New Surgeon General study on second hand smoke [Archive]

MeridianFC

06-28-2006, 08:22 AM

I see smoking bans as essential health and safety regulations just like any the various local goverments have and are currently engaged in. Further, in this jurisdiction where we've just voted for a public smoking ban, the citizens (the engine behind this government thing everyone bitches about) are overwhelmingly for it.

As a right's issue I come down on the side of the consumer and the old "your rights end where my nose begins" saw. Smoking is a habit that can not be contained in one's personal space by the person practising it so regulating it's performance in public seems right and proper.

As far as the first step towards a totalitarian state I'm just not buying it. As some may recall there was an issue with overzealous enforcement of the Districts "zero policy" laws as regards drunken driving. It took less than a week of public outcry to that to be dealt with in City Hall's chambers. That sounds like the engine of democracy working fine and a good example of how to avoid the outrageous situations envisioned.

Chuckee

06-28-2006, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by newportstorm
This should fuel the fire for smoking bans in bars & pubs. Read.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

Some people see it as an opportunity get the gov’t to *force* businesses to operate how they want it operated.

Tyrants see it as an opportunity to add one more layer of gov’t control on business.

“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”
Thomas Jefferson

guildofevil

06-28-2006, 08:56 AM

I have pretty strong feelings about personal freedom, to the point where I would, for example, support the legalization and regulation of all drugs.

People can choose what they do with their own bodies, whether it is smoking, drinking, drugs, unhealthy foods, etc. and no one has any right to tell them not to. The only time others have a right to object is if it affects them.

That is the one important difference when we are talking about second hand smoke: other people smoking affects me.

It is all very well to talk about government interfering with the way business operates, but businesses operate within government guidelines already.

What about health regulations? Fire regulations? Employment law? All of these things force businesses to operate the way the government tells them they should. Is that wrong?

I know when I go to a restaurant I would like to think that the kitchen is run according to health regulations and that they have functioning emergency exits and sprinklers, if there is a fire.

I suppose you could make the case that if you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, you can vote with your feet. Go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking. But that can be difficult when no such place exists, due to businesses being terrified of offending their smoking patrons.

And what if you're not a customer? What if you're an employee? If you are serving drinks or waiting tables you probably don't have a lot of employment options. Should you have to choose between your job and the risk to your health brought about by smoke filled work environment?

Here in Ireland, we have had a smoking ban in all workplaces, including pubs and restaurants, for a few years now and even smokers are starting to acknowledge that it has changed things for the better. Take your smoke outside and don't inflict it on others. It's only fair.

Having a smoking section in a pub is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Séan

HogieWan

06-28-2006, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by guildofevil

Having a smoking section in a pub is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.

Séan

LOL!!!!!!!!

hops99

06-28-2006, 09:47 AM

Processed carbohydrates are responsible for more disability and deaths per year than tobacco or alcohol combined.

I hear this lame "argument" over and over. The HUGE difference is that when someone eats at McDonald's, their Big Mac farts aren't a class A carcinogen that'll KILL someone else. Common sense, man.

People can choose what they do with their own bodies, whether it is smoking, drinking, drugs, unhealthy foods, etc. and no one has any right to tell them not to. The only time others have a right to object is if it affects them.

Agreed 100%. I'll add seat belts to the mix. Sure, it's pretty damn stupid to not wear one, but I bristle every time I see one of those "Click it or ticket" commercials on television. Not only does the government NOT have the right to tell me that I have to wear one (IMO), they're spending millions of our tax dollars to advertise the fact that I have to wear one. F'ing ridiculous.

Chuckee

06-28-2006, 10:15 AM

What about health regulations? Fire regulations? Employment law? All of these things force businesses to operate the way the government tells them they should. Is that wrong?

I know when I go to a restaurant I would like to think that the kitchen is run according to health regulations and that they have functioning emergency exits and sprinklers, if there is a fire.

Sure…. valid point. The difference being people don’t choose to intentionally burn themselves nor do they choose to engage in the recreational use of salmonella. For some reason, some people do choose to smoke. Why? I don’t know. But restaurant and bar owners should be free to allow or disallow smoking on their premises based on their business model.

The smoking option to the customer would be the same as the beer or food option; if you like the establishment and their offerings; go there and spend your money. Don’t like it; go somewhere else.

What if you're an employee? If you are serving drinks or waiting tables you probably don't have a lot of employment options. Should you have to choose between your job and the risk to your health brought about by smoke filled work environment?

Work somewhere else. Or, start your own business and run it the way you please.

Personally, I despise smoking. If I were to open a bar, I would not allow smoking. But, with respect to gov’t enforced smoking bans; I default to freedom.

newportstorm

06-28-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by hops99
Not only does the government NOT have the right to tell me that I have to wear one (IMO), they're spending millions of our tax dollars to advertise the fact that I have to wear one. F'ing ridiculous.

Sure they do. And you have the right to not wear one and risk a possible fine. Beware....my company also reserves the right to not pay my medical bills if I'm involved in a car accident and wasn't wearing a seat belt. My healthcare is free and I've been belting up for a decade now, so it's not a big deal to me.

My comany also makes smokers pay an extra $8/week for healthcare (they call it a "wellness fee"). Again, I don't smoke so....hell if I care.

Cheers!

Chuckee

06-28-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by hops99
I'll add seat belts to the mix. Sure, it's pretty damn stupid to not wear one, but I bristle every time I see one of those "Click it or ticket" commercials on television. Not only does the government NOT have the right to tell me that I have to wear one (IMO), they're spending millions of our tax dollars to advertise the fact that I have to wear one. F'ing ridiculous.

Totally agree. I’ll add helmet laws. But, if someone is stupid enough to ride minus a seatbelt or a helmet and they get hurt, they shouldn’t be able to hit up the taxpayer to pay for their stupidity.

Adult responsibility is the companion of adult freedom.

fretlessman71

06-28-2006, 10:32 AM

And I have the "right" to drive 90 - or 20, for that matter - in a 65 zone, but I'd do well to understand that there are consequences for my actions. There's the ticket right there (no pun intended, but it's kinda nice).

fretlessman71

06-28-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Chuckee

Adult responsibility is the companion of adult freedom. Yep - and as Paul Harvey is famous for saying, "Self government won't work without self discipline." Very similar concept.

hops99

06-28-2006, 11:56 AM

Sure they do. And you have the right to not wear one and risk a possible fine.

I hear ya', but in my opinion, they don't (or better put, shouldn't), but that's a more esoteric argument.

And I have the "right" to drive 90 - or 20, for that matter - in a 65 zone, but I'd do well to understand that there are consequences for my actions.

Again, not comparing apples to apples. If someone is excessively speeding, or driving recklessly, that could affect another's well-being. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, it doesn't affect anyone or anything other than myself. It's a "victim-less" crime (unless we think that the government needs to save us from ourselves).

fretlessman71

06-28-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by hops99

Again, not comparing apples to apples. If someone is excessively speeding, or driving recklessly, that could affect another's well-being. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, it doesn't affect anyone or anything other than myself. It's a "victim-less" crime (unless we think that the government needs to save us from ourselves). Fair point. Then again, maybe we DO need the government to save us from ourselves... for instance, I'm about to have a BEER... and there's not a single one of YOU who would stop me, even if you could! ;)

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 01:46 PM

Whatever. This is just another stupid sensationalized story on a slow news day. If these people are worried about air quality, do something about emissions, smog, smoke stacks, the carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere that Dubja says is not a pollutant...

There are more serious issues to worry about than being exposed to second hand smoke for a few minutes.

Before anyone asks, I do not smoke anymore. I gave it up 3 years ago and no, I don't like the smell of smoke in bars nor do I miss smoking in bars since the ban in CT. I just think people should react with their wallets. Not with unjustified legislation. Let the owners of these establishments decide whether or not to allow smoking. Don't shove it down their throats.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by hops99
I hear this lame "argument" over and over. The HUGE difference is that when someone eats at McDonald's, their Big Mac farts aren't a class A carcinogen that'll KILL someone else. Common sense, man.

Billions upon billions in healthcare costs, which I partially pay for with my premium AND tax dollars. They take MY work time, and enslave me to pay for their health problems. That's ends up being years of my life working for those with bad health due to processed carbs. Estimates up to 1/4 of Americans with type 2 diabetes.

You and I will spend more of our lives working and paying for processed carb-related health problems than we will ever lose to second hand smoke. That's a fact, Bubba.

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Billions upon billions in healthcare costs, which I partially pay for with my premium AND tax dollars. They take MY work time, and enslave me to pay for their health problems. That's ends up being years of my life working for those with bad health due to processed carbs. Estimates up to 1/4 of Americans with type 2 diabetes.

You and I will spend more of our lives working and paying for processed carb-related health problems than we will ever lose to second hand smoke. That's a fact, Bubba.

What's your address so I can send you your 38 cents? That's about your cut of it. While I see where you're going with this argument, the fact is you are personally responsible for about 38 cents a year of those costs personally. That doesn't add up to years of your life.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by jjpm74
What's your address so I can send you your 38 cents? That's about your cut of it.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, jjpm74. Easy to quip, but I pay excessive insurance premiums due to obesity-related health care problems, which lead health care costs. My taxes pay for those on SSI and SSD who are permanently disabled by such. This whole cigarette stink is like yelling about a fox in the barnyard while a wolf is in the house.

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, jjpm74. Easy to quip, but I pay excessive insurance premiums due to obesity-related health care problems, which lead health care costs. My taxes pay for those on SSI and SSD who are permanently disabled by such. This whole cigarette stink is like yelling about a fox in the barnyard while a wolf is in the house.

Ever thought about carrying a large deductable to help curb those costs? Me and my wife are healthy individuals who go to the doctor once a year for checkups and rarely get sick. We carry a deductable of $5000 and pay for things like doctors visits out of pocket. Our monthy premium is $13. With no deductable, it'd be $243. Our annual visits to the doctor equates to about $400. That's $2516 a year we are not paying in health insurance. Let's say something does happen. We are covered 100% after the $5000 deductable and have had this insurance plan for 5 years now, so we have saved money no matter how you look at it. I'd rather have the $2516 sitting in savings earning interest until it might be needed than giving it away to a health insurance agency.

hops99

06-28-2006, 03:07 PM

You and I will spend more of our lives working and paying for processed carb-related health problems than we will ever lose to second hand smoke. That's a fact, Bubba.

That's a fact? Hah! Thanks for my afternoon chuckle.

Man, I hate baseless claims like this. Stick to the tobacco argument my friend - You're not going to lose years of your life standing next to a guy who is eating his Whopper with cheese and Hostess fruit pie. Pretty simple to understand.

The perceived "burden" that taxpayers like you and I incur from guys like that is negligible. It's a separate issue, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the effects of 2nd-hand cigarette smoke. And I say this as a guy who is pretty hard-core with my less-government regulation/interference beliefs. Smoke all you want (nobody here is advocating the loss of that right), just don't do it around others.

As a private business owner, I can barely take a dump in my bathroom without the government knowing about it. My company is heavily taxed to pay for unemployment benefits and workers compensation. The government taxes payroll, products, services, you name it, and almost everything my company does is regulated and licensed (health department, liquor control, vendors license, etc.). As a private business owner, the reality is that we have very little flexibility in the way that we can run our businesses. And yet, people choose to get incensed over the government regulating tobacco usage in "private" businesses. Whatever.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 03:14 PM

We call it "the use of irony". It's ironic that I spend X amount of hours of MY life working for someone with an eating-related disease. This is MY time, gone forever, MY money, gone.

Now, I compare that at an hourly rate to how many days I will lose to second hand smoke.

I use that point to make a reasonable argument.

I hope this simple explanation enlightened you in the use of irony.

My next lesson: The Use of Sarcasm

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
My next lesson: The Use of Sarcasm [/B]

What is this thing called sarcasm you speak of? Is it the next miracle diet pill? Do tell...:cool:

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 03:24 PM

The word comes from the late Latin word, sarcasmus, which, in turn, comes from the Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein - to bite the lips in rage,- from sarx, sark-, flesh - the root word literally means "to cut a piece of flesh (from the targeted person)."
(retrieved from Wikipedia, 6/28/06)

I don't know about a diet pill. If you could smoke it, it would surely be banned due to it's second hand effects on lemmings.

hops99

06-28-2006, 03:28 PM

We call it "the use of irony". It's ironic that I spend X amount of hours of MY life working for someone with an eating-related disease. This is MY time, gone forever, MY money, gone.

Point duly noted, but there is still no connection whatsoever to the 2nd hand smoke argument. Two completely different issues, and let's leave it at that.

I can't verify whether or not jjpm's $.38 a year is accurate, but it sounds to be in the ballpark. I insure several employees in my business, and have worked with several different brokers/insurance guys, and they all say the same thing, when i ask them why group rates continue to spike 20 - 40 percent annually: because they can get away with it. NOT because there are millions more diabetics every year, or that fat asses are dropping like flies - those are mostly excuses, at least according to industry guys.

MeridianFC

06-28-2006, 03:30 PM

If one is mad about the cost to society from overeating or what not than one should be absolutely livid about the cost to society from smoking (first or second hand). Again I just see it as a reasonable health and safety issue for a public place of business. If people want to smoke in their homes or the great out of doors, more power to 'em.

As far as health insurance costs, I've discovered first hand this year how absolutely f***ed you are even with insurance should things go even a little pear shaped. The figure I heard yesterday was the 75% of all bankrupcy cases in the US were related to health issues, a figure that now does not suprise me in the least. Topic for another day I suppose.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by hops99
Point duly noted, but there is still no connection whatsoever to the 2nd hand smoke argument. Two completely different issues, and let's leave it at that.

Good show, bro.

Back to the cigs, this issue was hashed out on another thread awhile back. Some predicted no harm from passing no-smoking laws in Washington DC.

I predict, however, that those happy politicians will use this report as an excuse to reach into our private lives. Private business owners will be required to go smokeless, people will not be hired or will be fired if they are smokers, and smokers will be forced to walk through the cold and the rain to a hut in the middle of a field to pursue their pleasure. It will become illegal to smoke while driving your own car with the windows rolled up. All the while, cigarette taxes will go through the roof.

Oh, yeah, that's happened already.

Okay, my next prediction...

MeridianFC

06-28-2006, 04:51 PM

I predict that we'll find here as in Manhattan, California, Montgomery County, Ireland, etc. that the impact will be minimal on business (some will suffer some will not). There'll be an initial dip then things will rebound to normal or beyond, as is the case in NYC at the moment. I'd lay odds the government will not come for your pack of Marlboros, will not pull the children of smokers away from their homes in the night, and will generally go on as they do (or as we let them).

I do agree that the taxes on cigarettes will go through the roof, but the taxes on everything are always going through the roof. That's how we get so many nice roofs on government buildings.

Yours,

The Amazing MeridianFC

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by MeridianFC
I predict that we'll find here as in Manhattan, California, Montgomery County, Ireland, etc. that the impact will be minimal on business (some will suffer some will not). There'll be an initial dip then things will rebound to normal or beyond, as is the case in NYC at the moment. I'd lay odds the government will not come for your pack of Marlboros, will not pull the children of smokers away from their homes in the night, and will generally go on as they do (or as we let them).

I do agree that the taxes on cigarettes will go through the roof, but the taxes on everything are always going through the roof. That's how we get so many nice roofs on government buildings.

Yours,

The Amazing MeridianFC

In CT since the ban, more outdoor bars and patios have opened and the beer wine and alcohol selection has improved. If anything, there's more business since the ban, not less.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by jjpm74
In CT since the ban, more outdoor bars and patios have opened and the beer wine and alcohol selection has improved. If anything, there's more business since the ban, not less.

http://www.bretdixonins.com/News%20Articles/1098.htm

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/21/Hillsborough/Smoking_ban_shutters_.shtml

Shall I continue?

I don't get a mentality that ignores THE STATE issuing fascist edicts to PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (businesses are legally considered a private individual) just because it tickles that mentality's self righteousness. If you don't see the similarity between these bans and say, for instance, THE STATE (not even the feds) seizing your phone records without a warrant, you must've fallen asleep during the class on the Bill of Rights.

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
http://www.bretdixonins.com/News%20Articles/1098.htm

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/09/21/Hillsborough/Smoking_ban_shutters_.shtml

Shall I continue?

I don't get a mentality that ignores THE STATE issuing fascist edicts to PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS (businesses are legally considered a private individual) just because it tickles that mentality's self righteousness. If you don't see the similarity between these bans and say, for instance, THE STATE (not even the feds) seizing your phone records without a warrant, you must've fallen asleep during the class on the Bill of Rights.

You're preaching to the choir here. I'm a registered Libertarian. ;)

As for the two links you provided, neither is about the smoking ban in Connecticut.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by jjpm74
As for the two links you provided, neither is about the smoking ban in Connecticut.

Link me, brother. They were provided to show that, yes, it does hurt businesses.

newportstorm

06-28-2006, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Bilbo Beergins
Link me, brother. They were provided to show that, yes, it does hurt businesses.

That second link was interesting reading but proved nothing. A restaurant refuses to even try to comply with the smoking ban, so they get shut down. So?

And the other link proves little, as well. If your establishment offers little/nothing more than a seat to park your ass and light up, reconsider your business plan. Hell, if a smoking ban puts a crimp in your wallet that badly, maybe you should've opened a cigar bar - many are still exempt from the ban in states than have bans.

So many of the arguments from businesses against the smoking ban sound like a 5 year old telling his parents "You're not the boss of me!"

"Um....yes son, we are. Now go to your room."

threecb

06-28-2006, 08:14 PM

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

http://business.scotsman.com/media.cfm?id=938352006

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9812/20/bartender.smoke/

Shall I continue?

There's an awful lot of opinions out there on this topic, and not a lot of facts backing them up. BTW, the second link you posted is a story about a place that CHOSE to close down so they weren't beaten down by the man...er, ban.

Bilbo Beergins

06-28-2006, 09:10 PM

A Harvard study, McPubs, and a happy bartender. No business owners.

Regardless, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Chuckee

06-28-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by newportstorm
So many of the arguments from businesses against the smoking ban sound like a 5 year old telling his parents "You're not the boss of me!"

Wow! What an incredible statement. What a disconnect...

Talk of Liberty and Property Rights sounds like a 5 year old?

No offense… below is a quote from the time of the American Revolution. I’m sure those fire-brands sound like 2 year olds who first learn the word NO.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the
tranquility of servitude better than the animating
contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch
down and lick the hands of those who feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you. May
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams

MeridianFC

06-28-2006, 09:45 PM

Smoking is not essential liberty. You can't go out in public places and do whatever you want if it effects others. It seems there's a lot of talk about the rights of the business owners, which is all well and good (and important) but the rights and protection of the general public feature too and I wold say trump.

A public smoking ban is the right thing to do. If nothing else in my jurisdiction the majority of citizens wanted it as they've also wanted to leaglize medical marijuana, and to keep the handgun ban in effect. That's the will of the people here.

As far as business impact you could probably actually find a poll or survey to find whatever you want. I'm going some with my eyes on several post ban trips to NYC and CA and some with what I've found in two second looking on the web. I'll put some in that have mixed reviews:

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3016321

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4016645.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-01-smoking-usat_x.htm

And whilst bending quotes of the founding fathers to suit an argument that could not have been envisioned in their time is a neat trick, it's really not appropriate. We imbue the goverment with the power to act for us. The goverment is not other, they are our servants and work to serve us. Desiring or supporting a local or regional smoking ban (there has been no talk of taking this national that I'm aware of) is not that same as licking the boot of a fascits dictatorship. It's like wanting to rise up because they've installed a speed limit in your town. It's a reasonable thing of a municipal government to do.

hops99

06-28-2006, 09:47 PM

As a point of reference, the first "recorded" smoking ban in world history goes all the way back to the 16th century (1590, to be exact) when Pope Urban VII banned the use of tobacco on church property.

No offense… below is a quote from the time of the American Revolution. I’m sure those fire-brands sound like 2 year olds who first learn the word NO.

Yeah, these are the same fire-brands that thought slavery was cool. Gimme a break; times have changed.

And the quote that (for me) sums up the second-hand smoke argument: "The right to swing my fist ends at another man's nose" by Oliver Wendell Holmes (U.S. Supreme Court Justice from 1902 - 1932).

jjpm74

06-28-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by hops99
As a point of reference, the first "recorded" smoking ban in world history goes all the way back to the 16th century (1590, to be exact) when Pope Urban VII banned the use of tobacco on church property.

Yeah, these are the same fire-brands that thought slavery was cool. Gimme a break; times have changed.

And the quote that (for me) sums up the second-hand smoke argument: "The right to swing my fist ends at another man's nose" by Oliver Wendell Holmes (U.S. Supreme Court Justice from 1902 - 1932).

"For every quote like the above, someone who thinks otherwise will come up with a counterquote."

--Someguy 6/6/06

What's the point in arguing against propaganda with propaganda? Your argument is just as weak as the counterargument until you actually back up what you say with some undistorted, unbiased facts which will not happen.

MeridianFC

06-29-2006, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by jjpm74
[B]

--Someguy 6/6/06

"I know that guy. "
Some other guy 7/4/76

newportstorm

06-29-2006, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by hops99

Yeah, these are the same fire-brands that thought slavery was cool. Gimme a break; times have changed.

hehehe

Ah, slaves...many of which may have worked in the tobacco fields. Hmmm.....

http://www.licensedtokill.biz/media/pr040210.html

(If this link offends you, contact the site in question, not me. Thanks.)

Chuckee

06-29-2006, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by hops99
Yeah, these are the same fire-brands that thought slavery was cool.

That’s not a true statement. There was a fair size schism on the question of slavery… some were for, some were neutral, and some were absolutely against.

Here’s a quote from Jefferson, a slave owner.
“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.”

*For their time*, the Founding Fathers were well ahead of the status quo, and they put in place the mechanism to create the greatest nation in the history of the earth.

They decided to tackle one major hurdle at a time… creating a new nation, where the governors derive their power from the consent of the governed. A notion taken for granted now, but quite marvelous at the time.

newportstorm

06-29-2006, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Chuckee
That’s not a true statement. There was a fair size schism on the question of slavery… some were for, some were neutral, and some were absolutely against.

Here’s a quote from Jefferson, a slave owner.
“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.”

*For their time*, the Founding Fathers were well ahead of the status quo, and they put in place the mechanism to create the greatest nation in the history of the earth.

They decided to tackle one major hurdle at a time… creating a new nation, where the governors derive their power from the consent of the governed. A notion taken for granted now, but quite marvelous at the time.

It's hard to accept views on slavery, freedoms and personal liberty from someone who once used a Nazi soldier as an avatar.

Chuckee

06-29-2006, 07:53 AM

Um, the avatar was Hillary Clinton’s face photoshopped onto Hitler’s uniformed body.

I’m a libertarian. I believe it is immoral to violate anyone’s right to life, liberty or property.

hops99

06-29-2006, 08:04 AM

What's the point in arguing against propaganda with propaganda? Your argument is just as weak as the counterargument until you actually back up what you say with some undistorted, unbiased facts which will not happen.

Heh - the first recorded smoking ban is fact (check your theologic history), and it's to illustrate that these types of things were happening throughout the world long before the founding fathers were licking boots.

Slavery was encouraged and accepted by many of the founding fathers - a point to illustrate that manipulating 18th century quotes is a sleazily mendacious exercise. Sam Adams and the rest of the gang had plenty of skeletons in their closets.

The Oliver Wendell Holmes quote (actually rendered as a judgment) demonstrated his belief in the balance of personal rights.

Not sure what "propagandizing" you're speaking of. The facts speak for themselves.

newportstorm

06-29-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Chuckee
Um, the avatar was Hillary Clinton’s face photoshopped onto Hitler’s uniformed body.

Ah yes, I could almost make out her evil grin on your 3 pixel-size head.

http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg

hops99

06-29-2006, 08:12 AM

Here’s a quote from Jefferson, a slave owner.

“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it.”

Hah! Did he say this while he was banging Sally Hemings and fathering several illigitimate kids? Puh-lease.

ok - this has officially gone way, way off topic....

guildofevil

06-29-2006, 08:14 AM

I still don't think people are fully considering the employees right to a smoke free environment.

The logic that people don't have to work there is just flawed, because the same logic can be used against virtually any employment regulation.

No we don't let our staff have breaks. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
No we don't pay minimum wage. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
No we don't give payed holidays. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
No we don't adhere to minimum industrial safety standards. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
Bend over and take it. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.

Consider also that wait staff tend to be from the poorer, more vulnerable sections of society, with few employment prospects.

When it's a choice between a job waiting tables in a smoky brewpub and not knowing how you're going to pay the rent and feed your kids, you breathe the smoke and try not to think about the damage it might be doing.

For staff this isn't just a couple of hours on a Saturday night. This is their job. They could be spending more than 40 hours a week breathing other peoples smoke.

Is it right that they have to damage their health to protect the freedom of businesses to set their own smoking policy?

Séan

Chuckee

06-29-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by newportstorm
Ah yes, I could almost make out her evil grin on your 3 pixel-size head.

Here’s the actual photo.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9785/hitlery6pr.jpg

threecb

06-29-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by newportstorm
http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg

Uh, thanks newp. I won't sleep for a week now.:D

My earlier post was only pointing out that you could use "facts" to twist this arguement any way you want.

Why don't ya'll take this outside, huh? And while you're out there, smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

(before anyone starts in with the "this is a public forum where people are expressing their opinions blah, blah, blah" -- it's a JOKE!)

Bilbo Beergins

06-29-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by guildofevil
I still don't think people are fully considering the employees right to a smoke free environment.

Employees have a right to leave that employment. I'm proximal to HIV, Hepatitis, TB, and a host of other diseases. My employer requires this as a part of my employment. I have a right to LEAVE.

The whole issue is that, constitutionally, a business is an individual. This is not a "public" issue, it is a private one. Legally, private individuals are being required, in the privacy of their own establishment, to ban smoking. A huge line is crossed here. It's called the 4th Amendment. Effectively, the individual's right to conduct commerce in an unrestricted fashion in the privacy of its confines is being abrogated. The state enters the private establishment, and legislation allows for a presumptive search for evidence of an illegality. Bad law, bad for you, bad for me.

The connection is this. If they can do it to a business, as an individual, they can do it to you, as an individual. Screw "public safety". These are basic rights, and your offense at cigarette smoke in a business you don't have to frequent truly takes a backseat.

I'm telling you, this is how Hitler started, Chuckee. Am I wrong?

MeridianFC

06-29-2006, 05:14 PM

I knew it was coming! I'm a progonositactor of the first order (not related to "some guy")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

:D

jjpm74

06-29-2006, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by guildofevil
I still don't think people are fully considering the employees right to a smoke free environment.

The logic that people don't have to work there is just flawed, because the same logic can be used against virtually any employment regulation.

No we don't let our staff have breaks. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
No we don't pay minimum wage. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
No we don't give payed holidays. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
No we don't adhere to minimum industrial safety standards. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.
Bend over and take it. Don't like it? Go work somewhere else.

Consider also that wait staff tend to be from the poorer, more vulnerable sections of society, with few employment prospects.

When it's a choice between a job waiting tables in a smoky brewpub and not knowing how you're going to pay the rent and feed your kids, you breathe the smoke and try not to think about the damage it might be doing.

For staff this isn't just a couple of hours on a Saturday night. This is their job. They could be spending more than 40 hours a week breathing other peoples smoke.

Is it right that they have to damage their health to protect the freedom of businesses to set their own smoking policy?

Séan

Not the same thing. People assume certain risks and have certain expectations in certain professions. If they don't want those risks, there's nothing forcing them to accept those risks. They can always find a new line of work.

newportstorm

06-29-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by jjpm74
Not the same thing. People assume certain risks and have certain expectations in certain professions. If they don't want those risks, there's nothing forcing them to accept those risks. They can always find a new line of work.

Bah. If there were no public smoking ban in....office buildings, airplanes, hospitals, restaurants, etc. where the hell would anyone work without second hand smoke?

Guess we could all work from home stuffing envelopes...

Chuckee

06-29-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by newportstorm
Bah. If there were no public smoking ban in....office buildings, airplanes, hospitals, restaurants, etc. where the hell would anyone work without second hand smoke?

The market will take care of those things.

The false premise that grown-ups are too stupid, demure or serf-like to assert themselves in their jobs or businesses is the reason some want a “nanny-state.”

It stands to reason if we are child-like and not capable of assuming adult responsibilities, we need an all-powerful protector to wipe our noses and make sure the teacher doesn’t give us too much homework.

If you can’t negotiate for yourself and you need a protector; fine. Join a union.

Bilbo Beergins

06-29-2006, 08:25 PM

Union Motto: "The Führer is always right ."

jjpm74

06-29-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by newportstorm
Bah. If there were no public smoking ban in....office buildings, airplanes, hospitals, restaurants, etc. where the hell would anyone work without second hand smoke?

Guess we could all work from home stuffing envelopes...

I work at a school as a teacher. My wife works from home. There are many places to work that have always been smoke free. How's having an employee lounge for smoking any different or more annoying than having 100 people puffing away right by the main entrance to a building? No one's saying people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want. Places like bars and casinos have always been places of vice. If you are in a field where it is EXPECTED that you work around smokers, that is your choice. No one's holding a gun up to the head of the clerk who works in the cigar shop where everyone around him is smoking all day long. I guess the next thing is we should allow a woman to work at a strip club who is offended by nudity and force the strippers to stay clothed to accommodate that person? Maybe we should ban all liquor stores from within 2 miles of a Baptist or Mormon place of worship? A lot of the arguments presented in this thread come down to how offended one is. It has nothing to do with health or safety. Try breathing in the air around Bridgeport for a day without hacking up a lung (one of the most polluted areas in the US). That's much worse yet no one's doing anything about that.

newportstorm

06-29-2006, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by jjpm74
Try breathing in the air around Bridgeport for a day without hacking up a lung (one of the most polluted areas in the US). That's much worse yet no one's doing anything about that.

Ah well...you could always move. No one's doing anything about it? That include you? I don't live there, so it doesn't bother me much.

Sniiiiiffffff.....cough, hack, wheeze....

jjpm74

06-29-2006, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by newportstorm
Ah well...you could always move. No one's doing anything about it? That include you? I don't live there, so it doesn't bother me much.

Sniiiiiffffff.....cough, hack, wheeze....

The pollution comes from the Ohio valley courtesy of the jet stream. Don't worry. They'll ban smoking on your block and your favorite reality TV show will still be on when you get home. That global warming thing won't become a serious issue until your grandchildren are around your age. You should be fine.

hops99

06-29-2006, 10:49 PM

Maybe we should ban all liquor stores from within 2 miles of a Baptist or Mormon place of worship?

Well, a similar law has been in effect here in Ohio for several years - that is, no liquor permits issued within a certain distance (I think it's 500 yards) of a church or school.

A lot of the arguments presented in this thread come down to how offended one is. It has nothing to do with health or safety.

I totally disagree with this. While I firmly believe that people don't have the right to "not be offended", second-hand smoke IS a health issue. Hell, read the link that started the thread.

The pollution comes from the Ohio valley courtesy of the jet stream.

Baloney. I lived in Connecticut for 10 years, about an hour Northwest of Bridgeport. I can tell you with the utmost confidence that all of that crap is actually coming from Waterbury ;)

guildofevil

06-30-2006, 05:27 AM

If there was a machine in the corner of the room belching out carcinogenic smoke, there would be no way people would be asked to work in the room, without protective breathing apparatus, but because it is being generated by customers, staff are expected to grin and bear it.

The situation stinks (literally and figuratively) and the only reason people put up with it now is because it has been this way since before people knew the stuff was dangerous.

Originally posted by jjpm74
Try breathing in the air around Bridgeport for a day without hacking up a lung (one of the most polluted areas in the US). That's much worse yet no one's doing anything about that.

The fact that no one is doing anything about another problem is no reason not to address this one. If it bothers you so much, do something about it. Join a lobby group or something.

Or would that infringe the right of private business to spew filth into the air? After all, people don't have to live there. They can always move somewhere else.

Séan

Jeff

06-30-2006, 06:27 AM

Maybe next we should get rid of laws requiring asbestos abatement workers to wear protective clothing and remove and dispose of asbestos in a safe manner. They can always work somewhere else. For that matter why even get rid of asbestos, you don't have to go into any of those buildings.

Before a city wide smoking ban in Lincoln there was one bar that was smoke free. It was a half hour across town from me and had the worst beer selection.

newportstorm

06-30-2006, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Jeff
Maybe next we should get rid of laws requiring asbestos abatement workers to wear protective clothing and remove and dispose of asbestos in a safe manner. They can always work somewhere else. For that matter why even get rid of asbestos, you don't have to go into any of those buildings.

Lead paint, too. And fire safety equipment. Maybe I should recommend RI business owners use this logic to fight the new, stricter fire codes that have been introduced in the past few years. They can just tell the legislature that modern sprinkler systems just aren't needed - people simply don't have to come into the building. Perfect.

Oh right....this infringement on business owners' rights was jumpstarted when 100 people burned in a nightclub fire.

Nix that idea.

newportstorm

06-30-2006, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by jjpm74
The pollution comes from the Ohio valley courtesy of the jet stream. Don't worry. They'll ban smoking on your block and your favorite reality TV show will still be on when you get home. That global warming thing won't become a serious issue until your grandchildren are around your age. You should be fine.

Local pollution from auto/truck emissions and ship traffic along the eastern seaboard is a more likely cause.

Smoking's been nixed in RI for over a year now. I'm breathing easier.

Good to know the UFC isn't getting cancelled.

Wow! We've gone from smoking to politics to slavery to global warming. What's next?

fretlessman71

06-30-2006, 08:59 AM

RELIGION, of course! Smoking is a SIN!!!!!!!!!!!

:D

(Oboy... now I've gone and done it...)

Chuckee

06-30-2006, 10:08 AM

What about the irresponsible craft beer drinker who squanders his money on high-cost beer while the poor are stuck in squalor? Why not enact a “Lexus-Beer” tax and use the money to help the less fortunate? For that matter, drinking too much beer is bad for your health. Why not enact a law limiting the consumption of alcohol to 3 units per day?

The sad fact about creeping big gov’t: many people don’t recognize it as being dangerous until is bites *them* personally in the ass. A gov’t that’s big and powerful enough to take care of your every need, cradle-to-grave, is big enough to tell you how many cradles you may have and if you can have a grave.

Government doesn’t control things. It controls people. When it sets out to perform a task, it uses force and coercion.

I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I neither smoke, nor do I own a restaurant or bar. But each ceding of personal liberty or property rights is one step, even if small, toward totalitarianism.

Smoking and smokers are easy marks. Who is going to stand up for the rights of someone who is stupid enough to inhale noxious smoke on a regular basis? Who likes the smoke?

Keep using gov’t to control others and eventually it will be used against you. Create a huge, hungry, viscous monster and it’s only a matter of time until it turns on you.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

guildofevil

06-30-2006, 10:14 AM

Chuckee.

Are you saying that government shouldn't legislate about smoking in businesses at all, or just when it comes to pubs, restaurants, etc.?

Do you believe government has any business legislating about tobacco at all?

Do you believe government has any business legislating about ANYTHING at all?

Séan

jjpm74

06-30-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by newportstorm
Wow! We've gone from smoking to politics to slavery to global warming. What's next?

I think it's time for this thread to focus on more important things. Like why the Sci-fi channel is televising ECW wrestling. I think the government needs to pass a law to require stations to only play shows within the original theme of their channel.:mad:

Chuckee

06-30-2006, 11:04 AM

Séan
I see your point. Really. I despise cigarette smoke. I grew up in a household were my mother, father and brother smoked. I hated it with a purple passion then, and still do.

I don’t like being in a position where I have to put up with smoke. But I don’t think I have a right to band together with other citizens to enlist the police power of gov’t in order to *force* the customers of a business to extinguish all cigarettes. It’s an inappropriate use of force.

I’m saying we need to be careful empowering gov’t. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Since you asked, here’s my philosophy on gov’t:
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

>Are you saying that government shouldn't legislate about smoking in businesses at >all, or just when it comes to pubs, restaurants, etc.?
The former.

>Do you believe government has any business legislating about tobacco at all?
Maybe in gov’t buildings such as court-houses, where there isn’t a free-market choice.

>Do you believe government has any business legislating about ANYTHING at all?
Of course. Murder, rape, theft and all such crimes with an *actual victim* (not one who enters a building of his own free will) should be outlawed.

Incidentally, if society concerned itself with protecting citizens from predators, not themselves, police could spend much more time arresting predators and prisons wouldn’t need to release murders and rapist early.

Bugz-TT

06-30-2006, 02:09 PM

Editorail from Friday's Chicago Tribune. It hits what has been discussed here on the Head.

So many salaries, so little work

Published June 30, 2006

If you live in Cook County, you're paying the salaries of 17 County Board members. You're paying for their benefits, their offices, their staffs, the time they spend playing politics.

If you live inside Chicago, you're also paying for the employment of 50 aldermen and, yes, all those other perks as well.

So how's that working? Does anyone think it takes 67 people to do what these folks are doing?

Consider: Your County Board is at a standstill, which has been difficult to confirm, given how little it budges on its active days. John Stroger, the board's president, is sidelined for health reasons. That leaves many of the remaining 16 commissioners without anyone to tell them what to do. So they do nothing. They address no county needs, they solve no county problems. Think of teenagers struggling to be up by the crack of noon and you pretty much have the picture.

In the City Council, meanwhile, Ald. Ed Burke has his 49 colleagues discerning whether Chicago should be the first city in the nation to prohibit restaurants from preparing food using trans fat oils. This now that all the busybody aldermen have recovered from ... banning the sale of foie gras last month. So:

See the County Board hibernate.

See the City Council desperately search for a reason to be.

Now ask yourself: How many of these people do we taxpayers really need on the public dole? Is there any reason we shouldn't send half of them--OK, two-thirds of them--packing?

Everyone knows county government needs a downsizing, so why not start at the top? The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has five members, which sounds about right. As is, a handful of Cook County Board members--Gregg Goslin, Liz Gorman, Mike Quigley and Larry Suffredin, to name four--work hard for the money. They research vexing policy questions. That's good. Because as Quigley is forever repeating, if only the County Board made better policies--to streamline its lumpen bureaucracy, to efficiently deploy your tax dollars--then citizens would get better services. But try having a serious talk like that with board members who see county government as an employment agency for all their relatives and friends.

And those 50 aldermen? This page noted last year that Chicago's council is the size of the governing bodies of L.A., Houston, Detroit and Philadelphia combined. For this we get the nanny state incarnate, pondering whether to insert itself again in how restaurants conduct business.

Ah, the mind drifts. Back in 1986, the council demanded that the U.S. government pull every last one of its nuclear weapons out of Chicago. If the government didn't comply, Chicago would fine it $1,000 and send it to jail for 30 days. Twenty years later, council members are still occupied with the minutiae of social engineering.

It's enough to make you cheer for more trans fats and fewer aldermen.

The case for 50 aldermen holds that each is a little mayor, graciously overseeing city services in his or her ward. But there has to be a cheaper way to pass out garbage cans.

Link to actual story. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0606300333jun30,1,326349.story)

Mill Rat

06-30-2006, 06:40 PM

I would prefer the world that libertarians imagine, but I believe both it and true laissez-faire capitalism are not practically possible. The essential philosphical need, and pragmatic fatal flaw in both, is that all parties must function with both honesty and perfect knowledge of the entire situation. There are far too many whose greed will override their moral compass and seek to deceive others in pursuit of their personal gain. Take, for pertinent example, the tobacco companies' insistence for many years that smoking really did not cause cancer or other health problems, when their own internal documents showed otherwise. Talk to a former Enron investor or employee for a different form of deceit.

The closest pedestrian approximation we have of laissez-faire capitalism is the trade in non-taxed recreational pharmaceuticals. Honesty is imperfectly enforced by the threat of violence. It is notable though, that U. S. currency remains the monetary basis of this trade, even though those little rectangles of green paper really don't have an intrinsic value. (How many burning bills would it take to boil 5 gallons of wort?) Is maintaining a currency a function of a purely libertarian government?

Do I support smoking bans? I agree that places of government or multi-occupant commercial facilities like office buildings and malls ought to be. Ideally, single-business commercial facilities ought to be allowed to choose to be smoke-free, or not. Draw the clientele you want. Carnival cruise line had a smoke-free liner in 2002, and at that time they were planning to make another new boat smoke-free, too. They would not have done that if the first wasn't a business success.

I equivocate on the bar/restaurant ban though. I do think that some of the previous posters underestimate how harshly poverty can limit opportunities and choices. Do I take a job that increases my risk dying of cancer 40 years from now if refusing it means that my family will not eat tonight?

Polluting power plants and second-hand smoke, along with a host of other similar issues, are really ones about paying the true cost. The smoggy power plant operator saves money by not operating pollution control equipment. The folks downwind have higher medical bills. The trees and the fish in the lake downstream die, and the businesses of the logger and fisherman downstream fail. The folks downwind (most often unwittingly) pay higher costs or lose opportunity rightfully theirs because someone is not paying the true cost to society of their operations.

Should someone who smokes in a public place be required to go around to all who are exposed to their secondhand smoke and pay each of them a penny per cigarette smoked to compensate them for the true cost of the puffer's deleterious effect on their health?

Bilbo Beergins

06-30-2006, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by fretlessman71
RELIGION, of course! Smoking is a SIN!!!!!!!!!!!

God smokes. Smoke and thunder rolls out of His throne. God is not anti-smoking.

hops99

06-30-2006, 09:24 PM

God is not anti-smoking.

Not sure, but we can ask his good friends, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Ah, throw in the Tooth Fairy as well...

Bilbo Beergins

06-30-2006, 09:42 PM

Hey hops99-

Were you born talking out of your butt or did you acquire the skill from another moron?

hops99

06-30-2006, 11:39 PM

Were you born talking out of your butt or did you acquire the skill from another moron?

Grow up, Bilbo.

Bilbo Beergins

07-01-2006, 09:08 AM

Back to the subject.

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060630-105043-1132r

Zero tolerance society. The same folks that bust on smokes will shortly be reducing blood alcohol levels for impaired driving to a level where we can't have even one drink.

For those who don't see the connection, get glasses.

chazwicke

07-01-2006, 09:16 AM

One thing is certain, successfully used tactics to ban or limit one thing will not go unnoticed by neo prohibitionists who will try to apply them to their causes.

Ales-Stouts

07-02-2006, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by MeridianFC

and to keep the handgun ban in effect. That's the will of the people here.

[/B]

Ahh, now there's a law that works!

seems like there are more deaths in DC from guns then the war
in Iraq. The only persons with guns in DC are the criminals and
the law abiding citizens are at their mercy.

And the electorate of DC also reelected the esteemed Marion Barry to the council again so look for more stupid laws to be
passed.

MeridianFC

07-02-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Ales-Stouts
Ahh, now there's a law that works!

Thanks to our neighboring jurisdictions.

As far as re-electing Barry, if you can name a municipal area that has never elected an idiot I'd like to hear about it.

fretlessman71

07-02-2006, 06:00 PM

Mayberry RFD?

Ales-Stouts

07-02-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by MeridianFC
Thanks to our neighboring jurisdictions.

As far as re-electing Barry, if you can name a municipal area that has never elected an idiot I'd like to hear about it.

You could ban guns in all jurisdictions and criminals will still have
them, banning them doesn't seem to work well.

I don't consider any of my elected officials an idiot but then again
they don't have addiction problems either. If they did then I may
consider the idiot title to be fair.

Marion Barry, IMO, is much more than an idiot.

Bilbo Beergins

07-02-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Ales-Stouts
You could ban guns in all jurisdictions and criminals will still have
them, banning them doesn't seem to work well.

The criminals in my jurisdiction know I have a big dog and a big gun. I don't lock my doors, have never had a break in, and our particular block is known as a place the crackheads don't want to burglarize. Bans in general suck.

My brother-in-law, who lives in murder capitol #2, Philly, cleans his 12 gauge in front of the window. No break-ins there, either, but he does lock his doors.

hops99

07-03-2006, 07:57 AM

Mayberry RFD?

Don Knotts, rest in peace.

newportstorm

07-03-2006, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by hops99
Don Knotts, rest in peace.

He's in good company - not Three's Company.

http://www.seeing-stars.com/Buried2/PierceBros3.shtml

garyfdl

07-05-2006, 07:45 PM

As a Newb I have a few questions:

1.Will the person(s) who thought that secondhand smoke was not a problem please stand up? Now, pull your head(s) out of your butt(s).

2. Does anyone know how much 'we' paid for this report? (I'm serious. I was surfing to find out and stumbled onto this site. )

3. Regarding worker exposure: Rather than an outright smoking ban, why not impose air quality standards and make safety equipment available to employees, as is done in other industries?

4. How much can we trust the accuracy of the report? I.e. The report essentially says NO exposure in a confined space, period. Nothing (I believe) about smoke concentration, duration of exposure, etc. So, if I'm in Madison Square Garden with one other person, who is on the other side of the "room", and that person lights up, is my health is at risk? The report also says secondhand smoke causes SIDS. While cigarette smoke exposure is a major factor, approximately 40% of SIDS victims were not exposed. The cause of SIDS is still undetermined.

Jeff

07-06-2006, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by garyfdl
3. Regarding worker exposure: Rather than an outright smoking ban, why not impose air quality standards and make safety equipment available to employees, as is done in other industries?

Regarding this point, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) decided several years ago that they would not deal with cigarette smoke as an indoor air quality issue. Basically this report is reiterating that position. Because of that, there is no such thing as an air quality standard in a smoking environment.

newportstorm

07-06-2006, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by garyfdl
3. Regarding worker exposure: Rather than an outright smoking ban, why not impose air quality standards and make safety equipment available to employees, as is done in other industries?

What type of safety equipment would you suggest? Gas masks? Air purifiers? Why go to the expense of installing and maintaining any equipment when people can simply step outside for a butt?

Originally posted by garyfdl

4. How much can we trust the accuracy of the report? I.e. The report essentially says NO exposure in a confined space, period. Nothing (I believe) about smoke concentration, duration of exposure, etc. So, if I'm in Madison Square Garden with one other person, who is on the other side of the "room", and that person lights up, is my health is at risk? The report also says secondhand smoke causes SIDS. While cigarette smoke exposure is a major factor, approximately 40% of SIDS victims were not exposed. The cause of SIDS is still undetermined.

It's a general news story. If you'd like to examine the parameters of the study, I'm sure they might be available somewhere.

And the story did not state secondhand smoke caused SIDS. In the subtitle, it states smoke increases the risk, not causes. It goes on to state how many nonsmokers died of SIDS last year. Yes, they made a great leap in thinking all newborns (aside from Keith Richards) don't regularly light up in their cribs.

Cheers!

garyfdl

07-06-2006, 12:14 PM

( STURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: This is a long one, better go get a beer!)
Regarding this point, ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) decided several years ago that they would not deal with cigarette smoke as an indoor air quality issue. Basically this report is reiterating that position. Because of that, there is no such thing as an air quality standard in a smoking environment.

So, if there is no standard, how do we (or the SG for that matter) know what's acceptable and what's not? What's being reported here is "there is no acceptable exposure limit and no way to get there. Can't be done". How then, do 'we/they' establish high level containment of airborne toxins in research to prevent their escape?

What type of safety equipment would you suggest? Gas masks? Air purifiers? Why go to the expense of installing and maintaining any equipment when people can simply step outside for a butt?

Air purifiers - yes (but to what standard?) And a good quality respirator should do it. And I realize in balmy RI going outside at night on January 15th isn't a problem, not even during a Nor'easter. But here, in the frozen wastes of We'sTaxin, you're liable to get picked off by a sabretooth or stepped on by a mastadon. BTW demographics does play into the issue. This state is one of the worst when it comes to unhealthy lifestyles.

As far as safety equipment: why do other business's, where employees have to work in/with a hazardous enviroment/materials, get by with safety equipment and the 'bar/restuarant' business does not? They require specialized 'equipment' in the kitchen. Whether the employees choose to use it is another matter.

It's a general news story. If you'd like to examine the parameters of the study, I'm sure they might be available somewhere.

You're right. All 700 pages can be downloaded off the SG's site. But all I have is a Commadore 64 on dial-up.

And the story did not state secondhand smoke caused SIDS.

Then I stand corrected, but that is not the way it is being reported by the media and the anti's here. A local pediatrician, who is chairman of the local 'anti' group, says he knows of 9 cases of SIDS in the last 12 months that can be attributed to cigarette smoke. (We had 9 SIDS deaths in the entire state in 2005). He also claims that 25 to 33% of the upper respiratory problems he sees in children are due to, get this, cigarette smoke in restaurants!!!! The kids sure must eat out a lot around here. Now for the record, we have had a limited anti-smoking ordinance for several years. Smoking is prohibited in any establishment that does not get at least 40% (50%?) of their revenue from alcohol sales. And those establishments, that get a certain percentage (I forget how much) from food sales, must provide a non-smoking section. This seems to work pretty well but the anti's aren't satisfied. They want a total ban.

My points are:

1. We paid big bucks for a questionable report, the release of which is probably spun and timed to bolster the administrations standing in the polls. (And I am still trying to find out how much we paid. Anybody?)

2. If worker health is an issue why not follow existing industry practice instead of an outright ban of a legal product?

3. The 'do-gooder antis' are now in a 'feeding frenzy', making rash statements and taking the report out of context to bolster their cause and force the issue. Studies show that one of the best deterrents to smoking is education. I.e. the more education one has, the less likely they are to smoke. Why aren't the anti's up-in-arms about the disastorous "No Child Left Behind" program and screaming for more money to fund schools? If alcohol, drug, sex, and gambling addiction are 'illness's', why isn't smoking? And why aren't the anti's pushing for more funding and programs to help smokers?

4. Do we allow a "loud little few" (Mark Twain) to further erode our personal liberties. Is freedom of choice trumped by the health card? How far do we take this? Should a non-smoker have to walk through a cloud of smoke outside the door of an establishment: how long before smoking outside is banned? If outdoor smoking is banned (and IMO that's next) shoud we also ban outdoor bar-b-q's and campfires? And smoking parents and their children is a real tough one. Now anyone who smokes around their kids is an idiot, but, do we forcibly take children from their parents to protect the kids health? (I'll qualify this as hearsay, but it has reportedly been discussed in the Democratic Peoples Republic of California) If not, why not? We do it for other reasons where the kids well being is at risk.

5. If being smoke-free is better business why aren't the anti's opening up smoke free establishments like crazy? I've been in the bar business and one thing is certain: the minute someone figures a way to increase revenue, and it works, everyone else will jump on board.

BTW I am not a smoker. I quit 26 years ago when my 56 year-old father, a 2 plus pack-a-day Raleigh smoker, died of lung cancer.

newportstorm

07-06-2006, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by garyfdl
And I am still trying to find out how much we paid. Anybody?[/i])

'Bout $8/per person. Send the receipt for your next sixer to your local pediatrician for reimbursement. ;)

Cheers!

Jeff

07-06-2006, 04:26 PM

So, if there is no standard, how do we ([i]or the SG for that matter) know what's acceptable and what's not? What's being reported here is "there is no acceptable exposure limit and no way to get there. Can't be done". How then, do 'we/they' establish high level containment of airborne toxins in research to prevent their escape?[/B]

How do we know what is acceptable? I don't think any realiable study as determined exactly how much carcinogen is required to develop cancer, which is why the SG and ASHRAE will not touch the issue, it becomes a liability.

As for the second question on high level containment of airborne toxins: I'm not extremely cosy with the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories Manual, but if people want to smoke inside a chemical fume hood more power to them.

Mill Rat

07-10-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Jeff
How do we know what is acceptable? I don't think any realiable study as determined exactly how much carcinogen is required to develop cancer, which is why the SG and ASHRAE will not touch the issue, it becomes a liability.

It's one of those issues where environment, genetics, and host of other factors are also part of the picture. By separating study participants into groups Y(es) and N(o), it's pretty easy to establish a correlation for theese aggregate groups. If instead you want to find one person's particular limit for, say, exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke needed to initiate a carcinoma, though, you have to factor in their ancestors' susceptibility to cancer, their occupational exposure to carcinogens, their geographic exposure to upwind carcinogen belchers, etc. The issue isn't "touched" because it is simply far from the only factor. It is, however, provably a significant contributor. Drunk driving is not the only factor that contributes to automobile accidents. That does not mean, though, that we ignore a strong correlation and prevent its occurence to the best we are able.

Otis_The_Drunk

11-10-2006, 08:45 PM

The problem with all the studies about secondhand smoke is that there are no control groups, thus the science is flawed.

ratman03

11-11-2006, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by guildofevil

Here in Ireland, we have had a smoking ban in all workplaces, including pubs and restaurants, for a few years now and even smokers are starting to acknowledge that it has changed things for the better. Take your smoke outside and don't inflict it on others. It's only fair.

Séan

Last time I was in Ireland was in the late 90's and the pubs were like chimneys. In Galway, it seemed like 90% of the people in the pubs were lighting up. At one point I just busted out the door to the sidewalk and inhaled the fresh air for about 20 minutes. Glad to see it has changed for the better.

ratman03

11-11-2006, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Otis_The_Drunk
The problem with all the studies about secondhand smoke is that there are no control groups, thus the science is flawed.

No offense, but this is an asinine comment.

B_rad1969

11-11-2006, 04:59 AM

I think what he means is that you won't find anyone that has never been around smoke. Unless you use babies. Then you would have to take one group of babies to the bar with you and leave the other set of babies at home.

I smoke and I think there should be a ban also. I can go outside and smoke. The smoke in a bar gets to me too sometimes.

Do you mind not breathing while I smoke.....

Ales-Stouts

11-11-2006, 09:52 AM

The problems with bans are they are totalitarian and have no
middle ground on which those effected can agree, there is no
compromise to be had here which means some have to give up
their freedom to do as they please. I agree that second hand
smoke does cause problems for some but not for all persons.
People with asthma or other respiratory diseases are one
example. Just saying it bothers you to go have a drink in a bar
filled with smoke, here you DO have a choice to make.

As for the study, I wish the government would spend the money
on studying why this country can't wipe out poverty, etc.

I have my own control group to base my opinion on. I am one
of eight kids in my family, father smoked cigars, cigarettes and
an occasional pipe. Six of the eight now smoke cigarettes by
choice but when we were young were subjected to constant
second hand smoke. None of us have shown any ill effects from
growing up in a house full of smoke.

I can accept a non smoking establishment, what I don't like is the
government making it law.

Otis_The_Drunk

11-11-2006, 11:10 AM

ratman03, please explain to me how the comment is asinine.

With all scientific studies there has to be a control group, other wise there is nothing to base your hypothesis on.

calderp

11-11-2006, 03:04 PM

Otis, I wouldn't call your comment asinine but it doesn't debunk the fact that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Granted, studies on its effects would have more credibility were they controlled (if this were possible) but control isn't necessary to correlate it with health issues. Why? Fact: secondhand smoke contains carcinogens. Fact: Carcinogens increase the risks of getting cancer. Therefore: Secondhand smoke increases the risk of cancer. There is a lot more to the argument than that but the point is that control groups are good but not essential to establishing the health dangers of second hand smoke.

ratman03

11-11-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Ales-Stouts
The problems with bans are they are totalitarian and have no
middle ground on which those effected can agree, there is no
compromise to be had here which means some have to give up
their freedom to do as they please. I agree that second hand
smoke does cause problems for some but not for all persons.
People with asthma or other respiratory diseases are one
example. Just saying it bothers you to go have a drink in a bar
filled with smoke, here you DO have a choice to make.

I agree that we should all have the freedom to do as we please. But when your choice affects me, then it becomes my business. It is good that you are showing no ill-effects from smoking, and for your sake I hope it stays that way. I'm not willing to take that risk on a daily basis, however.

What the laws are basically saying is that that the right to clean air trumps the smoker's right to smoke. That's a value judgement we're making in society, but in this case the stakes are high enough to warrant it.

BTW, I've been known to indulge in the occasional cigar, so I am not completely averse to smoking. But when I do smoke, I do so where it will not affect others.