Smoking ban extended to bars and pool halls in Corpus Christi [Archive] - Page 2

BacktoBasics

12-18-2008, 05:40 PM

:lol

You realize you are a big f-ing hypocrite, right?

All I gotta say is "I allow smoking in my grocery store. If you don't like it, take you and your 4 year old somewhere else."

You're ridiculous. You have to either go all in on this or all out. You can't stick your foot in the pool and call it swimming.100% right its just not hypocritcal its compromise. MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT IS THAT I'M WILLING TO COMPROMISE BECAUSE I SEE THE BENEFIT OF A NON SMOKING GROCERY STORE BUT NO BENEFIT OF A NON SMOKING BAR. GIVE A LITTLE TO PRESERVE ADULT ONLY RIGHTS JUST LIKE I'M WILLING TO GIVE A LITTLE TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE 4 YEAR OLD WHO'S STUCK SHOPPING WITH MOM.

I see a fucking benefit from banning smoke in the majority of public places but to force your will on an adult only establishment is too fucking much. Enough its the straw that broke the camels back for me.

YOU FUCKING EXTREMIST WANT IT ALL YOUR WAY. GREEDY SELFISH UNAMERICAN FUCKWADS.

BacktoBasics

12-18-2008, 05:46 PM

Seriously I'm done now. You selfish assholes destroy the very best things about this country because of what you can't have. Go find your own toys to play with and stop trying to fuck with your neighbors.

Joe Camel

12-18-2008, 05:49 PM

:bang

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-18-2008, 05:53 PM

I already posted my link. Feel free to share if you can one up that.

Nothing better than a drive by poster.

Just one for now:

It is clear that Congress intended EPA to disseminate findings from the information researched and gathered. In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458056-8058.html

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-18-2008, 05:56 PM

Or two:

The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

The Reckoning

12-18-2008, 06:01 PM

if second-hand smoke was harmful, why can't i ever get a contact high?

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-18-2008, 06:05 PM

And three, from the WHO:

Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract

Lackluster

12-18-2008, 06:11 PM

Kramer: You know, just because a person's a smoker, that doesn't mean he's not a human being.

Jerry: It doesn't?

JoeChalupa

12-18-2008, 06:20 PM

I've got no problem with smoking establishments.

ploto

12-18-2008, 06:25 PM

While I like smoking bans because I believe it to be a public health issue, I will agree with B2B on one thing. Before the smoking ban existed in SA, I specifically went to restaurants that were all non-smoking. I even told the people who owned them or ran them that this was one of the major reasons I ate there. Sure, it would have been nice to go to some of the other ones where I liked the food, but I chose not to go because I can not stand the smoke. It would be nice to go to a bar and relax with friends and have a drink, but I can not stand the smoke. So, I go instead to a restaurant with a bar area that is non-smoking and have my glass of wine there.

DarkReign

12-18-2008, 06:54 PM

....and have my glass of wine there.

:lmao

Where to start with this...

At least I know who I am being outnumbered by, I guess. Metrosexuals.

balli

12-18-2008, 07:37 PM

At least I know who I am being outnumbered by, I guess. Metrosexuals.Every single bar in SLC that I would have socials contacts at, allows smoking. SLC is a cold ass climate. That means that if want to go to a bar where I actually know people, I have to bundle up in a pair of heavy ass jeans, an undershirt, a shirt and a jacket. Everybody here has nice jackets; I have nice jackets. And then, I walk into a cloud of smoke that utterly destroys my skin, lungs, hair, freshly laundered clothing and of most importance, my nice ass fleece or shell. And then, later, when I get home I can't just go to bed. No, I have to peel off these layers of morbidly stinky clothing and jump into the shower. If I'm too drunk and don't shower, my sheets, comforter, pillow cases and pillows get covered in smelly ass soot that other people inhaled and blew all over me. And so while I'm in the shower, I can literally see and smell the yellow nastiness pouring out of my hair and off my skin and I drunkenly curse the idiots who caused it. And then, when I wake up the next morning, I open up my bathroom door and a noxious smell invades my hung-over nostrils, emitting from a pile of formerly clean clothing, which now sits in a heaping mound of odorous decay. And furthermore, it [the stank] mixed with steam produced by my previous night's shower and has turned my bathroom into a quagmire of cigarette humidity. An so hungover, I open up my bathroom window to the 19 degree cold, so the room can air out while I'm busy washing my clothes.

If wanting to avoid that is metrosexual, sign me the fuck up.

Oh and, enjoy your rights. :rolleyes

leemajors

12-18-2008, 08:10 PM

:lmao

Where to start with this...

At least I know who I am being outnumbered by, I guess. Metrosexuals.

females who have a glass of wine are metrosexuals?

Richard Cranium

12-18-2008, 08:58 PM

I can count the number of people I know who smoke on one hand. On the other hand I don't really mind smoke that much as long as I'm not eating..

DarkReign

12-18-2008, 10:49 PM

females who have a glass of wine are metrosexuals?

ploto is female?

If so, no.

DarkReign

12-18-2008, 10:51 PM

Every single bar in SLC that I would have socials contacts at, allows smoking. SLC is a cold ass climate. That means that if want to go to a bar where I actually know people, I have to bundle up in a pair of heavy ass jeans, an undershirt, a shirt and a jacket. Everybody here has nice jackets; I have nice jackets. And then, I walk into a cloud of smoke that utterly destroys my skin, lungs, hair, freshly laundered clothing and of most importance, my nice ass fleece or shell. And then, later, when I get home I can't just go to bed. No, I have to peel off these layers of morbidly stinky clothing and jump into the shower. If I'm too drunk and don't shower, my sheets, comforter, pillow cases and pillows get covered in smelly ass soot that other people inhaled and blew all over me. And so while I'm in the shower, I can literally see and smell the yellow nastiness pouring out of my hair and off my skin and I drunkenly curse the idiots who caused it. And then, when I wake up the next morning, I open up my bathroom door and a noxious smell invades my hung-over nostrils, emitting from a pile of formerly clean clothing, which now sits in a heaping mound of odorous decay. And furthermore, it [the stank] mixed with steam produced by my previous night's shower and has turned my bathroom into a quagmire of cigarette humidity. An so hungover, I open up my bathroom window to the 19 degree cold, so the room can air out while I'm busy washing my clothes.

If wanting to avoid that is metrosexual, sign me the fuck up.

Oh and, enjoy your rights. :rolleyes

Goto a non-smoking bar.

Problem = solved.

Boy, youd think with all you whiney non-smokers bleeding all over their floors about the big bad wolf, that your needs would be met via the marketplace and your demand.

Guess not, huh?

The Reckoning

12-18-2008, 11:21 PM

lol people who smoke ganja but hate cigs

balli

12-18-2008, 11:38 PM

Goto a non-smoking bar.

Problem = solved.

Boy, youd think with all you whiney non-smokers bleeding all over their floors about the big bad wolf, that your needs would be met via the marketplace and your demand.

Guess not, huh?
Like I said,

Every single bar in SLC that I would have socials contacts at, allows smoking... if want to go to a bar where I actually know people

I'm not going to try to change years of tradition and try to force my homies to go to a new place. Besides, non-smoking bars don't exist here. I could go to a non-smoking tavern or a pub, get a nice steak and beer. But nah, if I want shoot pool or pound mind erasers at a quarter to one in the morning, I have no choice but to enter a smoking establishment.

The marketplace isn't meeting my demand for non-smoking bars, because bar owners make money off tobacco products, don't give a fuck about my health and they know that not enough people are going to stay home just because of the cigarette smoke, to cut into their bottom line. The marketplace has failed. Public demand is going unmet so that bar owners can keep their cigarette machines rolling by serving the minority.

lol people who smoke ganja but hate cigs
If you don't see the difference between a few clean ass bong snaps of pure chronic smoke per day, and several hours spent submersing yourself and your clothing into enormous clouds of other people previously inhaled, disgusting tobacco smoke, I just feel bad for you.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 12:14 AM

I'm not going to try to change years of tradition and try to force my homies to go to a new place. Besides, non-smoking bars don't exist here. I could go to a non-smoking tavern or a pub, get a nice steak and beer. But nah, if I want shoot pool or pound mind erasers at a quarter to one in the morning, I have no choice but to enter a smoking establishment.

The marketplace isn't meeting my demand for non-smoking bars, because bar owners make money off tobacco products, don't give a fuck about my health and they know that not enough people are going to stay home just because of the cigarette smoke, to cut into their bottom line. The marketplace has failed. Public demand is going unmet so that bar owners can keep their cigarette machines rolling by serving the minority.

Then why not lobby your legislators for non-smoking bars instead of a smoking ban?

Your train of thought makes no sense.

Little Smokey

12-19-2008, 12:47 AM

GO DAMMIT I"M GOING TO MELT. YES YOU FUCKING STUPID SELFISH MORONIC FUCKING UNAMERICAN PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT. BUILD YOUR OWN NONSMOKING SHIT FUCK HOLE AND GO THERE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE MAKE YOUR OWN.

OH FUCKING NO FUCK FREE WILL AND FUCK CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS I HAVE A MOTHERFUCKING OPINION AND GOD DAMMIT I'M GOING TO WILL MY FUCKING STUPID UNCONSTITUIONAL BACKASSED FUCKED OPINION ON EVERY FUCKING SINGLE ONE OF YOU BECAUSE MY NAMES BLAKE AND IF I CAN'T PLAY THE WAY I WANT TO FUCKING PLAY AT YOUR POOL THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE THE RULES CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE MY SELFISH SELFABSORD FUCKED UP WAY OF WANTING TO DO THINGS BECAUSE GOD DAMMIT I WANT MY MOTHERFUCKING WAAAAAAAY WAAAAAAHHHHH WAAAAAAHHHHH DO IT THE WAY I WANT IT BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT TO INVADE YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS EVEN THOUGH ITS FUCKING PRIVATE PROPERTY.

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKIGN UNAMERICAN PIECE OF GOD DAMN SHIT. FUCKING UP MY COUNTRY WITH YOUR OPINIONATED UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE AND BE REASONABLE. I FUCKING HATE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU HAVE DONE TO THIS COUNTRY. I HOPE YOU GET SECOND HAND SMOKE LUNG CANCER AND DIE AFTER LIVING WITH ONE OF THOSE VIBRATING VOICE FUCKING THINGS FOR 5 YEARS OF FUCKING HELL.

FUCK

You want your goat back?

http://z.about.com/d/esl/1/0/1/a/goat.jpg

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:04 AM

100% right its just not hypocritcal its compromise. MY ENTIRE FUCKING POINT IS THAT I'M WILLING TO COMPROMISE BECAUSE I SEE THE BENEFIT OF A NON SMOKING GROCERY STORE BUT NO BENEFIT OF A NON SMOKING BAR. GIVE A LITTLE TO PRESERVE ADULT ONLY RIGHTS JUST LIKE I'M WILLING TO GIVE A LITTLE TO PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF THE 4 YEAR OLD WHO'S STUCK SHOPPING WITH MOM.

I see a fucking benefit from banning smoke in the majority of public places but to force your will on an adult only establishment is too fucking much. Enough its the straw that broke the camels back for me.

YOU FUCKING EXTREMIST WANT IT ALL YOUR WAY. GREEDY SELFISH UNAMERICAN FUCKWADS.

please. Take your 4 year old and get out of my smoking store if you don't like it, you unAmerican commie.

if you are trying to argue on behalf of the rights of store owners, you can't have it both ways. You'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:09 AM

Just one for now:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458056-8058.html

1. this is info from 1994
2. can't find your quote in the link.........so it's hard to tell if this is the Tobacco attorney's statement or the judge's ruling.

cliff's notes please.

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:15 AM

Or two:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

FORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to – the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.

FORCES is an acronym of Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking.

http://www.forces.org/static_page/who.php

gee, no agenda driven research being done here.....

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 09:25 AM

1. this is info from 1994
2. can't find your quote in the link.........so it's hard to tell if this is the Tobacco attorney's statement or the judge's ruling.

cliff's notes please.

1. The EPA report was in 1993.

2. It's from the judge.

This is his full decision with the quote coming in on pages 89-90.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

I'm sure there have been studies done since then that show a weak relationship between cancer and SHS. And many more that show that such a relationship simply doesn't exist.

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:26 AM

And three, from the WHO:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract

you gotta be kidding me.....

you dug up a research study done in France on 650 people with lung cancer in Europe back in 1998. Sorry if I don't just change my entire view on this study.

my turn.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 09:30 AM

http://www.forces.org/static_page/who.php

gee, no agenda driven research being done here.....

From the EPA? I agree.

Read the report and stop being a slapdick on where the info is posted.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 09:31 AM

please. Take your 4 year old and get out of my smoking store if you don't like it, you unAmerican commie.

if you are trying to argue on behalf of the rights of store owners, you can't have it both ways. You'd be laughed out of the courtroom.I can have it both ways you one track minded ignorant fuck. Its called compromise. Perhaps you shouldn't just have it one way. Your inability to compromise and be reasonable because of your preference shows what short-comings you possess. Your sense of entitlement is so fucking wrong its sick.

The bars are willing to give you every other single place of establishment in the city but no you insist on fucking with them too because having 95% of your city smoke free isn't enough. You selfish selfabsorbed egotistical fucking unamerican asshole.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 09:32 AM

you gotta be kidding me.....

you dug up a research study done in France on 650 people with lung cancer in Europe back in 1998. Sorry if I don't just change my entire view on this study.

my turn.

The WHO isn't credible?

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:35 AM

see, when looking up sources to studies being done, you have to take account the source of the info and who is funding the research:

great article regarding this matter from WebMD:

Secondhand Smoke Study Raises Ire
Study Shows No Association Between Passive Smoke and Health Risks; Others Criticize Research
By Sid Kirchheimer
WebMD Health NewsMay 15, 2003 -- A controversial new study that questions the health risks of being exposed to secondhand smoke -- a factor often said to contribute to some 50,000 American deaths each year -- has outraged some health officials.

The new study, to be published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal, shows no measurable rates of heart disease or lung cancer among nonsmokers who ever lived with smokers, and reports only a slight increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Many health agencies, including the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, have long said that secondhand smoke boosts the risk of heart disease by about 30% and lung cancer risk by 25% in nonsmokers.

"We found no measurable effect from being exposed to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer in nonsmokers -- not at any time or at any level," lead researcher James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, of the UCLA School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "The only thing we did find, which was not reported in the study, is that nonsmokers who live with smokers have a increased risk of widowhood because their smoking spouses do die prematurely."

However, the American Cancer Society blasted the study -- and Enstrom -- for misusing its own data in an attempt to "confuse the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke." And former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond, MD, is expected to join other medical experts in calling the study "bogus" in a news conference on Friday.

The study was funded in part by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which the American Cancer Society says is an arm of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies. Enstrom requested and received funding for the study in 1997.

For his finding, Enstrom used data from an ACS study -- the Cancer Prevention Study I that began in 1959 as one of the first major smoking studies. It involved some 1 million Americans across the country; Enstrom focused on some 36,000 nonsmoking Californians whose spouses had smoked, part of the 118,000 state residents in the trial. Although the study ended in 1972, Enstrom traced the cause of death of some 7,000 of those participants until 1998.

"ACS scientists and in particular, myself, had repeatedly asked him not to use the data to study the effects of secondhand smoke because it would lead to unreliable results," Michael Thun, MD, head of epidemiological research for the ACS, tells WebMD. "And it did." ..............

......In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.

more.....

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:37 AM

From the EPA? I agree.

Read the report and stop being a slapdick on where the info is posted.

I read the report and found agenda oozing out of it.

If you're gonna keep posting links from sites run by people that want to smoke wherever they want to, I think we are done.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 09:44 AM

I read the report and found agenda oozing out of it.

If you're gonna keep posting links from sites run by people that want to smoke wherever they want to, I think we are done.

Agenda from a federal judge or from the US Congressional Review?

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:45 AM

The WHO isn't credible?

One case study of 650 people done in 1998 in France is not enough on it's own.

I could run circles around you all day on the case studies done that do show secondhand smoke is harmful..........although there is really no point. I think you are the only one here that thinks secondhand smoke is ok.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 09:52 AM

Blake wants the ability to tell adults what to do. He wants to control the ability of every adult out there to make a choice and that choice is his choice only.

He wants a world that does what he wants it to do. He wants to be a dictator of peoples free will to enter or not enter an establishment by choice.

He wants private property to be public property where himself and his people have controlling interest in what goes on there.

Blake is the epitome of a disabler of an adults right to make decisions on their own because his preference in an adults only establishment should be up to him and him only not the owner of the private property and not the people that choose to enter its doors. Blake decides whats right and wrong.

You can no longer exercise your adult ablity to make decisions on your own two feet. Blake does that for you. Its his way or the highway

Blakemerica:

Blakians don't like something and Blakians who feel that they are the majority refuse to open their own establishment and profit off the "majority". Blakians will fucking tear your place up until it meets their standard because its a fundamental Blakian right to control your business and your ability to be an adult and make your own sound decisions.

Blakemerica: Fuck anyone who isn't Blakian.

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:54 AM

I can have it both ways you one track minded ignorant fuck. Its called compromise. Perhaps you shouldn't just have it one way. Your inability to compromise and be reasonable because of your preference shows what short-comings you possess. Your sense of entitlement is so fucking wrong its sick.

The bars are willing to give you every other single place of establishment in the city but no you insist on fucking with them too because having 95% of your city smoke free isn't enough. You selfish selfabsorbed egotistical fucking unamerican asshole.

Oh ok, so it's constitutionally wrong to take the rights away from an owner if he wants to have people smoke if they are adults, but when it's a restaurant during the day, you call it a "compromise".

If you can't see the hypocrisy, sorry, but you are an idiot.

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:55 AM

Blake wants the ability to tell adults what to do.

You do too apparently.....

the difference is that you are calling it a "compromise"

nice job.

Blake

12-19-2008, 09:56 AM

for the record, I like Blakemerica.

It has a very nice ring to it.

Now get you and your smelly smoking ass out of here.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 10:03 AM

Oh ok, so it's constitutionally wrong to take the rights away from an owner if he wants to have people smoke if they are adults, but when it's a restaurant during the day, you call it a "compromise".

If you can't see the hypocrisy, sorry, but you are an idiot.Yes because it is a compromise. Its constitutionally wrong to tell a restaurant they have to be non-smoking. Its a compromise because there is a benefit to protecting underage kids who likely don't have to ability to choose for themselves.

When a right affects people who cannot willfully protect themselves then you have a gray area that should be addressed. Its addressed with compromise.

Willfully: Obstinately bent on having one's own way. (this is somewhat removed from 90% of the open public because kids cannot exercise their free will.)

Its not hypocrisy if I'm flat pointing out that yes its unconstitutional but there is a strong matter of how it affects people who have no control over your will to allow smoking. Lets compromise on this and allow the smoking only in places where we are guaranteed that free will can be exercised to its fullest without question.

That is a bar. That is adults only where you have 100% of the choice to make by yourself and no one else.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 10:05 AM

for the record, I like Blakemerica.

It has a very nice ring to it.

Now get you and your smelly smoking ass out of here.I bet you do. You, Bush and Hitler should play 18 sometime and share philosophies.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 10:10 AM

It was weird reading that "Blakian" post, as that is my namesake as well.

Although this Blake and that Blake differ enormously in how government and peoples preferences should applied society-wide.

Anti-smoking bill dies in Lansing todayGary Heinlein / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- State lawmakers this morning abandoned, for this year, efforts to ban smoking in all workplaces, including bars, restaurants and casinos.

As the hours ticked down on what likely is their final meeting of the two-year session, they also gave up on legislation to boost road repair money and give a competitive boost to Blue Cross-Blue Shield.

But they passed legislation paving the way for a Detroit light rail connection between Hart Plaza and the New Center area, and a law needed for a $288-million expansion of Detroit's Cobo Center appeared headed for approval.

House and Senate members conceded defeat on the anti-smoking legislation, after talks carried well into the pre-dawn hours, when both sides refused to bend: The House stuck with its plan to exempt casinos, race tracks and cigar bars while the Senate insisted on a blanket prohibition on smoking in all workplaces.

The failure was a stinging disappointment for proponents who've sought the ban for a decade, and worked tirelessly in the last few weeks to see it through. Polls have shown consistently that a strong majority of Michiganians support such a law.

"People have a right to expect us to do our jobs," said Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, a proponent. "The reason all those other states and countries are going smoke-free is not just because it's the right thing to do. It's also the millions of dollars in health care costs (caused by smoking) that they save." (DR edit: ie Insurance Companies lobbying on behalf of themselves)

No one believes the issue is dead forever.

"We realize it's an issue a lot of our constituents want to see resolved," Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said of the smoking ban. "There's a drive to get it done. I'm certain this is an issue that will come back to us."

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081219/POLITICS/812190426

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 10:12 AM

It was weird reading that "Blakian" post, as that is my namesake as well.
I'm sorry friend. You know who its intended for.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 10:13 AM

I'm sorry friend. You know who its intended for.

:lol Shit, I know that. If one John took responsiblity for all Johns, Joe would have it a helluva lot better.

:toast

Blake

12-19-2008, 10:26 AM

Yes because it is a compromise. Its constitutionally wrong to tell a restaurant they have to be non-smoking. Its a compromise because there is a benefit to protecting underage kids who likely don't have to ability to choose for themselves.

Nobody is forcing you to take your kids to the restaurant and it's a compromise then too to ban it in bars because it effects others health.

You're done.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 10:28 AM

One case study of 650 people done in 1998 in France is not enough on it's own.

I could run circles around you all day on the case studies done that do show secondhand smoke is harmful..........although there is really no point. I think you are the only one here that thinks secondhand smoke is ok.

Please do. Any where the relative risk is over 2.0? 1.5? Should be a ton since it's a class A carcinogen.

And when did I say it was ok? I simply said the effects have been grossly overstated.

Blake

12-19-2008, 10:30 AM

It was weird reading that "Blakian" post, as that is my namesake as well.

Although this Blake and that Blake differ enormously in how government and peoples preferences should applied society-wide.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081219/POLITICS/812190426

hey jeenyus, did you read the part of your story that also said that polls indicate the majority of Michigan residents want the ban?

Even though that's the opinion of the senator, I also figure saving millions in health care cost to be a good thing.

Blake

12-19-2008, 10:32 AM

Please do. Any where the relative risk is over 2.0? 1.5? Should be a ton since it's a class A carcinogen.

And when did I say it was ok? I simply said the effects have been grossly overstated.

it's either harmful or it's not. which is it?

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 10:33 AM

it's either harmful or it's not. which is it?

You mean like arsenic in drinking water?

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 10:36 AM

Nobody is forcing you to take your kids to the restaurant and it's a compromise then too to ban it in bars because it effects others health.

You're done.I'm not done you stupid fucking moron.

You can't say "it effects others health". You're done you can't use that agrument. Period. The "others" have a choice to enter or not. You cannot blame someone else for your health promblems if you knowingly, again knowingly, enter a place under your own free will by choice with a mother fucking sign that says "smoking".

Use YOUR fucking judgement to enter or not. "others health" isn't an issue when you have the ability to make a choice.

Its a compromise because yes parents don't have to take their kids somewhere but to "compromise" we should attempt to protect minors that have no "free will".

Stop trying to protect adults who should be protecting themselves. Why do you want to govern grown fucking adults? Why do you want to strip their ability to choose on their own?

YOU CAN'T FUCKING USE THE HEALTH CARD BECAUSE IT AFFECTS OTHERS. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CHOICE. GET IT AN ADULT CHOICE.

THEIR LIVES ARE COMPLETELY 100% AGAIN YOU STUPID FUCK 100% UNAFFECTED IF THEY AS AN ADULT DON'T WALK IN THE DOOR INTO THE PRIVATE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. THEY GET TO FUCKING CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUCKING HEALTH OPTIONS. HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT FOR YOU.

I SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. HOW DOES SOMEONE GET LUNG CANCER FROM THE BAR BY NEVER GO INTO IT? ANSWER IT YOU FUCKING BAFOON. STOP DECIDING THINGS FOR OTHER ADULTS.

Blake

12-19-2008, 10:36 AM

You mean like arsenic in drinking water?

I don't know anyone that has an allergic or asthmatic reaction to drinking water like I do after taking a whiff of cigarette smoke, do you?

Blake

12-19-2008, 10:40 AM

I'm not done you stupid fucking moron.

You can't say "it effects others health". You're done you can't use that agrument. Period. The "others" have a choice to enter or not. You cannot blame someone else for your health promblems if you knowingly, again knowingly, enter a place under your own free will by choice with a mother fucking sign that says "smoking".

Use YOUR fucking judgement to enter or not. "others health" isn't an issue when you have the ability to make a choice.

Its a compromise because yes parents don't have to take their kids somewhere but to "compromise" we should attempt to protect minors that have no "free will".

Stop trying to protect adults who should be protecting themselves. Why do you want to govern grown fucking adults? Why do you want to strip their ability to choose on their own?

YOU CAN'T FUCKING USE THE HEALTH CARD BECAUSE IT AFFECTS OTHERS. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CHOICE. GET IT AN ADULT CHOICE.

THEIR LIVES ARE COMPLETELY 100% AGAIN YOU STUPID FUCK 100% UNAFFECTED IF THEY AS AN ADULT DON'T WALK IN THE DOOR INTO THE PRIVATE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. THEY GET TO FUCKING CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUCKING HEALTH OPTIONS. HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT FOR YOU.

I SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. HOW DOES SOMEONE GET LUNG CANCER FROM THE BAR BY NEVER GO INTO IT? ANSWER IT YOU FUCKING BAFOON. STOP DECIDING THINGS FOR OTHER ADULTS.

yeah, you're definitely done. So am I.

Thank God the majority of us have common sense regarding this and will have this full blown ban up and running in the next decade.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 10:42 AM

Judge: So Mr. Blakian you're suing the bar for getting lung cancer?

Blakian Dipshit: Thats right. I got the cancer from second hand smoke in the bar.

Judge: Did anyone force you to enter the bar?

Blakian: Well no but I wanted a beer and I wanted to shoot pool.

Judge: Does your health require you to drink a beer or shoot pool? Was entering the bar 100% optional for you?

Blakian: No my health doesn't require beer or pool. I entered at 100% my own personal descretion.

Judge: Did you know that they were smoking in there?

Blakian: Yes

Judge: Did you see the smoking sign?

Blakian: Yes

Judge: did you know that second hand smoke may or may not harm you?

Blakian: Yes

Judge: THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU GO IN? YOU KNOW ITS BAD YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A CHOICE AND YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T GET SICK BY NOT ENTERING. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT SMOKING IS LEGAL BUT YOU ALSO KNOW THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO NOT ENTER.

THE ONLY PERSON YOU SHOULD BE PISSED AT IS YOURSELF.

DISMISSED.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 10:44 AM

I don't know anyone that has an allergic or asthmatic reaction to drinking water like I do after taking a whiff of cigarette smoke, do you?

I don't know anyone who's death was directly linked to SHS, do you?

Just post the studies. If I am misinformed on the subject, then I'll back off my stance.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 10:46 AM

i would hope blakian could afford to retain better counsel.

Blake

12-19-2008, 10:47 AM

I don't know anyone who's death was directly linked to SHS, do you?

Just post the studies. If I am misinformed on the subject, then I'll back off my stance.

yes, you are misinformed. Stop reading sites that are funded by smokers.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 10:49 AM

yes, you are misinformed. Stop reading sites that are funded by smokers.

It'd help if you posted links.

I still don't get why a federal judge's ruling is affected by where it's posted. Care to elaborate?

leemajors

12-19-2008, 10:49 AM

very tangential question for the smokers in here - do you smoke in your homes?

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 10:49 AM

yeah, you're definitely done. So am I.

Thank God the majority of us have common sense regarding this and will have this full blown ban up and running in the next decade.Congradulations on destroying this country. I know you're proud.

NannyNanny Boo Boo you got your way.

I don't find you to be the majority either. The minority may be actual smokers but the majority don't want you governing their lives.

The majority don't want the Patriot Act but we fucking got it. Majority doesn't rule this country. You are as blind as you are stupid.

Your minority has partnered up with the select few who make the laws. You've willed your preference on us without compromise.

I hate you and I hate people like you. This world is a worse place for having people who think like you do. Your country is a worse place for having people like you. Our governments have been destroyed by people just like you. I hope that one day we rid ourselves from dictators like you.

So many of you morons think this country is built on the democracy of the few. Its built on individual rights and the ability to exercise free will according to law.

You have no concept of how your Country was founded. Stupid unAmerican American.

jack sommerset

12-19-2008, 11:03 AM

:lol at this thread. 2nd hand smoke

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Blake

12-19-2008, 11:24 AM

It'd help if you posted links.

I still don't get why a federal judge's ruling is affected by where it's posted. Care to elaborate?

I could post one hundred links but I have a feeling your mind is already set that it's not as lethal as it's made out to be based on your findings from research done 10 years ago....

but i'm going to throw you one last morsel just because I'm a nice guy.

Drop in second-hand smoke deaths predicted

Reuters Health

Thursday, December 18, 2008

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The number of deaths and heart attacks due to second-hand smoke exposure may fall by as much as 30 percent if current downward trends in passive smoking exposure continue, according to a new report.

"Exposure to passive smoking has been reduced by 25 percent to 40 percent, and its burden has been reduced by 25 percent and 30 percent over the last 8-10 years, but the burden remains substantial," Dr. James M. Lightwood and colleagues write in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Lightwood of the University of California San Francisco and his team used the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model to gauge the health and cost burden of passive smoking on US residents over 35. The model is a computer simulation of the impact of heart disease caused by smoking, blood pressure, cholesterol levels and other factors.

The researchers estimated the prevalence of passive smoking exposure by looking at measurements of cotinine, a nicotine byproduct, in the blood of people participating in the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey. At least a quarter of people 35 to 84 met the strictest criteria for second-hand smoke exposure, while up to 40 percent of men and 30 percent of women are exposed to some level of second-hand smoke.

Based on the assumption that passive smoke exposure boosts heart disease risk by 26 percent to 65 percent, for 1999-2004 Lightwood and his colleagues peg the number of heart disease deaths a year due to passive smoking at 21,800 to 75,100, and estimate that second-hand smoke causes 38,100 to 128,900 heart attacks.

If the downward trend in passive smoking exposure observed between 1988 and 2004 continued through to 2008, according to the researchers, deaths and heart attacks due to second-hand smoke would fall by 25 percent to 30 percent.

Continued reduction in second-hand smoke exposure will likely be driven by efforts to ban smoking in public and in the workplace and to promote smoke-free homes, they conclude.

SOURCE: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, January 2009.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_72931.html

Blake

12-19-2008, 11:35 AM

You have no concept of how your Country was founded. Stupid unAmerican American.

I understand your concept clearly. Business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want unless it goes against B2B's own personal right and wrongs.

:lol

whatever dude.

Blake

12-19-2008, 11:40 AM

...

Dex

12-19-2008, 11:42 AM

Walking into a bar and complaining about the smoke is like walking onto the highway and complaining about the cars.

But it seems the times, they are a changin'

Blake

12-19-2008, 11:46 AM

Walking into a bar and complaining about the smoke is like walking onto the highway and complaining about the cars.

But it seems the times, they are a changin'

walking into a humidor yes, pool hall no. dance club, no. hole in the wall bar? iffy.

but yes they are.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 11:46 AM

I understand your concept clearly. Business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want unless it goes against B2B's own personal right and wrongs.

:lol

whatever dude.

Wrong again fucktard.

Its not my personal right and wrongs. You are the dumbest person I may have ever encountered.

Its the personal rights granted to us by the Constitiution. The Constitution written and founded by and for this country.

Make no mistake its not my personal opinion its my right founded in law since the inception of this Country.

You and you're people are choosing to ignore it for your own personal agenda.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 11:50 AM

Wrong again fucktard.

Its not my personal right and wrongs. You are the dumbest person I may have ever encountered.

Its the personal rights granted to us by the Constitiution. The Constitution written and founded by and for this country.

Make no mistake its not my personal opinion its my right founded in law since the inception of this Country.

You and you're people are choosing to ignore it for your own personal agenda.

I'll take a stab at answering for Blake here - the constitution guarantees the right to smoke in a bar?

Blake

12-19-2008, 11:54 AM

I'll take a stab at answering for Blake here - the constitution guarantees the right to smoke in a bar?

:lol beat me to it

oh well

Blake

12-19-2008, 11:57 AM

why am I still bothering with this stupid thread.

It'll be a moot point in 20 years and people will look back on this just like they did when white restaurant owners were finally forced by our crappy all intrusive Bush Hitler Big Brother government to have to serve blacks.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 11:58 AM

We are never going to convince Blake because he believes things that are wrong. He simply will never understand.

Here is a short list of what he'll never get.

1. A constitutional right to make an individual choice. He the government to make his choices for him.

2. A business is still private property. He'll never get this.

3. You do not have a right to enter a business you have the choice to enter at the descretion of the owner and can be removed at any time. Still hasn't gotten this

4. Compromise. He has no concept of give and take.

5. He thinks this Country is founded on democracy of the few not individual rights and free will.

6. He doesn't understand the word hypocrate and how its defined and used.

7. Has no concept of free will and the ability to exercise it.

8. He will never see how his sense of entitlement is fundamentally wrong and goes against what this Country is founded on.

Blake is the most narrowminded idiotic dictatorlike thought process driven asshole we might have ever encountered outside of Angel Luv.

Blake is an ant, a soldier, not a liberator. Do what is told not what is right. Minions like yourself have supported the causes of the few so much to the point where your fellow hard working peers are now slaves to our government instead of being protected by it. You are supporting the very machine that inslaves you because you've removed your ability to think rationally about what is a right and what isn't.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 11:58 AM

I could post one hundred links but I have a feeling your mind is already set that it's not as lethal as it's made out to be based on your findings from research done 10 years ago....

but i'm going to throw you one last morsel just because I'm a nice guy.

An wide ranging estimate?

Much of the uncertainty in the estimates is related to lack of knowledge of the true relative risk

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/12005

leemajors

12-19-2008, 11:59 AM

blake will be all over hypocrate.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:04 PM

I'll take a stab at answering for Blake here - the constitution guarantees the right to smoke in a bar?Sort of. More like the constitution guarantees the right of the bar owner to set the rules of his bar because its his private property. The bar is under the bar owners name not the cities and not the states. Its not a right for anyone to enter its a privilege. The bar own opened his private property up to the public and he can remove you from the bar at any moment.

Since smoking is legal the bar owner has the right to allow it. When smoking is illegal then the argument changes.

Now the bar owner doesn't have the right to allow acid use in his bar because acid is illegal.

Just like he doesn't have the right to allow stomach punching and so forth.

All I'm an advocate for is choice in a private establishment where its adults only. This removes the notion of "what about the people who can't control their intake of smoke like kids at a restaurant or at grocery store because their parents forced them to go". Strictly an optional only social setting where only an adult can choose for himself to be exposed or not.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:07 PM

blake will be all over hypocrate.

At this point we can argue forever. I just want to run him. He's too stupid to ever listen or compromise.

I'm willing to give him 90% or more of what he wants. He's a narrowminded selfish piece of shit.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:11 PM

We are never going to convince Blake because he believes things that are wrong. He simply will never understand.

Here is a short list of what he'll never get.

1. A constitutional right to make an individual choice. He the government to make his choices for him.

No, I don't want my government to choose my meal for me or which house I can buy, but I do like that the government says that restaurant owners have to store my food at certain temperatures.

2. A business is still private property. He'll never get this.

Unless B2B says that that business owner must compromise with him regarding his own particular form of smoking bans.

3. You do not have a right to enter a business you have the choice to enter at the descretion of the owner and can be removed at any time. Still hasn't gotten this

Unless the business owner comes up to me and tells me to leave, I have every right to enter. Not sure how you dont get that.

Even you agree that a smoker that lights up in a public place during the day must go.

4. Compromise. He has no concept of give and take.

I understand compromise completely unless the health and well being of the public is at risk due to the acts of a 2nd party. Then there is no compromise.

5. He thinks this Country is founded on democracy of the few not individual rights and free will.

newsflash buddy: YOU are in the minority here regarding smoking bans.......not me.

6. He doesn't understand the word hypocrate and how its defined and used.

You can't even spell hypocrite. :lol

7. Has no concept of free will and the ability to exercise it.

Free will is nice until it endangers someone else. That's why we have laws that say you do not have the free will to harm someone else.

8. He will never see how his sense of entitlement is fundamentally wrong and goes against what this Country is founded on.

I didn't realize our country was founded on compromise.

Blake is the most narrowminded idiotic dictatorlike thought process driven asshole we might have ever encountered outside of Angel Luv.

Blake is an ant, a soldier, not a liberator. Do what is told not what is right. Minions like yourself have supported the causes of the few so much to the point where your fellow hard working peers are now slaves to our government instead of being protected by it. You are supporting the very machine that inslaves you because you've removed your ability to think rationally about what is a right and what isn't.

yes, I am a dictatrolike ant soldier because I don't want a cancerous cloud hanging over me at the pool hall.

makes perfect sense.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:18 PM

Yes you are unable to choose to not enter a smoking establishment. Completely and totally unable to not enter.

Why?

I don't fucking know why you can't simply go somewhere else. Your selfish. You want to dictate over people.

You feel like its your right to be there under your social setting preferences. YOU ARE FLAT WRONG. Its your right to enter under the social settings set and prefered by the bar owner. Plain and fucking simple. Its not your place to make laws only your place to refuse to enter if you don't approve of what happens there.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:19 PM

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:20 PM

Stop acting you're forced to be there.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:21 PM

blake will be all over hypocrate.

dang, you called it :lol

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:22 PM

Stop acting like a privilege is a right.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:24 PM

-You feel like its your right to be there under your social setting preferences. YOU ARE FLAT WRONG. Its your right to enter under the social settings set and prefered by the bar owner. Plain and fucking simple. Its not your place to make laws only your place to refuse to enter if you don't approve of what happens there.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:24 PM

Stop acting like someone forces you to enter

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:25 PM

Stop your selfish selfabsord entitlement attitude

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:25 PM

You feel like its your right to be there under your social setting preferences. YOU ARE FLAT WRONG. Its your right to enter under the social settings set and prefered by the bar owner. Plain and fucking simple. Its not your place to make laws only your place to refuse to enter if you don't approve of what happens there.

where in the constitution does it mention anything about social setting stipulations.

Who the hell are you to make up your own rules saying that a grocery store during the day can't allow smoking but a night club owner can?

The only reason you are coming up with is "it's for the kids". You are the only one I have ever heard use that argument.

The real reason that smoking is allowed in bars and night clubs is because of the social stigma that drinking and smoking go hand in hand.

I Love Me Some Me

12-19-2008, 12:25 PM

Why does it matter if it's private property?

The state isn't governing what is done TO the property, but is governing activities that take place on the property.

I can do whatever I want to my bar. I can paint it pink, I can have no windows, I can decorate it gothic style...the government could care less about your private property, and allows you to do what you want to it.

But it is well within the state's rights (actually, it is the state's responsibility) to govern the ACTIONS that take place on that property.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:27 PM

At this point we can argue forever. I just want to run him. He's too stupid to ever listen or compromise.

I'm willing to give him 90% or more of what he wants. He's a narrowminded selfish piece of shit.

WTF? What the hell does 90% even mean?

:lol too much.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:29 PM

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:29 PM

where in the constitution does it mention anything about social setting stipulations.

Who the hell are you to make up your own rules saying that a grocery store during the day can't allow smoking but a night club owner can?

It doesn't. You do. You're the one who wants to control what happens there.

I'm not making up the grocery store rules. The grocery store owner should. Not you and not me.

My point about the kids is the fact that even though I think its all unconstitutional I'm willing to compromise and I think most other people are too.

JudynTX

12-19-2008, 12:30 PM

Blake, are you a smoker? :lol

leemajors

12-19-2008, 12:30 PM

most restaurants/bars are on leased property. just thought i would throw that in for no reason.

Dex

12-19-2008, 12:32 PM

This thread makes me want a drink and a smoke.

And now I can't even get them at the same damn time. :pctoss

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:33 PM

But it is well within the state's rights (actually, it is the state's responsibility) to govern the ACTIONS that take place on that property.
100% right. Govern legal and illegal actions. Smoking is perfectly legal in all states. I respectfully request that the law be changed to accomodate those who cannot willfully remove themselves from someone else's vile habit. IE 90% of the public. Please make smoking illegal in publically open places where minors would be present since they do not always have the ability to make a choice for themselves.

I also ask that in the private setting of an adults only social establishment that you leave the right of choice up to the grown adults and the bar owners descretion seeing as how this will have 0 effect on anyone who choose to not enter. 0 effect.

This is a fair compromise.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:33 PM

Blake, are you a smoker? :lol

it would be just like me to be a smoker and make this argument, wouldn't it :lol

but hell no. Matter of fact, just had a chimney smoking uncle pass away in his late 60s due to heart related issues. He had quit about 5 years ago, but it was way too late.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:34 PM

most restaurants/bars are on leased property. just thought i would throw that in for no reason.
Great point. I suppose and could be wrong but at that point its up to the property owner. Period. Many homes are rented under a no smoking stipulation. I think thats fair.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:36 PM

100% right. Govern legal and illegal actions. Smoking is perfectly legal in all states.

Hunting with a rifle is also legal. Just not in a bar.

I respectfully request that the law be changed to accomodate those who cannot willfully remove themselves from someone else's vile habit. IE 90% of the public. Please make smoking illegal in publically open places where minors would be present since they do not always have the ability to make a choice for themselves.

I also ask that in the private setting of an adults only social establishment that you leave the right of choice up to the grown adults and the bar owners descretion seeing as how this will have 0 effect on anyone who choose to not enter. 0 effect.

This is a fair compromise.

Then I as a store owner say I want the same smoking rights because I say get your FARKING kid and your FARKING ass out of my store if you don't like it. Build your own FARKING non-smoking grocery store.

JudynTX

12-19-2008, 12:37 PM

it would be just like me to be a smoker and make this argument, wouldn't it :lol

They just don't know you like I know you. :rollin

but hell no. Matter of fact, just had a chimney smoking uncle pass away in his late 60s due to heart related issues. He had quit about 5 years ago, but it was way too late.

Sorry to hear that. My condolences.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:37 PM

Great point. I suppose and could be wrong but at that points its up to the property owner. Period. Many homes are rented under a no smoking stipulation. I think thats fair.

and homes are not regulated by the government and never will be.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:40 PM

This thread makes me want a drink and a smoke.

And now I can't even get them at the same damn time. :pctoss

that's funny because I just want to go to a bar and have a smoke free drink.

right now, I can't do that. :ihit

see, the difference is that the smoker can go outside and puff for a few minutes and come back in.........I can't take my drink outside. I have to take it home.

....but I'm the selfish bastard here......right.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:42 PM

Then I as a store owner say I want the same smoking rights because I say get your FARKING kid and your FARKING ass out of my store if you don't like it. Build your own FARKING non-smoking grocery store.Absolutely. I think thats the way it should work. I do think that most grocery store owners don't want smoking though. I think the stores who have nonsmoking policies would do better than grocery stores that don't.

I said before that I feel that most store owners and private property owner who are open to the public would be very open to a smoking ban. For the most part people are willing to compromise their right because they want to. Its good for business.

The bars, pool halls and bowling alleys don't.

My compromise for them was inforce the smoke ban during daytime hours then after hours when its adults only you can light up. Since at that point you aren't affecting anyone who might not have a choice in being present.

Doesn't get anymore reasonable than this.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:44 PM

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:45 PM

and homes are not regulated by the government and never will be.I'm not even going to dignify the stupidity of this post with a counterpoint.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:47 PM

I'm not even going to dignify the stupidity of this post with a counterpoint.

good, because I'm not sure why you are even trying to bring residential property into the equation.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 12:50 PM

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:51 PM

Me: baby jesus are you there?

BJ: yes my child

Me: baby jesus I would like to smoke in the bar since smoking is legal

BJ: its bad for you its bad for the people around you

Me: I know BJ I know but how about the non-smokers open their own bar up and leave mine alone. That way they can go out smoke free and I can have my smoke and my fellow man can have his if he so chooses. We promise to affect only the ones who choose to enter and never a single sole outside the establishment.

BJ: Totally unreasonable. We can't allow others to open up their own place of business we must control everything. Free enterprise is pointless when we can grant them the power to control you.

Me: Damn baby jesus soooo evil.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 12:53 PM

hey jeenyus, did you read the part of your story that also said that polls indicate the majority of Michigan residents want the ban?

Even though that's the opinion of the senator, I also figure saving millions in health care cost to be a good thing.

Whoever said Michigan wasnt full of nanny-state pussies like yourself?

Like I said earlier, at least I know who I am being outnumbered by. People like yourself, controlling, complaining, vagina-laden ass-wipes with an agenda and a billion dollar industry to lobby on your behalf.

You can laugh now, moron. But just wait until some personal freedom of yours is stripped on behalf of the billion dollar corporations that actually run this country.

Smoking now. Fat people later. Theyre going to control your media, your household, your private property, your food intake, your travel and soon after your freedoms.

Congratulations! Youre a rung in a ladder! But I bet you dont care, at least your clothes wont smell icky.

Pussy.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 12:53 PM

good, because I'm not sure why you are even trying to bring residential property into the equation.

:lmao

You want go down this road, panzy?

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:53 PM

You sure are. You should demand a smoke free bar be built or build one yourself since the demand is fucking thru the roof and you'd be rich off of it. The smokers would die in poverty over your majority ruled invention. bwahahahaha :rolleyes:

yeah yeah we know you aren't capable of doing something proactive for profit you'd rather inforce your belief on others because you're a fucking Nazi buttfucking dictator.

I'm not enforcing my belief any more than the government enforces speed limit laws.

It's not my belief that second hand smoke is harmful. It's fact according to the United States Surgeon F-ing General.

A cloud of toxic second hand smoke shouldn't be flying around in a pool hall any more than your awesome example of using pool cues to hurt people.

Blake

12-19-2008, 12:55 PM

:lmao

You want go down this road, panzy?

what road? I've gone 12 rounds with B2B. I still have enough juice to squash the likes of you, so bring what you think you got.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 12:57 PM

I love beer. I love craft beer. I love microbrews. I love sticking my nose into the glass, getting foam in my moustache, inhaling the aroma of beer, trying to figure out what hops were used by the aroma. It's not as easy to do in a smoky bar, which sucks. I'm not there to quaff light beer or mass market stuff, i'm there to get the best shit out there on tap. I'm glad Austin banned smoking in bars if only for me to be able to enjoy my $5 pint like i want to!

I get your preference. I share the same preference.

Why is it so fucking unreasonable to request that someone open a smoke free bar. Why do you have to control someone else's business for your owner personal preference.

Why must you people fuck with the ones who just want to be left alone. Why do you have to conquer something instead of making your own. You have all the resources in the world to open one yourself there is no need to strip the right of the bar owner to accomodate you. Don't support his bar if you don't like his policy regarding the legal use of a legal drug. Support another bar, one doesn't exist, make one.

Again its like the kid who doesn't like basketball being pissed off that he wasn't picked for the team so he makes them change the rules to allow anyone to play. Instead of fucking just going to join the YMCA.

I want your response to this leemajors not Blakians.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 12:59 PM

Since youre soooooo into research on the ills of secondhand smoke, look no further than our European friends across the pond for examples of what government will regulate inside your home.

Coming to state near you, friend, especially when the government will have the consent of the majority of our prescription drugged, hyper-allergenic, cancer laden, hypochondriac populace.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:00 PM

I'm not enforcing my belief any more than the government enforces speed limit laws.

It's not my belief that second hand smoke is harmful. It's fact according to the United States Surgeon F-ing General.

A cloud of toxic second hand smoke shouldn't be flying around in a pool hall any more than your awesome example of using pool cues to hurt people.
As long as an adult can still choose to consume cigarettes they should still be allowed to share consumption with their peers if everyone there is an adult and chooses to be there.

The government has already given you the choice to consume it or not. We ask to retain the right to do so in the company of only the people who want to be there and never

NEVER in the company of anyone who doesn't have a choice to be there.

You've got it all wrong fuckface.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 01:01 PM

Question, Blake.

Should smokers be allowed to inside their own homes?

Dex

12-19-2008, 01:01 PM

that's funny because I just want to go to a bar and have a smoke free drink.

right now, I can't do that. :ihit

see, the difference is that the smoker can go outside and puff for a few minutes and come back in.........I can't take my drink outside. I have to take it home.

....but I'm the selfish bastard here......right.

This is one of those arguments where both sides can be right and wrong.

Used to be if you didn't like hanging around cigarette smoke, then you just wouldn't go to smokey bars. People have been smoking in drinking establishments pretty much since they've come to be, so it was almost like a 'with one comes the other' sort of thing.

If you had a problem with that, you either didn't go to bars a lot, or you tried to find non-smoking ones, which hardly every existed and thrived, because the amount of people who want to smoke in bars outnumbers those who don't.

I can understand the smoking ban in stores, and restaurants, and bowling alleys, and even dance clubs. These are places that people go for other reasons and could reasonably not want to have to deal with cigarette smoke.

But as far as I ever knew, even growing up, is that bars were for drinking and smoking. If you didn't want to deal with one or the other, then you probably aren't part of the bar crowd.

Now the government has extended the ban so that the minority is getting their way, and people wonder why this is stepping on a bunch of smokers' toes? When they've been used to going to bars and smoking for years?

Personally, I don't care that much. I'll go outside to smoke, or just wait if it's ridiculously cold or raining. But to me, it still seems like laying down at a rock concert and then complaining about the noise.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:02 PM

Whoever said Michigan wasnt full of nanny-state pussies like yourself?

Like I said earlier, at least I know who I am being outnumbered by. People like yourself, controlling, complaining, vagina-laden ass-wipes with an agenda and a billion dollar industry to lobby on your behalf.

You can laugh now, moron. But just wait until some personal freedom of yours is stripped on behalf of the billion dollar corporations that actually run this country.

Smoking now. Fat people later. Theyre going to control your media, your household, your private property, your food intake, your travel and soon after your freedoms.

Congratulations! Youre a rung in a ladder! But I bet you dont care, at least your clothes wont smell icky.

Pussy.

:lol

Right. The next step on a smoking ban in a public place is that the government will tell me that I can't eat at McDonald's.

Nobody is saying to make smoking illegal. In fact, I think people ought to be able to smoke whatever the hell they want to as long as it doesn't affect me directly.

Keep reading Orwell though. It's great for making people scared of things like smoking bans and cameras sitting at street lights.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 01:06 PM

I get your preference. I share the same preference.

Why is it so fucking unreasonable to request that someone open a smoke free bar. Why do you have to control someone else's business for your owner personal preference.

Why must you people fuck with the ones who just want to be left alone. Why do you have to conquer something instead of making your own. You have all the resources in the world to open one yourself there is no need to strip the right of the bar owner to accomodate you. Don't support his bar if you don't like his policy regarding the legal use of a legal drug. Support another bar, one doesn't exist, make one.

Again its like the kid who doesn't like basketball being pissed off that he wasn't picked for the team so he makes them change the rules to allow anyone to play. Instead of fucking just going to join the YMCA.

I want your response to this leemajors not Blakians.

well, i think the main reason to the bar owners revolting against the idea is they think they will lose money. in my experience, in austin, they didn't. as soon as they realized that people still came in and plunked down cash for alcohol, most of their issues with the ban disappeared. for a while, in the few bars i do frequent, people still smoked inside. they just gradually stopped. i think a lot more noise would have been made if they actually started losing money. bar owners may harp and cry about "freedoms" like this, but it all comes down to the bottom line, and since theirs was largely unaffected it became a non-issue. ethanol subsidies and their ridiculously far-reaching implications piss me off way more than things like this.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:06 PM

This is one of those arguments where both sides can be right and wrong.

And I could see both sides if it wasn't a health issue.

Used to be if you didn't like hanging around cigarette smoke, then you just wouldn't go to smokey bars. People have been smoking in drinking establishments pretty much since they've come to be, so it was almost like a 'with one comes the other' sort of thing.

If you had a problem with that, you either didn't go to bars a lot, or you tried to find non-smoking ones, which hardly every existed and thrived, because the amount of people who want to smoke in bars outnumbers those who don't.

I can understand the smoking ban in stores, and restaurants, and bowling alleys, and even dance clubs. These are places that people go for other reasons and could reasonably not want to have to deal with cigarette smoke.

But as far as I ever knew, even growing up, is that bars were for drinking and smoking. If you didn't want to deal with one or the other, then you probably aren't part of the bar crowd.

Now the government has extended the ban so that the minority is getting their way, and people wonder why this is stepping on a bunch of smokers' toes? When they've been used to going to bars and smoking for years?

Personally, I don't care that much. I'll go outside to smoke, or just wait if it's ridiculously cold or raining. But to me, it still seems like laying down at a rock concert and then complaining about the noise.

I agree with all that exept the minority part. It's become a majority issue with people pushing this on their elected officials which is why government is stepping in.

If anything, it's Philip Morris etc that keep paying out to try to keep smoking allowed everywhere you go.

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 01:08 PM

http://www.newser.com/story/23607/new-york-city-woman-sued-for-smoking-at-home.html

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:08 PM

:lol

Right. The next step on a smoking ban in a public place is that the government will tell me that I can't eat at McDonald's.

Nobody is saying to make smoking illegal. In fact, I think people ought to be able to smoke whatever the hell they want to as long as it doesn't affect me directly.

Keep reading Orwell though. It's great for making people scared of things like smoking bans and cameras sitting at street lights.HOLY FUCKING SHIT.

There it is you fucking moron. Don't walk in the fucking bar. Don't enter that place isn't for you pal you won't like it. You can actually fucking use your god damn little fucking brain to choose to not walk in.

That bar forces absolutely nothing on you.

0

0 fucking effect on you

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 01:10 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p01s02-ussc.html?page=2

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:10 PM

DarkReign

12-19-2008, 01:11 PM

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:13 PM

I'm going to say it again

This country wasn't founded on majority/minority governing. Its founded on the personal rights given to each citizen.

Dex

12-19-2008, 01:14 PM

And I could see both sides if it wasn't a health issue.

I agree with all that exept the minority part. It's become a majority issue with people pushing this on their elected officials which is why government is stepping in.

If anything, it's Philip Morris etc that keep paying out to try to keep smoking allowed everywhere you go.

The only reason I bring up the minority is because of the amount of non-smoking bars you would see BEFORE the ban.

Bar owners knew that if you didn't allow smoking in your bar, you probably weren't going to get the customers you needed to survive.

I can totally understand why people would want to be able to go to a bar without dealing with second hand smoke. I'm always very conscientious with my smoking, try to keep it away from other people, put my cigarettes out appropriately, etc...It just seems like taking the places that were meant for people to smoke, and making them non-smoking, is counter intuitive.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:15 PM

You know, you dont want smoke on your pristine lifestyle, dont go in the bar.

Its the same reason I dont go to gay porn shops. The people and the activity inside isnt for me.

I should totally make a law about it...You can't reason with them that way. They whether they want to enter or not feel a right to control what happens inside someone else's business even though it literally has zero effect on their lives.

Destro

12-19-2008, 01:15 PM

people don't go to bars to smoke, they go to socialize, they just happen to smoke while they are there. Smoking isn't the reason they are out. The bars in Austin didn't lose any money or business with the smoking ban. In fact the smart bars built nice decks that smokers and non-smokers use. Most bars still sell cigs...When i visit SA my clothes smell like a freaking ashtray after I go out. You'd be surprised the difference a smoke free club/bar makes on your night.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:19 PM

You know, you dont want smoke on your pristine lifestyle, dont go in the bar.

Its the same reason I dont go to gay porn shops. The people and the activity inside isnt for me.

I should totally make a law about it...

I dont go to porn shops either because I dont need the porn.

I go to a bar to get a drink. I go to a pool hall to shoot pool. I go to a bowling alley to bowl.

I do not got to a Humidor because I don't smoke.

I do not eat green eggs and ham.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:22 PM

I'm going to say it again.

This country wasn't founded on majority/minority governing. Its founded on the personal rights given to each citizen.

I'll say it again too.

you do not have the right to shoot me in the face.

Next.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:25 PM

I'll say it again too.

you do not have the right to shoot me in the face.

Next.
You're a fucking idiot. Your correlation is fucking pointless.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:27 PM

edit: you do not have the right to shoot me in the face in a bar, whether or not I could have chosen to not enter said bar.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:27 PM

I'll say it again too.

you do not have the right to shoot me in the face.

Next.oh and I agree. I don't have the right to shoot you in the face. Its illegal.

But if shooting you in the face was legal and you choose to walk into a bar that promoted face shooting you can't motherfucking complain about being shot in the face.

Fuck you are dumb. The rubber sole on my shoe understand the ability to choose better than you do.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:29 PM

edit: you do not have the right to shoot me in the face in a bar, whether or not I could have chosen to not enter said bar.
ok fine I'll try the edited version. Shooting you in the face is illegal. Smoking isn't.

Smoking isn't illegal.

We want the right to legally consume something in a place that you have a choice to enter or not. A place that affects your life to the tune of zero if you don't walk in.

Yoda terms:

Fuck stupid moron you are.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:30 PM

Your analogies are pointless. You are aguring the partial outlawing of a legal substance to accomodate your preference when your preference should be to not enter the building.

Dex

12-19-2008, 01:33 PM

They didn't say anything about crack.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:36 PM

oh and I agree. I don't have the right to shoot you in the face. Its illegal.

But if shooting you in the face was legal and you choose to walk into a bar that promoted face shooting you can't motherfucking complain about being shot in the face.

Fuck you are dumb. The rubber sole on my shoe understand the ability to choose better than you do.

Good Lord.........

Shooting me in the face is harmful. Secondhand smoke is harmful.

Secondhand smoke is illegal in most public places already because of it's obvious effects.

Again, I don't want to go to a humidor. I want to go to a pool hall.

i think your shoe is doing the typing for you while you arent looking

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:38 PM

They didn't say anything about crack.

Is there such a thing as second hand crack? I honestly don't know enough about the stuff.......

if not, then by all means do whatever crack you want as long as it doesn't affect me.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:39 PM

Your analogies are pointless. You are aguring the partial outlawing of a legal substance to accomodate your preference when your preference should be to not enter the building.

Exactly.

You and your 4 year old get out of my farking smoke filled grocery store.

I'm going to go ahead and copy this line and paste it for the next time, which I know is coming.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:41 PM

Smoking isn't illegal.

Second hand smoke is.

Tarded re are you

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 01:55 PM

Second hand smoke is.

Tarded re are you
This is why I'm an advocate for outlawing it where people can't proactively remove themselves. IE children.

You and your 4 year old get out of my farking smoke filled grocery store.

Why do you keep pointing out something that I'm agreeing with you on. You're beating your own dead fucking horse moron.

I agree with the line I've said it a million times. Its a compromise many many many people were willing to make to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

If a dipshit mom wants to take her 4 year to the grocer the 4 year old has no choice. Many many many people are willing to compromise the rights of the grocery store owner because it impeads on the health of the child who does not have the ability to rationally choose a healthier lifestyle because mom is forcing them to enter.

The bar is not the same because its adults only were each and everyone who enters does so by their own free will.

Its not the same. I'm sorry you're too stupid to see the difference between an adults only bar and a child being dragged to the grocer by the kids irresponsible mom.

Not everything is fucking black and white. You have to see the entire picture. You are just too stupid to see that no two things are alike.

JIM LAMPLEY

12-19-2008, 01:58 PM

This has been a great battle despite some very weak power punches but all the nice jabs are making it very entertaining.

Blake

12-19-2008, 01:59 PM

Why do you keep pointing out something that I'm agreeing with you on. You're beating your own dead fucking horse moron.

I agree with the line I've said it a million times. Its a compromise many many many people were willing to make to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

If a dipshit mom wants to take her 4 year to the grocer the 4 year old has no choice. Many many many people are willing to compromise the rights of the grocery store owner because it impeads on the health of the child who does not have the ability to rationally choose a healthier lifestyle because mom is forcing them to enter.

The bar is not the same because its adults only were each and everyone who enters does so by their own free will.

Its not the same. I'm sorry you're too stupid to see the difference between an adults only bar and a child being dragged to the grocer by the kids irresponsible mom.

Not everything is fucking black and white. You have to see the entire picture. You are just too stupid to see that no two things are alike.

what the FARK.

Who the hell do you think you are that you can call that mom irresponsible by taking her to the grocery store.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 02:05 PM

well, i think the main reason to the bar owners revolting against the idea is they think they will lose money. in my experience, in austin, they didn't. as soon as they realized that people still came in and plunked down cash for alcohol, most of their issues with the ban disappeared. for a while, in the few bars i do frequent, people still smoked inside. they just gradually stopped. i think a lot more noise would have been made if they actually started losing money. bar owners may harp and cry about "freedoms" like this, but it all comes down to the bottom line, and since theirs was largely unaffected it became a non-issue. ethanol subsidies and their ridiculously far-reaching implications piss me off way more than things like this.So then you agree that it boils down to preference not rights.

If 5 smoke free bars open and people migrate there then the owner should consider changing his policy. We all agree on that.

So why strip the rights from the owner in the first place. Simply allow him to retain his rights while promoting smoke free bars...perhaps with a tax break.

If the market doesn't dictate a change then you were wrong.

Just because something works in a ban doesn't mean that equates to success. Obviously one thing would be successful if you eliminated the second option. Thats just common sense.

This is a matter of one group wanting to control something that doesn't belong to them because they know that opening up their own establishment to compete wouldn't work. That model fails so instead just enact control over someone. We will force them to do it our because our wouldn't fair well in a Pepsi challenge against yours. Thats fucked up. Its unconstitutional and UnAmerican.

Even though its becoming the style of this country. We don't like how you do things over there. We'll take you over. Horrible.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 02:09 PM

what the FARK.

Who the hell do you think you are that you can call that mom irresponsible by taking her to the grocery store.
You get more and more dumb at the thread pushes on.

I'm not the one calling the mom irresponsible you are. Your people are. So you enacted your laws to protect the child and everyone else. Did you not?

This is you not me. I think it wrong to have any smoke ban but I understand why and I'm willing to buy into it because deep down inside this type of change is a good thing.

All we wanted was a little compromise here. All while still giving you the ability to financially compete against us.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 02:29 PM

So then you agree that it boils down to preference not rights.

If 5 smoke free bars open and people migrate there then the owner should consider changing his policy. We all agree on that.

So why strip the rights from the owner in the first place. Simply allow him to retain his rights while promoting smoke free bars...perhaps with a tax break.

If the market doesn't dictate a change then you were wrong.

Just because something works in a ban doesn't mean that equates to success. Obviously one thing would be successful if you eliminated the second option. Thats just common sense.

This is a matter of one group wanting to control something that doesn't belong to them because they know that opening up their own establishment to compete wouldn't work. That model fails so instead just enact control over someone. We will force them to do it our because our wouldn't fair well in a Pepsi challenge against yours. Thats fucked up. Its unconstitutional and UnAmerican.

Even though its becoming the style of this country. We don't like how you do things over there. We'll take you over. Horrible.

i would agree with you, but no one complains about it anymore. It's a non-issue here. If there were still an uproar about it, i'd say you were right. But there just isn't. People like to smoke out on the balconies and patios. They're usually more crowded than the inside of bars. It's been win-win as far as i can tell.

Jesus

12-19-2008, 02:38 PM

You all must learn to relax and get along.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/smoking%20jesus.gif

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 02:39 PM

i would agree with you, but no one complains about it anymore. It's a non-issue here. If there were still an uproar about it, i'd say you were right. But there just isn't. People like to smoke out on the balconies and patios. They're usually more crowded than the inside of bars. It's been win-win as far as i can tell.I think you hear less and less about it because over the course of the last 50 years the ability for the common man to fight for his rights and win have diminished exponentially.

To me this is what it boils down to.

We say things

"man if they even imposed martial law in this country we'd be outraged"

Yeah you would be and then after a short rant the large majority would fall into line and just deal with it. So long as they were told they still had some freedoms.

People have fought and won in court against the IRS for not paying taxes because taxing labor and wages is unconstitutional. They won. Outright won and guess what the rest of us still pay our taxes.

The ability to truely fight and win is almost completely gone. The general public just falls into line. They jail or abuse the ones who speak the loudest until everyone just tunes them out.

Vendetta

12-19-2008, 02:43 PM

I think you hear less and less about it because over the course of the last 50 years the ability for the common man to fight for his rights and win have diminished exponentially.

To me this is what it boils down to.

We say things

"man if they even imposed martial law in this country we'd be outraged"

Yeah you would be and then after a short rant the large majority would fall into line and just deal with it. So long as they were told they still had some freedoms.

People have fought and won in court against the IRS for not paying taxes because taxing labor and wages is unconstitutional. They won. Outright won and guess what the rest of us still pay our taxes.

The ability to truely fight and win is almost completely gone. The general public just falls into line. They jail or abuse the ones who speak the loudest until everyone just tunes them out.

And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 02:46 PM

And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.I'm certainly guilty for paying taxes thats for sure.

Blake

12-19-2008, 03:57 PM

You get more and more dumb at the thread pushes on.

I'm not the one calling the mom irresponsible you are. Your people are. So you enacted your laws to protect the child and everyone else. Did you not?

This is you not me. I think it wrong to have any smoke ban but I understand why and I'm willing to buy into it because deep down inside this type of change is a good thing.

All we wanted was a little compromise here. All while still giving you the ability to financially compete against us.

Right, because the smoking bans that we currently have put in place were done so "because of the kids"

you're right. Drops my IQ does the more I read one of your screaming posts.

LOUD NOISES

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:01 PM

Right, because the smoking bans that we currently have put in place were done so "because of the kids"

you're right. Drops my IQ does the more I read one of your screaming posts.

LOUD NOISESSo we agree. Your IQ is low.

JoeChalupa

12-19-2008, 04:04 PM

I think imposing the smoking ban on adult establishments is wrong. If you see a "this is a smoking establishment" sign and you don't like then you don't go in. Very simple.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:05 PM

I think imposing the smoking ban on adult establishments is wrong. If you see a "this is a smoking establishment" sign and you don't like then you don't go in. Very simple.Thank you. Thank you for understanding common sense.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 04:12 PM

I think imposing the smoking ban on adult establishments is wrong. If you see a "this is a smoking establishment" sign and you don't like then you don't go in. Very simple.

i don't think such signs exist.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:14 PM

So we agree. Your IQ is low.

reading comprehension skills = fail

my IQ could drop another hundred and I would still be 200 ahead of you.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:15 PM

i don't think such signs exist.

they don't

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:17 PM

And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

quick: What right has government taken away from you that you wish you could have back

ChumpDumper

12-19-2008, 04:23 PM

i don't think such signs exist.There is one that says Smoker's Welcome in north Travis county (not a typo).

Pretty much reflects the clientele.

Trainwreck2100

12-19-2008, 04:24 PM

LMAO @ smokers, must bee nice to be addicted to something though.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:26 PM

reading comprehension skills = fail

my IQ could drop another hundred and I would still be 200 ahead of you.Whatever makes you feel better. If you think bullying people and demanding that they conform to your preference is intelligent then so be it. You already think you're god enough to control other grown adults and this method of leadership has proven to require very few IQ points to begin with.

You truely are the shit of what this country offers. You demand that others be a slave to your principles regardless of the laws that are in place to protect us from people like you.

I'm attempting to defend the laws that have already been in place. I'm also attempting to compromise some of those rights to benefit others. These laws that already exist aren't my opinions but the opinions of the people who created this country to protect its citizens.

Your opinion is in direct conflict with those very laws and YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCKING SHIT ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOUR FUCKING SELFISH ASS WANTS IT HIS WAY. YOU'RE A DISGRACE TO YOUR COUNTRY.

-----

I'll wait here for you tell me that its my opinion and how I'm trying to control you and blah blah blah shit that you continue to vomit.

Then I'll point out how I said it was not my opinion but the opinion of the Constitution that was laid out to protect us.

Then you'll say

yeah yeah I can just open my own business :rolleyes:

then I'll say

thats right moron you can but you prefer to play god over people and your very own constitution.

then my fucking chode will explode again

I hope you fucking choke to death.

I Love Me Some Me

12-19-2008, 04:26 PM

leemajors

12-19-2008, 04:29 PM

While I don't propose that we making smoking an illegal activity, I think it is in society's best interest to at least discourage the activity, and make societal accommodations for the HEALTHY alternative (not smoking), as oppossed to making societal accommodations for the UNHEALTHY alternative (smoking).

well the tax hikes on tobacco certainly should discourage it. what are they now, $5 a pack? ridiculous.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:29 PM

Whatever makes you feel better. If you think bullying people and demanding that they conform to your preference is intelligent then so be it. You already think you're god enough to control other grown adults and this method of leadership has proven to require very few IQ points to begin with.

You truely are the shit of what this country offers. You demand that others be a slave to your principles regardless of the laws that are in place to protect us from people like you.

I'm attempting to defend the laws that have already been in place. I'm also attempting to compromise some of those rights to benefit others. These laws that already exist aren't my opinions but the opinions of the people who created this country to protect its citizens.

Your opinion is in direct conflict with those very laws and YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCKING SHIT ABOUT IT BECAUSE YOUR FUCKING SELFISH ASS WANTS IT HIS WAY. YOU'RE A DISGRACE TO YOUR COUNTRY.

-----

I'll wait here for you tell me that its my opinion and how I'm trying to control you and blah blah blah shit that you continue to vomit.

Then I'll point out how I said it was not my opinion but the opinion of the Constitution that was laid out to protect us.

Then you'll say

yeah yeah I can just open my own business :rolleyes:

then I'll say

thats right moron you can but you prefer to play god over people and your very own constitution.

then my fucking chode will explode again

I hope you fucking choke to death.

this is just funny now

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:32 PM

quick: What right has government taken away from you that you wish you could have backThe right to refuse illegal search and seizure in the form of taking my blood during a sobriety check point.

I don't drink and drive. I'd like if I was stopped to legally refuse a breath test then contact my attorney without having my blood drawn by force.

-------

The right to not have my wages taxed. Because my wage is compensation for my labor not a gain or form of profit.

-------

The right to privacy. The right to not have my phone illegally tapped without cause.

-------

The right to grow and cultivate hemp. Which is only illegal because they wanted to strip the ability of blacks to have something they enjoyed. This drug was legal many years back and is currently legal in the MAJORITY of the planet. Including some of our very own states for medical purposes.

I could probably come up with a few more.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:32 PM

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:34 PM

this is just funny now
Its what you say.

"yeah yeah I could just open my own smoke free business".

You've said it quite a few times here

also

"but but smoking is your preference....".

Even though I'm telling you it should be confined to an option only market.

You're a circle of Nazi stupidity.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:38 PM

The right to refuse illegal search and seizure in the form of taking my blood during a sobriety check point.

so this happened to you?

I don't drink and drive. I'd like if I was stopped to legally refuse a breath test then contact my attorney without having my blood drawn by force.

if you arent over the limit to begin with, then why are you refusing a breathalyzer?

The right to not have my wages taxed. Because my wage is compensation for my labor not a gain or form of profit.

wow

The right to privacy. The right to not have my phone illegally tapped without cause.

and this has happened to you?

The right to grow and cultivate hemp. Which is only illegal because they wanted to strip the ability of blacks to have something they enjoyed. This drug was legal many years back and is currently legal in the MAJORITY of the planet. Including some of our very own states for medical purposes.

I'll give you this one, but I think the government bit by bit is giving in ie California.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 04:38 PM

The right to refuse illegal search and seizure in the form of taking my blood during a sobriety check point.

I don't drink and drive. I'd like if I was stopped to legally refuse a breath test then contact my attorney without having my blood drawn by force.

-------

The right to not have my wages taxed. Because my wage is compensation for my labor not a gain or form of profit.

-------

The right to privacy. The right to not have my phone illegally tapped without cause.

-------

The right to grow and cultivate hemp. Which is only illegal because they wanted to strip the ability of blacks to have something they enjoyed. This drug was legal many years back and is currently legal in the MAJORITY of the planet. Including some of our very own states for medical purposes.

I could probably come up with a few more.

i watched that NG special on ganga. i had no idea anyone who wanted to do studies on weed had to get it from one source at a university in the east, and the quality was questionable at best.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:42 PM

Its what you say.

"yeah yeah I could just open my own smoke free business".

You've said it quite a few times here

also

"but but smoking is your preference....".

Even though I'm telling you it should be confined to an option only market.

You're a circle of Nazi stupidity.

please. We're both going round in circles. I'm doing it because I like a good debate. Apparently, this is just pissing you off.

"[insert copy and paste about how it's for the kids here]

....and that's why you are afucking Nazi, Bush loving UnAmerican moron

Love,
B2B"

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:42 PM

Here's why I don't particularly have a problem with this...smoking is an activity that is inherently unhealthy, and dangerous. It puts those who smoke at risk, as well as those around them at risk. It cannot be made healthy.

While I don't propose that we making smoking an illegal activity, I think it is in society's best interest to at least discourage the activity, and make societal accommodations for the HEALTHY alternative (not smoking), as oppossed to making societal accommodations for the UNHEALTHY alternative (smoking).

To me, it makes sense to ban or limit smoking in any place that is open to the public. Bars and pool halls are generally open to the public. If you want to have a private smoking club, be my guest. But if your establishment is open to the public, it is in the government's best interest to keep that public (whether they want to or not) in an environment that is least threatening to their health.

Additionally, smoking (to the non-smoking public) is considered by most to be a nuisance, and laws govern nuisances all the time (noise ordinances, landscaping ordinances, public decency laws, etc...).

I see your point but doing such and yes I know they're already doing it violates the rights of the business owner to allow a legal activity at his private bar thats open to the public.

You're point has all the credence in the world if smoking and cigarettes are illegal.

Its a violations of the private business owners right to dictate how he runs his establishment pertaining to a perfectly legal substance.

Especially if its an adults only place.

Don't mistake open to the public for public property. Its still private property. Smoking is legal. You have no right to tell him how to run his private business with a legal substance.

Cokes are bad we should make it where you can't have coke anywhere but your own home because the government should promote a healthier dining experience. Silly because as an adult you should be able to choose for yourself if you want to consume something thats legal. Illegally is obviously a different story.

Blake don't fucking come in and tell me that coke and smoke aren't the same because my smoke can affect you. All you have to do is not enter the fucking bar. Its not forced on you.

I'm advocating a forced albeit unconstitutional environment where minors wouldn't have no choice of exposure.

Which is what 99% of your public.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 04:46 PM

I'm still waiting for all the valid studies that show more than a weak, statistically insignificant link between SHS and lung cancer/heart disease, Blake. Oh, and how the name of a website discredits any facts/studies included on it.

Question: If I'm to stop citing studies funded by big tobacco, then wouldn't it be proper for you not to cite studies/research funded by big pharma? In particular the ones that produce smoking cessation products, which coincidentally funded the research on one of your earlier links.

Thanks for allowing me to "see" who funds these studies.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:47 PM

so this happened to you?

Its happened to many. Wake up.

if you arent over the limit to begin with, then why are you refusing a breathalyzer?

I have a right to protect myself from self incrimination regardless of my actual sobriety.

wow

and this has happened to you?

Its happened to few dozen since the counties have inacted it. Many cases have been tossed as being unconstitutional but the damage was done. Needles were inserted into peoples bodies without their conscent.

I'll give you this one, but I think the government bit by bit is giving in ie California.

We can only hope.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:47 PM

i watched that NG special on ganga. i had no idea anyone who wanted to do studies on weed had to get it from one source at a university in the east, and the quality was questionable at best.That was a great show wasn't it.

Blake

12-19-2008, 04:53 PM

leemajors

12-19-2008, 04:55 PM

That was a great show wasn't it.

yes, it was. i'm glad i didn't have my daughter that night :smokin
the how stuff works on beer last night on Disc HD was also pretty good. They spent a bit of time on both Sierra Nevada and Dogfish Head.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:55 PM

you can keep waiting
:lmao

Disgruntled has owned your ass on this. Sorry but he's produced an equal protion of case studies as you have. Possibly better sources.

I'm not conviced personally. I still thinks it bad for you.

Doesn't change my point that you're a Nazi piece of shit though.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:57 PM

yes, it was. i'm glad i didn't have my daughter that night :smokin
the how stuff works on beer last night on Disc HD was also pretty good. They spent a bit of time on both Sierra Nevada and Dogfish Head.I'm gonna have to check that one out.

Its sad that something like weed is outlawed like it is. Where cigs and booze that have far worse personal ramifications are as legal as apple pie.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 04:59 PM

I'm fairly certain that Blake thinks it ok to draw someones blood forcefully if they refuse a breath test.

For the greater good of course.

I Love Me Some Me

12-19-2008, 05:02 PM

I see your point but doing such and yes I know they're already doing it violates the rights of the business owner to allow a legal activity at his private bar thats open to the public.

You're point has all the credence in the world if smoking and cigarettes are illegal.

Just because it is not an illegal activity doesn't mean that is not an unhealthy/dangerous activity that the government should discourage it's citizens from using...especially in an environment that is open to the public.

Its a violations of the private business owners right to dictate how he runs his establishment pertaining to a perfectly legal substance.

Especially if its an adults only place.

Don't mistake open to the public for public property. Its still private property. Smoking is legal. You have no right to tell him how to run his private business with a legal substance.

Are people paying to go in there and smoke? Is smoking inherent to the success of the business? Now, I don't know enough to say whether it is or it isn't, but unless it absolutely is, then banning smoking has little to no effect on the success of the establishment.

Cokes are bad we should make it where you can't have coke anywhere but your own home because the government should promote a healthier dining experience. Silly because as an adult you should be able to choose for yourself if you want to consume something thats legal. Illegally is obviously a different story.

Cokes are bad for you...but they are not inherently dangerous. I can drink a 6-pack of Coke every day of my life, but if I burn enough calories through physical activity, the negative effects of the soda can be counter-acted. If I smoke a pack a day, no amount of jogging will get the cancer out of my lungs.

Also...I think the government should take an active role in discouraging drinks like soda (especially with children).

I'm advocating a forced albeit unconstitutional environment where minors wouldn't have no choice of exposure.

Which is what 99% of your public.

And I can agree with that...which is why, ultimately, I don't have a problem with this one way or the other. I sort of support a ban, but not passionately enough to be bothered if it didn't happen.

ploto

12-19-2008, 05:06 PM

I have seen multiple analogies to food and drink, and so I thought I would add this food for thought:

California became the first state in the country to ban artery-clogging trans fats yesterday when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a measure to phase them out in restaurants beginning in 2010 and from baked goods by 2011.

"California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats," Schwarzenegger (R) said.

Trans fatty acids, or trans fats, are commonly found in partially hydrogenated oils, which became popular at fast-food restaurants and bakeries because they have a longer shelf life than other oils.

But a series of studies over the past decade has shown that trans fats can lower "good cholesterol" (high-density lipoproteins) and raise "bad cholesterol" (low-density lipoproteins), which can contribute to heart disease and other ailments.

Researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health estimate that artificial trans fats cause 50,000 premature heart-attack deaths every year.

Violators of the California law will incur fines of $25 to $1,000. Food sold in manufacturer-sealed packaging will be exempt.

"Trans fat is generally recognized as the single most harmful fat in the food supply on a gram-per-gram basis," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based health advocacy group that has called for trans fat labeling since the 1990s. "This is a historic day."

California, the country's most populous state, has long been a trendsetter for health and nutrition issues, and similar bills are pending in more than a dozen other states. Trans fat bans already are on the books in a number of cities and counties, including Montgomery County, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New York City.

Montgomery County's ban on trans fats in oils, shortening and margarines used for frying took effect on Jan. 1, 2008. On Jan. 1, 2009, it expands to include all other foods, as well as oils and shortenings used for deep frying.

Public health advocates hope that the California ban will encourage national and regional chain restaurants to alter their recipes elsewhere. Though the Cheesecake Factory, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's, Taco Bell and Wendy's have begun to move away from trans fats, other chains, including Burger King, continue to use partially hydrogenated oil in their restaurants.

The California Restaurant Association fought hard against the bill, arguing that the federal government, not individual states, should develop regulations on trans fat use.

But, association spokesman Daniel Conway said yesterday, "We're confident that our members can meet the mandate because many of them are already voluntarily phasing out the use of trans fats."

Opponents also argued that it was not clear if substitutes for trans fats would be any better for public health, but CSPI's Jacobson said, "All the evidence shows is that trans fats are the most harmful. You can substitute anything in their place, and it will be an improvement."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502308.html

JoeChalupa

12-19-2008, 05:07 PM

I'm fairly certain that Blake thinks it ok to draw someones blood forcefully if they refuse a breath test.

For the greater good of course.

:td

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:09 PM

Just because it is not an illegal activity doesn't mean that is not an unhealthy/dangerous activity that the government should discourage it's citizens from using...especially in an environment that is open to the public.

Discouraging is fine but dictating is unconstitutional. Period. Especially where it pertains to private property open to the public or not. Even more so when all they are requesting is that it be legal in an over age establishment.

Are people paying to go in there and smoke? Is smoking inherent to the success of the business? Now, I don't know enough to say whether it is or it isn't, but unless it absolutely is, then banning smoking has little to no effect on the success of the establishment.

The success of the business is 100% irrelevant. We are talking about ownership rights not performance. Are you telling me its ok to kill people if my profit margin is better?

Cokes are bad for you...but they are not inherently dangerous. I can drink a 6-pack of Coke every day of my life, but if I burn enough calories through physical activity, the negative effects of the soda can be counter-acted. If I smoke a pack a day, no amount of jogging will get the cancer out of my lungs.

Also...I think the government should take an active role in discouraging drinks like soda (especially with children).

The ingredients in Sodas are inherently bad for you and can potential cause major health issues that directly attribute to heart disease, diabetes and other nasty shit. Some of the ramifications cannot be countered with regular exercise. Some can.

And I can agree with that...which is why, ultimately, I don't have a problem with this one way or the other. I sort of support a ban, but not passionately enough to be bothered if it didn't happen.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 05:09 PM

you can keep waiting

The entire world is waiting because it simply doesn't exist.

And the point of who funds who's research is idiotic. If it is junk science or a study heavily influenced, then it won't hold up to peer review. Like the initial EPA study. Of course that point was completely glossed over...wonder why.

Honestly, the anti-smoking contingent has become just as vile as big tobacco. IMO, the ends do not justify the means. If the health risks are there, then prove it scientifically. Truth be told, they'll probably never be able to show that there is a significant risk associated with SHS because it is extremely hard to prove. That's why they've turned to outlandish claims like "30 minutes of exposure increases risk of heart attacks/heart damage". You wouldn't need to do that if you had science on your side, would you?

JoeChalupa

12-19-2008, 05:13 PM

It is the parents responsibility to teach their kids to eat right and not the governments job to ban sodas and crap. Be parents and slap that drink and ho-ho out of those chubby hands and let the government worry about more important things.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:15 PM

I have seen multiple analogies to food and drink, and so I thought I would add this food for thought:Seems like the alternatives go undetected. As in there is no taste difference.

I wonder.

If there was a cigarette that eliminated the potential of causing cancer would these fuckwads shut up.

Answer no. People don't like smoke, don't like the smell or the taste.

For the most part thats what it boils down to.

A preference.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:15 PM

ploto

12-19-2008, 05:18 PM

Seems like the alternatives go undetected. As in there is no taste difference.

But the government is telling these restaurants that they can not serve a specific legal substance to anyone in their privately-owned businesses.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:22 PM

But the government is telling these restaurants that they can not serve a specific legal substance to anyone in their privately-owned businesses.Yep I think its wrong. They should have first fought to make the substance illegal thru the food and drug administration. The allow the law to correct itself.

Like that shit ephedra or however you spell.

Blake

12-19-2008, 05:25 PM

:lmao

Disgruntled has owned your ass on this. Sorry but he's produced an equal protion of case studies as you have. Possibly better sources.

I'm not conviced personally. I still thinks it bad for you.

Doesn't change my point that you're a Nazi piece of shit though.

see, I was just about to say "at least B2B has arguments to where I can see where he is coming from.........he is wrong as hell........but at least I can see where he is coming from"; disgruntled however is acting like he missed the 9th grade biology.

I don't really have to present anything because it's what's called "common knowledge" that secondhand smoke is bad for you

Of course, since B2B is asking for some more of a beatdown, I'll oblige.

.....and for the record, just because two people post three different links, does not mean that they cancel each other out.....

2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

Supporting Evidence

Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.

Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

Supporting Evidence

Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.

Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.

5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence

Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.

Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence

Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

that would of course be from the U.S. Surgeon General

This is where I normally say, "if you'd like another serving of footupyourass just let me know" but honestly, it would be like dunking on a kid in a wheelchair and I don't need to keep proving something that you can find in any pamphlet at the doctor's office.

JoeChalupa

12-19-2008, 05:25 PM

Like closing down 21 and up bars. Drawing blood and writing bailout checks.

National Security!!!!! Those bailout checks are more important than banning damn sodas. At least to me they are.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:26 PM

Go fight to make tobacco illegal. When it is I have no argument.

Then we can only argue its legality.

back on the trans fat point. Do we have people demanding its use? Wanting it served? I don't know...I don't think so. I don't know of anyone fighting for it. Seems like everyone thinks its a good idea to not use it. If people are fighting for it I'd like to know why. They certainly have a right to it up until its made illegal across the country.

Not everyone thinks that smoking should be outlawed.

Blake

12-19-2008, 05:30 PM

I'm fairly certain that Blake thinks it ok to draw someones blood forcefully if they refuse a breath test.

For the greater good of course.

you oughtta talk to some cops about that.

Too many drunk ass idiots get off scott free because they refuse a breathalyzer.

Cops are not gonna drag someone downtown for a blood test unless the idiot is slurring and stumbling all over the place.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:31 PM

JoeChalupa

12-19-2008, 05:33 PM

Blake

12-19-2008, 05:34 PM

I have seen multiple analogies to food and drink, and so I thought I would add this food for thought:

Now that, I would agree is wrong.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:36 PM

you oughtta talk to some cops about that.

Too many drunk ass idiots get off scott free because they refuse a breathalyzer.

Cops are not gonna drag someone downtown for a blood test unless the idiot is slurring and stumbling all over the place.So I'm right you don't believe in the rights of the citizen you believe they should draw blood without consent. Fuck opinion. Fuck a jury. Shove the needle in him.

Then when he's not drunk and has Hep A,B or C. Oh well.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:38 PM

Now that, I would agree is wrong.So this kind of government intervention is wrong but giving you the option to not be exposed to cancer air is fucking unreasonable.

THIS IS FUCKING GETTING OUT OF HAND.

Who's the fucking hypocrate now.

Blake

12-19-2008, 05:38 PM

If its so bad and so horrible why is it not completely illegal altogether. If our government is just looking out for us then why not drop the bomb and outlaw it.

Ding ding. We have a winner. It only took 500 pages.

That's why it is becoming illegal all over the place.........because politicians are realizing just how bad and horrible it is to subject someone else that isn't directly smoking to that crap.

BacktoBasics

12-19-2008, 05:46 PM

Ding ding. We have a winner. It only took 500 pages.

That's why it is becoming illegal all over the place.........because politicians are realizing just how bad and horrible it is to subject someone else that isn't directly smoking to that crap.
Until then you have no argument. Right now its legal and sold legally. Violating our rights in the interm is exactly what the constitution is supposed to protect us from. Unlawful force.

I could care less if its illegal. Until then you and your cronies have no right.

Didn't take me 500 pages. Go have a Federal Law inacted and make it illegal then enforce it.

Good luck.

leemajors

12-19-2008, 06:18 PM

bump. 30 mins without a post = unacceptable. i suggest we smoke out lab rats with cig smoke and see what happens.

Kori Ellis

12-19-2008, 06:41 PM

Truth be told, they'll probably never be able to show that there is a significant risk associated with SHS because it is extremely hard to prove. That's why they've turned to outlandish claims like "30 minutes of exposure increases risk of heart attacks/heart damage". You wouldn't need to do that if you had science on your side, would you?

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.

You could probably get a copy of that executive summary and see if it has the details you are looking for.

I'm not on the SHS side or anything. I'm just saying there are a lot of studies.

balli

12-19-2008, 06:43 PM

Besides, fuck the studies. I don't need a study to know that I feel unhealthy around cigarette smoke. Especially indoors. It's kind of a common sense thing, no?

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-19-2008, 07:05 PM

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.

You could probably get a copy of that executive summary and see if it has the details you are looking for.

I'm not on the SHS side or anything. I'm just saying there are a lot of studies.

I'd imagine those are just projections, hence the reason for the wide gap in heart disease deaths. There is simply no way to prove that SHS did or didn't cause those deaths.

To my knowledge, there is no study available that shows causation.

The problem is that these studies deal with chronic exposure over a number of years. Somehow, it translates into limited exposure, like going to the bar for a few hours, can cause cancer! That simply isn't true. Or at least hasn't been proven.

AmericanPsycho

12-19-2008, 07:20 PM

All this back and forth makes me want to smoke.

chode_regulator

12-19-2008, 10:52 PM

i dont feel like finding my original post to see if i already said it or not. and i know that xrays arent the only way to measure up. but ive smoked from the time i was 12 or 13 until this august. i had chest xrays done at the VA a couple weeks ago and they said i didnt even show evidence of being a smoker. and thats including smokign weed for a huge part of my adolescense as well, as well as being around smokers that hwole time.

but also i realize that doesnt really prove anything. i just hate being told what i cna and cant do. its bad enough certain things are already illegal, dont start telling me where i can and cant do legal things.

i think we should divide the US into 2. all teh pussies go live in one half and the rest cna live in the other.

edit:i know someone is going to rag on me for my typing errors. get over it. its a fucking internet forum.

Rohirrim

12-20-2008, 12:37 AM

LOL @ being for cig rights, but not guns.

C'mon BtB.

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 09:00 AM

Besides, fuck the studies. I don't need a study to know that I feel unhealthy around cigarette smoke. Especially indoors. It's kind of a common sense thing, no?

You'd think common sense would tell you that smoke of any sort in your lungs would be bad, period. Filtered or not. Naturally grown out of the ground or processed. Out of the exhaust of an old diesel truck ... whatever. I mean, there's fucking arsenic in second hand smoke ... WTF? That's BAD. :lol

But what makes smoking unique and incomparable to fatty foods or sodas is that smoke is INVASIVE to the people around you. When you choose to smoke in my general vicinity, you ABSOLUTELY are forcing your choice onto me. And if forcing your dick onto me unsolicited is illegal, then forcing your smoke on me should be as well ... because that also enters my body. I mean, you should have the right to fuck, too ... but you should also have the right to choose WHO you fuck and WHO you're fucked by. And I don't think rape should be legal in bars either, regardless if the owner wants it to be or not. :wow :lol

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 09:13 AM

And I smoked for over 23 years before I quit ... I'd have had no problem having to go outside to smoke, I had for years (by choice) anyway. You know, to not subject other people to my own bad choice. :fro

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 09:45 AM

You'd think common sense would tell you that smoke of any sort in your lungs would be bad, period. Filtered or not. Naturally grown out of the ground or processed. Out of the exhaust of an old diesel truck ... whatever. I mean, there's fucking arsenic in second hand smoke ... WTF? That's BAD. :lol

But what makes smoking unique and incomparable to fatty foods or sodas is that smoke is INVASIVE to the people around you. When you choose to smoke in my general vicinity, you ABSOLUTELY are forcing your choice onto me. And if forcing your dick onto me unsolicited is illegal, then forcing your smoke on me should be as well ... because that also enters my body. I mean, you should have the right to fuck, too ... but you should also have the right to choose WHO you fuck and WHO you're fucked by. And I don't think rape should be legal in bars either, regardless if the owner wants it to be or not. :wow :lolExactly its forced upon you. This is why I'm for a ban with the exception of a bar because its your social choice to walk in or not.

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 09:59 AM

Exactly its forced upon you. This is why I'm for a ban with the exception of a bar because its your social choice to walk in or not.

I'm sorry .. but unless it's a members only club, the general public is allowed, and when you're serving the general public certain guidelines must be followed to ensure the basic safety of the people who frequent your business. You've got to wash your hands after using the bathroom, you have to be held to certain standard of cleanliness in the kitchen and behind the bar, follow safety standards when handling, storing & cooking food ... why shouldn't the air your customers breathe be included in the safety standards? When there is a real potential that your customers could be harmed by it?

I'd actually agree with you if drinking and smoking were not mutually exclusive .. but they are, and smoker's DO still have the option to step outside. Oh, and if the sign on the door said Joe's Bar & Ashtray - The Place to Go to Drink and Smoke.

What this sounds like to me is that some of your pool buddies smoke and you've spent a few hours listening to them bitch about having to be inconvenienced when they are running the table on your ass by having to go outside for a few drags. :lol

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 10:08 AM

There used to not be seatbelts in cars, either ... until it was determined that the driver would be much safer in an accident if they were wearing one.

You have to start somewhere.

Slomo

12-20-2008, 10:26 AM

You'd think common sense would tell you that smoke of any sort in your lungs would be bad, period. Filtered or not. Naturally grown out of the ground or processed. Out of the exhaust of an old diesel truck ... whatever. I mean, there's fucking arsenic in second hand smoke ... WTF? That's BAD. :lol

But what makes smoking unique and incomparable to fatty foods or sodas is that smoke is INVASIVE to the people around you. When you choose to smoke in my general vicinity, you ABSOLUTELY are forcing your choice onto me. And if forcing your dick onto me unsolicited is illegal, then forcing your smoke on me should be as well ... because that also enters my body. I mean, you should have the right to fuck, too ... but you should also have the right to choose WHO you fuck and WHO you're fucked by. And I don't think rape should be legal in bars either, regardless if the owner wants it to be or not. :wow :lol

Unorthodox, but I agree :lol

Exactly its forced upon you. This is why I'm for a ban with the exception of a bar because its your social choice to walk in or not.

How about the employees? Unless the unemployment rate is 0, people don't really have the choice whether they accept to work in a place where smoking is allowed.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 10:30 AM

They have to choice to not work there.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 10:35 AM

And just to add the my earlier post, almost all of these studies are done by survey/interview with the subjects answering questions about exposure from memory. A limited few deal with dosage/exposure(workers wearing monitoring devices and the like).

Oh, and that Surgeon's General report is just another meta analysis, which includes the EPA report. The actual risk in NA (20% lung, 25-30% heart disease) is roughly cut in half if you take out Asia.

You have a better chance of getting cancer from drinking chlorinated water.

Some of these bans have been in place for years. Have the cases of heart disease/lung cancer dropped in those states?

Slomo

12-20-2008, 10:36 AM

They have to choice to not work there.

I disagree. If jobs are something that is not available to everyone (US unemployment rate is 6.7% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)), then they are forced to accept to work in an unhealthy environment. I mean if your handling dangerous chemicals at work, isn't it your employer's duty to provide you with protective gear? I'm not saying waitresses should wear gas masks, but that argument would be more logical than "they can chose not to work there".

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 10:44 AM

I think what this REALLY all boils down to is the selfishness of people that do smoke and that THEY don't want to be inconvenienced by having to step outside. Most smokers know how bad it is and still do for their own personal reason(s), but as a human being ... isn't it somewhat disburbing that they are aware of the hazards and apparently really don't give a shit who they *take down* with them? From a purely human stand point?

Honestly? I really don't give a shit one way or another about what kind of rights he thinks he does and doesn't have as a bar owner .. what I care about now is that I had to quit going to have a drink out and shooting pool and playing darts with my friends (things I really liked to do) because since I quit the smell of smoke makes me very ill.

Oh, well, sucks for me. It also sucks to think that I would still be able to enjoy those things if smokers just stepped outside ... I mean, I did it when I smoked and it was never a big deal. Then we could ALL have a good time. But we can't have that, can we?

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 11:00 AM

I disagree. If jobs are something that is not available to everyone (US unemployment rate is 6.7% (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)), then they are forced to accept to work in an unhealthy environment. I mean if your handling dangerous chemicals at work, isn't it your employer's duty to provide you with protective gear? I'm not saying waitresses should wear gas masks, but that argument would be more logical than "they can chose not to work there".

If it's an air quality issue, then it should be tested and regulated by OSHA, you know, like all the other air components in the workplace.

Why is SHS treated differently?

Slomo

12-20-2008, 11:06 AM

If it's an air quality issue, then it should be tested and regulated by OSHA, you know, like all the other air components in the workplace.

Why is SHS treated differently?

While I see your logic, I'm pretty sure that would put a greater financial burden on the bar owners than a smoking ban (that has had very little impact on revenue wherever it has been implemented).

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 11:10 AM

While I see your logic, I'm pretty sure that would put a greater financial burden on the bar owners than a smoking ban (that has had very little impact on revenue wherever it has been implemented).

Air filtration systems are pretty advanced nowadays.

They simply aren't given the option.

Slomo

12-20-2008, 11:13 AM

Air filtration systems are pretty advanced nowadays.

They simply aren't given the option.

I'm not disputing that fact, I'm saying a proper ventilation system is expensive (emphasis on proper).

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 11:18 AM

I'm not disputing that fact, I'm saying a proper ventilation system is expensive (emphasis on proper).

This is assuming they even need one.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:24 AM

(that has had very little impact on revenue wherever it has been implemented).Obviously it has very little impact on revenue when you eliminate the second half of the competition.

If you take half the city and ban smoking and allow smoking in the second half the non-smoking businesses will suffer.

If you eliminate smoking completely then you don't have a basis to properly measure impact.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 11:27 AM

Obviously it has very little impact on revenue when you eliminate the second half of the competition.

If you take half the city and ban smoking and allow smoking in the second half the non-smoking businesses will suffer.

If you eliminate smoking completely then you don't have a basis to properly measure impact.

I'd imagine it destroys the businesses that are located in border towns located next to states that have no ban.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:30 AM

I think what this REALLY all boils down to is the selfishness of people that do smoke and that THEY don't want to be inconvenienced by having to step outside.
I think what this really boils down to is the selfishness of the people who refuse to open their own business or promote non-smoking establishments. We are giving you the choice to not enter my business if you don't like the rules of my establishment, the food, the color of the walls, the smell of my cooking. Instead you would rather control my business vs. creating or promoting your own or fucking simply finding another place to dine.

I'm sorry but it does have everything to do with the rights of the business owner. Its private property thats open to the public.

If you have a right to that property then a bar owner would have consequences for kicking you out. You could return with a Sheriff and force your way in. That is simply not the case any more than it is in your own home. Regardless of sanitary regulations. Its illegal to serve spoiled food. There are codes. There are no laws and no codes federally for smokers. Not yet. When there are then the argument changes but until then these people are being unethically stripped of their legal rights by the preference of a minority group.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:32 AM

I'd imagine it destroys the businesses that are located in border towns located next to states that have no ban.I can't say if thats accurately been measured.

They love to say things have no impact but at what study?

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 11:35 AM

Selfishness of people that refuse to open their own business? WTF?? It's that simple? :lmao

Not yet.

Obviously, it is "yet". I think that's what you're missing. It's been starting to be "yet" for many years now, they just haven't been doing it cold turkey.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:47 AM

Selfishness of people that refuse to open their own business? WTF?? It's that simple? :lmao

Obviously, it is "yet". I think that's what you're missing. It's been starting to be "yet" for many years now, they just haven't been doing it cold turkey.Smoking is legal. Period. Forcing a city law over a federally legal substance is a violations of personal property. I find that kind of control unethical.

Smoking is legal I don't know what else to tell you. I can smoke on the sidewalk but not in my own personal property? Absurd.

Not to mention that I'm an advocate for the smoking ban. Just not in an adults only establishment. Do you realize that I'm on your side for about 99% of it. I'm just not willing to sacrifce the rights of the private business thats purely 100% adults only.

The market not dictating a non smoking bar shouldn't equate to someone demanding control over another adult human being and his property.

You don't like Billy's Playhouse then by god you have the right by law to create your own. You do not by law have the right to control Billy's Playhouse because its Billy's not yours. So they don't play the way you want to play, too fucking bad. You sure as shit have the right to never go to Billy's Playhouse though. You can even compete against him in an open market. You can even protest his business.

But to demand control of another persons adults only property for your personal agenda goes against what this country was founded on.

Now I don't agree with that in any place private or public where children could be forceably exposed.

I'm willing to compromise up to about 99% of it. Seems fair. You get 99% of what you want, unconstitutionally or not, and I get my right to my private property thats in the final 1%.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:51 AM

You guys still fail to see the difference between public property and private property. Just because there are health regulations doesn't mean its not private property. The ability to walk into a business doesn't make it public property. It makes it publically accessible. When there are federally mandated smoking regulations and its outlawed by the United States of America then the entire argument changes.

Until then lets protect the kids but maintain the rights of adults only social establishments.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 11:52 AM

I can't say if thats accurately been measured.

They love to say things have no impact but at what study?

Like any other study, you have to read it and watch for creative numbers.

Some of these studies on the effects of the ban include all restaurants and hospitality venues, like McDonalds and StarBucks.

No one does read them though. We are a soundbyte society. That's why most of these studies issue press releases before they're done and before the peer review process has taken place. No one cares if the data is proven wrong a year later, which is rarely reported with the fervor as the initial press release, as the damage is already done.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:54 AM

Like any other study, you have to read it and watch for creative numbers.

Some of these studies on the effects of the ban include all restaurants and hospitality venues, like McDonalds and StarBucks.

No one does read them though. We are a soundbyte society. That's why most of these studies issue press releases before they're done and before the peer review process has taken place. No one cares if the data is proven wrong a year later, which is rarely reported with the fervor as the initial press release, as the damage is already done.I couldn't agree more. Words words words and people buy it hook line and sinker.

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 11:58 AM

Selfishness of people that refuse to open their own business? WTF?? It's that simple? :lmao

I keep going back to this and it amazes me. Instead of buying your own toy you want to control someone else's. Instead of eating at a different restaurant you want to change the menu at Paco's. Instead of buying a Ford you want to change Chevy. Instead of not entering the bar you want to control how the owner runs it. All for your own personal agenda instead of allowing the free market to decide as a whole.

If thats not the epitome of selfish I don't know what is.

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 12:16 PM

Meh ... opening your own business has never been a free-for-all, isn't a free-for-all, and will never be a free-for-all for owners to do whatever the fuck they want to do whenever they want to do it. You will always be subject to outside regulation when the public a large can be affected, whether it's washing the shit off of your hands or keeping the air free of carbon monoxide or keeping roaches out of the enchiladas. It's just part of doing business.

But whatever, dear. You're right. :makeout :lol

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 12:32 PM

But whatever, dear. You're right. :makeout :lol:toast

Hermey

12-20-2008, 01:07 PM

Smoking is legal. Period.

So is taking a shit, but you don't see me taking one while someone is trying to drink beer in a bar do you?

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 01:10 PM

So is taking a shit, but you don't see me taking one while someone is trying to drink beer in a bar do you?
Taking a shit at the bar in any other place than the toilet is public defecation and exposure. Both of which are illegal.

Your analogy is worthless.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 03:06 PM

see, I was just about to say "at least B2B has arguments to where I can see where he is coming from.........he is wrong as hell........but at least I can see where he is coming from"; disgruntled however is acting like he missed the 9th grade biology.

I don't really have to present anything because it's what's called "common knowledge" that secondhand smoke is bad for you

I missed this earlier. Sorry I don't share your view of accepting everything I read or hear as a blurb.

You won't answer any of this and play the enlightened card but just for shits and giggles:

Why did the EPA state the conclusions of their study before it was completed and then change their confidence intervals, when the evidence didn't support their claim, to reach those conclusions? If I can't use this study as an argument because it is dated, then why does the Surgeon General include it in his 2006 report?

Why is SHS considered a Class A carcinogen when the EPA's own internal review supported the B1 classification? Why did they abandon their own protocol?

Here are the actual documents from the EPA's Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. I'm sure you'll debunk these because it says tobacco in the web address:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458093.html

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458094-8097.html

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458107-8109.html

Why doesn't OSHA support a ban if there is a consensus founded in good science, as you claim?

If asthma is such a big deal because of SHS, then why have asthmatic deaths doubled in the last 30 years while smoking has declined during that same time frame?

If there are no safe levels of SHS as the SG claims, then shouldn't we be all weary of burning charcoal, driving a car or starting a camp fire as all contain many of the same contaminants as SHS?

And how is it that there are no safe levels of SHS yet there are safe levels of things like exhaust fumes, radon, etc? Where are the bans, as opposed to universally accepted limits, dedicated to ridding the world of these much deadlier contaminants?

Indoor parking garages seem counterproductive, don't they?

Why are dosage levels rarely accounted for when regarding SHS? Am I to believe that the mantra "The dosage is the poison" only applies to every carcinogen except SHS? Really?

SpursWoman

12-20-2008, 03:29 PM

shouldn't we be all weary of burning charcoal, driving a car or starting a camp fire as all contain many of the same contaminants as SHS

Those are typically activities that are performed outside where the concentration levels aren't generally the same as they would be in an enclosed area. The same place they want to put smoking cigarettes. :lol

BacktoBasics

12-20-2008, 03:33 PM

Those are typically activities that are performed outside where the concentration levels aren't generally the same as they would be in an enclosed area. The same place they want to put smoking cigarettes. :lol
You have every right to start your own charcoal fire leave mine alone on my property :lol

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 03:42 PM

Those are typically activities that are performed outside where the concentration levels aren't generally the same as they would be in an enclosed area. The same place they want to put smoking cigarettes. :lol

They're beginning to ban smoking outside as well. The whole no acceptable level of exposure thing.

One whiff of SHS is deadly but a daily intake of exhaust fumes is quite alright.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-20-2008, 04:11 PM

You all will be happy to know this isn't the first time in history this has come up:

- Policies included bans on smoking in public places, increased tobacco taxes, advertising bans, and research into links between tobacco and lung cancer

- The tobacco industry tried to defuse the anti-tobacco movement by characterizing it as "unscientific"

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450

I guess calling it a Nazi movement isn't that far fetched.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-21-2008, 06:26 PM

Common knowledge, eh?

The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

The CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.

Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Manipulating, cherry picking Nazis.

It isn't a health issue, rather it's a moral affront. Don't think so? Explain the outdoor bans.

Blake

12-22-2008, 09:35 AM

I keep going back to this and it amazes me. Instead of buying your own toy you want to control someone else's. Instead of eating at a different restaurant you want to change the menu at Paco's. Instead of buying a Ford you want to change Chevy. Instead of not entering the bar you want to control how the owner runs it. All for your own personal agenda instead of allowing the free market to decide as a whole.

If thats not the epitome of selfish I don't know what is.

Right. The 5 people standing around having to inhale the fumes from one puffer are the selfish commie nazi bastards for wanting that idiot to walk fifteen feet to light up outside.

Nobody is asking to change a menu at Pacos. Nobody is telling anyone that they have to buy a Ford instead of a Chevy.

If the business owner wants to make it a smoking only bar, no problem. Put it down on the certificate of occupancy that it's a smoking only bar and the premises may be used as such. But if it's a business where the primary use is a pool hall, then secondhand smoke should be illegal.

Which is what we are talking about here.......

You keep whining that "smoking is legal smoking is legal". Secondhand smoke in public places is not legal. Even if the chronic was legal, it would still be illegal to smoke it indoors in the public domain.
Not sure what part of that you don't comprehend.

And I know it's a strain, but ask yourself why there was a public ban on smoking to begin with. Was it for the kids like you keep badgering on about? I'll answer for you: fark no.

Blake

12-22-2008, 09:39 AM

i
but also i realize that doesnt really prove anything. i just hate being told what i cna and cant do. its bad enough certain things are already illegal, dont start telling me where i can and cant do legal things.

i think we should divide the US into 2. all teh pussies go live in one half and the rest cna live in the other.

edit:i know someone is going to rag on me for my typing errors. get over it. its a fucking internet forum.

I don't care about your lousy typing.

And I have no problem with you and the other half that apparently are bad asses that don't need rules going on to live in your half of the US.

Just don't come crawling back asking for my insurance rates to go up after you've been run over by drunk drivers, shot up by gun toters and gotten lung cancer from all the secondhand smoke everywhere.

Blake

12-22-2008, 09:48 AM

I missed this earlier. Sorry I don't share your view of accepting everything I read or hear as a blurb.

You won't answer any of this and play the enlightened card but just for shits and giggles:

Why did the EPA state the conclusions of their study before it was completed and then change their confidence intervals, when the evidence didn't support their claim, to reach those conclusions? If I can't use this study as an argument because it is dated, then why does the Surgeon General include it in his 2006 report?

Why is SHS considered a Class A carcinogen when the EPA's own internal review supported the B1 classification? Why did they abandon their own protocol?

Here are the actual documents from the EPA's Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. I'm sure you'll debunk these because it says tobacco in the web address:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458093.html

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458094-8097.html

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2046458107-8109.html

Why doesn't OSHA support a ban if there is a consensus founded in good science, as you claim?

If asthma is such a big deal because of SHS, then why have asthmatic deaths doubled in the last 30 years while smoking has declined during that same time frame?

If there are no safe levels of SHS as the SG claims, then shouldn't we be all weary of burning charcoal, driving a car or starting a camp fire as all contain many of the same contaminants as SHS?

And how is it that there are no safe levels of SHS yet there are safe levels of things like exhaust fumes, radon, etc? Where are the bans, as opposed to universally accepted limits, dedicated to ridding the world of these much deadlier contaminants?

Indoor parking garages seem counterproductive, don't they?

Why are dosage levels rarely accounted for when regarding SHS? Am I to believe that the mantra "The dosage is the poison" only applies to every carcinogen except SHS? Really?

sigh.

1. Your three links are from a site that just stores legal tobacco documents that does not make an argument one way or the other.
2. The three links you posted, two are talking about the same document from 1990 and the third is from 1992.

That's five times now you've quoted stuff from the 1990's and absolutely nothing you have posted has even been as current as the year 2000.

Blake

12-22-2008, 09:53 AM

Common knowledge, eh?

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Manipulating, cherry picking Nazis.

It isn't a health issue, rather it's a moral affront. Don't think so? Explain the outdoor bans.

who the heck is "dave hitt" and why should I believe you and him over the Surgeon General of the United States, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and some other world health agencies?

:lol:lol

Blake

12-22-2008, 10:00 AM

ha........this is my favorite quote from the website you gave:

"This site will not only make you an expert on the subject of SHS, but also leave you well equipped to deal with anyone using numbers to support health claims. "

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

now that is hilarious.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-22-2008, 10:02 AM

sigh.

1. Your three links are from a site that just stores legal tobacco documents that does not make an argument one way or the other.
2. The three links you posted, two are talking about the same document from 1990 and the third is from 1992.

That's five times now you've quoted stuff from the 1990's and absolutely nothing you have posted has even been as current as the year 2000.

It's so dated it's included in the SG's 2006 report, eh?

The EPA report is ground zero for most, if not all, SHS legislation. Instead of posting a logical response, you instead attack frivolous points.

Sigh, indeed.

DisgruntledLionFan#54,927

12-22-2008, 10:04 AM

Blake

12-22-2008, 10:06 AM

Second-hand smoke tied to fertility problems

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reuters | 12/21/2008 10:56 AM

Printer-friendly version | Send to friend

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Women who have ever been around smokers regularly may have more difficulty getting pregnant than those who have not, a new study suggests. The findings, researchers say, offer one more reason for women to kick the smoking habit.

Studies have found that women who smoke raise their risk of a number of pregnancy complications, as well as their infants' risk of health problems. Less is known about the dangers of second-hand smoke, though some studies have linked exposure during pregnancy to an elevated risk of miscarriage.

In the new study, of more than 4,800 women, researchers found those who'd grown up with a parent who smoked were more likely to report they'd had difficulty becoming pregnant -- defined as having to try for more than 1 year.

In addition, women who'd been exposed to second-hand smoke in both childhood and adulthood were 39 percent more likely to have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth, and 68 percent more likely to have had problems getting pregnant.

"These statistics are breathtaking and certainly (point) to yet another danger of second-hand smoke exposure," said lead researcher Luke J. Peppone at the University of Rochester, New York.

"We all know that cigarettes and second hand smoke are dangerous," he added. "Breathing the smoke has lasting effects, especially for women when they're ready for children."

Peppone and his colleagues at the University of Rochester in New York report their findings in the December 5 online issue of the journal Tobacco Control.

For the study, the researchers analyzed surveys from 4,804 women who'd visited the university's Roswell Park Cancer Institute between 1982 and 1998 for health screening or cancer treatment. All had been pregnant at least once in their lives.

Overall, Peppone's team found 11 percent of the women had difficulty becoming pregnant, while one third had a miscarriage or stillbirth.

The risk of these problems tended to climb in tandem with the number of hours per day that a woman was exposed to second-hand smoke -- a pattern that suggests a cause-effect relationship.

Second-hand smoke contains a host of toxic compounds that could potentially harm a woman's reproductive health, Peppone and his colleagues note. Tobacco toxins may damage cells' genetic material, interfere with conception, raise the risk of miscarriage, or inhibit the hormones needed for conception and a successful pregnancy.

as of 12/21/2008 10:56 AM