free...NO LUNG CANCER EITHER.. I'm 50 years old! fercryingoutloud. Non-smokers think they're going to get cancer from visiting a bar once a month for an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours??? :rofl::rofl::rofl: That is just pathetic and ridiculous. It's absurd. They just don't like it.....since THEY don't like it, they want to force THEIR opinions on those who smoke. It's pure crap.

When we have NO SMOKERS ALLOWED bars, THEN we can ban smoking in their bars. SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL PEOPLE!

[Brotherjohn]

209. An asthma attack can kill someone in seconds.

With one... that's ONE... exposure to second-hand smoke.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with self-righteous people trying to impose their morals on smokers. NOTHING.

And I'm not talking about bars (in which the issues to consider differ). If you read my posts above, you see I don't think banning smoking in bars should happen. But in public places, and yes, restaurants... I do think it should be banned.

Cancer is less easily linked, but as much as you cry BS, the evidence is against you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

210. Someone with asthma should just stay away from cigarette smokers then.

Stay out of the damn restaurant if they allow smoking and BARS.

[Brotherjohn]

214. Here's a thought. Perhaps SMOKERS should stay away from people THEY...

... might harm?

Why do we suggest that people who are doing nothing but minding their own business be required to make a choice -- have to choose not to go somewhere or do something -- when the people who ARE committing the physical act that harms someone have no similar restrictions?

Oh, yes, they now do in many places. And that's where the law is finally getting it right.

[in_cog_ni_to]

217. If I'm sitting in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking and YOU walk in

and see me smoking...YOU can fucking leave. It's still legal sweetheart and until they outlaw smoking...I still have a right to smoke whether YOU like it or not. Period.

[Brotherjohn]

220. Now who's being self-righteous? I'm just concerned for my health.

And again, I said... bars = okay.

You're the one saying "It's still legal sweetheart and until they outlaw smoking...I still have a right to smoke whether YOU like it or not."

Again, I don't CARE if you smoke. I care if I have to breath other people's smoke.

I'm done, gotta go; plus I've said my peace. The last word is yours...

[in_cog_ni_to]

223. Good. You don't care if I smoke so, if I'm smoking when you walk in

to a bar or restaurant, you will leave. Good. Being exposed to an hours worth of smoke is not going to kill you unless you're asthmatic and if you're asthmatic, you shouldn't be going anywhere that allows smoking anyway. If you're allergic to peanut butter do you go to restaurants that serve ONLY peanut butter food items??? WTF is the difference?

[mondo joe]

250. The difference? If you eat peanut butter at your table it doesn't enter

the body of the person sitting at the next table.

Another difference: restaurants and bars don't sell only cigarettes (if they sell them at all). They can be utilized with or without smoking, whereas your hypothetical peanut butter restaurant cannot be utilized without peanut butter.

[cushla_machree]

297. the difference is

you have a choice as to whether you get food with peanut butter in it.

you don't have a choice in second hand smoke.

[MarsThe Cat]

227. then let them have establishments where they can go-

to be away from non-smokers.

even blacks in the jim crow south(in respect to a corollary attempted elswhere in the thread) had seperate(and not equal) diners, bathrooms, and drinking fountains.

the MOST REASONABLE solution in a free, capitalist society-
let market forces decide, and let business owners decide for themselves.

[in_cog_ni_to]

230. Can't have that! Anti Smokers must have their way! They must

have access to EVERY restaurant and bar known to man...to hell with smokers. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. TRUE liberalism. I JUST love THE HYPOCRICY IN THIS PLACE ON THIS ISSUE. SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL PEOPLE!

[cushla_machree]

293. CLAP CLAP

why should non-smokers have to alter their lifestyle for someone elses addiction? It is the most ludicrous thing i have ever heard.

If you can't go to a restaurant that bans smoking...stay home and have a tv dinner. Maybe just not go out to restaurants at all, no one is FORCING YOU TO GO. Its your 'choice!'

the businesses losing money argument is the biggest joke i have ever heard. For every smoker who takes a quick break outside, another non-snoker stays in the restaurant longer. My mother is extrememly asthmatic...and now thanks to a state wide ban...actually can stay through the whole dinner when we go out to eat. The smokers go outside, come back in and drink...she stays and spends more money. and the restaurant doesn't have to deal with dirty smoke.

Win win.

[wuushew]

222. Do you believe cigarettes to be an efficient method of nicotine delivery?

Many years ago the smokeless cigarette was developed. Why it did not gain widespread acceptance is unknown to me.

The reality of the situation is that a smokers positive utility for the nicotine buzz comes at the negative enjoyment of non-smoking patrons via ill health effects, odor and irritation.

All governments limit personal freedoms to presumably maximize overall societal utility. We in the west generally believe the in the exaltation of personal freedom in matters of personal choice but many societies both past and present have operated successfully with emulation of our model. I propose that needs and wants are hierarchical in nature. Your higher order satisfaction of the enjoyment of tobacco comes at the expense of customer or worker health.

Is Singapore any less an appropriate demonstration of human culture than America, or a completely libertarian society?

Also is the concept of individualism and free will even as important when modern concepts such as determinism and scientific study of chemical addiction shows us that not all situations are determined by rational agent decision making?

[in_cog_ni_to]

225. If someone works in a bar that allows smoking

they KNEW that going into it. He/she can't say jack shit after the fact. If someone doesn't want to work around cigarette smoke, get a job elsewhere. Work at Walmart, Carsons, a gas station, the subway, ANY business building! Damn! There are other choices and no one can tell me there's NOT. ALL fast food restaurants ban smoking...WORK THERE. There are a TON of no smoking restaurants in my town. People have a choice to eat there or not. I don't because they don't allow smoking. Why can't a non-smoker make the same choice I have to make to NOT eat at a smoking establishment. Their arguments are ridiculous. They just don't like it. That's all. I love their LIBERALISM, BTW. :eyes:

[wuushew]

231. I would support a nicotine drink or direct injection into the blood

I want to know how smokers and non-smokers can co-exist. What form of nicotine delivery is acceptable to you? Because I doubt you are smoking just for the taste of smoke.

[in_cog_ni_to]

233. A nicotine drink? LOL! I think not. An injection?...I don't think so.

I like smoking. If you are anti smoking, stay away from me. That's all. And why do you think I don't like the taste of the smoke?

The ONLY way smokers and anti smokers can coexist is if we all have our own places to go to. We cannot coexist TOGETHER. We MUST HAVE NO NON-SMOKERS ALLOWED and NO SMOKERS ALLOWED establishments. That's the ONLY way and anti smokers don't want that! They have to have access to EVERYTHING. Selfish and self centered...just like repukes, if you ask me.

[wuushew]

236. I just want smokers to self-analyze their behavior

If you can meet your needs via a more ideal situation then such should be encouraged. Perhaps an analogy would be the soccer mom drives a 4x4 SUV when a mini-van would meet the same utility requires for less money/environmental impact. Smoking as it is now is creating more conflict and social disharmony than necessary. I only seek a more perfect solution than is currently practiced. Are you certain that smoking is the best way to meet your needs and desires?

Positives
Taste
Image
chemical buzz
oral fixation
appetite control
etc.

negatives
halitosis
weakened immune system
respiratory dysfunction
increased cancer risk
etc.
supporting big tobacco

[cushla_machree]

296. perhaps its time

for you to realize how smoking is affecting you.

Non-smokers are selfish? my isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.

No one has a problem with the bars in private clubs allowing smoking, the problem is a restaurant or establishment open to the public.

there would be no argument is smoking only caused minor discomfort to others, but it doesn't. No one has a right to dirty the air or water of others. Therefore, it is not out of the question to ban smoking in an enclosed space, if it is open to the public.

seperate but equal didnt work out so well, my friend. When your behavior has negative effects on others, don't cry that you are being discriminated against. Your addiction is not protected under the constitution, only your right to do it to yourself.

[mrcheerful]

234. .What it amounts to is

They are not liberals, they are repiglicans of the worst sort, they hide in the closet and under mine the liberal cause. If you notice the majority here said they don't like the ideal of smoking bans.

[MarsThe Cat]

283. do you believe cooked food to be an efficient method of nutrient delivery?

I'm sure that scientists in a lab could certainly come up with a more efficient and consistent and healthier nutrient mush that we could all ingest instead of foods that have lots of BAD things(cholesteral? fat? refined sugar? taste?) in them.

would that be acceptable to you?

[wuushew]

286. How do you know I am not a vegetarian?

Also my food (or booze) doesn't enter your body. The method by which smokers partake nicotine does effect me.

I am pointing out that enjoyment of both groups can be enhanced by modification of one group's behavior. I am just suggesting possible avenues of change, so stop being an ass.

[MarsThe Cat]

288. but what if one group doesn't want it's behaviour modified?

as long as they are partaking in a legal activity- it's their perogative.

[RandomKoolzip]

269. Again, (sigh) if you work in the food service industry.....

i.e., as a waiter or busboy, you will be exposed to carcinogen smoke just like the smoker, for at least eight hours a day. That's a lot of smoke.

I used to smoke too, and I used to have your attitude about it, too.

[booley]

235. what a load of bull

My family has done it's own little expairiment on second hand smoke.

My Mom smoked. My and my sister have all had respiratopry disease as children. My cousins who parents smoked also have had chronic respiratory disease. In fact almost every body in my family who's parent's smoked had some kind of respiratory problem.

Now this might be nothing if not for the control group. My sister doesn't smoke and her kids do not have respiratorty problems. Same for the rest of my family that didn't have exposure to cigerette smoke as children. And that includes the children of the children who had been exposed by thier parents and had had lung disease.

That cigerette smoke is dangerouse isn't just common sense (it's SMOKE for crying out loud!) but was proved even further back with the Nazis (amazing what you can learn when you have no regard for human life)

Adults may have more of a resistence then children... but resistence isn't the same as immunity.

Not to mention there is another issue that is often overlooked when discussing "smoker's rights"

Smokers SMELL. I've worked ina bar with not enough ventilation and it often got bad enough that non-smokers got ill just from beign inside.

[mrcheerful]

238. And how do you know it wasn't from the factory up wind of you?

Or how about the cleaning solutions your mom used? or how about the land you live on? or how about living by an express way or busy street? Again wing nut non-thinking at the very best discount everything and go for the thing you don't like.

[mondo joe]

240. On the subject of factories, we liberals should fight for the right of

cities to not restrict emissions from factories.

If a city decides it wants to pollute the air and water, it's their own business. And the people who live in the city can decide for themselves if they want to live there!

[hedgehog]

245. I used to work in a steel mill

The smoke from the steel making didn't make me cough, but the smoke from the cigarettes some of the guys' cigarettes did. Honest. The trick is that the soot from the steel doesn't get down as far into your lungs as cigarette smoke does.

[mondo joe]

248. And isn't it funny how dems rally around emissions controls and

worker safety - up until the emissions are from a cigarette?

[in_cog_ni_to]

268. You worked in a bar and you're anti-smoking?

:rofl::rofl::rofl: THEN you have the gall to actually COMPLAIN about it? That's bullshit. You knew people smoked in the bar when you took the damn job. If you didn't want to be around smokers you should have gotten a job at Walmart.

And your little family history story is quite interesting. Let me tell you MINE. I grew up with parents who smoked. THEY were healthy as horses, rarely sick. Dad lived until last April and died of a head injury at age 78. Mom is still alive and well and HEALTHY. I smoke. I'm 50 and hardly ever get sick. I can't remember the last time I was sick. My son is one of the healthiest kids in his group. He is rarely sick, doesn't have respiratory problems, no ear infections. Maybe an occasional cold in winter. My best friend whose family NEVER smoked, she doesn't smoke either and SHE has allergies, her kids have allergies and respiratory problems, asthma and are sick ALL THE TIME. Explain that one. You can't.

[Warren DeMontague]

242. Really? you mean it doesn't smell like a dog's ass?

and stick to clothing, carpet, and furniture?

Wow. What a powerful imagination I have.

And TYVM, I'll stick with California's anti indoor smoking (in public establishments) laws, just the same.

[Jose Diablo]

246. What's a dogs ass smell like?

I've never sniffed one myself.

[Warren DeMontague]

244. This is why I do all my breathing in California and not Illinois anymore.

nt

[tyedyeto]

253. No Smoking if you are on a sidewalk and are not walking

This is what I heard from someone a couple of days ago. This person is from somewhere in California and the local ordinance says if you are smoking on a sidewalk it's fine if you keep on walking. Can get fined if you stop.

I don't have a link, just an account from someone I had met. Anyone know where the town/city is that has this law?

[kestrel91316]

259. Secondhand smoke doesn't just kill people, we now know that

it kills pet cats.

Research into persistent cases of intestinal and renal lymphoma in spite of the near-elimination of Feline Leukemia Virus from housecat populations has shown a CLEAR link with owners who smoke. Apparently the tars settle on the cat's coat, and are removed by grooming behavior. The swallowed tar attacks the gastrointestinal tract if not absorbed into the bloodstream, and the kidneys if it is.

Sadly, I recently had to euthanize a SIX-YEAR OLD CAT who had the misfortune to have not one, but two owners who smoked. He developed renal lymphoma and deteriorated rapidly in spite of treatment, and had to be put down. A senseless tragedy. His parents were horrified to find out that they were the likely cause of his death.

They have another cat, but have wisely decided to smoke outdoors only from now on, and they have a HEPA filter for the air in the home to clear out the crap they exhale out of their lungs after smoking. I wish they would just QUIT SMOKING.

People who don't believe second-hand smoke is harmful REALLY piss me off.

[Jose Diablo]

285. Sounds like a bumper sticker

"Save the Kitty Cats, Quit Smoking"

[kestrel91316]

295. It's funny, but when people realize that they might end up

killing a beloved pet with their smoking, some of them find the willpower to stop.

Every little bit helps.

[MojoXN]

279. I live near another Wheeling that recently instituted a smoking ban.

Wheeling, West Virginia. Every restaurant and bar in Ohio county is now no-smoking by county statute.

The effects on local businesses have been DISASTROUS. Revenues are down 25% on average. The local Budweiser distributor has sold 30% less product this year versus 2004. A poll of employees at 22 county bars and restaurants found that 85% are smokers. In light of these facts, do you think that any health benefits derived are worth the damage to the local economy? There is ONE bar/restaurant complex that isn't affected by the ban: Wheeling Downs, the local racetrack and "gaming resort".

The first commandment of legislators everywhere: Thou shalt be beholden unto corporate interests.

MojoXN

[rfkrfk]

282. Chemical warfare should be banned, 'perfume'

and toxics such as cleaning solutions

[Zynx]

287. I think that we should designate "smoke dens" and those are the only

places people can smoke. These can also be bars, but not old fashioned restaurants, and possibly some other facilities. I am sick and tired of walking down the street and having someone light up right in my face. The smell is nasty and putrid and gives me a nasty headache that takes a long time to go away. I'm sorry, but they may as well just punch me in the head for all the pain it causes me.