Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Shogun]

(It's spelled ingest.) Glass houses.....

snap!

 

[Anguille]

(It's spelled ingest.) Glass houses.....

I used some special software to remove the expetives from your post and all that was left over was "Help! I'm locked in my mother's basement".

None of the links you posted proved to be genuine sources of information.

And neither you nor anyone else here has yet to answer my question as to why anyone would want to subject another human being to their cigarette smoke. All you post is drivel and nonsense as if you were some kind of last bastion of freedom in the world. You have no status as a protected minority. Why don't you try and justify your rights to that? See how far you get.
There you go Rover, chase the ball into the street, good boy!

 

[tigerbob]

(It's spelled "lieu")
Cigarette smoke cause more than cancer. Bar business has not dropped and restaurant business is up since the ban in my state. In any case, regardless, employees don't need to give up their health so smokers can get their fix in the way they are accustomed. Nicotene junkies can injest it in much more congeniel ways. everyone is happy, case closed. Now get lost, Shogun.

Actually, Shogun makes an interesting point. I know that you obviously have fairly strongly held opinions about this, but opinions are not proof (can we agree on that?).

You contend that cigarette smoke causes cancer. I don't think even the most ardent pro-tobacco lobbyist would or could disagree (actually tobacco lobbying was largely banned as a result of the MSA, as were the trade associations, but for the sake of staying on the subject let's ignore the constitutional ramifications of banning lobbying on behalf of a legal product).

However, your argument in favour of a blanket ban on smoking in public places seems to rely to at least some extent on the fact that STS causes cancer (if it was not harmful to health, the rest of the case for a ban would, I believe, be weak).

Can you please provide evidence to support your claim? I don't mind if you post links to newspaper articles so long as the article references the study that it is drawing on.

 

[Shogun]

I used some special software to remove the expetives from your post and all that was left over was "Help! I'm locked in my mother's basement".

None of the links you posted proved to be genuine sources of information.

And neither you nor anyone else here has yet to answer my question as to why anyone would want to subject another human being to their cigarette smoke. All you post is drivel and nonsense as if you were some kind of last bastion of freedom in the world. You have no status as a protected minority. Why don't you try and justify your rights to that? See how far you get.
There you go Rover, chase the ball into the street, good boy!

First off, Crackpipe, I'm not Tiger bob.


Second, cocksheath, Every one of those links work and are linked to LOCAL NEWS SITES. I realize that you've got a problem with facts that make your projected estimates look less impressive than you think they should be but, alas, there is more to life than watching you stumble over the concept of market forces.


Third, to answer your phenomenally stupid question, BECAUSE WE SMOKERS WANT TO CONGREGATE IN PUBLIC JUST LIKE ANY OTHER AMERICAN PARTAKING OF A LEGAL SUBSTANCE. Further, there are BUSINESS OWNERS who want to cater to OUR market. Not to mention, the bar staff, well, those who are not piled up from a cancer pandemic that is, WANT to work in a bar that doesn't go out of business because your stupid ass can't seem to click on a link. Got it? Shall I draw you a picture since FACTS don't seem to matter to you?

Facts are drivel to you.. nice.. links to 10+ different city news sites in multiple stats MUST BE drivel to a bitch ass pinklunger who really doesnt care one way or the other about evidence.


but hey, We should have known when you posted that a ban is a market force, eh?


hopefully, i spelled something wrong so you would have something to comment on like a retarded kid bedazzled by bright, colorful lights.

 

[tigerbob]

First off, Crackpipe, I'm not Tiger bob.

 

[Shogun]

Actually, Shogun makes an interesting point. I know that you obviously have fairly strongly held opinions about this, but opinions are not proof (can we agree on that?).

You contend that cigarette smoke causes cancer. I don't think even the most ardent pro-tobacco lobbyist would or could disagree (actually tobacco lobbying was largely banned as a result of the MSA, as were the trade associations, but for the sake of staying on the subject let's ignore the constitutional ramifications of banning lobbying on behalf of a legal product).

However, your argument in favour of a blanket ban on smoking in public places seems to rely to at least some extent on the fact that STS causes cancer (if it was not harmful to health, the rest of the case for a ban would, I believe, be weak).

Can you please provide evidence to support your claim? I don't mind if you post links to newspaper articles so long as the article references the study that it is drawing on.

Prepare yourself for the words ESTIMATE, PROJECTED, ASSUMED, LIKELY, and every other piece of vocab magic that, regardless of how it is wrapped up, isn't a fraction as detrimental to society than an actual hazard like motor vehicles.

Im calling it now.


After all, you see how this person reacted to a litany of local news sources conveying the will of bar owners, patrons, staff and anyone else interested in facts over pink lunger fantasy.

 

[Anguille]

Actually, Shogun makes an interesting point. I know that you obviously have fairly strongly held opinions about this, but opinions are not proof (can we agree on that?).

You contend that cigarette smoke causes cancer. I don't think even the most ardent pro-tobacco lobbyist would or could disagree (actually tobacco lobbying was largely banned as a result of the MSA, as were the trade associations, but for the sake of staying on the subject let'signore the constitutional ramifications of banning lobbying on behalf of a legal product).

However, your argument in favour of a blanket ban on smoking in public places seems to rely to at least some extent on the fact that STS causes cancer (if it was not harmful to health, the rest of the case for a ban would, I believe, be weak).

Can you please provide evidence to support your claim? I don't mind if you post links to newspaper articles so long as the article references the study that it is drawing on.

Thanks for the thoughful post. I didn't bother reading all of Shogun's post to me (and I apologise for responding to you when I meant my response to be directed to him) because all his posts to me seem to consist of bullying rants.
I'm not sure what his point is, but as far as cigarette smoke causing cancer, I guess no one disputes that anymore. It's also responsable for causing sinus infections and asthma, which can be fatal. I will find proof of that for you when I have more time for proper reasearch. I have researched this stuff quite a bit in the past when the anti-smoking laws were being passed in my state. I was at the time a bartender and was very interested in what would happen if the laws were past. The laws were past, thanks in a large part to efforts on the parts of restaurant and bar employees and management. In the case my place of employment the general manager backed the employees 100% in appeals to the owner ( previous to the passage of the laws) to reduce the smoking areas or do away with them completely. The owner refused on the grounds that he would have to give up his cigars. Once the laws were passed, management warned him that the employees had made it clear they would call the health dept if he continued to defy the law and that all fines would have to paid out of his own pocket. Eventually it was customer complaints that he was continuing to scoff the laws that brought an end to his cigars.
Without the passage of these laws I would have had to quit working a job I had held for over a decade. I had become asthmatic and suffered severe sinus headaches, both of which required prescription medicine. Some of my other co-workers as well. Interesting enough, none of the smoking employees objected to the laws and most signed petition in favor of them. Their reasons being that as employees they were not allowed to smoke anyway and because the recent ban in NY had brought a rise in customers by 15%. The same was to be expected in my state and the increase was 12%, if I recall correctly. Cleaning up after smokers caused more work that the average restaurant patron might be aware of. Ashtrays must be held aside for special washings apart from dinnerware. Linens and carpets are burnt. Special sections must be designated and customer complaints about smoke far surpass the number of complaints from smokers who have to wait for smoking section seating. Smokers eat less and stay longer. They are not money makers, they are pests.

As far as cigarettes being a legal product, so are alcoholic beverages. That doesn't mean they are legal to ingest where ever one would like. Bleach and ammonia are also sold legally in the US, but how would you feel about someone who wanted to mix the two together while seated next to you in a bar?

 

[Ravi]

Angie, I'd like to see the proof. I always understood it was not proven, just likely. Not that it matters to the argument at hand, but it would be interesting.

 

[Anguille]

Angie, I'd like to see the proof. I always understood it was not proven, just likely. Not that it matters to the argument at hand, but it would be interesting.

Proof of what, specifically? I can't bring myself to read Shogun's posts to me anymore.

 

[Ravi]

Proof of what, specifically? I can't bring myself to read Shogun's posts to me anymore.

That second hand smoke causes cancer and asthma and whatever else you claimed.

 

[Anguille]

That second hand smoke causes cancer and asthma and whatever else you claimed.

Sure, I'll look for some links if you like. In my own case I only had asthma when in the presense of or shortly thereafter of cigarette smoke. Once smoking was ceased in my workplace, I was able to stop using an inhaler as that was the only place I was exposed to smoke. My doctor confirmed that second hand smoke was the cause.

I'm kind of surprised you would doubt there is a connection between cigarette smoke and respiratory diseases and cancer. Or even doubt that people are offended by the smell.

The whole smoking debate is a source of amazement to me and that laws are even necessary. Why some smokers are so blind to the discomfort they are causing to those around them is surprising to me. But I guess it is typical of addiction.

 

[Ravi]

Prolly 'cause I'm not a control freak.

Yes, please do look.

 

[Anguille]

Prolly 'cause I'm not a control freak.

Yes, please do look.

I will.
I guess the control freak label can be applied to either side. As a non smoker I always felt smokers were trying to either get me addicted or make me leave the area. I felt smokers had taken control by imposing their smoke on the rest of us. I no longer move away or leave the room when someone lights up next to me. I ask them to please move to where their smoke won't harm me. Most smokers have no problem doing that and are considerate enough to comply. I recognise that they are unable to smell the smoke themsleves or be aware of how different it smells to someone who is not addicted.

 

[Shogun]

Clearly, posting a shotgun blast full of actual evidence is not as significant as a personal life story. It's probably not as hilarious as the ASSUMPTIONS of a pink lunger who is also so stupid as to claim that a ban is a market force. It doesn't bother me in the least that this dupshit won't read my links. Pink lungers have a reputation of avoiding facts that get in the way of projected estimates. They also have a track record of promising a rush of non-smokers that was supposed to fill the gaps left by evicting smokers from businesses that would cater to their market.... But, we see how THAT turned out.


Here is some of that pesky Concrete Evidence that pink lungers don't like talking about

Survey results reveal that bar owners perceive smoking bans to be a particularly significant threat to their business. In one nationwide survey of restaurant and bar owners, 39 percent of restaurant owners expected revenue losses after a smoking ban, while 83 percent of bar owners expected losses.3

Tavern and bar owners have been among the most vociferous opponents of 100 percent smoking bans. As a result, many ordinances include exemptions for stand-alone bars or other establishments with a high proportion of revenue from alcohol sales. In some ordinances, exemptions also exist for casinos, bowling alleys, bingo halls, fraternal organizations, etc.

http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2005/c/pages/smokebans.html



Bar and Restaurant Employment

Two papers, one by Ryan Phelps and the other by Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, have used data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine the employment effects of smoking bans. Using nationwide county-level data, these two studies examine the changes in employment at bars and restaurants after communities adopt smoking bans. Neither study finds significant employment changes at restaurants, on average, but both find statistically significant employment declines at bars, with loss estimates ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent.

http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pages/smoking-ban.html

 

[Shogun]

I will.
I guess the control freak label can be applied to either side. As a non smoker I always felt smokers were trying to either get me addicted or make me leave the area. I felt smokers had taken control by imposing their smoke on the rest of us. I no longer move away or leave the room when someone lights up next to me. I ask them to please move to where their smoke won't harm me. Most smokers have no problem doing that and are considerate enough to comply. I recognise that they are unable to smell the smoke themsleves or be aware of how different it smells to someone who is not addicted.

yup. smokers sure do drag you, kicking and screaming, into smoky bars! Caveman style, lemme tellya. It's a giant conspiracy perpetuated by phillip morris and Joe Camel.. And here you thought that he was just a cartoon, right? Nope, your mistake. Joe Camel is the ANTICHRIST and he's coming to get you, Barbara. Hell, what ELSE would we call the CHOICE of spending your money at a smoky bar or non smoky bar other than IMPOSING smoke on you!


I love it when pink lungers get self righteous about me smoking around them. You can take your fucking ass somewhere else if you don't like it. Specifically, to a smoke free establishment that caters to the likes of you. THAT, brainiac, would be a market force.


Say, how are you coming along with the physical evidence that states the health risk to SHS? Kinda tough finding an example that doesn't rely on words like PROJECTED and ESTIMATED, eh? It probably blowxs your fucking mind to consider that many, MANY things are carcinogenic and that people get lung cancer without being around smoke, eh? Maybe you can name one person who died because doctors knew for a FACT that their cancer was the product of second hand smoke?


naaaaaaaaah! who needs shit like that when you've got a vendetta.

 

[tigerbob]

Thanks for the thoughful post. I didn't bother reading all of Shogun's post to me (and I apologise for responding to you when I meant my response to be directed to him) because all his posts to me seem to consist of bullying rants.
I'm not sure what his point is, but as far as cigarette smoke causing cancer, I guess no one disputes that anymore. It's also responsable for causing sinus infections and asthma, which can be fatal. I will find proof of that for you when I have more time for proper reasearch. I have researched this stuff quite a bit in the past when the anti-smoking laws were being passed in my state. I was at the time a bartender and was very interested in what would happen if the laws were past. The laws were past, thanks in a large part to efforts on the parts of restaurant and bar employees and management. In the case my place of employment the general manager backed the employees 100% in appeals to the owner ( previous to the passage of the laws) to reduce the smoking areas or do away with them completely. The owner refused on the grounds that he would have to give up his cigars. Once the laws were passed, management warned him that the employees had made it clear they would call the health dept if he continued to defy the law and that all fines would have to paid out of his own pocket. Eventually it was customer complaints that he was continuing to scoff the laws that brough an end to his cigars.
Without the passage of these laws I would have had to quit working ajob i had helad for over a decade. I had become asthmatic and suffered severe sinus headaches, both of which required prescription medicine. Some of my other co-workers as well. Interesting enough, none of the smoking employees objected to the laws and most signed petition in favor of them. Their reasons being that as employees they were not allowed to smoke anyway and because the recent ban in NY had brought a rise in customers by 15%. The same was to be expected in my state and the increase was 12%, if I recall correctly. Cleaning up after smokers caused more work that the average restaurant patron might be aware of. Ashtrays must be held aside for special washings apart from dinnerware. Linens and carpets are burnt. Special sections must be designated and customer complaints about smoke far surpass the number of complaints from smokers who have to wait for smoking section seating. Smokers eat less and stay longer. They are not money makers, they are pests.

As far as cigarettes being a legal product, so are alcoholic beverages. That doesn't mean they are legal to ingest where ever one would like. Bleach and ammonia are also sold legally in the US, but how would you feel about someone who wanted to mix the two together while seated next to you in a bar?

That's all very interesting, and I'm sorry to hear of the health problems you have experienced while working in a bar.

...but as far as cigarette smoke causing cancer, I guess no one disputes that anymore

Agreed, assuming you are referring to Primary exposure - can you confirm? If you are including secondary exposure, please provide further details (perhaps you can look at this while you are doing the research to support your sinus infections and asthma point).

I'm not going to respond to the other points you make (alcohol, ammonia, etc.) but not because I can't. I just want to get to the bottom of this "second hand tobacco smoke causes cancer and other fatal diseases" issue, which seems to be the basis for the ban. In my experience, if I answer too many tangential questions the discussion tends to drift away from the point of my original question. Thanks for your understanding, and I look forward to your answer.

 

[tigerbob]

I'm kind of surprised you would doubt there is a connection between cigarette smoke and respiratory diseases and cancer.

For clarity, Ravir is not doubting the connection between cigarette smoke and respiratory diseases. He is asking for a proven connection between STS and those conditions.

PTS: Primary Tobacco Smoke is smoke inhaled as a result of lighting a cigarette and drawing on it.
STS: Secondary Tobacco Smoke, also known as ETS or Environmental Tobacco Smoke, is smoke that is present in the environment as a result of exhaled primary smoke, or smoke produced by the smouldering cigarette ember (sometimes known as sidestream smoke).

If STS is not proven as harmful, there can be no reason for the ban other than that people don't like the smell which, in my view, is no reason at all.

Ravir - feel free to jump in if I'm putting words in your mouth.

 

[Shogun]

Ravir = she

 

[manifold]

If STS is not proven as harmful, there can be no reason for the ban other than that people don't like the smell which, in my view, is no reason at all.

Why does it need to be "as harmful?"

Why wouldn't simply harmful be sufficient?

 

[manifold]

Ravir = she

Really?

fact or guess?