Smoking banned in private homes.

[Dis]

I hate all those same things and actually there are ever increasing laws enacted to protect us from the ill effects.
Sounds like you are just sulking because one of your own behaviors falls under the rubric of things that are harmful and thus restricted.

Are you really this frail, weak, and pathetic in real life, or are you just pretending here? Cripes. I can actually hear the whining, and gasping for air in your typing.

 

[KittenKoder]

Can you think of any reason not to smoke around another person other than that law prohibits it in certain cases?

Not one reason.

Hate cars and have to see them and their motorists kill and harm thousands but can't go around blowing up every car and can't make a law to protect us from this danger.

Perfume makes it hard for me to breathe but people still wear gallons of that poison all the time and I can't do a damned thing about it even though my doctor has determined that many of my health problems are because of these and other artificial chemicals (replace perfume with cleaner for the next point),

Have to hear all the drunks high on their drug because some pusher (waitress) serves them that drug all the time, and have to tolerate their dangerous behavior and dead brain cell idiocy but can't get laws to stop them from it.

Have to see a lot of my taxes go to pay for street junkies to get legal versions of the drugs they are addicted to but would be in serious trouble if I told them to **** off just for that because they are protected by idiotic minority laws (replace junky with drunk to).

I hate all those same things and actually there are ever increasing laws enacted to protect us from the ill effects.
Sounds like you are just sulking because one of your own behaviors falls under the rubric of things that are harmful and thus restricted.

The only laws that would work, according to anti-smokers as well, would be to outright band them. Ban alcohol completely, ban perfume and all artificial cleaners, ban automobiles, ban drug programs and start treating all junkies/drunks like the scum they are. If you feel otherwise then you are a hypocrite and still just want to tell other people how to live instead of spending that time and energy living your own life.

 

[Anguille]

See you all. I'm off to Echo's thread. You two are Debbie Downers.

 

[KittenKoder]

LOL ... now THAT is what we call running because you can't deny logic. Going out without even posting one fact ... classic denial of reality. Bah, I am going to start wasting my free energy on a new country wide ban of ALL bars (we are already getting close in Seattle just because of the patrons).

 

[Againsheila]

business went up. bullshit.


Yea, business also tends to go up after people like you force women at strip bars to wear clothes on stage too! I REALLY hate to say it but I agree with that ***** ravir. I'd have fired you too.

Thank god I live in a "At Will" state.

Our state only recently passed the law against smoking in bars and restaurants. I spoke to a waitress from a bar and asked how it affected their business and she said, "Believe it or not, business is up."

I think there are more non-smokers than smokers now and once the law passed, the non-smokers who stayed away from bars because of the smoke, could now go and listen to the bands.

I think it pretty much evened out by now. I certainly don't see fewer people in restaurants when I go to them now. I also find it more of a pleasure to go out to dine.

 

[Againsheila]

Angie, you are the one that said you almost threw a drink in a customer's face.

It isn't the whim of the manager to want to provide a service his customers are paying for...and if the employee refuses to help provide it they deserve to be fired.

What I do know is that once smoking was banned from airplanes the airlines reduced ventilation to cut costs. Now more people catch contagious diseases when they travel by plane. But I don't know if second hand smoke has ever killed anyone.

Your entire argument about a public nuisance is just silly. I've no doubt you could be considered a public nuisance.


So you believe your allergic reaction to cigarette smoke trumps someone in a condo's freedom to smoke in their own home. Is that correct?

My father in law can smell the smoke from his neighbors in his apartment. It is my opinion that we need to build apartments and condos so that if you do smoke in yours, your smoke doesn't enter your neighbors. Other than that, and of course, the presence of children, I have no problems with someone smoking in their own home. I do encourage smokers though, to smoke outside whenever possible. Smoking is a dirty habit and smoke collects on everything in your home. When my kids were little, I'd sometimes need a break and sent my kids with my husband to his parents house. When they came home I would have to bathe my kids and wash their clothes, the smoke smell was so bad on them.

 

[Annie]

I hear you. I'd say that the parents of children should say what is ok for them to be around. I'd say it's ok to say what adults will tolerate from their significant others. I'd say it's right for each individual to say what they will and will not tolerate.

All make their choices on which public venues to support with their expenditures. In all cases.

 

[Againsheila]

The smoker should not be denied his right to be there because of the non-smokers insistence on staying where he's obviously not comfortable.

If you're in a public place where smoking is permitted, man the **** up and deal. Or leave.

what about people with boom boxes? our thinking about how we view smoking is changing as the science comes in unadulterated by the lying under oath before the US Congress, testimony of Tobacco's Chief Executives.

Smoking in public is now viewed as a health issue for everyone around the smoker. Science.

I am a former 3 packs a day smoker, who has sympathy for smokers. But I knew towards the end that I was not only offending others but putting them at risk. And make no mistake about it...no matter how small---it was still a risk they did not choose.

However the numbers how so no connection between smoking and negative health issues, though there is a positive effect of nicotine. This is why I can't use health as my reason for wanting to stop, the people who are saying it's bad for you or worse that second hand smoke is bad, are lying under oath jut as much if not more. There are still far worse drugs that are legal with real and hard evidence which we see every day proving that they are harmful to health and society, but no one ever speaks out against them, the last time they tried look what happened. Just because the tobacco companies lied does not mean everyone against them can lie to.

I don't know what studies you've been reading, but I have a lot of relatives that smoked that have died of lung cancer or are now dealing with lung cancer or emphysema. An article I read over 20 years ago about a study done in Japan showed women married to men who smoke had a higher rate of lung cancer than women married to men who don't smoke. In both cases the women didn't smoke. This shows that even 20 years ago there was proof that shs was a danger.

The topic here is smoking..you want to talk about other drugs, start a thread and mention specific drugs and we can discuss them. In the meantime, go read some studies on what smoking and second had smoke really does to people.

I know from personal experience that second had smoke has caused me to become sick. I do not know if there is permanent damage, but I wouldn't be surprised.

In the meantime, I highly suggest every former smoker get a yearly chest x-ray. Just because you quit, doesn't mean you can't still get lung cancer. My mother did after not smoking for 13 years.

 

[Ravi]

What question?

Are you refering to smoking bans in my state? Look them up and then tell me what bee is in your bonnet.

No. The one you avoided twice now (though you also avoided that one twice).

Nevermind, after reading your last post I see that you must have some bigger issue since you seem to believe everyone that smokes is actually doing it to bother you.

 

[Shogun]

business went up. bullshit.


Yea, business also tends to go up after people like you force women at strip bars to wear clothes on stage too! I REALLY hate to say it but I agree with that ***** ravir. I'd have fired you too.

Thank god I live in a "At Will" state.

Our state only recently passed the law against smoking in bars and restaurants. I spoke to a waitress from a bar and asked how it affected their business and she said, "Believe it or not, business is up."

I think there are more non-smokers than smokers now and once the law passed, the non-smokers who stayed away from bars because of the smoke, could now go and listen to the bands.

I think it pretty much evened out by now. I certainly don't see fewer people in restaurants when I go to them now. I also find it more of a pleasure to go out to dine.

I can cite both Missouri examples that indicate otherwise. First, Maryville enacted a ban and then changed it a year later to exclude bars because it is a college town and their entire bar scene was going out of business. Second, Columbia enacted a ban in 06 and, since then, this town's downtown has been PURGING business to locations outside of the city limits.. which, ironically enough, tends to increase the distance that drunk people have to drive back into town. In 2005 there were no less than 3 active pool halls. Since then, not a single one remains. Our flagship venue, The Blue Note, has since gone from booking national touring acts to... filling in empty dates with local jazz "artists". Which, is essentially taking a busker and putting him on stage. I, for one, have enjoyed watching this town wither due to the pink lunger vendetta against non-smokers. Then again, this is the Show Me State and we are less likely to accept a bunch of bullshit as "projected" or "estimated" evidence when commerce proves that the pink lunger bullshit is nothing short of a blatant lie.

Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans

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.

The Regional Economist

 

[Shogun]

District Focus: Smoking Ban Singes Columbia, Mo.

Since January 2007, all bars and restaurants in Columbia, Mo., have been required to be smoke-free. Only some sections of outdoor patios are exempt from the requirement.

Some local businesses have continued to oppose the Columbia Clean Air Ordinance, circulating petitions to repeal the law by ballot initiative. According to local press reports, owners of at least four establishments have cited the smoking ban as a factor in their decision to close their doors in 2007.

Recent data from the city of Columbia show a distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and restaurants. After rising at an average rate of 6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the first seven months of 2007. (See graph.) Although the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia dining establishments since the implementation of the smoking ban. This estimate takes into account past trends, seasonal fluctuations in the data and an overall slowdown in sales tax revenue in Columbia.6

One interesting feature of the Columbia story is the response of restaurant owners to the patio exemption. According to an article in the Columbia Missourian, owners of at least two bars are building or planning outdoor patio expansions. One owner was quoted as saying, “You have to have a patio to survive.”7 The expenses associated with these renovations may help buffer the sales revenue of these establishments, but they also represent profit losses that are above and beyond the measured sales declines.

The Regional Economist

 

[Shogun]

Like I said..


BULLSHIT. Smoking drinkers are not going to continue being customers to locations who stop catering to their smoke friendly choices. All they will do is take their business to a town 15 minutes away OR GO TO A ******* HOUSE PARTY. Mizzou's downtown is literally a carcass from what it once was specifically because of the smoking ban.

 

[tigerbob]

District Focus: Smoking Ban Singes Columbia, Mo.

Since January 2007, all bars and restaurants in Columbia, Mo., have been required to be smoke-free. Only some sections of outdoor patios are exempt from the requirement.

Some local businesses have continued to oppose the Columbia Clean Air Ordinance, circulating petitions to repeal the law by ballot initiative. According to local press reports, owners of at least four establishments have cited the smoking ban as a factor in their decision to close their doors in 2007.

Recent data from the city of Columbia show a distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and restaurants. After rising at an average rate of 6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the first seven months of 2007. (See graph.) Although the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia dining establishments since the implementation of the smoking ban. This estimate takes into account past trends, seasonal fluctuations in the data and an overall slowdown in sales tax revenue in Columbia.6

One interesting feature of the Columbia story is the response of restaurant owners to the patio exemption. According to an article in the Columbia Missourian, owners of at least two bars are building or planning outdoor patio expansions. One owner was quoted as saying, “You have to have a patio to survive.”7 The expenses associated with these renovations may help buffer the sales revenue of these establishments, but they also represent profit losses that are above and beyond the measured sales declines.

The Regional Economist

Could it be because the economy is in the crapper that people are staying away from bars (i.e. they have less disposable income)? I'm not sure it follows that revenue falls are entirely due to smoking bans though I don't doubt there is an impact. Or maybe these findings predate the economic downturn by a few months.

 

[Shogun]

Why would you continue to go shopping for a sports car at a location that refuses to sell anything but Hyundais? Typically, in a recession, bar sales GROW as consumers look to bury their economic fears in the bottle. This is simply not the case anymore. The economic impact is clear as day. Hell, there is, ironically, MORE evidence of smoking bans crippling bar sales than pink lungers have in tangible evidence against SHS!

 

[KittenKoder]

Are you refering to smoking bans in my state? Look them up and then tell me what bee is in your bonnet.

No. The one you avoided twice now (though you also avoided that one twice).

Nevermind, after reading your last post I see that you must have some bigger issue since you seem to believe everyone that smokes is actually doing it to bother you.

Precisely ... it's all about "me" and never about health or even protecting other people. Anti-smokers don't care about everyone, they just want to be victims.

 

[Anguille]

I'll take that as a yes again, and it provides a nice segue to #7, which (not that i want to tip you off) is where we'll start to disagree. Then we will probably agree on #8 and disagree hugely on the last one, #9.

You are wrong to take that as a yes. I would have said yes, I agree, if I did. There is something fundamentally wrong with your statement. Which I though was clear from my post.

Hmmm. To be honest, I had expected you to agree with it rather than throw the whole thing out simply because I used the word "if". Or is it because I used the term "is proved" (i.e. implying future tense)?

I'll try rephrasing, as I wasn't trying to catch you out.

"Legislation is warranted to protect anyone from exposure to any substance that is proved to have a serious affect on their health". Hmmm, that won't do, because I could be trying to set up a ban on alcohol.

Ermmmm....

"If use of a product by one person has a serious negative health impact on others who are not intending to use that product, then it is fair and reasonable for legislation to be enacted that protects the non user".

I think that still covers it. Will that do as an alternative #6?

I somewhat agree but not entirely. We already have lots of different kinds of legislation concerning products with adverse effects on health that are considered fair and reasonable. For example, cars which burn gasoline must have catalytic converters and other technology to limit emissions. In the case of cigarette smoke it is not allowed in the workplace for much the same reasons that other dangerous substances are not allowed. No exception is made for bar staff as all employees are covered by OSHA regulations on quality of indoor air.

Also, the term "non user" is not clear. Do you mean 100% non user or if you mean some one not using the substance at the moment?

 

[Anguille]

Are you refering to smoking bans in my state? Look them up and then tell me what bee is in your bonnet.

No. The one you avoided twice now (though you also avoided that one twice).

Nevermind, after reading your last post I see that you must have some bigger issue since you seem to believe everyone that smokes is actually doing it to bother you.

You are being very obtuse about this mysterious question. Why not just ask it again like I asked you to? And what was your point about laws in my state. You not making much sense.

 

[Anguille]

District Focus: Smoking Ban Singes Columbia, Mo.

Since January 2007, all bars and restaurants in Columbia, Mo., have been required to be smoke-free. Only some sections of outdoor patios are exempt from the requirement.

Some local businesses have continued to oppose the Columbia Clean Air Ordinance, circulating petitions to repeal the law by ballot initiative. According to local press reports, owners of at least four establishments have cited the smoking ban as a factor in their decision to close their doors in 2007.

Recent data from the city of Columbia show a distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and restaurants. After rising at an average rate of 6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the first seven months of 2007. (See graph.) Although the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia dining establishments since the implementation of the smoking ban. This estimate takes into account past trends, seasonal fluctuations in the data and an overall slowdown in sales tax revenue in Columbia.6

One interesting feature of the Columbia story is the response of restaurant owners to the patio exemption. According to an article in the Columbia Missourian, owners of at least two bars are building or planning outdoor patio expansions. One owner was quoted as saying, “You have to have a patio to survive.”7 The expenses associated with these renovations may help buffer the sales revenue of these establishments, but they also represent profit losses that are above and beyond the measured sales declines.

The Regional Economist

Could it be because the economy is in the crapper that people are staying away from bars (i.e. they have less disposable income)? I'm not sure it follows that revenue falls are entirely due to smoking bans though I don't doubt there is an impact. Or maybe these findings predate the economic downturn by a few months.

I remember NYC experienced a 15% increase in restaurant and bar sales after the ban. My city was similar. But now, I think you are right that economics is more of a factor in the downturn.

 

[Anguille]

Why would you continue to go shopping for a sports car at a location that refuses to sell anything but Hyundais? Typically, in a recession, bar sales GROW as consumers look to bury their economic fears in the bottle. This is simply not the case anymore. The economic impact is clear as day. Hell, there is, ironically, MORE evidence of smoking bans crippling bar sales than pink lungers have in tangible evidence against SHS!

LOL!!! Shogun suggests we save the economy by allowing smoking in bars.

 

[Anguille]

Precisely ... it's all about "me" and never about health or even protecting other people. Anti-smokers don't care about everyone, they just want to be victims.

Translation : Precisely ... it's all about "me" and never about health or even protecting other people. Smokers don't care about everyone, they just want to be victims.