Judge declares smoking bans consitiutional

[Shogun]

She's stated as much numerous times.

 

[tigerbob]

Ravir = she

Well, Ravir and I have butted heads on several occasions but we've always managed to come out of it with a relatively civil agreement to disagree!

This time, however, I think he has the same understanding as I do.

Logging off for a while now, but I'll be back later to see how things are progressing.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I'm a she, but other than that you clarified my thoughts perfectly.

 

[Shogun]

Why does it need to be "as harmful?"

Why wouldn't simply harmful be sufficient?

um, because there is no correlation that doesn't rely on ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS to indicate a restriction when people can clearly make a personal CHOICE about the bars they attend?

Hey Mani.. I heard this funny joke about dogs licking their junk...

 

[Ravi]

Well, Ravir and I have butted heads on several occasions but we've always managed to come out of it with a relatively civil agreement to disagree!

This time, however, I think he has the same understanding as I do.

Logging off for a while now, but I'll be back later to see how things are progressing.

Hey, I like your Prince!

You thought Shogun was insulting me, damn sexist Brits.

 

[Shogun]

being civil is for the birds. I learned that during my first week here after posting a thread about a compromise on abortion. There are degrees of interaction here and I don't mind playing this character. Even if it means that pink lungers will ignore the mountain of evidence I've posted so far.


what is the evidence count anyway? 15 to 0? I lost count after the first barrage of facts.

 

[Ravi]

Yep, it reminds me of Brian and his video "evidence."

 

[Anguille]

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.

I should have been more explicit. I am surprised that anyone would doubt that second hand smoke would be hazardous. It's like when you read in the news something like "studies show naps are good for you". It's common sense to assume that if primary smoke is harmfull, so is secondary smoke, even if you haven't had personal experience of it as I have. I recall some studies which suggested that secondary smoke might even be more harmful because smokers had the benefit of filters. I also recall some studies which compared exposure to second hand smoke over 8 hour periods and found that it was the equivalent to smoking a certain amount of cigarettes a day. I don't recall how many but it was more than just a few. regardless of whether or not SHS is carcinagenic or causes asthma or sinus problems, the fact that so many people object to it as highly offensive and annoying is reason enough to ban it. People can be arrested for playing music too loudly or being a public nuisance in other ways. Cigarette smoking falls right into that category. It sucks when someone blasts their radio on the subway but the police will put a stop to it and at least your clothes don't stink afterwards. Can as much be said about unwanted cigarette smoke? I know someone who sued a guy in a bar who had burned his jacket with the end of his cigarette. The smoker lost the case and had to pay to replace the damaged jacket. I wonder if anyone has sought damages for having to have clothes drycleaned as a result of someone smoking in their presence? LOL!

Smoking is a public nuisance. Smoking has no redeeming social value. Smokers have a choice to injest nicotene in ways that do not adversly affect others. Smokers need to get real.

 

[Ravi]

Still waiting for the proof.

 

[tigerbob]

Why does it need to be "as harmful?"

Why wouldn't simply harmful be sufficient?

Sorry, either bad syntax or my English English.

When I say "proven as harmful" I mean "proven as being harmful". Like "proven as fact". Maybe it's an English abbreviation. I've never been called on that before.

The "sufficient" definition I'll leave alone, as I don't have any idea how the courts go about determining what level of harm is "sufficient" to warrant a blanket ban.

Back later.

 

[Shogun]

Thats exactly it. I've had this discussion on my native board during the inception of a smoking ban on my city. Voted in by 4 out of 7 people on the city board of aldermen, no less. 2007 has proven to be a disastrous year for bars in this college town. Many bars folded within 3 months. Others tried desperately to compete with franchises like Harpos that had a deck. Many had to invest in outside heaters and external bars over the winter since that was where their business went to. Now, we have crowds of smokers on the sidewalk entrances to bars and Maryville, in fact, amended their ban to make exceptions for non-food serving bars.

Clearly the market is saying something loud and clear. Pink lunger denial won't change that even if one is stupid enough to think a ban is indicative of the will of the consumer.

 

[Anguille]

Why does it need to be "as harmful?"

Why wouldn't simply harmful be sufficient?

Good point. Similar to what I said earlier to those who think we are going to die anyway from petroleum produced pollutionso why worry about cigarette smoke, that maybe we just want to die less quickly.

 

[Ravi]

Sorry, either bad syntax or my English English.

When I say "proven as harmful" I mean "proven as being harmful". Like "proven as fact". Maybe it's an English abbreviation. I've never been called on that before.

The "sufficient" definition I'll leave alone, as I don't have any idea how the courts go about determining what level of harm is "sufficient" to warrant a blanket ban.

Back later.

English isn't Manny's first language so that's probably why he didn't understand your sentence.

 

[Shogun]

Still waiting for the proof.

And you are going to keep waiting. Clearly, smokers should be castigated because this dipshit can't avoid smelling like smoke by choosing to spend money at a non smoking bar.

 

[Anguille]

Thats exactly it. I've had this discussion on my native board during the inception of a smoking ban on my city. Voted in by 4 out of 7 people on the city board of aldermen, no less. 2007 has proven to be a disastrous year for bars in this college town. Many bars folded within 3 months. Others tried desperately to compete with franchises like Harpos that had a deck. Many had to invest in outside heaters and external bars over the winter since that was where their business went to. Now, we have crowds of smokers on the sidewalk entrances to bars and Maryville, in fact, amended their ban to make exceptions for non-food serving bars.

Clearly the market is saying something loud and clear. Pink lunger denial won't change that even if one is stupid enough to think a ban is indicative of the will of the consumer.

Boo hoo! Outdoor heaters!! whahh!

 

[Shogun]

Boo hoo! Outdoor heaters!! whahh!

Shouldn't you be out searching for your first piece of evidence to post, bitch? I mean, as significant as your OPINION is I keep curbstomping you with evidence and facts and you have yet to even remotely TRY to base your posts on anything beyond pink lunger talking points.



gosh, it's not because you are AFRAID to post the source of your stupidity, eh?



naww.. that CANT be it.




I mean, werent you the one slinging out words like MARKET FORCES earleir in this thread??

 

[Anguille]

Shouldn't you be out searching for your first piece of evidence to post, bitch? I mean, as significant as your OPINION is I keep curbstomping you with evidence and facts and you have yet to even remotely TRY to base your posts on anything beyond pink lunger talking points.



gosh, it's not because you are AFRAID to post the source of your stupidity, eh?



naww.. that CANT be it.




I mean, werent you the one slinging out words like MARKET FORCES earleir in this thread??

I get the feeling some of you have tried to get newcomers to jump through these same hoops before. Kind of sad that's how you get your kicks. One good thing about smokers though. They're dying out in more ways than one. If you are anyone who has intentionally blown smoke in my face, you won't have much pity from me when you get hooked up to your final days on a respirator.

 

[Shogun]

I get the feeling some of you have tried to get newcomers to jump through these same hoops before. Kind of sad that's how you get your kicks. One good thing about smokers though. They're dying out in more ways than one. If you are anyone who has intentionally blown smoke in my face, you won't have much pity from me when you get hooked up to your final days on a respirator.

don't lecture me, pink lunger. Go find the source of your system of thought. Providinig evidence is hardly a new concept. You are on a forum that discusses topics deeper than your daily cognitive pattern. If asking you for proof is such a high hurdle for you then perhaps you should stick to the kiddie forums at disney.com.


But you actually accent my point: IM NOT ASKING for your pity, sympathy, concern, guidance etc. Neither are the smokers and bar owners that have no problem if you took your candy ass to a non-smoking bar. Yes, if you ask me to extinguish my smoke is a pompous, arrogant fashion like the one you've taken in this thread then, yes, you would get smoke blown all over you. Especially in your hair and clothes. I will probably live just as long as your cheeseburger heart attack lets you live, anyway.


Now that we have formalities out of the way why don't you grace us with SHS evidence that you seem to think is causing this pandemic of cancer ridden bartenders that we see piling up on the side of the road at every highway intersection from coast to coast.

 

[Gunny]

Shouldn't you be out searching for your first piece of evidence to post, bitch? I mean, as significant as your OPINION is I keep curbstomping you with evidence and facts and you have yet to even remotely TRY to base your posts on anything beyond pink lunger talking points.



gosh, it's not because you are AFRAID to post the source of your stupidity, eh?



naww.. that CANT be it.




I mean, werent you the one slinging out words like MARKET FORCES earleir in this thread??

The little "boo hoo" response says it all. Eisntein doesn't get it. It isn't about the heaters. It's about the bar being virtually empty while there's no room to stand on the patio. Both bars I went to in SoCal were EXACTLY like that. SO much so that the one in Temecula moved a bar and bartender to the patio.

If I'm a bar owner and this is my livelihood, I'm PISSED the government is dictating how I can run it, bearing in mind that smoking is NOT against the law.

 

[Anguille]

don't lecture me, pink lunger. Go find the source of your system of thought. Providinig evidence is hardly a new concept. You are on a forum that discusses topics deeper than your daily cognitive pattern. If asking you for proof is such a high hurdle for you then perhaps you should stick to the kiddie forums at disney.com.


But you actually accent my point: IM NOT ASKING for your pity, sympathy, concern, guidance etc. Neither are the smokers and bar owners that have no problem if you took your candy ass to a non-smoking bar. Yes, if you ask me to extinguish my smoke is a pompous, arrogant fashion like the one you've taken in this thread then, yes, you would get smoke blown all over you. Especially in your hair and clothes. I will probably live just as long as your cheeseburger heart attack lets you live, anyway.


Now that we have formalities out of the way why don't you grace us with SHS evidence that you seem to think is causing this pandemic of cancer ridden bartenders that we see piling up on the side of the road at every highway intersection from coast to coast.

Happy to provide with the evidence once one of you, not you, Blowgun, you don't count, has aswered my question. I asked it first and asked it several times, yet not one of you will even come near it.

Why would a smoker want to inflict their smoke on anyone?

How do you look another human in the face, whether it be some restaurant worker who you look down opon as low class or your own flesh and blood, how do you blow that smoke where it will go into their lungs? Is your addiction so powerful that it will compel you to do that? How do you feel about yourself when you've harmed someone that way? You all can trot out all your fancy talk of freedom versus totalitarianism and your "I can't accept it as fact that smoke is harmful or offensive". You can offer all your prepackaged rationalisations and prevarications but none explains why poisoning the air another person right in front of you is breathing is anokay thing to do.

There are all those psychological studies done where subjects are rewarded for doing things which appear to cause pain to a second participant and the further away the participant is, in another room but within sight and sound, then in another room but only audible and finally no contact at all, inhibition on the part of the subject decreases and they inflict more pain for the reward.

Smokers seem to show that this study doesn't hold true because they are right there in the same space as the people they harm in exchange for the reward of their nicotene high.

How do you do it? I really want to know because I am baffled. No one in real life has been able to give me an answer either. The smokers that I ask say they don't know, they just pretend it doesn't do harm and focus on their drug. Some have told me because people are too polite or to afraid to object so they just convince themselves it's okay or it's not their problem.