Smoking ban extended to bars and pool halls in Corpus Christi

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

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


Believe what you want.

You should, however, read the actual reports that these agencies get there information from.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'll ask again. who the heck is dave hitt and what is his agenda?

Just trying to help you out.

Right, can't dispute the information so go after the agenda/funding angle.

I'm not surprised as it's a common theme from the anti-smoking front.

[Blake]

Right, can't dispute the information so go after the agenda/funding angle.

I'm not surprised as it's a common theme from the anti-smoking front.

Ok, let's try this angle.

I'll take a quote from one of your sources, being the WHO (World Health Organization):

"Online Q&A
31 May 2007
Why is smoking an issue for non-smokers?

Question and answer archives

Q: Why is smoking an issue for non-smokers?

A: There are some 4000 known chemicals in tobacco smoke; more than 50 of them are known to cause cancer in humans. Tobacco smoke in enclosed spaces is breathed in by everyone, exposing smokers and non-smokers alike to its harmful effects.

According to the International Labour Organization, 200 000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke at work. WHO estimates that around 700 million children, or almost half of the world's children, breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke.

Neither ventilation nor filtration, even in combination, can reduce tobacco smoke exposure indoors to levels that are considered acceptable. Only 100% smoke-free environments provide effective protection. Contrary to common belief, smoke-free environments are widely supported by both smokers and non-smokers.

Having a smoke-free environment often saves money for bars and restaurant owners, reducing their risks of fire and consequently their insurance costs. It often results in lower renovation, cleaning and maintenance costs too.

Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, recognizes that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and asks countries to adopt and implement legislation that provides protection from second-hand smoke.

Many countries around the world have already introduced laws to protect people from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places. Celebrations around the globe on World No Tobacco Day (31 May) encourage more people and more countries to go smoke-free.

Join the trend by claiming your right to public places that are 100% smoke-free inside."

http://www.who.int/features/qa/60/en/index.html

I don't see anything here talking about the EPA, do you?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

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

Funny how the guts of these studies are never reported.

I'll help you out: it's yet another survey where exposure is estimated.

[Blake]

I was gonna post study after study, but then I realized that I'm pretty much talking to one of the few that still are arguing that the world is flat.

here is a link that provides page after page after page of studies done of secondhand smoke:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:U-r8Y6RpcXoJ:www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf+second+hand+smoke+studies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

grant it, it is "no-smoke.org", however, there is no opinion given here.......it is all just links and intros to these studies.

[Blake]

Funny how the guts of these studies are never reported.

I'll help you out: it's yet another survey where exposure is estimated.

:lol

give it up

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I was gonna post study after study, but then I realized that I'm pretty much talking to one of the few that still are arguing that the world is flat.

here is a link that provides page after page after page of studies done of secondhand smoke:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:U-r8Y6RpcXoJ:www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf+second+hand+smoke+studies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

grant it, it is "no-smoke.org", however, there is no opinion given here.......it is all just links and intros to these studies.

Do you even read the links they provide?

Sampling of information from those links on the first two pages:

The data available were insufficient to establish conclusive relationships between ETS and these eye diseases.

650 is too small but this is relevant to you: We studied 29 control babies ...

No significant association was observed between perinatal tobacco smoke exposure and the development of asthma and atopic eczema. Our findings suggest that postnatal maternal smoking might be associated with an increased risk of wheeze in Japanese infants.

Among 361 021 rural and urban families in Indonesia, paternal smoking was associated with increased infant mortality. Paternal smoking diverts money from basic necessities to cigarettes and adversely affects child health; tobacco control should therefore be considered among strategies to improve child survival.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

And I hope Big Pharma doesn't have a hand in any of those studies. By your logic, that automatically eliminates the validity of the study.

[Blake]

And I hope Big Pharma doesn't have a hand in any of those studies. By your logic, that automatically eliminates the validity of the study.

pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.

sincerely,
the Surgeon General

[Blake]

Brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause blood vessel, stem cell damage in 30 minutes
Email this articleDate: 2008-05-02
Contact: Kirsten Michener
Phone: (415) 476-2557
Email: [email protected]
Exposure to secondhand smoke even for a brief period is injurious to health, a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco has found.
According to the study, a 30-minute exposure to the level of secondhand smoke that one might normally inhale in an average bar setting was enough to result in blood vessel injury in young and otherwise healthy lifelong nonsmokers. Compounding the injury to the blood vessels themselves, the exposure to smoke impedes the function of the body's natural repair mechanisms that are activated in the face of the blood vessels' injury, the researchers report. Many of these effects persisted 24 hours later.

Study findings are reported in the online edition of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and will appear in the journal's May 6 print issue.

The results showed that brief exposure to real-world levels of passive smoke has strong and persistent consequences on the body's vascular system, the researchers conclude.

For the study, subjects were exposed to carefully controlled levels of secondhand smoke in a research setting. The smoke was equivalent to being in a bar where smoking is allowed -- as it still is for 51 percent of the U.S. population and in other countries, such as Germany -- for 30 minutes. As a control, the same subjects were exposed to clean air on a different day.

In both settings, the researchers evaluated the subjects' blood vessel health through ultrasound to measure blood flow and analysis of blood samples. In the exposure environment, this was done before exposure to establish baseline measures, immediately after exposure, and then 1 hour, 2.5 hours and 24 hours after exposure. The study involved 10 young adult subjects between the ages of 29 and 31.

The study is the first of its kind to link injury to blood vessels with the decreased efficacy of the body's own repair mechanism, namely the endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). EPCs are circulating stem cells in the blood that play a key role in the repair mechanism of injured blood vessels.

The researchers examined three effects of secondhand smoke exposure:

the effect of smoke on the mechanical function of blood vessels
whether they could detect particles in the blood that are known to be increased in the blood due to blood vessel injury
whether there was any effect on the stem cells (EPCs) that comprise the body's blood vessel repair mechanisms
"We wanted to study whether even a brief 30 minutes of exposure to second hand smoke in otherwise healthy subjects would result in blood vessel injury and how the body's own repair mechanisms-the EPCs-would be affected by such an exposure," says Yerem Yeghiazarians, MD, director of the Translational Cardiac Stem Cell Program at UCSF.

The secondhand smoke's effect on all measures was profound, he says. "Even brief secondhand smoke exposure not only resulted in blood vessel injury, but it also interfered with the body's ability to repair itself by making the EPCs dysfunctional. It is quite amazing that only 30 minutes of exposure could cause such demonstrable effects." The study also showed that the deleterious effects of the exposure remain in the body for at least 24 hours, much longer than previously thought.

Study results showed that smoke exposure made EPCs less functional. "So it's a double hit: not only does a person develop blood vessel injury, but the cells that are supposed to help repair this damage are themselves also dysfunctional, compounding the injury," he says.

The public health implications of the study findings are significant, according to Yeghiazarians. "Our study helps explain why there is about a 20 percent drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks when cities and states pass laws mandating smokefree workplaces, restaurants and bars."

The study suggests that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, he says.

The study was supported by awards from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, the American Heart Association, the Wayne and Gladys Valley Foundation, and the UCSF Cardiac Stem Cell Foundation. In addition to Yeghiazarians, other lead investigators on the study are Christian Heiss, MD, and Nicolas Amabile, MD, who contributed to the work as fellows in the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, at UCSF.

Other investigators in the study are Andrew C. Lee, MD; Wendy May Real, BS; Suzaynn F. Schick, PhD; David Lao, MD; Maelene L. Wong, BS; Sarah Jahn, MB; Franca S. Angeli, MD; Petros Minasi, BA; Matthew L. Springer, PhD; Stanton Glantz, PhD, FACC; William Grossman, MD, FACC; and John Balmes, MD, FACC; all of the Department of Medicine at UCSF. S. Katharine Hammond, PhD, of the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, UC Berkeley, also contributed to the study.

UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. For more information on UCSF, visit www.ucsf.edu.

[Blake]

Do you even read the links they provide?

Sampling of information from those links on the first two pages:

The data available were insufficient to establish conclusive relationships between ETS and these eye diseases.

650 is too small but this is relevant to you: We studied 29 control babies ...

No significant association was observed between perinatal tobacco smoke exposure and the development of asthma and atopic eczema. Our findings suggest that postnatal maternal smoking might be associated with an increased risk of wheeze in Japanese infants.

Among 361 021 rural and urban families in Indonesia, paternal smoking was associated with increased infant mortality. Paternal smoking diverts money from basic necessities to cigarettes and adversely affects child health; tobacco control should therefore be considered among strategies to improve child survival.

tell you what......

post a study done this decade by a university or a group of researchers with no apparent agendas and I might start taking your posts with a grain of salt.

Otherwise, you are nothing more than disgruntled smoking fan #54,927

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

tell you what......

post a study done this decade by a university or a group of researchers with no apparent agendas and I might start taking your posts with a grain of salt.

Otherwise, you are nothing more than disgruntled smoking fan #54,927


And I'd advise you to do the same. I suggest you look up Stanton Glantz's, who was a lead researcher in the UCSF study, track record in these studies. Or look up Helena.

You also realize his PHD is in mechanical engineering, right?

Or who the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation really is...

Next you'll tell that James Repace is credible.

[Blake]

And I'd advise you to do the same. I suggest you look up Stanton Glantz's, who was a lead researcher in the UCSF study, track record in these studies. Or look up Helena.

You also realize his PHD is in mechanical engineering, right?

Or who the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation really is...

Next you'll tell that James Repace is credible.

good Lord.

Find a reputable source that discredits Glantz's findings over the years and I'll listen.

Still waiting for some studies done this decade that show nothing's wrong with second hand smoke.

:sleep

[Blake]

Passive smoking hinders healing, study explains why
Main Category: Biology / Biochemistry
Article Date: 05 Apr 2004 - 0:00 PDT

email to a friend printer friendly view / write opinions rate article

Ads by Google
Current Article Ratings:

Patient / Public: 5 (1 votes)

Health Professional:

Article Opinions: 0 posts

Find other articles on: "manuela martins green wikipedia"Being exposed to high levels of 'second-hand' smoke can reduce the speed at which wounds heal, leading to a lack of healing or greater levels of scarring. A study published in the journal BMC Cell Biology this week may begin to explain why: when cells are exposed to smoke, their ability to migrate towards the site of damage is compromised.

The study, carried out by researchers from University of California, Riverside, examined the effects of 'second-hand' smoke on fibroblasts, cells that play a major role in wound healing. They found that, among other things, exposure to smoke altered the arrangement of the cells' cytoskeleton - increasing the cells' adhesive properties and thus reducing their motility.

The researchers write: "These effects can contribute to abnormal healing and may explain why people who are consistently exposed to 'second-hand' smoke suffer from slow healing and excessive scarring of wounds, much like smokers themselves."

The research team, led by Professor Manuela Martins-Green, bubbled smoke from the lit end of cigarettes through cell culture media to form a solution containing the major components of 'second-hand' smoke. They then diluted the 'smoky media' until the smoke components reached the levels found in the tissues of passive smokers.

When they added this media to fibroblast cells cultured in vitro, the researchers saw that the cells became more elongated and that they separated from one another. By studying components of the cytoskeleton in more detail the researchers saw that exposure to smoke increased the level of one particular cytoskeletal component, actin, inside the cell. It also increased the number of points at which the cell stuck to the Petri dish, sites that could be identified by the presence of 'focal adhesion plaques'.

In a separate experiment, the researchers showed that fibroblasts that had been cultured in the 'smoky medium' were less mobile than control cells.

During normal wound healing, fibroblasts migrate into the area of damaged tissue and secrete growth factors, cytokines and extra-cellular matrix components. If the cells are unable to migrate, they will remain concentrated at the edge of the wound, preventing the wound from closing properly. If, in addition, the fibroblasts deposit excess extra-cellular matrix components at the edge of the wound, abnormal scars are likely to form.

"These findings have led us to further our studies in a system that more closely mimics the in vivo environment. We are currently using a mouse model system and special chambers, where the mice smoke, to attempt to correlate our in vitro findings with in vivo results," write the researchers.

Preliminary results suggest that mice that have been exposed to smoke for 6 months are indeed slower at healing wounds. Seven days after mice were wounded using a 5mm diameter hole-punch, wounds of 'non-smoking' mice were 95% closed, whereas wounds of 'smokers' were only 85% closed.

In 'second-hand' smoke, many components are more concentrated than in first-hand smoke. For example, the concentrations of nicotine, tar, nitric oxide and carbon monoxide levels are at least twice as high. The researchers hope that their work will: "lead eventually to the realization that 'second-hand' smoke exposure can be very damaging."

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

This press release is based on the following article: Effects of 'second-hand' smoke on structure and function of fibroblasts - cells that are critical for tissue repair and remodelling
Lina Wong, Harry Miguel Green, Jo Ellen Feugate, Madhav Yadav, Eugene A Nothnagel and Manuela Martins-Green BMC Cell Biology 2004, 5:12 To be published 5 April 2004

Upon publication this article will be available free of charge according to BMC Cell Biology's Open Access policy at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2121/5/12/

Please mention the journal in any story you write, and link to the article if you are writing for the web.

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

For further information about this research contact Professor Manuela Martins-Green by email at [email protected] by phone on 909-787-2585.

Alternatively, or for further information about BMC Cell Biology or Open Access publishing, contact Gemma Bradley, by phone on 44-207-323-0323 or email at [email protected].

[Blake]

Scottish study shows smoking ban reduces hospital admissions for heart attacks
31 July 2008


NHS Health Scotland, the national health improvement agency, has found a 17% fall in admissions for heart attacks just one year after a national smoking ban[1] came into force.

Undertaken by the University of Glasgow, this study is one of the most robust of its kind, and was commissioned as part of a national evaluation of the impact of Scotland's smoke-free legislation. Published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, the results from a study of nine Scottish hospitals[2[ demonstrate the positive impact going smoke-free can have on the health of the population.

The evaluation of Scotland’s smoke-free law found that after the legislation came into force there was:

a 17% reduction in heart attack admissions to nine Scottish hospitals. This compares with an annual reduction in Scottish admissions for heart attack of 3% per year in the decade before the ban;
an 86% reduction in second-hand smoke in bars;
a 39% reduction in second-hand smoke exposure in 11-year-olds and in adult non-smokers;
an increase in the proportion of homes with smoking restrictions;
no evidence of smoking shifting from public places into the home; and
considerable public support for the legislation even among smokers, whose support increased once the legislation was in place.
Professor Jill Pell, University of Glasgow who conducted the study said: “Previous analyses of routine hospital admission data from the US and Italy have reported reductions in heart attacks following the introduction of smoking bans. However, our Scottish study, is the first to examine the impact of the legislation on smokers and non-smokers separately.

"We have been able to demonstrate that two-thirds of the observed reduction in heart attack has occurred in non-smokers and the results of the blood tests confirmed a reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke among non-smokers. We believe that most of the reduction can be attributed to the introduction of the Scottish smoking ban.”

Sally Haw, Principal Public Health Adviser at NHS Health Scotland, co-ordinated the research programme: "This evaluation of impact of smoke-free legislation is the most comprehensive yet conducted and the findings have exceeded our greatest expectations. As well as the dramatic 17% reduction in heart attacks, we found clear evidence of: improvements in the respiratory health of bar workers; reductions in second-hand exposure in bar workers, and adults and children the general population; and changing socio-cultural norms about smoking and the acceptability of exposing others to SHS.

“The findings from the Scottish study of heart attacks are of worldwide importance and the combined results from the evaluation provide a compelling case for other countries to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places as soon as possible, thereby reducing the harm caused by second-hand smoke. However, it is essential that smoke-free legislation is set within the context of wider tobacco control activity as outlined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control — an international treaty designed to reduce both the demand for and the supply of tobacco products." [3"]

Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Peter Donnelly said: "This raft of research demonstrates the significant public health benefits that the smoking ban is already having in Scotland. It provides evidence that the legislation is improving the health of everyone in Scotland — including smokers, non-smokers, children and barworkers. One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop and I am confident that we will continue to see the positive effects of the ban in years to come."

The publication of this study comes together with other good news internationally; Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates announced in New York last week a further $375 million investment ($250 million from the Bloomberg Family Foundation and $125 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) in tobacco control activity in developing countries; while China has made the forthcoming Olympics a smoke-free event when it takes the world stage in August.

Notes

1. The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act came into force in Scotland on 26th March 2006 and prohibits smoking in virtually all enclosed public places including bars restaurants and cafes.

2. The heart attack admissions to the nine study hospitals account for 63% of all Scottish admissions for heart attack.

3. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control : www.who.int/fctc/en/

[Blake]

ok now I really mean it.....I'm done with arguing with lion fan.....it's like proving water is wet to a 3 year old.

:lol

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Regarding Helena, where Glantz initially released press releases claiming a 60% decrease but backtracked to 40% a year later:


These analyses demonstrate that on a state-wide level, there is no suggestion of any large-scale effect on heart attack admissions associated with the implementation of statewide bans on smoking in child-friendly restaurants, all restaurants, bars, or bars and restaurants.

If there were a true 27% or 40% decrease in heart attack admissions due to smoking bans that occurred almost immediately (within six months, as claimed), one would have expected to see a demonstrable decline in such admissions in states that implemented such bans.

That's from Michael Siegel who:

is a physician who completed his residency in Preventive Medicine at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and trained in epidemiology for two years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta before coming to Boston. His primary research interest is in the area of tobacco control, focusing on secondhand smoke health effects, exposure, and policies, cigarette advertising and marketing practices and their effects on youths, and evaluation of tobacco control policies and their impact on youth and adult smoking behavior.

BTW, the claims of that study are impossible mathematically. Not to mention none of the people were ever asked of any SHS exposure, anything about their age or diets, if they were smokers/non-smokers/ex-smokers, etc.

And what hell is Glantz doing in Helena anyway? Why doesn't he study the numbers in his home state of California? Oh, that's right, larger numbers kill the whole premise of these overinflated numbers. Or maybe because collecting the data as Glantz and co. did, hospitals in California had a 6% increase in the year following their statewide ban.

But that's OK, right?

And for the Scottish claims, here are the real numbers. Does this mean the smoking ban actually increased heart attacks?


However, official statistics show that the decline in hospitals admissions for acute coronary syndrome has been greatly exaggerated. The real decline in the first year of the smoking ban was just 7.2% - not 17% - and the rate then rose by 7.8% in the second year, cancelling out the earlier drop

http://www.pr-inside.com/official-scotland-sees-large-rise-in-r941241.htm

See what happens when you cherry pick data?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

And you say it's so obvious but I've handled almost every propaganda link you've given.

[Blake]

:lol

you're trying to go all in on a pair of twos...

done.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

No, I pretty much just kicked your ass on Scotland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Here's a story of a study that was funded by the ACS for a majority of the time the data was being collected. When the ACS found out where the study was headed, they pulled their funding. Kabat and Enstrom then turned to Philip Morris. The criticisms of the paper mainly revolve around the funding. It's the longest study every done:


The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Comments can be found here, where the funding angle gets 90% of the love:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057

[Blake]

No, I pretty much just kicked your ass on Scotland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm

after looking it up, it appears there might be something to that one particular study.

Congrats, you just debunked one link out of the dozens I've given while you have given nothing but links run by smokers and obscure studies dated back in the 90s.

The EPA and the Surgeon General both say it's dangerous. You've got absolutely nothing but a few debunkers and a site called FORCES which the acronym stands for "freedom to smoke" or something along those lines.

Bottom line, true or false: Is second hand smoke dangerous?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Not on the level of the current hysteria, no.

There are many other things that people should be worried about: carcinogens in their food and water, biochemical plants close to where they live, etc. etc.

Bottom line: Do you think changing the parameters of a study to reach a preconceived outcome makes it more or less credible?

Are any of the studies either of us posted done at 90% CI besides the EPA report?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

And not to debunk an earlier link of yours but this is the logic at play:

30 minutes exposure increases chance of heart attack.

Which falls in line with:

30 minutes of sun exposure increases risk of skin cancer
Eating a one Big Mac a month increases your chances of a heart attack
Flying in a plane increases risk of cosmic radiation
The next 30 minutes of your life increases your chance of dying

They've successfully made SHS just as deadly as smoking itself. And not by science, but by press releases.

[Blake]

Not on the level of the current hysteria, no.

There are many other things that people should be worried about: carcinogens in their food and water, biochemical plants close to where they live, etc. etc.

Bottom line: Do you think changing the parameters of a study to reach a preconceived outcome makes it more or less credible?

Are any of the studies either of us posted done at 90% CI besides the EPA report?

Nobody is saying food, water, and biochemical plants shouldn't be looked at as well.

bottom line: is second hand smoke dangerous? simple yes or no.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Nobody is saying food, water, and biochemical plants shouldn't be looked at as well.

bottom line: is second hand smoke dangerous? simple yes or no.

It's not an either or topic. Is driving a car dangerous? Is fast food dangerous? Is chlorinated water dangerous?

This is the best I can do:

Do I think it's as dangerous as the other Class A carcinogens? No.

Do I think it's dangerous to be in a smoke filled bar once or twice a week? No.

Do I think it's dangerous to live or work with a chronic smoker over a period of 20, 30, 40 years? Yes.

Is it something to worry about? No.

[Blake]

It's not an either or topic. Is driving a car dangerous? Is fast food dangerous? Is chlorinated water dangerous?

it's not? then explain what those things have to do with second hand smoke


This is the best I can do:

Do I think it's as dangerous as the other Class A carcinogens? No.

Do I think it's dangerous to be in a smoke filled bar once or twice a week? No.

Do I think it's dangerous to live or work with a chronic smoker over a period of 20, 30, 40 years? Yes.

Is it something to worry about? No.

well the Surgeon General of the United States says you are wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion for sure, but that's all it is......an opinion that the findings of universities and public agencies are all lying.

And when it comes to law making, sorry, but your opinion is nothing more than a turd floating in a pool when compared to what the surgeon general and the EPA have to say.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

it's not? then explain what those things have to do with second hand smoke

Logic is not your friend.


well the Surgeon General of the United States says you are wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion for sure, but that's all it is......an opinion that the findings of universities and public agencies are all lying.

And when it comes to law making, sorry, but your opinion is nothing more than a turd floating in a pool when compared to what the surgeon general and the EPA have to say.

Besides discrediting the websites they are on, what have you done to counter the claims? I shouldn't say claims because it is verifiable fact that the EPA used a CI never used before in the history of the agency.


confidence interval: An interval defined by two values, called confidence limits, calculated from sample data using a procedure which ensures that the unknown true value of the quantity of interest falls between such calculated values in a specified percentage of samples. Commonly, the specified percentage is 95%; the resulting confidence interval is then called a 95% confidence interval.

Guess where I got that from?

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/mglossary.html

[Blake]

Logic is not your friend.

I'm not sure you've ever even met logic.


Besides discrediting the websites they are on, what have you done to counter the claims? I shouldn't say claims because it is verifiable fact that the EPA used a CI never used before in the history of the agency.

Guess where I got that from?

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/mglossary.html

In court, all I have to tell the judge and/or jury is "the EPA and the Surgeon General both state that second hand smoke is harmful".

I win. It honestly doesn't matter what other things you try to spin.

[JoeChalupa]

I can't remember the last time I remember seeing someone smoking inside an eating establishment and I like that.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I'm not sure you've ever even met logic.

Are doctors dangerous? Simple yes or no.

http://www.healingdaily.com/Doctors-Are-The-Third-Leading-Cause-of-Death-in-the-US.htm



In court, all I have to tell the judge and/or jury is "the EPA and the Surgeon General both state that second hand smoke is harmful".

I win. It honestly doesn't matter what other things you try to spin.

If it was determined on the amount of dodges in one thread, then yes you would win.

[BacktoBasics]

In court, all I have to tell the judge and/or jury is "the EPA and the Surgeon General both state that second hand smoke is harmful".

I win. It honestly doesn't matter what other things you try to spin.Don't you think thats the exact point he's trying to make. Whats he's saying and with sources of proof (like them or not) that the information stated by both bodies is found to be exaggerated. In some cases completely unfounded.

He's also drawn some very logical correlations to everyday things such as gas fumes, UV sunrays yada yada and how the study takes a completely different approach to how they measure the danger of one thing (which is similar) but turn around and completely disregard the same protocol for measuring the level of danger associated with cigarette smoke.

Surely even you can question that.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

And you keep asking about funding:

Do you think the NCI or ACS or EPA is going to fund or attach their name to any study where the outcome may be in doubt??

The character assassination done on Enstrom and Kabat, who to my knowledge were two of the most respected guys in their field, should make anybody wary of going against the grain.

And to add to that, they blackballed, rather than dispute his claims, one of their own when he questioned the recent anti-smoking crusade.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/search?q=listserv

[Blake]

Are doctors dangerous? Simple yes or no.

http://www.healingdaily.com/Doctors-Are-The-Third-Leading-Cause-of-Death-in-the-US.htm

Look, I know you are getting desperate, but cmon, don't make you yourself look any sillier.

I know good doctors and bad doctors

Just let me know when you find good second hand smoke.

Good Lord.


If it was determined on the amount of dodges in one thread, then yes you would win.

whatever....

If it is as you say it is, why isn't Phillip Morris running ads saying how everyone is lying? Where is the national media in this? why aren't there any TV documentaries on Discovery Channel about this?

I'll tell you why.

Because no matter how blown out of proportion some of these studies may or may not get, at a base level all of us with any decent amount of common sense knows that second hand smoke is bad for you.

[jcrod]

Damn 21 pages.

I love smoking bans, I don't want to breathe and smell like that shit. It's your deal if you want to do it, but don't put me in harms way.

All my friends just go outside every so often, you want to smoke you deal with it.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

If it is as you say it is, why isn't Phillip Morris running ads saying how everyone is lying? Where is the national media in this? why aren't there any TV documentaries on Discovery Channel about this?

I'll tell you why.

Because no matter how blown out of proportion some of these studies may or may not get, at a base level all of us with any decent amount of common sense knows that second hand smoke is bad for you.


Fear sells.

And thanks for finally admitting it's based on perception.

[Blake]

Fear sells.

And thanks for finally admitting it's based on perception.

no, it's based on the surgeon general, jeenyus.

you're welcome.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

no, it's based on the surgeon general, jeenyus.

you're welcome.

Which is based on the EPA's report.

Which you continually keep forgetting to respond to.

Or any other question I've posed in this thread.

[BacktoBasics]

If it is as you say it is, why isn't Phillip Morris running ads saying how everyone is lying? Where is the national media in this? why aren't there any TV documentaries on Discovery Channel about this?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Right now the government is taxing the piss out of cigarettes. Its a system that somewhat works. There is really no reason they couldn't go down the same path as dope and make a ton of money off the war on tobacco.

The heavy players work within the system because the system allows them to profit millions if not billions of dollars. This is why you see all the major cigarette players running underage anti-smoking ad after anti-smoking ad per their agreement...along with the label warnings.

If they put up a fight and attempt to hold the government hostage in a battle of wits there's no question they'll lose their right to legally traffic the drug.

Out of all of your points and your entire stance I would have been certain that even you understood the politics envolved with this kind of money. I shouldn't have overestimated your common sense again.

There have been scores of documentaries on everything from Kennedy's assination to NASA faking the moon landing that have been pulled at the demand of the government. Not to mention the amount of revenue from advertising that you might lose by running a pro-smoking documentary. The fight against smoking is probably larger than the interest in anti-marijuana. You always have to keep in mind who pays your bills and their beliefs.

[Alex Jones]

You notice all the non smokers in this topic are for the NWO?

[BacktoBasics]

You notice all the smokers in this topic are for the NWO?You're doing it wrong fucktard. At the very least it would be the other way around you. Learn to run your troll propery.

[T Park.]

You're doing it wrong fucktard.

That was fresh, what year is that from 2002?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/park-money.jpg

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Just let me know when you find good second hand smoke.




Apparently, if we can find "good" radon and "good" asbestos, then it shouldn't be a problem to find "good" SHS.

It's the dosage/response table that all other carcinogens are held to, except of course your favorite, silly.

I'm done. I think I've made my point extremely clear and kicking around Blake is getting stale.

[The Club]

I'm done. I think I've made my point


And then there was two...............

[Blake]

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Right now the government is taxing the piss out of cigarettes. Its a system that somewhat works. There is really no reason they couldn't go down the same path as dope and make a ton of money off the war on tobacco.

The heavy players work within the system because the system allows them to profit millions if not billions of dollars. This is why you see all the major cigarette players running underage anti-smoking ad after anti-smoking ad per their agreement...along with the label warnings.

If they put up a fight and attempt to hold the government hostage in a battle of wits there's no question they'll lose their right to legally traffic the drug.

Out of all of your points and your entire stance I would have been certain that even you understood the politics envolved with this kind of money. I shouldn't have overestimated your common sense again.

There have been scores of documentaries on everything from Kennedy's assination to NASA faking the moon landing that have been pulled at the demand of the government. Not to mention the amount of revenue from advertising that you might lose by running a pro-smoking documentary. The fight against smoking is probably larger than the interest in anti-marijuana. You always have to keep in mind who pays your bills and their beliefs.


you forgot the 9/11 theories

[Blake]

Apparently, if we can find "good" radon and "good" asbestos, then it shouldn't be a problem to find "good" SHS.

It's the dosage/response table that all other carcinogens are held to, except of course your favorite, silly.

I'm done. I think I've made my point extremely clear and kicking around Blake is getting stale.

"it shouldn't be a problem to find good SHS"?

yeah, I'd say you are long since done.

And you need to check the footprints on your own ass before you go around bragging how you think you kicked someone elses.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

"it shouldn't be a problem to find good SHS"?

yeah, I'd say you are long since done.

And you need to check the footprints on your own ass before you go around bragging how you think you kicked someone elses.

I lied.


Did the quotes throw you off? Figured they would. By good I meant acceptable levels.


You haven't answered one question, sweetie. All you've done is repeated the company line and danced around all the relevant points.

You aren't going to answer them because 1) You can't. 2) It would destroy your entire basis for believing SHS is harmful.

Oh, besides the fact that "you just know" or that it's "common knowledge". Where do you think that "common knowledge" came from, Einstein? Wouldn't have started with the EPA report, would it?

Nah, that's way too old for an enlightened man like yourself to even consider.

[JIM LAMPLEY]

Just when you thought DisgruntledLionFan#54,927 was out,
he comes back strong with a right hook!

[LARRY MERCHANT]

I'm sorry Jim....but........I...feel...back...to...basics... .still....has ...the ....upper....hand....in...this...debate.....

[Emanuel Steward]

Both you crackers are full of shit! Blake has scoreboard on all these fools!!

[DarkReign]

The only agrement I see is that of people who dont like to smell like smoke.

Other than that, Blake, your entire position has been questioned and sourced and you fall back on self-proclomation of victory in response.

[Winehole23]

People can judge for themselves which risks to expose themselves and their children to.

Safety queens/kings need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, rather than relying on the state to keep them safe from harm.

Don't like smoke? Don't go to bars. Go to non-smoking bars. The world caters to you now, non-smokers. Take advantage of it. I know I do.

Smoking bans are anti-property rights and anti-personal liberty. Personally, I enjoy the result, but find smoking bans philosophically repugnant. Let people do what they want with their own businesses and their own bodies.

It's your job to avoid "known" hazards, not the government's to protect you from all conceivable harm.

[BacktoBasics]

you forgot the 9/11 theoriesIts not a conspiracy theory. I don't know what would lead to believe that. Most of your non-smoking or anti-minors smoking adverts whether on TV or print are funded by tobacco companies. Its part of their legal agreement. If you don't understand the way this give and take works then you're seriously the dumbest person alive.

I cannot fucking believe all this time later you can sit there and tell me that money and the relationship between tobbacco companies and the government is some kind of BS conspiracy theory.

JESUS. FUCKING. CHRIST.

[Blake]

The only agrement I see is that of people who dont like to smell like smoke.

Other than that, Blake, your entire position has been questioned and sourced and you fall back on self-proclomation of victory in response.

if you were an unbiased reader of the thread, I might listen.

Otherwise, the surgeon f-ing general of these damn United States says you are focking wrong.

[Blake]

Its not a conspiracy theory. I don't know what would lead to believe that. Most of your non-smoking or anti-minors smoking adverts whether on TV or print are funded by tobacco companies. Its part of their legal agreement. If you don't understand the way this give and take works then you're seriously the dumbest person alive.

I cannot fucking believe all this time later you can sit there and tell me that money and the relationship between tobbacco companies and the government is some kind of BS conspiracy theory.

JESUS. FUCKING. CHRIST.

right, so why aren't they screaming that the EPA reports are wrong. Why are we having to look up obscure websites given by disgruntled fan :lol

Surgeon General: SHS harmful
Cancer Society: SHS harmful
EPA: SHS harmful
American Lung Society: SHS harmful
anyone with half a brain: SHS harmful

you got nothing but conspiracy theories.

[Blake]

Don't like smoke? Don't go to bars. Go to non-smoking bars.

I think this was covered on pages 5, 8 and 14

[George Foreman]

looks like Winehole23 has entered the ring! :tu

[BacktoBasics]

right, so why aren't they screaming that the EPA reports are wrong.

I told you why. Can you not fucking read. I'll tell you again.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you. They could scream and all the government would do is wage its war on them. It would fall on deaf ears. It wouldn't take much to ban tobacco. The war on marijuana makes millions and the same would hold true if not more so for tobacco.

Right now they move their drug legally. With few restrictions. They fund a large portion of the anti smoking propoganda.


Under the 1998 settlement, the tobacco industry was obligated to fund the Public Education Fund for five years and is obligated thereafter unless the tobacco companies’ control of the cigarette market dipped below 99.05 percent.

They're not going to fight a battle when they've already won the war and continue to profit off it. Fighting is pointless and there is absolutely nothing to gain financially from it. Tobacco companies could careless about what study said what as long as the bottom line isn't affected and they can continue to operate legally.

This really isn't hard to understand. I really can't imagine why you don't understand this.

Where exactly is the conspiracy? I want you to tell me.

[BacktoBasics]

Among the commission’s tactics is filing friend-of-the-court briefs in lawsuits involving the tobacco industry that urge judges to include funding the truth campaign as part of their decisions. The commission did just that in the recent case of United States of America v. Philip Morris USA Inc. A court of appeals in February already ruled in the case that the government could not force the tobacco companies to turn over $280 billion in profits, but it did not rule out other actions. The commission’s friend-of-the-court brief urges the court to order that the tobacco companies fund an independent youth smoking prevention campaign.

[leemajors]

my favorite part is the halfass job that big tobacco did on those truth ads. just awesome.

[Blake]

my favorite part is the halfass job that big tobacco did on those truth ads. just awesome.

it's about the same job that Anhueser Busch does with their "dont drink and drive" and "we card for 21 year old" ads

[Blake]

This really isn't hard to understand. I really can't imagine why you don't understand this.

Where exactly is the conspiracy? I want you to tell me.

The conspiracy that you and mostly dglionfan are talking about is that the government is flat out telling bold faced lies about the health effects of secondhand smoke.

Now before you call me a Nazi again for the 100th time, believe me when I say I get that politicians and public officials are bought and sold by the truckload.

I personally think there is something to a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy theories myself, but at the end of the day, all I have is my own suspicious opinion of the government because I have no way to prove that someone installed detonators inside of the towers or in WTC#7.

[Winehole23]

I think this was covered on pages 5, 8 and 14I thought it was worth a redirect. I'm not saying governments can't ban smoking, just that using your own reasonable discretion should make it unnecessary in places like bars.

Instead of taking responsibility for yourself, Blake, you'd have the state enforce your preference everywhere. And that's why you've suffered the flames in this thread.

[Blake]

I thought it was worth a redirect. I'm not saying governments can't ban smoking, just that using your own reasonable discretion should make it unnecessary in places like bars.

Instead of taking responsibility for yourself, Blake, you'd have the state enforce your preference everywhere. And that's why you've suffered the flames in this thread.

you mean like it's my preference that I prefer meat at a restaurant to be stored at certain temperatures and that these same restaurants have pest control?

This isn't about preference. It's a public health issue.

If SHS turns out to be no worse than a scented candle, then I've got no beef and nothing to stand on.

[BacktoBasics]

The conspiracy that you and mostly dglionfan are talking about is that the government is flat out telling bold faced lies about the health effects of secondhand smoke.

Now before you call me a Nazi again for the 100th time, believe me when I say I get that politicians and public officials are bought and sold by the truckload.

I personally think there is something to a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy theories myself, but at the end of the day, all I have is my own suspicious opinion of the government because I have no way to prove that someone installed detonators inside of the towers or in WTC#7.I'm not trying to tell you that the government and the studies are flat out lies. I never have. I pointed out why you don't see independent studies funded by the big tobacco companies. I explained to you why they don't fight it. You called it a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy here. Its simple financials and the bottom line. If tobacco is outlawed you'll see a change.

DisLion showed you and I feel somewhat compellingly how the view of the government and the standard of testing was not only inconsistant with like carcinogens but also highly slanted and more opinion oriented than actual fact based. The studies you showed weren't even close to the same standard of testing of comparable carcinogens. "Where are the safe levels"? Is a very compelling point thats made here. Why not the same standard of testing? These are great questions you can't answer or have refused to address adequately.

I and everyone else should find that interesting. If anything there is your conspiracy theory only we all know you'll dismiss those ideas right away (which you have) because it negates your entire argument.

[BacktoBasics]

If SHS turns out to be no worse than a scented candle, then I've got no beef and nothing to stand on.This goes right into my point of how its tested and relayed. You don't know what the safe level of SHS is. They refuse to aknowledge it. I can promise you if you sit in a room full of 1,000 scented candles with your nose over 1 for 8 hours a day there might be health implications for it. Studies have likely shown that moderate exposure isn't something worth worrying about. They refuse to study and test or they refuse to report on SHS under the same pricipals of testing.

[Blake]

I'm not trying to tell you that the government and the studies are flat out lies. I never have.

well that's what disgruntled is saying. He's been saying this whole time that the EPA reports and Surgeon General are full of crap.


DisLion showed you and I feel somewhat compellingly how the view of the government and the standard of testing was not only inconsistant with like carcinogens but also highly slanted and more opinion oriented than actual fact based. The studies you showed weren't even close to the same standard of testing of comparable carcinogens. "Where are the safe levels"? Is a very compelling point thats made here. Why not the same standard of testing? These are great questions you can't answer or have refused to address adequately.

I'm not an expert on SHS studies and I'm betting the house that nobody here is either, so I will leave recommendations to those experts.

If my new best friend the Surgeon General is not considered an expert on this subject, then frankly i don't know who is.


I and everyone else should find that interesting. If anything there is your conspiracy theory only we all know you'll dismiss those ideas right away (which you have) because it negates your entire argument.

I agree that what DG has posted has been very interesting and enlightening.

It reminds very much of what 9/11 conspiracy theorists post all the time.........which I also find to be equally interesting and enlightening....

...But at the end of the day it means nothing.

[Blake]

This goes right into my point of how its tested and relayed. You don't know what the safe level of SHS is. They refuse to aknowledge it. I can promise you if you sit in a room full of 1,000 scented candles with your nose over 1 for 8 hours a day there might be health implications for it. Studies have likely shown that moderate exposure isn't something worth worrying about. They refuse to study and test or they refuse to report on SHS under the same pricipals of testing.

If my compadre SG comes out with an official statement that whiffing scented candles are harmful, then I will be the first on here to say they should be outlawed in general public settings.

[Winehole23]

you mean like it's my preference that I prefer meat at a restaurant to be stored at certain temperatures and that these same restaurants have pest control?

This isn't about preference. It's a public health issue. You're saying you don't have the power to limit your exposure to SHS? Bullshit.


If SHS turns out to be no worse than a scented candle, then I've got no beef and nothing to stand on.Good point. Just because a government opinion is legally controlling doesn't mean it's based on good science. IMO DLF#54,927 made the better case in this thread.

Sometimes, government regs do not protect the public, but the whim of transient majorities and special interests.

[BacktoBasics]

This might mean something to you Blake.

Here is a decade long study reported in 2002. The study continued thru 2006.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/Trailer21/broker.gif


I also want to share more on the EPA study that deals with air particulates and the causes of Cancer.

I don't see smoking or SHS listed anywhere.

On February 22, 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made available an updated assessment of the nationwide health risk estimates for air toxics. EPA's first national-scale air toxics assessment, for calendar year 1996, was published in 2002. The assessment is a state-of-the-science national-scale screening tool to help regulatory agencies and communities as they assess their air toxic priorities. The first assessment was peer reviewed by SAB in 2001. This assessment should not be used as the sole basis for developing risk reduction plans or regulations to control specific sources or pollutants. Additionally, this assessment should not be used for estimating risk at the local level, for quantifying benefits of reduced air toxic emissions, or for identifying localized hotspots

This nationwide risk characterization considers the risk of cancer and other serious health effects from breathing these air toxics, in both urban and rural areas. This information will help EPA and our partners at the State and local level identify pollutants and industrial source categories of greatest concern, and to set priorities for the collection of additional information to improve our understanding of the risk from air toxics. This national-scale assessment is not designed to be used as the sole basis for regulatory action.

In general, the results show the following:

From a national perspective, benzene is the most significant air toxic for which cancer risk could be estimated, contributing 25 percent of the average individual cancer risk identified in this assessment. Based on EPA's national emissions inventory, the key sources for benzene are onroad (49%) and nonroad mobile sources (19%), and open burning, prescribed fires and wildfires (14%). Residential heating from wood combustion accounts for approximately 6% of the total benzene emissions. EPA projects that onroad and nonroad mobile source benzene emissions will decrease by about 60% between 1999 and 2020, as a result of motor vehicle standards, fuel controls, standards for nonroad engines and equipment, and motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. Most of these programs reduce benzene simultaneously with other volatile organic compounds.

For most of the noncancer health effects EPA assessed (e.g., liver, kidney, developmental effects), the estimated exposures were below levels at which adverse health effects are expected. EPA's assessment indicates the potential for two types of noncancer effects: respiratory and neurological. Of these, respiratory health effects show a higher potential for adverse effects to the greatest number of people; considerably higher levels than neurological.

Of the 40 air toxics showing the potential for respiratory effects, acrolein is the most significant, contributing 91 percent of the nationwide average noncancer hazard identified in this assessment. Note that the health information and exposure data for acrolein include much more uncertainty than those for benzene. Based on the national emissions inventory, the key sources for acrolein are open burning, prescribed fires and wildfires (61%), onroad (14%) and nonroad (11%) mobile sources. The apparent dominance of acrolein as a noncancer "risk driver" in both the 1996 and 1999 national-scale assessment has led to efforts to develop an effective monitoring test method for this pollutant. EPA projects that acrolein emissions from on-road sources will be reduced by 53% between 1996 and 2020 as a result of existing motor vehicle standards and fuel controls.


Your people their study over the coarse of nearly a decade. With mid study reports. I see no mention of SHS being a significant leading cause of air born damage.

[Blake]

You're saying you don't have the power to limit your exposure to SHS? Bullshit.

I'm saying that since it's a considered scientific fact, not opinion, that SHS is harmful, then it needs to be regulated as such.

If bars want to open up as humidors and allow smoking, no problem.......but it shouldn't be the other way that a bar has to open up as non-smoking.

I'm not sure, but I'm betting there aren't any laws against punching yourself in the face, but you have no right to go inside a bar and punch someone in the face (or rape someone as SpurWoman put it).


Good point. Just because a government opinion is legally controlling doesn't mean it's based on good science. IMO DLF#54,927 made the better case in this thread.

Sometimes, government regs do not protect the public, but the whim of transient majorities and special interests.

I absoultely agree 100% that just because it's government opinion doesn't mean it's good science and that sometimes government regs do not protect the public.

Does that mean that's the case here? Are you an expert in this subject that can debunk the EPA, the surgeon general and college professors?

[BacktoBasics]

I'm saying that since it's a considered scientific fact, not opinion, that SHS is harmful, then it needs to be regulated as such.

How do you regulate something when you don't know what levels are considered safe.

There is a safe level of every other cancer causing fume out there but not SHS. You and I both know that putting your head above a BBQ pit exposes us to carbon monoxide. We also know that BBQing regularely poses very little risk. Somehow SHS smoke isn't addressed the same way. Perhaps and like stated above in the EPA assessment its probably of such an insignificant amount its not worth reporting on.

[Blake]

I don't see smoking or SHS listed anywhere.

On February 22, 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made available an updated assessment of the nationwide health risk estimates for air toxics.

and on June 27th, 2006:

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General

(under facts about secondhand smoke)

"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."

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

[Blake]

How do you regulate something when you don't know what levels are considered safe.

There is a safe level of every other cancer causing fume out there but not SHS. You and I both know that putting your head above a BBQ pit exposes us to carbon monoxide. We also know that BBQing regularely poses very little risk. Somehow SHS smoke isn't addressed the same way. Perhaps and like stated above in the EPA assessment its probably of such an insignificant amount its not worth reporting on.

"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. "

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

[I. Hustle]

*cough* *cough*

[BacktoBasics]

"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. "

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
So the same cannot be said for vehicle exhaust? There is a safe level of vehicle exhaust but not smoking? A safe level of coal burning?

If any and all exposure is cancer causing why did it not make the chart as a leading cause?

Here is the full blown study that answers all our questions. This breaks down the levels by OSHA via direct exposure over a 40 hour work week or 8 hour day

Look at the chart after each chemical breakdown.

1 is the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed up to one hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effect or precieving a clearly defined objectional odor.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/urban/natpapp.pdf

200 something pages. Tobacco burning is listed as potential suitors for a small handful of cancer causing agents. However if you look at the OSHA chart representing a 40 hour work week of exposure the amount of concentrated exposure on each one listing tobacco burning as a source is up in the 100X category for almost all of them.

So as far as OSHA is concerned any chemical with the ability to cause cancer associated with tobacco burning would have to expose the average person in a concentrated area 100X the basic mg amount an hour over a 40 hour work week. Thats a pretty profound chart don't you think?

The only chemical that even comes close (10 times the base amount in a concentrated area) is further down the list and the main culprit is diesel fuel however it lists a potential source of tobacco burning as well.

So as far as the EPA is concerned its bad but the exposure as far as OSHA is concerned is 10-100 times the base amount in a concentrated area over a normal 40 hour work week.

I think I've found my answer. If you can't read or understand the chart I'm sorry but this clearly defines the levels of acceptable carcinogens from cancer causing agents that are air-bourne.

So really there is an argument to be made over the concentration of exposure vs. just any exposure. As far as I'm concerned there is no concern of cancer being caused unless you're exposed at a minimum 10X the base amount an hour for a 40 hour work week like diesel fuel or 100X times the amount similar to a wood buring stove over the same period of time.

Your people and its their study.

[Winehole23]

I'm saying that since it's a considered scientific fact, not opinion, that SHS is harmful, then it needs to be regulated as such. Practically, this makes sense enough. Logically, it's a fallacy: appeal to authority.


I'm not sure, but I'm betting there aren't any laws against punching yourself in the face, but you have no right to go inside a bar and punch someone in the face (or rape someone as SpurWoman put it).You do your argument no favors by exaggerating the harm of casual exposure.


Does that mean that's the case here? Are you an expert in this subject that can debunk the EPA, the surgeon general and college professors?The refusal of EPA to assign a confidence interval to SHS exposure consistent with other known carcinogens is fishy on its face, and undermines my confidence in it's opinion, yes.

I'll readily admit I'm no expert. That doesn't mean I have to bow and scrape to technocrats who want to manage everyday life..

[BacktoBasics]

Winehole the EPA refused to list confidence interval of SHS exposure but I listed an EPA study above where OSHA did.

Surely Blake will find a way to argue against his own peoples study but the smoking gun is listed pretty clearly on the report.

10x to 100x the base exposure of a recognizable odor in a concentrated area where you can't remove yourself over a 40 hour work week.

[Blake]

So the same cannot be said for vehicle exhaust? There is a safe level of vehicle exhaust but not smoking? A safe level of coal burning?

or sniffing paint cans?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any place where I've said "damn, I can't stand it in here.......too much vehicle exhaust and/or coal burning"


If any and all exposure is cancer causing why did it not make the chart as a leading cause?

Here is the full blown study that answers all our questions. This breaks down the levels by OSHA via direct exposure over a 40 hour work week or 8 hour day

Look at the chart after each chemical breakdown.

1 is the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed up to one hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effect or precieving a clearly defined objectional odor.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/urban/natpapp.pdf

200 something pages. Tobacco burning is listed as potential suitors for a small handful of cancer causing agents. However if you look at the OSHA chart representing a 40 hour work week of exposure the amount of concentrated exposure on each one listing tobacco burning as a source is up in the 100X category for almost all of them.

So as far as OSHA is concerned any chemical with the ability to cause cancer associated with tobacco burning would have to expose the average person in a concentrated area 100X the basic mg amount an hour over a 40 hour work week. Thats a pretty profound chart don't you think?

The only chemical that even comes close (10 times the base amount in a concentrated area) is further down the list and the main culprit is diesel fuel however it lists a potential source of tobacco burning as well.

So as far as the EPA is concerned its bad but the exposure as far as OSHA is concerned is 10-100 times the base amount in a concentrated area over a normal 40 hour work week.

I think I've found my answer. If you can't read or understand the chart I'm sorry but this clearly defines the levels of acceptable carcinogens from cancer causing agents that are air-bourne.

So really there is an argument to be made over the concentration of exposure vs. just any exposure. As far as I'm concerned there is no concern of cancer being caused unless you're exposed at a minimum 10X the base amount an hour for a 40 hour work week like diesel fuel or 100X times the amount similar to a wood buring stove over the same period of time.

Your people and its their study.

good questions.

Go ask the surgeon general why he states what he does as fact.

[TDMVPDPOY]

down here in australia its banned in most public places, including pubs/clubs and certain areas of teh casino is smoke free, and smoking in an enclosure where there is a child around is also banned, smoking in a car is also banned if theres a child in the vehicle.

they are thinkn about getting rid of the packaging on ciggy packets.....hahahah fkn lame.

also gp's dont like treating smokers for some reason, but hey watever floats ur boat. Hence the smokers contribute alot of tax through there ciggy purchases anyway, who just want to be treated the same like everyone else.

if you get rid of ciggys in the country, that be a huge blow to the federal budget imo.....

[BacktoBasics]

or sniffing paint cans?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any place where I've said "damn, I can't stand it in here.......too much vehicle exhaust and/or coal burning"


I have and many times



good questions.


Go ask the surgeon general why he states what he does as fact.




I've got my questions answered. He states it as fact because its the backbone of what the government uses to leverage their power over tobacco companies.

/government/ See our own expert says its bad. So its true. /government/


Its all right there for you to read. The government has been pushing its own agenda based on half truths and biased reports without presenting the facts using the same protocol for this type of testing. A slanted view plain and simple. I've provided you with the proof and the full study done by your people that clearly defines the levels of cancer causing particulates that pertain to SHS. I'm guessing your government decided to leave those parts out. Lying by omission some would call it. You're more than welcome to continue to deny it.

[Blake]

Practically, this makes sense enough. Logically, it's a fallacy: appeal to authority.

no different than restaurant and other business codes.


You do your argument no favors by exaggerating the harm of casual exposure.

:lol All I've done is copy and paste from the SGs report.


The refusal of EPA to assign a confidence interval to SHS exposure consistent with other known carcinogens is fishy on its face, and undermines my confidence in it's opinion, yes.

I'll readily admit I'm no expert. That doesn't mean I have to bow and scrape to technocrats who want to manage everyday life..

The SG is the expert and he states it as fact. Sorry, but your opinion that he's wrong means nothing unless proven otherwise in a court of law.

[BacktoBasics]

I want Blake to call the EPA study that cites OSHA levels an out right lie.

You haven't a leg to stand on if you don't. Because its all laid out factually by your people in that study. You were just not told the entire story.

[Blake]

Its all right there for you to read. The government has been pushing its own agenda based on half truths and biased reports without presenting the facts using the same protocol for this type of testing. A slanted view plain and simple. I've provided you with the proof and the full study done by your people that clearly defines the levels of cancer causing particulates that pertain to SHS. I'm guessing your government decided to leave those parts out. Lying by omission some would call it. You're more than welcome to continue to deny it.

Oh, ok.....I believe the docmuneted experts, but I'm the one with the slanted view.

Since you got it all figured out, why aren't you running to the media with this important information?

You'd better hurry before they enact the full force ban on smoking.

[Blake]

I want Blake to call the EPA study that cites OSHA levels an out right lie.

You haven't a leg to stand on if you don't. Because its all laid out factually by your people in that study. You were just not told the entire story.

No, you want the surgeon general to call the EPA study that cites OSHA levels an ouright lie.

[Winehole23]

Winehole the EPA refused to list confidence interval of SHS exposure but I listed an EPA study above where OSHA did.

Surely Blake will find a way to argue against his own peoples study but the smoking gun is listed pretty clearly on the report.

10x to 100x the base exposure of a recognizable odor in a concentrated area where you can't remove yourself over a 40 hour work week.Thanks for the heads up, B2B. In such a long thread, it's easy to miss a detail.

Governments can regulate the workplace. No argument from me on this. That doesn't mean it's always necessary or wise to do so. Should science trump everything in a democratic society? I think not.

[Blake]

I also want to know how the EPA is "my people"

:lol

too much

[BacktoBasics]

No, you want the surgeon general to call the EPA study that cites OSHA levels an ouright lie.
No I just want the SG to report all the facts. Be honest and stop supporting the stripping of peoples rights with half truths.

I have provided the burden of proof. However nothing will change. We are slaves to our freedom of government.

[BacktoBasics]

I also want to know how the EPA is "my people"

:lol

too much
Its your people because you used their studies to support what the SG says. Better put the SG uses parts of their studies to support his claims which you use to support your opinion.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

There's a DOE study(1994) out there explaining exactly why OSHA didn't follow the EPA's recommendations.

It's called "Choices in Risk Assessment" and is yet another gov't agency ripping the EPA's methodology.

Pgs.177-197 on SHS/OSHA

[Winehole23]

The SG is the expert and he states it as fact. Sorry, but your opinion that he's wrong means nothing unless proven otherwise in a court of law.True enough. But it it might mean something here, where legal validity and appeals to authority don't count for as much.

This is a discussion board. We trade in opinion.You have to convince people. So far, you haven't done a great job, Blake. IMO, your adversaries have been more persuasive in the thread. That doesn't mean they're right or you're wrong. It just means IMHO that they've made the better case.

[BacktoBasics]

Well I just supplied you with proof that the SG only presents half if not less than half of the full truth of the actual findings. I don't need a court of law to display the entire picture.

Furthermore my argument was more about people rights than anything. Which by law I've proven.

Then I proved using OSHAs facts in the EPA study that SHS isn't what its made out to be by the SG.

We have provided the full burden of proof. We won the argument. The SG didn't lie he just didn't tell the whole story. I proved that to you.

The argument is over. The only argument left is what to do with a SG that has passed off information as an absolute truth when its proven only to be a portion of the truth.

Answer:

Probably nothing. We're slaves to the system.

I'd sure like Blake to admit that he's wrong though. Not holding my breath.

[Blake]

True enough. But it it might mean something here, where legal validity and appeals to authority don't count for as much.

This is a discussion board. We trade in opinion.You have to convince people. So far, you haven't done a great job, Blake. IMO, your adversaries have been more persuasive in the thread. That doesn't mean they're right or you're wrong. It just means IMHO that they've made the better case.

Right, this is the court of public opinion which doesn't count for much.

And what a shock that you feel I haven't been more persuasive in this thread, being that you picked a side. Frankly, I couldn't care less if 50 unbiased voters got in here and said I sucked at arguing........

The ultimate argument is that the surgeon general in his official capacity made an official statement that it is FACT that SHS is harmful. You can post all you want about this EPA report or that one but at the end of the day, you have NOTHING to combat this because it is now considered FACT.

Again, if you guys have it all figured out that the government, the EPA, the university researchers and the surgeon general are all lying, then why are you wasting time trying to convince me that they are lying?

Why aren't you hounding the WOAI Troubleshooters?

[Blake]

Furthermore my argument was more about people rights than anything. Which by law I've proven.


Since we have current laws that say "you do not have the right to do whatever the F you want to do in your own business" then no, you really haven't.


I'd sure like Blake to admit that he's wrong though. Not holding my breath.

I'll admit that you're wrong.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The argument is over. The only argument left is what to do with a SG that has passed off information as an absolute truth when its proven only to be a portion of the truth.

Answer:

Probably nothing. We're slaves to the system.



SG Carmona was fired.

[BacktoBasics]

Fucking Blake. What a fucking moron. What more proof does this fuckwad want.

You're wrong. I proved you wrong with the OSHA EPA report. Are they not the athorities for the facts?

The SG has reported half truths as finite fact. I don't care what athority he has because we've provided the entire study by the same source with all the information that was omited.

SG said SHS was bad. He didn't cite at what levels.

I provided that proof from the very same sources he uses to tell us the SHS is bad.

I didn't prove that SHS wasn't bad I proved that via the studies that SHS smoke is considered cancer causing at 10x to 100x the base level in a concentrated area over a 40 hour work week.

You have your answer. To continue to cite a half truth makes you the dumbest person alive.

[Blake]

Fucking Blake. What a fucking moron. What more proof does this fuckwad want.

you are misdirecting your fukwad rants. Again for the what, 37th time now, I'm just quoting the SG.



SG said SHS was bad. He didn't cite at what levels.

Wrong. I already quoted it at least twice.

He stated there is no safe level.


I provided that proof from the very same sources he uses to tell us the SHS is bad.

I didn't prove that SHS wasn't bad I proved that via the studies that SHS smoke is considered cancer causing at 10x to 100x the base level in a concentrated area over a 40 hour work week.

Good job. Now take all your hard work and go to the media.


You have your answer. To continue to cite a half truth makes you the dumbest person alive.

again, misdirection. You mean it makes the SG the dumbest person alive.

[Blake]

if you get rid of ciggys in the country, that be a huge blow to the federal budget imo.....

It would be. The cig tax is a very nice addition to anyone'e budget. It's why they also want to tax cola next....

on the flip side, it's also one of many reasons why marijuana it still illegal. People would be able to grow it in their backyard and there would be no way to tax it.

[Blake]

SG Carmona was fired.

huh?

"Richard Henry Carmona, (born November 22, 1949), is an American physician who was a former vice admiral in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and served as the 17th Surgeon General of the United States. As Surgeon General, Carmona served as the head of the Corps. Appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, Carmona left office at the end of July 2006 upon the expiration of his term. After leaving office, Carmona was highly critical of the Bush Administration for interfering with and suppressing scientific findings which conflicted with the Administration's ideological agenda.

In 2006, Carmona released a landmark Surgeon General's report on the health effects of secondhand smoke.[3] Carmona's report underlined the risks of secondhand smoke exposure; at the time of the report's release, Carmona stated: "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."[4] The report encouraged the adoption of indoor smoking bans and noted that such bans did not appear to have a harmful economic effect on bars and restaurants. After leaving office, Carmona testified before Congress that the Bush Administration had tried for years to "water down" his findings on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and had pressured him not to testify in the tobacco industry's racketeering trial.[5]

In earlier testimony before the U.S. Congress, Carmona had stated that he would not object to a ban on all tobacco products "if Congress chose to go that way." The Bush Administration distanced itself from this statement.[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carmona

what's this? You mean this guy actually went against towing the Bush company line?

golly gee.

[BacktoBasics]

I guess that speaks volumes for the amount of money the government thinks they can make taxing tobacco vs. fighting it like marijuana.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I've read Carmona quit, was forced out and that he simply left on his own accord.


Depending on which explanation you believe, Dr. Carmona either resigned as head of the federal Public Health Service or he was not reappointed by President Bush when his four-year term expired on July 29 - the equivalent of being fired.

Some sources indicated that Dr. Carmona was told that he would not be retained as surgeon general, but who ushered him out and the reason were not revealed by the hunker-in-the-bunker folks at the White House.

[Blake]

I've read Carmona quit, was forced out and that he simply left on his own accord.

......and why was he 'forced out'?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

......and why was he 'forced out'?

They didn't like him.

[BacktoBasics]

If the amount of money taxing tobacco outweighs what they could make fighting it I could see why they wouldn't want his opinion.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

If the amount of money taxing tobacco outweighs what they could make fighting it I could see why they wouldn't want his opinion.

The post of SG is retarded. He's a political appointee that was shocked that politics came into play on cigarettes(wanted to ban them), stem-cell research, global warming, etc.

Political pressure on the SG is nothing new.

[Re-Animator]

My friends at work are reading this topic. :lol

[Winehole23]

Off-topic, but there's an intriguing contrast.

Consider the present "accepted facts" and regulatory policy respecting confined-animal feedlot operations (CAFO's).

CAFO's have empirically established environmental and food-safety impacts, but EPA has not only exempted (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e4cfca6dc6b9847985257359003f5336/6236c34a042f55378525751d00722e6a%21OpenDocument) them them from reporting emissions, it has revoked extralabel (i.e., preventive) use of cephalosporin antibiotics (http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/RevokesProCepha.htm)in food animals.

Why should we care?


"These important drugs are the only effective therapies for serious gastrointestinal diseases in children and also the best treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections in cancer patients. Easing restrictions on the use of cephalosporin on factory farms jeopardizes the effectiveness of these drugs and needlessly imperils our public health.

"In addition, the overuse of human antibiotics in farm animals is driving up the cost of healthcare. For example, in 1998 the Institute of Medicine estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria generated an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion per year in extra costs to the U.S. healthcare system.



"The misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture helps fuel the increase in antibiotic-resistant infections -- a fact long acknowledged by the American Medical Association, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and even the FDA.

"The incoming Administration and the new head of the FDA need to examine the overuse of antibiotics on factory farms. They must take the advice of the doctors and other public health professionals who have raised the alarm about antibiotic misuse and put the health of people -- particularly susceptible groups like the elderly and children -- ahead of industry profits.


http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/12/133814/68

Sometimes the lobby is political. Sometimes it is an industry group. But for the last eight years science has been a red-headed stepchild at EPA, OSHA and the FDA. True science and the public interest have been sidelined in favor of industry insiders and special interest lobbies. Politics, not safety, is the driver.

Relying on public health officialdom and "enlightened" public policy to keep you healthy and safe may not be the way to go, Blake.

The gods help those who help themselves. Big brother ain't your friend.

Strike that.

I meant to say he ain't mine. You can speak for yourself, and I'm sure you will.

[Heat Miser]

This is a heated topic!

[BacktoBasics]

Paradise Billiards

Down 18%

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

Martini Bar

Down between 15%-20%

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

Cody's Sports Bar

Down significantly - Might have to close doors.

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

Whiskey River

Cowboy Dancehall

Down slightly but not significantly

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

Murdocks

Sports bar

Down 10%

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

Crystals Restaurant Confectionery Bar

Out of business

Pins 100% of the blame on the smoking ban. It was sad to see this restaurant bar going from being standing room only just an average restaurant. There bar money is what ran that place.

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

It'll Do Saloon

Down at both locations around 15%

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

Clicks

Down 22%

Possibly closing

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

Bair's Den

Down significantly

No figure

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

Slick Willie's

Pool Hall for minors

No change

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

Theo's

Down significantly

Rumored to be changing owners

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

Rascals

Down

5%

Owner thinks they haven't been hit as hard because they're right next to a strip club.

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

There were two sections that I didn't get to see. So the list is quite a bit longer than this.

We'll see how it all stabilizes but the reality is that a large majority of businesses are hurting because of this.

Adult only businesses where minors aren't allowed.

These are statistics compiled by a local Pool hall owner. I'm not saying who or where but it was a pretty comprehensive write up he let me in on. There going to remount a pretty substantial fight here in about three months.

Originally they needed 5k signatures on a petition to fight this. They got over 10,000. However only 3,400 were registered voters. So they got nailed on a technicality.

I'm glad to see a large portion of these owners attempting to come together to fight for this. They're private owner and should never of had their rights stripped in the first place.


Oh and I could careless if you don't like my source or lack of scanned files or whatever. The real point is that the larger majority of business are suffering from this unconstitutional stripping of private owner rights.

[Jimcs50]

Paradise Billiards

Down 18%

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

Martini Bar

Down between 15%-20%

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

Cody's Sports Bar

Down significantly - Might have to close doors.

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

Whiskey River

Cowboy Dancehall

Down slightly but not significantly

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

Murdocks

Sports bar

Down 10%

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

Crystals Restaurant Confectionery Bar

Out of business

Pins 100% of the blame on the smoking ban. It was sad to see this restaurant bar going from being standing room only just an average restaurant. There bar money is what ran that place.

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

It'll Do Saloon

Down at both locations around 15%

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

Clicks

Down 22%

Possibly closing

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

Bair's Den

Down significantly

No figure

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

Slick Willie's

Pool Hall for minors

No change

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

Theo's

Down significantly

Rumored to be changing owners

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

Rascals

Down

5%

Owner thinks they haven't been hit as hard because they're right next to a strip club.

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

There were two sections that I didn't get to see. So the list is quite a bit longer than this.

We'll see how it all stabilizes but the reality is that a large majority of businesses are hurting because of this.

Adult only businesses where minors aren't allowed.

These are statistics compiled by a local Pool hall owner. I'm not saying who or where but it was a pretty comprehensive write up he let me in on. There going to remount a pretty substantial fight here in about three months.

Originally they needed 5k signatures on a petition to fight this. They got over 10,000. However only 3,400 were registered voters. So they got nailed on a technicality.

I'm glad to see a large portion of these owners attempting to come together to fight for this. They're private owner and should never of had their rights stripped in the first place.


Oh and I could careless if you don't like my source or lack of scanned files or whatever. The real point is that the larger majority of business are suffering from this unconstitutional stripping of private owner rights.


Deaths due to secondary smoke:

Down 100%

[Jimcs50]

The smoking ban here in College Station has worked out great. I can go to a club or shoot pool and when I leave, my eyes do not burn, my clothes do not need to be dry cleaned, my car does not stink the next day from carrying us home with clothes that smell like an ashtray.

The smokers just go outside to smoke and they then just come back in afterwards, it works out for everyone.

[Jimcs50]

Oh, it is not private owner rights if all members of the public are welcome. If you have an exclusive club with memeberships, then you can decide to let your members smoke, but everyuone that joins has to be made privy to that before they join.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh and I could careless if you don't like my source or lack of scanned files or whatever. The real point is that the larger majority of business are suffering from this unconstitutional stripping of private owner rights.In what way is this unconstitutional?

[Spurminator]

I still think this is stupid, but it has caused me to smoke less...

[BacktoBasics]

In what way is this unconstitutional?You're welcome to go back and read the thread.

As a business owner its his/her business. They can run it like they see fit. Especially if its adults only. I understand that some minors can't help themselves but be exposed in certain situation and I'm all for protecting their rights but an adult's only establishment shouldn't be subject to the same stipulation.

A private business open to the public doesn't mean its public property. Its still a privately owned business.

Its the adult general public's choice to enter or not. The owner isn't obligated to protect the public.

[ChumpDumper]

You're welcome to go back and read the thread.

As a business owner its his/her business. They can run it like they see fit. Especially if its adults only. I understand that some minors can't help themselves but be exposed in certain situation and I'm all for protecting their rights but an adult's only establishment shouldn't be subject to the same stipulation.

A private business open to the public doesn't mean its public property. Its still a privately owned business.

Its the adult general public's choice to enter or not. The owner isn't obligated to protect the public.That says nothing about the issue of constitutionality. If you claim it's unconstitutional you need to say what part of the constitution a local smoking ban violates. You made an argument, but it's not a legal argument and certainly not a constitutional argument.

[BacktoBasics]

That says nothing about the issue of constitutionality. If you claim it's unconstitutional you need to say what part of the constitution a local smoking ban violates. You made an argument, but it's not a legal argument and certainly not a constitutional argument.Okay. I think its bullshit to tell someone how to run their private business. An adults only business.

I'll leave the constitution out of it.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay. I think its bullshit to tell someone how to run their private business. An adults only business.

I'll leave the constitution out of it.Fair enough.

Are you also against restrictions on hours businesses may serve alcohol?

[BacktoBasics]

Fair enough.

Are you also against restrictions on hours businesses may serve alcohol?I have put zero thought into that.

I'm not the only one that considers it a violation of Property rights.


As President Calvin Coolidge once said, "Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing." Property rights are at the heart of the smoking ban debate, but they are often overlooked at the expense of what is perceived to be the "greater good." A true respect for property rights requires that business owners be free to make decisions on their own, with the marketplace rewarding or punishing them accordingly for their choices.

Many businesses have already chosen, without government intervention, to go smoke-free or to offer their customers smoke-free environments. That decision should be theirs to make. Businesses make such decisions every day, always aiming to please their customers and satisfy a marketplace demand.

Smokers should not be turned into second-class citizens for using a legal product when the free market offers both smoking and non-smoking environments for employees and customers to choose from.

Smoking bans restrict consumer choice and infringes upon property rights. The community is better served when businesses, employees, and consumers are allowed to self-regulate and reach accommodations among themselves, rather than punishing some by legislative force.

The following articles offer additional information on the consequences of lost property rights due to smoking bans.


And the courts have ruled that one must be secure in their property and economic vocation for the sake of happiness (Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746). Even though smoking bans have been upheld in state supreme courts, including South Carolina’s, it would seem to me they may not hold up in federal court as they may be seen to interfere with private business owners’ ability to conduct business as they see fit.

[BacktoBasics]

To answer your question I'm likely against restrictions of drinking hours.

[ChumpDumper]

And the courts have ruled that one must be secure in their property and economic vocation for the sake of happiness (Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746). Even though smoking bans have been upheld in state supreme courts, including South Carolina’s, it would seem to me they may not hold up in federal court as they may be seen to interfere with private business owners’ ability to conduct business as they see fit.Austin's smoking ban was upheld in a federal circuit court of appeals.

[ChumpDumper]

To answer your question I'm likely against restrictions of drinking hours.That's consistent. Are you against the geographical restriction of adult businesses as well?

[BacktoBasics]

That's consistent. Are you against the geographical restriction of adult businesses as well?Yes I'm against that as well. If I want to go buy a hung pulsating dong for my wife I shouldn't have to drive 20 fucking miles out of town to do so.

I had no idea it was held up in federal court.

Still think its bullshit. If its my private business I should be able to run it as I see fit. Without restrictions on things that are already legal. I'm not saying I should be allowed to open up an acid shop or anything....just be allowed to function within the current laws. Smoking is legal. I'm not saying I should allow smoking in a privately owned daycare either. We're talking about an over 21 establishment not a grocery store where minors have no control about whether or not they enter.

The key is a purely adult only establishment where 100% of the people who enter wouldn't be under the care of a guardian or parent. 100% adult only. Its a reasonable compromise.

Personal agendas and political jostling is the only reason they took this away from the pool halls and bars. It was already outlawed in restaurants and other like places that were open to the public.

[Spurminator]

I think restrictions on serving time are different from restrictions on allowing patrons to smoke. Serving alcohol past a certain hour can arguably affect people outside of your business. There is no such consequence for allowing customers to smoke. Their actions only affect people who have chosen to enter your bar/restaurant.

[clambake]

Yes I'm against that as well. If I want to go buy a hung pulsating dong for my wife I shouldn't have to drive 20 fucking miles out of town to do so.
that right there is goddamned thoughtful!

[ChumpDumper]

I think restrictions on serving time are different from restrictions on allowing patrons to smoke. Serving alcohol past a certain hour can arguably affect people outside of your business. There is no such consequence for allowing customers to smoke. Their actions only affect people who have chosen to enter your bar/restaurant.But serving any alcohol at any time could affect people outside the bar.

[BacktoBasics]

But serving any alcohol at any time could affect people outside the bar.This is true. The %'s are greater during off business hours though. The responsibility ultimately falls on the dude who can't control his drinking....just like he shouldn't walk into a bar with smoke billowing out of it.

Interesting analogy though....I think its obvious the benefits of shutting it down at 2am. I guess in the end its just as much of a violation as the smoking ban...although you motor skills aren't impaired from smoking so the argument although interesting is quite the stretch in comparison.

[Blake]

Paradise Billiards

Down 18%

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

Martini Bar

Down between 15%-20%

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

Cody's Sports Bar

Down significantly - Might have to close doors.

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

Whiskey River

Cowboy Dancehall

Down slightly but not significantly

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

Murdocks

Sports bar

Down 10%

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

Crystals Restaurant Confectionery Bar

Out of business

Pins 100% of the blame on the smoking ban. It was sad to see this restaurant bar going from being standing room only just an average restaurant. There bar money is what ran that place.

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

It'll Do Saloon

Down at both locations around 15%

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

Clicks

Down 22%

Possibly closing

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

Bair's Den

Down significantly

No figure

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

Slick Willie's

Pool Hall for minors

No change

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

Theo's

Down significantly

Rumored to be changing owners

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

Rascals

Down

5%

Owner thinks they haven't been hit as hard because they're right next to a strip club.

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

There were two sections that I didn't get to see. So the list is quite a bit longer than this.

We'll see how it all stabilizes but the reality is that a large majority of businesses are hurting because of this.

Adult only businesses where minors aren't allowed.

These are statistics compiled by a local Pool hall owner. I'm not saying who or where but it was a pretty comprehensive write up he let me in on. There going to remount a pretty substantial fight here in about three months.

Originally they needed 5k signatures on a petition to fight this. They got over 10,000. However only 3,400 were registered voters. So they got nailed on a technicality.

I'm glad to see a large portion of these owners attempting to come together to fight for this. They're private owner and should never of had their rights stripped in the first place.


Oh and I could careless if you don't like my source or lack of scanned files or whatever. The real point is that the larger majority of business are suffering from this unconstitutional stripping of private owner rights.


this downturn has nothing to do with the economy?

[Blake]

Okay. I think its bullshit to tell someone how to run their private business. An adults only business.


nah. There are good reasons for zoning laws.

Auto painting should not be allowed in a restaurant zoned establishment...

even though you think it might be bullshit to tell that someone how to run their business.

[PM5K]

http://www.avforums.com/forums/attachments/sky-sky/108637d1234259156-where-buy-sky-box-today-without-installation-old_thread.jpg

[Blake]

Off-topic, but there's an intriguing contrast.

Consider the present "accepted facts" and regulatory policy respecting confined-animal feedlot operations (CAFO's).

CAFO's have empirically established environmental and food-safety impacts, but EPA has not only exempted (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e4cfca6dc6b9847985257359003f5336/6236c34a042f55378525751d00722e6a%21OpenDocument) them them from reporting emissions, it has revoked extralabel (i.e., preventive) use of cephalosporin antibiotics (http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/RevokesProCepha.htm)in food animals.

Why should we care?



http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/12/133814/68

Sometimes the lobby is political. Sometimes it is an industry group. But for the last eight years science has been a red-headed stepchild at EPA, OSHA and the FDA. True science and the public interest have been sidelined in favor of industry insiders and special interest lobbies. Politics, not safety, is the driver.

Relying on public health officialdom and "enlightened" public policy to keep you healthy and safe may not be the way to go, Blake.

The gods help those who help themselves. Big brother ain't your friend.

Strike that.

I meant to say he ain't mine. You can speak for yourself, and I'm sure you will.

what special interest groups benefit the most from swaying scientific and political opinion towards second hand smoke being harmful?

do you think the surgeon general was swayed into making this claim?

[EricB]

Government ruins business.

Yet the people want more government involvement.

Definition of insanity.

[EricB]

what special interest groups benefit the most from swaying scientific and political opinion towards second hand smoke being harmful?

do you think the surgeon general was swayed into making this claim?


Drug Companies.

[Blake]

Government ruins business.

Yet the people want more government involvement.

Definition of insanity.

I think the people want less second hand smoke in this case.

[Blake]

Drug Companies.

how do drug companies benefit with less second hand smoke in the air?

[BacktoBasics]

this downturn has nothing to do with the economy?Bars and/or pool halls typically do okay if not better in downed economies. People love to drink their sorrow away.

Those figures are post ban. So you really can't argue the trend.

[Blake]

Bars and/or pool halls typically do okay if not better in downed economies. People love to drink their sorrow away.

but because they can't smoke, they suddenly don't love to drink their sorrow away any more?


Those figures are post ban. So you really can't argue the trend.

You can argue it if you try hard enough. You just don't want to try.


CORPUS CHRISTI — Corpus Christi’s bars aren’t selling as much booze as last year, but it’s unclear whether a recent smoking ban, the recession or other factors are the primary cause.

Alcohol sales at Corpus Christi’s bars and restaurants were, on average, down by about $3,000 per establishment this August compared with last August. The drop equates to about an 8 percent drop in alcohol sales overall.

When only considering alcohol sales at bars and pool halls, the average drop in sales is about $4,800 per bar for August.

Those numbers come from the alcohol tax receipts reported to the state comptroller’s office. Statewide, tax receipts indicated a 1 percent dip in alcohol sales when comparing this August with last.

Although some bar owners say the smoking ban is to blame, spending in the city is down overall.

Sales on taxable goods, which include most items except groceries, were down 13.4 percent from the same period last year, said Constance Sanchez, the city’s interim finance director.

Statewide, sales tax revenue dropped about 12 percent so far this year compared with the same period the previous year, said R.J. DeSilva, a spokesman for the state comptroller’s office.

Alcohol tax revenue has stayed relatively flat, he said.

DeSilva said the comparison of August 2008 receipts to August 2009 receipts could accurately show a decline in sales, although comparing a full year could show more accurate long-term trends.

The city hasn’t gone a full year without smoking in bars.

The City Council in December extended the ban on smoking in public places to include bars, pool halls and bingo parlors, and it took effect in June. It expanded a ban approved in January 2005, which extended a long-standing ban on smoking in workplaces to include restaurants.

Businesses that accommodate smokers with an ashtray or customers who light up indoors could face a $2,000 fine under the ordinance. City officials said no citations have been issued since the ban took effect.

The declines have hurt some businesses to the point that employees say they may have to close.

Theo’s Billiard Saloon, 5815 Weber Road, saw a 37 percent drop in its August alcohol sales compared with the previous year, according to the tax receipts.

Pool hall staff member Josh Kurz said the dramatic drop came after the smoking ban went into effect. The pool hall has no way to build an outdoor smoking area because it’s in a strip center. If sales don’t improve, the pool hall will close in February when its lease is up, he said.

“I hear customers complaining,” he said. “I’d imagine (the sales drops) are because of the smoking ban.”

Pool halls like Theo’s saw the most dramatic declines in alcohol sales.

Alcohol sales dropped 49 percent at Hot Shots Pools and Billiards, 4951 Ayers St., 20 percent at Paradise Pool and Billiards, 5141 Oakhurst Drive, 14 percent at Click’s Billiards, 4535 S. Padre Island Drive, and 11 percent at Rascal’s, 5959 Williams Drive.

And although most bars across the city have seen their alcohol sales drop, some are bringing in more money than the previous year.

Molly McArdle’s, 4201 McArdle Road, saw its alcohol sales increase 71 percent and Outta Bounds Sports Lounge, 1402 Rodd Field Road, saw its sales go up 40 percent.

The mixed reaction makes it difficult to say what effect the smoking ban has on businesses.

Cities that have passed smoking bans have conducted studies that found prohibiting smoking in bars doesn’t impact alcohol sales. Owners of bars and pool halls have produced their own studies, claiming the bans hurt their business.

Across the state, recent alcohol sales trends are varied.

In Abilene, where a smoking ban has been in effect for more than three years, alcohol sales dropped by 13 percent from August 2008 to August 2009.

In San Antonio, which doesn’t ban smoking in bars, alcohol sales dropped 2 percent.

Other cities that ban smoking in bars saw alcohol sales go up in the past year: Plano’s sales increased by 12 percent, Austin’s increased by 2 percent and El Paso’s increased by 1 percent.

Corpus Christi alcohol sales

August 2008: $6.4 million

August 2009: $5.9 million

Cities’ August 2009 alcohol sales

Austin: up 2%

El Paso: up 1%

McAllen: up 9%

Plano: up 12%

San Antonio: down 2%

Abilene: down 13%

Corpus Christi: down 8%

Statewide: down 1%

Source: state comptroller

August 2009 compared with August 2008

Source: state comptroller

The city’s ban prohibits smoking in bars, pool halls, bowling alleys and most bingo halls. It expanded a ban approved in January 2005, which extended a long-standing ban on smoking in workplaces to include restaurants.

http://www.caller.com/news/2009/oct/10/alcohol-sales-drop-after-smoking-ban/

[BacktoBasics]

Great article. The figures...hell even the article supports my updated post. One or two "maybe, might be or possible" remarks are 100% unsupported. Whereas at least the bar owners provide a substantial corroboration of figures to the ban.

You can construe it any way you like but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of bar/pool hall owners believe the ban played a large part in their decline. Some of those owners have been in the industry through multiple downturns in the economy.

[Blake]

Great article. The figures...hell even the article supports my updated post. One or two "maybe, might be or possible" remarks are 100% unsupported. Whereas at least the bar owners provide a substantial corroboration of figures to the ban.

:lol Your whole copy and paste is unsupported.

Re-read. The stats showing decline in sales are an entire year from August 2008-August 2009. The ban started in June 09.


You can construe it any way you like but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of bar/pool hall owners believe the ban played a large part in their decline. Some of those owners have been in the industry through multiple downturns in the economy.

I understand that bar/pool hall owners believe the ban played a large part in their decline.

They can be proven wrong rather easily if you were to take the time to reseearch it. It's rather apparent you don't want to.

[BacktoBasics]

:lol Your whole copy and paste is unsupported.

Re-read. The stats showing decline in sales are an entire year from August 2008-August 2009. The ban started in June 09.



I understand that bar/pool hall owners believe the ban played a large part in their decline.

They can be proven wrong rather easily if you were to take the time to reseearch it. It's rather apparent you don't want to.You're right I don't want to. I don't have to. Its not my fight. I posted numbers lifted off a binder I was asked to look at....a binder showing profit/loss and general statements for a number of bars/pool halls in the local area. The binder was composed by the bar owners themselves (over 50). There were bank statements as well. At first glace it appeared to be pretty substantial information based on losses due to the ban. The initial smoking ban has been in place for a lot longer than the amended bar, pool hall and bowling alley ban.

I don't give a fuck if you don't like my source, it was good enough for me.

Doesn't change the fact that its a privately owned business and should be run accordingly to the way the private owner sees fit.

These little old ladies in white tennis shoes can take their causes and shove them up your ass.

[Spurminator]

But serving any alcohol at any time could affect people outside the bar.

And allowing smoking in the bar still can never affect someone outside the bar.

[leemajors]

big beer is down across the board, only big beer who is making gains is coors light atm. Pabst, Keystone, Schlitz are all up. Austin saw a momentary downturn after the smoking ban a few years ago, but people came back within a few months. A lot of bars also built open air patios, which was a nice bonus.

[Spurminator]

I think it would be preferable to incentivise running a non-smoking restaurant/bar vs. outright banning smoking. Either tax smoking bars higher or offer tax breaks for running a non-smoking business. Require smoking establishments to post clearly outside the front door that smoking is permitted. This way you'd have a good number of options for both, and you allow owners to run their business as they see fit.

[grjr]

Bars and/or pool halls typically do okay if not better in downed economies. People love to drink their sorrow away.

Those figures are post ban. So you really can't argue the trend.

My best friend owns Rocky J's all ages pool hall here in San Antonio where there is no ban on smoking and his business is down a lot this year. Nothing has changed but the economy.

The smoking ban is a convenient excuse in CC but I think the economy plays a much bigger role than they want to admit.

[SpursWoman]

Is it anything like the Rocky J's that used to be on Nacogdoches? I used to live at that place when I was a teenager ... :depressed

[Blake]

You're right I don't want to. I don't have to. Its not my fight. I posted numbers lifted off a binder I was asked to look at....a binder showing profit/loss and general statements for a number of bars/pool halls in the local area. The binder was composed by the bar owners themselves (over 50). There were bank statements as well. At first glace it appeared to be pretty substantial information based on losses due to the ban. The initial smoking ban has been in place for a lot longer than the amended bar, pool hall and bowling alley ban.

hey, remember when restaurant owners were bitching that the smoking ban was going to hurt their sales?

Quick, name one restaurant that had to shut down because of the ban.


I don't give a fuck if you don't like my source, it was good enough for me.

I don't give a fuck if you remain ignorant on the subject either. It's just fun to pop your balloon over and over.


Doesn't change the fact that its a privately owned business and should be run accordingly to the way the private owner sees fit.

What if the private owner sees fit to allow minors into his/her strip club?

it's a business that's open to the general public, so in order to protect this general public, no......the owner should not be able to do whatever the hell he/she wants.


These little old ladies in white tennis shoes can take their causes and shove them up your ass.

Too bad for you they are already shoving them down your throat.

[Blake]

The smoking ban is a convenient excuse in CC but I think the economy plays a much bigger role than b2b wants to admit.

fixed

[BacktoBasics]

hey, remember when restaurant owners were bitching that the smoking ban was going to hurt their sales?

Quick, name one restaurant that had to shut down because of the ban.



Crystals. I can a name a few more if you like. My brother in law worked there at the time. They went from being slammed to a shell of their former selves. It was very abrupt too. Almost immediately the damage begun. He pleaded time and time again through the media to take witness of his once thriving restaurant.

You're calling me ignorant as 30-40 current business owners are mounting a battle to contest this again.

If the smoking ban had nothing to do with their declining sales why would 30-40 or more sound business owners waste their time and money to pursue the fight.

Wouldn't they be sitting back to reap the benefits of being smoke free?

They're not confused okay...these guys have been though tough economic times because a large majority of them have been business owners for decades.

You can call me ignorant all you want but the sheer volume of people organizing against this outweighs your petty insults.

[911]

Government ruins business.

Yet the people want more government involvement.

Definition of insanity.


This coming from a man who supported Bush? tell that shit to the Iraqi's

[Last Comic Standing]

Not just bars and restaurant's are closing from this smoking ban.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/eeeee.jpg

[TDMVPDPOY]

smoking in public places has been replaced by party drugs....

and most of them places dont give a shit anyway

[leemajors]

Crystals. I can a name a few more if you like. My brother in law worked there at the time. They went from being slammed to a shell of their former selves. It was very abrupt too. Almost immediately the damage begun. He pleaded time and time again through the media to take witness of his once thriving restaurant.

You're calling me ignorant as 30-40 current business owners are mounting a battle to contest this again.

If the smoking ban had nothing to do with their declining sales why would 30-40 or more sound business owners waste their time and money to pursue the fight.

Wouldn't they be sitting back to reap the benefits of being smoke free?

They're not confused okay...these guys have been though tough economic times because a large majority of them have been business owners for decades.

You can call me ignorant all you want but the sheer volume of people organizing against this outweighs your petty insults.

The sheer volume of people supporting it should clue these savvy owners that they're fighting a losing battle. Smoking bans are here to stay - adapt or die.

[BacktoBasics]

The sheer volume of people supporting it should clue these savvy owners that they're fighting a losing battle. Smoking bans are here to stay - adapt or die.
I hear you. Gays should just deal with discrimination too. Its here to stay.

[leemajors]

I hear you. Gays should just deal with discrimination too. Its here to stay.

:lol

[WARRIORNATION]

ban all smoking at indoor public places!!!!

[PM5K]

I couldn't care less about anything that happens in corpus christi, they could blow the place up for all I care, I just ask that my mom leaves before they do so.

[leemajors]

Also, there are several hookah bars in Austin that classify themselves as tobacco shops to circumvent the smoking ban. In addition, if the smoking area is enclosed with a ventilation system it's also ok.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't think of any places in Austin that closed directly due to the ban, but there is at least one that will close soon that cites it as a factor.

[grjr]

Is it anything like the Rocky J's that used to be on Nacogdoches? I used to live at that place when I was a teenager ... :depressed

Owned by the same people, yes.

[Blake]

Crystals. I can a name a few more if you like. My brother in law worked there at the time. They went from being slammed to a shell of their former selves. It was very abrupt too. Almost immediately the damage begun. He pleaded time and time again through the media to take witness of his once thriving restaurant.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have nothing but yours and your brother-in-law's opinion that the smoking ban is the reason it shut down.


You're calling me ignorant as 30-40 current business owners are mounting a battle to contest this again.

If the smoking ban had nothing to do with their declining sales why would 30-40 or more sound business owners waste their time and money to pursue the fight.

I'm saying there are 30-41 of you that are ignorant.


Wouldn't they be sitting back to reap the benefits of being smoke free?

definitely a waste of time and money. If they end up getting shut down, then based on their poor budget management skills, I won't be surprised.


They're not confused okay...these guys have been though tough economic times because a large majority of them have been business owners for decades.

If the smoking ban was to have an effect on their businesses, it would be absolutely marginal at worst, and would be just a short term effect.

The numbers are out there, but again you are too lazy to go find them and have admitted as such.


You can call me ignorant all you want.

Thanks.

You are ignorant.

[Blake]

I hear you. Gays should just deal with discrimination too. Its here to stay.

Breathing in second hand gay in a public place has not been proven on any level to be bad for your health.

You are ignorant.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have nothing but yours and your brother-in-law's opinion that the smoking ban is the reason it shut down.



It doesn't get more cut and dry. Has nothing to do with my opinion.

He lobbied hard against the smoking laws. Not only did I hear straight from his mouth he did it publicly every chance he got.

You can say whatever you want. Insult me however you please but it doesn't change the fact that his business shut down due to the new smoking laws. His was the first to shut down. He led the fucking march against this shit.

Everyone is ignorant except you Blake. See the trend. You're the epitome of "bliss".

[BacktoBasics]

Breathing in second hand gay in a public place has not been proven on any level to be bad for your health.

Tell that to the Christians.

Discrimination is discrimination. That was the point. You have a right remove yourself from gay displays of PDA just like you have the right to remove yourself from smoke.

The real difference is little Johnny at the mall can't remove the vision of two dudes tonguing each other but little Johnny would never have an opportunity to enter an over 21 bar with smoke in it.

[Blake]

It doesn't get more cut and dry. Has nothing to do with my opinion.

providing raw data gets cut and dry. Until then, it has everything to do with opinion.


He lobbied hard against the smoking laws. Not only did I hear straight from his mouth he did it publicly every chance he got.

You can say whatever you want. Insult me however you please but it doesn't change the fact that his business shut down due to the new smoking laws. His was the first to shut down. He led the fucking march against this shit.

You can remain as ignorant as you please, but it's not a fact that any restaurant gets shut down specifically because of a smoking ban.


Everyone is ignorant except you Blake. See the trend. You're the epitome of "bliss".

If ignorance is bliss, then you have it backwards.

You are bliss.

[Blake]

Tell that to the Christians.

No thanks.


Discrimination is discrimination. That was the point. You have a right remove yourself from gay displays of PDA just like you have the right to remove yourself from smoke.

Just like Blacks had the right to remove themselves from White restaurants in the 1950s.

...and there is no law in any public place discriminating between homo and heterosexual PDA.


The real difference is little Johnny at the mall can't remove the vision of two dudes tonguing each other but little Johnny would never have an opportunity to enter an over 21 bar with smoke in it.

are you the little ignorant Johnny in your story?

[BacktoBasics]

fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant


blah blah blah. You bring nothing insightful. Same old redundant shit over and over again. The real ignorance is the fact that you seem to believe or find it acceptable to unnecessary strip the rights of not just the business owners but the other adults of age who chose to indulge in adult activities because you have personal preference.


Save your precious fingers I'll make your post for you.

fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant

[Blake]

fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant


blah blah blah. You bring nothing insightful.

pot.....kettle......kettle.. pot


Same old redundant shit over and over again. The real ignorance is the fact that you seem to believe or find it acceptable to unnecessary strip the rights of not just the business owners but the other adults of age who chose to indulge in adult activities because you have personal preference.

If the business owners want to set up a regulated smoking/cigar bar, I have absolutely no problem with that.

I have a problem though with smoke in a place where the act of smoking is not what the use of the premises is intended for as such as a pool hall, bowling alley, restaurant or office setting.



Save your precious fingers I'll make your post for you.

fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant fail ignorant

thanks. I'll be sure to copy and paste for your next ignorant fail

[ChumpDumper]

Nonsmoking bars were busy tonight.