Smoking ban extended to bars and pool halls in Corpus Christi

[SpursWoman]

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

Not yet.

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

[BacktoBasics]

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



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

Smoking is legal. Period. Forcing a city law over a federally legal substance is a violations of personal property. I find that kind of control unethical.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BacktoBasics]

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

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

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I can't say if thats accurately been measured.

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

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

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

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

[BacktoBasics]

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

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

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

I couldn't agree more. Words words words and people buy it hook line and sinker.

[BacktoBasics]

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

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

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

[SpursWoman]

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

But whatever, dear. You're right.

[BacktoBasics]

But whatever, dear. You're right.

[Hermey]

Smoking is legal. Period.

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

[BacktoBasics]

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

Taking a at the bar in any other place than the toilet is public defecation and exposure. Both of which are illegal.

Your analogy is worthless.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://tobaccodo ents.org/pm/2046458093.html

http://tobaccodo ents.org/pm/2046458094-8097.html

http://tobaccodo ents.org/pm/2046458107-8109.html


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

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

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

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

Indoor parking garages seem counterproductive, don't they?

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

[SpursWoman]

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

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

[BacktoBasics]

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

You have every right to start your own charcoal fire leave mine alone on my property

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

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

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

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

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

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

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

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

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

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

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Common knowledge, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manipulating, cherry picking Nazis.

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

[Blake]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Blake]

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

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


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

I don't care about your lousy typing.

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

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

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

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

http://tobaccodo ents.org/pm/2046458093.html

http://tobaccodo ents.org/pm/2046458094-8097.html

http://tobaccodo ents.org/pm/2046458107-8109.html


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

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

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

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

Indoor parking garages seem counterproductive, don't they?

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

sigh.

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

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

[Blake]

Common knowledge, eh?




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

Manipulating, cherry picking Nazis.

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

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

[Blake]

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

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

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

now that is hilarious.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

sigh.

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

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

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

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

Sigh, indeed.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

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

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

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

now that is hilarious.

I notice how you skipped over all the relevant points and picked a throwaway quote.

Not surprising.

[Blake]

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 Ins ute 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

[Blake]

I notice how you skipped over all the relevant points and picked a throwaway quote.

Not surprising.

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

Just trying to help you out.