Smoking ban extended to bars and pool halls in Corpus Christi

[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 theories

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 ing 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. ING. 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 ing 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. ING. 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

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!

[BacktoBasics]

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

I told you why. Can you not ing 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 su ious 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 14

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.

[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 su ious 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? Bull .

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.




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? Bull .

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 Ins ute 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/librar...actsheet6.html

[I. Hustle]

*cough* *cough*