Smoking Ban

[Donut]

Originally posted by johnny: Bardan, your link doesn't exactly make us much wiser, don't you think ? Just read what it says: he was BELIEVED to be a victim of passive smoking. That says it all, doesn't it ? As if non smokers can't get lungcancer. That was no proof of death by secondhand smoke, try again.

Strangely enough people used exactly the same argument when the link between smoking and cancer was first exposed!

In fact cigarette companies were still denying it for years afterwards.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Bardan, your link doesn't exactly make us much wiser, don't you think ? Just read what it says: he was BELIEVED to be a victim of passive smoking. That says it all, doesn't it ? As if non smokers can't get lungcancer. That was no proof of death by secondhand smoke, try again.

Strangely enough people used exactly the same argument when the link between smoking and cancer was first exposed!

In fact cigarette companies were still denying it for years afterwards. [/QUOTE]All i'm saying is that it's not real proof. You can't tell for sure what caused his lungcancer. Could be the British smog for all i know. Take such a case to court, and you'll get smoked.

[Donut]

Less than 50 years ago
1956: Minister rejects anti-smoking lobby

The Health Minister, RH Turton, has rejected calls for a government campaign against smoking, saying no ill-effects have actually been proven.

The minister stated in the House of Commons that: "Two cancer-causing agents have been identified in tobacco smoke but whether they have a direct role in producing lung cancer and if so what, has not been proved."

He did, however, add that evidence which was being studied by the Medical Research Council showed that "mortality from cancer from the lung is 20 times greater amongst heavy smokers than amongst non-smokers".

His statement follows in the wake of a report by Dr Ernest Wynder in February showing that cigarette smoking is the "single most important external factor" associated with lung cancer.

Leading British tobacco firms - including British-American and Imperial Tobacco - issued a statement which said: "The evidence of the possible relationship of lung cancer and smoking is conflicting and very incomplete; much more research is necessary before firm conclusions can be drawn."

It said the industry supported research into possible health risks associated with its product and had donated £250,000 to the Medical Research Council to that effect.

But the link between disease and smoking was "based mainly on certain statistical inquiries" which could not on their own be used as conclusive evidence.

The statement went on to praise the benefits of tobacco.

"Tobacco is a great boon to many millions of people in this country and throughout the world; the benefits, psychological and physiological, it may confer are not yet fully understood and might well be the subject of investigation."

[Davros]

Originally posted by Donut: "Tobacco is a great boon to many millions of people in this country and throughout the world; the benefits, psychological and physiological, it may confer are not yet fully understood and might well be the subject of investigation."

Fortunately we have moved on from those days Donut [img]smile.gif[/img] - well I think we have

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, I see you've gone off the deep end. A rare occurence with you - and I am happy to witness it. Look, if the will of the majority was paramount, we'd certainly be in a pickle. The representative democracy's legislature's power has an end point -- defined by the constitution.

Here's a freedom in America: freedom of association. As a recent ABA article pointed out, it has gone hand-in-hand with the Rhenquist Court's federalism agenda. It's part of the First Amendment, which has several different freedoms involved. It is related to freedom of speech. It is why the Boy Scouts, as a private club, can ban gays. It is why the KKK, as a private club, can have hating minorities as its sole purpose (there are social costs in exercising this freedom, such as unpopularity, but it ain't illegal). And, it is why I, as a bar owner, can refuse to let you in for wearing a tacky shirt, and why I can allow people to smoke inside MY bar. Get the frik over it, and go to a different bar. The people in mine want to pollute their lungs, you have no business stopping them.

Now, certainly the law impinges on this broad freedom retail owners have. The Civil Rights Act demands they not discriminate in hiring and demands they not discriminate against customers based on race. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires they provide ingress/egress and other reasonable accomodations to those with disabilities. These things make sense, and just might not be provided by a free market.

But, as was pointed out by Willow on page 2 or so, there are non-smoking bars in here area, which does not ban smoking. Certainly it is blatantly obvious that there are enough non-smokers to have the market provide for these establishments. There is no need to legislate those services that will be provided. You can go to your bar, and I'll go to mine.

John D., you crusty coot, God bless you. But, I doubt you can support the statement that it'll be a cold day in hell before the gobbermint makes you do something you don't want. You pay taxes? But, I get your point.

Cigarette smoke contains many nasty chemicals, and second hand smoke can and has and does cause cancer. Before making me trot over to any of a hundred websites we can all find by doings a decent alltheweb.com search, why don't we just put this issue aside, because the science is pretty clear. I don't need it to support my argument against a public smoking ban.

To whoever mentioned the cigarettes contain formaldehyde and benzene, you are correct. Cars release benzene at a phenomenal rate -- and a single car makes cigs a small concern. Trust me, I just walked 13 blocks to work through downtown Chi-town an hour ago, and my daily PAH/benzene headache is still throbbing a bit. Everyday, too. Do we ban cars??

As for formaldehyde, get this. 18% of all fuel at the pumps in the USA is either MBTE or ethanol. MBTE is pretty nasty when it spills, so ethanol, a "clean fuel" made from grain, is very much preferred these days. In fact the gobbermint, through the USDA (that's right -- it's an "agriculture" concern), gave over $500 million to ethanol production plants last year. It's a clean fuel/ farm subsidy. Well, we're finding out that while ethanol may burn clean, the plants to make it emit lots of nastiness, and are a "major source" under the clean air act for, among other things, Carbon Monoxide (CO)(also in cigs) and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). "Major source" means more than 100tons per year in the case of CO and either more than 10 ton per year of one HAP or 25 tons per year (tpy) of combined HAPs.

One of the 4 major HAPs at an ethanol plant is... you guessed it, formaldehyde. And, 10 tpy of gaseous formaldehyde is a frikkin lot. So, while cigs may contain CO and formaldehyde, one of these "clean fuel" facilities, FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT, makes all the cigs in the country meaningless. So, quit moaning about the cigerettes in bars and do what I did Friday -- sue an ethanol plant.

[Timber Loftis]

Oh, Yorick, I didn't speak to your point about the musicians and wait staff in these bars. I think it would be largely solved by having smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Choose where you want to work/play. Otherwise, it's a fair point that it would take me a while to address. Sorry, short on time now (see long post above for the reason why).

However, as someone who worked in bars and restaurants, my main question is why the hell would one be a musician if they didn't want to smoke, drink, do drugs, and have lots of indiscriminate sex?? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] Anywho, I'll ponder on this and try to post later.

[Timber Loftis]

One final note: a public anti-smoking blitzkrieg has really reduced the number of smokers in the USA in the last 20 years. It appears that despite all governmental tendancies to regulate everything, people can actually make a smart choice on their own given the educational tools. Why legislate them then?

BTW, you non-smoker [edit: tyrant-type people] are lucky that smokers didn't have your "regulate everyone not like me" attitude back in the day -- lest they would have passed a law requiring you all smoke, so we could all benefit from the wonder medical and psychological benefits derived from cigerette smoking. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 05-12-2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Melusine]

Could we all please stop throwing around the term Nazi as a specifier for people who are in no way comparable to them? I'm not trying to spoil your debate but I think a comparison to the Nazi regime is rarely if ever warranted. It's completely over the top, in my opinion, to demean the horrible experiences of the people who died and suffered in WW2 by comparing it to something as relatively trivial as being forced to take a frikken cigarette outside.
Sorry, but it's just a pet peeve of mine that people use the Nazi comparison in the most inappropriate and unwarranted situations. Remember Godwin's Law, people, "As an Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one", and especially the addition that whoever is guilty of this automatically loses the debate

[Timber Loftis]

Melusine, I have encountered this sentiment with other Europeans before. While
"nazi" is used in the USA to refer to someone of extreme belief, I understand that in Europe it is a much worse slur. Therefore, I will snip it from my post. Sorry.

We now return you to our regularly-schedule programing. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I deny the second maxim of the law you quoted, however, as I don't know that I've lost this particular debate yet.

[ 05-12-2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[LordKathen]

TL, you are my idol! Well said bro. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

And now for something completly diferent:

Smokers have been pushed aside for years further and further away from society. We havn't bitched too much so far, but this is rediculous. A bar? Give me a break! Go somewhere else if you dont like the smoke. Like maybe your own bar, where there is no smoking aloud. Lets see how long your bar lasts by the way. I am fuming over this whole frikin debate! How much more freedom are we going to loose to these peope? We can not let it continue. Sooner or later, all this type liberalism is going to impede into the lifes of the ones who started the ruckis. Then what, we start writing a new constitution? Start the whole damn thing over again? Leave me and my rights alone and go somewhere else!!!