Smoking bans... [Archive] - ThirdDay.com Message Boards

Sam!

06-23-2007, 01:14 PM

PA is considering a smoking ban at all bars, public places and other areas. How do you guys feel about this? Should the Govt control us in this way?

I used to think that I'd be for this...I hate 2nd hand smoke. I do believe it is dangerous BUT with all the Govt control being forced down our throats of late....I say let them smoke.

We don't need anymore Govt control... even if its in our best interest....
Is it "government control" if it is the will of the people?

Business owners are afraid if they prohibit smoking they will lose more business when smokers leave than they will gain by nonsmokers will support them instead.

As far as "your" rights vs. "my" rights... 2nd-hand smoke has detrimental health effects. A person's right to use/abuse a substance is lower on the hierarchy than the right to good health. Even if it could be proved that 2ndhand smoke does not have longterm effects, it gives many people headaches, allergic reactions and asthma attacks.

Mat, what rights should be up to the business owner and what should the government--people--be able to regulate? Does the business owner have the right to serve food that is not up to code?

danbos

06-23-2007, 06:16 PM

I don't know what I think about this. I personally don't like when people are smoking around me. I think you should let them smoke as long as they'll be somewhat courteous about it. For example, I went to high school with a guy who has cystic fibrosis, and after we graduated his 'friends' wanted to smoke some cigars in celebration...without even a thought that it might not be so good for someone with a lung disease to be around people smoking...

ausgirl

06-24-2007, 12:16 AM

ausgirl

06-24-2007, 12:18 AM

River

06-24-2007, 12:29 AM

This exists where I am in Ohio and I LOVE it. No more "smoking or non-smoking" and both areas reeking of smoke. They don't even ask the question because everywhere is non-smoking. Love it!

And there was a lot of Talk of people boycotting or whatever before it took into effect, but in reality very little was done.

in hiding

06-26-2007, 11:46 AM

mat1583

06-26-2007, 07:04 PM

Oh! I forgot about this thread. This will be a fun one when I get back from devo.

-washboard

BobC

06-26-2007, 08:08 PM

This is easy. I think smoking should be banned everywhere period.

mat1583

06-27-2007, 12:52 AM

Is it "government control" if it is the will of the people?

Government control was not originally the intent or will of the founding fathers. It's very sad that some peoples' will is in fact government control. Communism was the will of some people. Genocide and the holocaust was the will of some people. That does not make it right.

As far as "your" rights vs. "my" rights... 2nd-hand smoke has detrimental health effects. A person's right to use/abuse a substance is lower on the hierarchy than the right to good health. Even if it could be proved that 2ndhand smoke does not have longterm effects, it gives many people headaches, allergic reactions and asthma attacks.

I'll substitute...

As far as "your" rights vs. "my" rights... loud music has detrimental effects on hearing. A person's right to listen to loud music at a concert is lower on the hierarchy than the right to good hearing. Even if it could be proved that loud music does not have longterm effects, it gives many people headaches, temporary and permanent hearing loss.

Mat, what rights should be up to the business owner and what should the government--people--be able to regulate? Does the business owner have the right to serve food that is not up to code?

In regards to the county health inspections, I believe this 'service' should be provided not by the government, but by private means. I believe that a restaurant should have the right to be inspected or not. Market demand would determine if health inspections are needed. If you want to go to a clean restaurant, then you find one that has a private company rating. You may think this is ridiculous, but there is a direct example. Underwriters Laboratories inspects and certifies a majority of electronics ranging from keyboards to microwaves. It's the private industry that provides this service, not the government.

-washboard

mat1583

06-27-2007, 12:57 AM

In Aus, there is no smoking in any public places - up until recently it was in any place serving food to the public - no it is any place open to the public - be it sports arenas, shops, resturants, anywhere. You are not allowed to smoke within 2 metres of a public entrance either - so no shop fronts - (don't think this gets too enforced). I think it's great, yes we live in a free country - however, as smoke is something which cannot be confined to a set area and I too as a non smoker have the freedom to enjoy time in a public place, I commend whoever decided to do this. Afterall, it is something which could be potentially harmful to others.
The authorities here are also looking to ban smoking in cars - which I think is great for children who get confined with smoke too much for my liking.

I'm not sure about how it is in Aus, but in the US restaurants and shops are NOT public places. They are private establishments. As I said earlier, you do not have a given right to enter a restaurant. You are granted the privilege by the restaurant owner and can be asked to leave at any time for any reason. If you are asked to leave and do not, you can be arrested. It's the same as if you invited someone into your home and then asked them to leave. Businesses are not 'open to the public' here in America. Do you think a homeless man with a ragged shirt, torn jeans, horrible smell and ratty hair would be allowed to stay inside a Tiffany's Jewelry store in Hollywood to look at the rings?

-washboard

mat1583

06-27-2007, 01:05 AM

Think about this - as all sports arenas are smoke free areas - if you want to have a smoke when you're watching football or whatever, you have to actually leave the stadium! I suggested to a friend that we start a business selling nicotene patches to sports fans!!

The reason sports arenas have almost always been smoke free, even before the bans, is because almost all of them have been owned first by the city in which they reside. Because they are owned by the city, they are indeed a 'public property'. Once they become private, the owners may make the decisions. At Wrigley field the owner decided to leave some areas designated for smokers and some designated as non-smoking, as he should be able to decide for the profit of his own business.

-washboard

mat1583

06-27-2007, 01:10 AM

i think it's a great idea. The government puts limits on establishments all the time...fire codes, capacities, licenses, sanitation requirements. This is no different. I really wish it would catch on in VA.

Limits yes, but on private establishments. Do you believe your very own home should have capacity limits, regulations for serving food to invited guests, and sanitation requirements all set by the government? What if they decided that you could only have 10 people total in your house at once, had to have a license to serve food and alcohol to any of your guests, and inspected your home weekly for sanitation violations?

And if you say yes, should your neighbors have to pay for the 'services' performed at your house?

-washboard

mat1583

06-27-2007, 01:16 AM

This is easy. I think smoking should be banned everywhere period.

What about alcohol? It is one of the leading killers. Or how about peanuts in restaurants. I know a couple people that are extremely allergic to peanuts - so allergic they could possibly die if they touched them. Loud concerts? No more Third Day for you since it damages peoples' hearing. It could keep going on and on.

-washboard

p.s. I told you this would be fun ;)

River

06-27-2007, 01:31 AM

mat1583

06-27-2007, 07:05 AM

The difference is none of those are harmful to the person sitting next to the one drinking or eating.

Tell that to the family that has lost a son or daughter due to some drunk driver. Tell that to the beaten and battered family under the cruel fist of a drunkard father.

Loud concerts are expected and don't harm anyone who doesn't Want to hear the music. That's why you go to the concert. You don't go to a restaurant/airport/bar to choke on cigarette smoke.

Expected? I think you got the point about people who don't want to hear the loud music. You have the right not to go to the concert. Just the same, you have the right to choose a different restaurant that prohibits smoking on their property. You also have the right to get a group together and demand that the owner change their policies unless they want to lose business.

And at bars, it's pretty much 'expected' that people will be smoking, just as much as it is expected you will hear loud music at a concert.

-washboard

mindyhere

06-27-2007, 12:54 PM

I'm for the ban. Despite all arguments made here, the simple fact is that smokers can't keep the smoke to themselves. It gets in my air and pollutes my lungs. The stuff causes cancer, which kills people.

I'm all for people's rights. But the fact of the matter is that we can't accomodate everyone in the perfect way in this country - or the world, for that matter. So when it's comes to "It's MY right" " NO it's MY right!" - there has to be a deciding factor. It's pretty obvious in this case. Majority rules.

The person who is polluting the breathing air of others is creating a health risk for those people who didn't ask for it. It won't hurt that person to go smoke at home. If you want to smoke - smoke it up - in your house or on your property. But please keep my air clean.

mat1583

06-27-2007, 01:40 PM

I'm for the ban. Despite all arguments made here, the simple fact is that smokers can't keep the smoke to themselves. It gets in my air and pollutes my lungs. The stuff causes cancer, which kills people.

The only reasonable argument you can make in this case is the harm to others that are not participating. In a public area such as a bus stop, town hall, some baseball stadiums, museums, etc...the city has the right to prohibit smoking in those places. In private establishments such as restaurants, homes, private stadiums, bars, etc...the government should not have the right to restrict what the owners of those establishments allow or disallow.

I posed the question about alcohol which you have yet to answer. Why not ban alcohol as well? Drunks drive and kill people. Some drunks beat their wives. Alcohol is nearly a direct cause. It can also cause serious liver damage and deformation of babies if consumed by a pregnant mother.

I'm all for people's rights. But the fact of the matter is that we can't accomodate everyone in the perfect way in this country - or the world, for that matter. So when it's comes to "It's MY right" " NO it's MY right!" - there has to be a deciding factor.

There does not have to be a deciding factor. I'm sure you can think of dozens of restaurants, malls, apartments and movie theaters that are smoke free BY CHOICE, not by law. Instead of supporting legislation to prohibit smoking in private places, you should be contacting the owners or managers of your favorite places and requesting that they go smoke free. If they don't, then don't go there anymore. I will repeat. You do not have the right to enter a private establishment whenever you want. You are invited in and can be asked to leave at any time.

The person who is polluting the breathing air of others is creating a health risk for those people who didn't ask for it. It won't hurt that person to go smoke at home. If you want to smoke - smoke it up - in your house or on your property. But please keep my air clean.

Thank you for the good example. A restaurant, movie theater, mall, stadium is not your property nor the property of the city! It is the property of the private owner, and therefore the owner of that property should be the one to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking. The air inside a private establishment is not YOUR (emphasis, not yelling) air.

-washboard

p.s. Here is a list of smokefree venues in Illinois, although not all are by choice a majority are. Chicago, Northbrook, Bloomington and Normal are the only cities that I know of that have banned smoking in certain places. Obviously you can find places to go that do not allow smoking based on the owner's choice. http://www.smokefreeworld.com/illinois.shtml

Sam!

06-27-2007, 03:42 PM

Tell that to the family that has lost a son or daughter due to some drunk driver. Tell that to the beaten and battered family under the cruel fist of a drunkard father.

Expected? I think you got the point about people who don't want to hear the loud music. You have the right not to go to the concert. Just the same, you have the right to choose a different restaurant that prohibits smoking on their property. You also have the right to get a group together and demand that the owner change their policies unless they want to lose business.

And at bars, it's pretty much 'expected' that people will be smoking, just as much as it is expected you will hear loud music at a concert.

-washboard
That's just it, Mat. The concert itself is loud, but people have the choice to go. They aren't going to the concert for one thing and being audibly pelted by something else. If you go to a bar, you are going for the food and alcohol. It may be customary for it to be smoky, but unless it's a tobacco bar that is not the primary purpose. At a restaurant people go to eat. It may be customary for it to be smoky, but the purpose is to eat. Nearly everybody is there to eat, whether they smoke or not. Therefore those that wish to go eat are subjected to secondhand smoke, which has nothing to do with eating. It's not preventable in the same sense that loud music at a concert venue is.

Let me ask you this: What is the point of government? Because ensuring everybody has the right to free speech is in fact a form of government control. What is the function of government in society? What is democracy (government/power of people)?

Should an establishment be able to refuse service to particular ethnicities? Or is that type of government control ok?

mat1583

06-27-2007, 05:00 PM

That's just it, Mat. The concert itself is loud, but people have the choice to go. They aren't going to the concert for one thing and being audibly pelted by something else. If you go to a bar, you are going for the food and alcohol. It may be customary for it to be smoky, but unless it's a tobacco bar that is not the primary purpose. At a restaurant people go to eat. It may be customary for it to be smoky, but the purpose is to eat. Nearly everybody is there to eat, whether they smoke or not. Therefore those that wish to go eat are subjected to secondhand smoke, which has nothing to do with eating. It's not preventable in the same sense that loud music at a concert venue is.

Most people I know go to the concert for the music itself and atmosphere, not the loud noise. It's customary for a lot of bands to play really loud music, but damage due to loud noise can be prevented easily by either a)not going at all, b) sitting at the very back, or c)bringing ear plugs, d)going to a venue that purposefully limits the volume. Smoke in private establishments can be avoided by a)not going at all, b) sitting in non-smoking areas (if they are well ventilated, and some are now completely separating smoking areas by an enclosed barrier), c)wearing a mask, or d)going to restaurants that prohibit smoking by policy.

Let me ask you this: What is the point of government? Because ensuring everybody has the right to free speech is in fact a form of government control. What is the function of government in society? What is democracy (government/power of people)?

I am not an anarchist when it comes to government. I believe the purpose of the government as outlined in the constitution and by our founding fathers is to protect the rights of the people and ensure life, liberty, and property of our citizens. It's not 'government control' for the US government to stop one citizen from harming, stealing from, or depriving the liberties of another individual.

Should an establishment be able to refuse service to particular ethnicities? Or is that type of government control ok?

I pretty much agree with this:

"By forcing people to associate with or contract with persons whom they would otherwise reject, anti-discrimination laws are an attack on life and property. They are a form of coerced association. They give some people uncompensated claims on others. They amount to a form of slavery mediated by the State."

I do no condone discrimination, but I support the rights of individuals to do so.

-washboard

Sam!

06-27-2007, 05:37 PM

OK, just wondering. No point in continuing the debate, then. We'll never see eye to eye on smoking bans when we don't have much in common concerning philosophy of government.

mindyhere

06-27-2007, 06:30 PM

The only reasonable argument you can make in this case is the harm to others that are not participating. In a public area such as a bus stop, town hall, some baseball stadiums, museums, etc...the city has the right to prohibit smoking in those places. In private establishments such as restaurants, homes, private stadiums, bars, etc...the government should not have the right to restrict what the owners of those establishments allow or disallow.

Agreed here ....

I posed the question about alcohol which you have yet to answer. Why not ban alcohol as well? Drunks drive and kill people. Some drunks beat their wives. Alcohol is nearly a direct cause. It can also cause serious liver damage and deformation of babies if consumed by a pregnant mother.

I didn't bring up alcohol - that is a totally different animal. This thread is about the smoking ban ...

There does not have to be a deciding factor. I'm sure you can think of dozens of restaurants, malls, apartments and movie theaters that are smoke free BY CHOICE, not by law. Instead of supporting legislation to prohibit smoking in private places, you should be contacting the owners or managers of your favorite places and requesting that they go smoke free. If they don't, then don't go there anymore. I will repeat. You do not have the right to enter a private establishment whenever you want. You are invited in and can be asked to leave at any time.

If two sides disagree on something, and both push for resolution, then at some point something needs to be decided. This thread is about the banning of smoking on public property, which I support. I of course would love it if private establishments followed suit to ban smoking in their buildings for the welfare of their customers, but that is not up to me.

For the record - I support legislation to prohibit PUBLIC (emph only, as you also stated) smoking ban. I understand what you are saying about private establishments...

Thank you for the good example. A restaurant, movie theater, mall, stadium is not your property nor the property of the city! It is the property of the private owner, and therefore the owner of that property should be the one to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking. The air inside a private establishment is not YOUR (emphasis, not yelling) air.

I disagree - if I'm in a public building, or outside area, I have every right to clean air. It is my air - my tax dollars pay for public property upkeep.

p.s. Here is a list of smokefree venues in Illinois, although not all are by choice a majority are. Chicago, Northbrook, Bloomington and Normal are the only cities that I know of that have banned smoking in certain places. Obviously you can find places to go that do not allow smoking based on the owner's choice. http://www.smokefreeworld.com/illinois.shtml

I've already established places over the years that I will go based on their smoking policy, and only support smoke free areas. Thank you for posting the list - maybe this will help others.

River

06-27-2007, 06:34 PM

Tell that to the family that has lost a son or daughter due to some drunk driver. Tell that to the beaten and battered family under the cruel fist of a drunkard father.

Still false comparisons. A person has to Abuse alcohol then make a poor decision to drive afterwards in order to kill someone drunk driving. All a smoker has to do is light up. A person has to Abuse alcohol Repeatedly to become a "drunkard father", but all a smoker has to do is light one cigarette to harm people around him.

Smoking is far more dangerous, annoying and harmful to people just standing around while one person smokes One cigarette. One cigarette can ruin the meals for an entire section of a restaurant or trigger an asthma attack of a nearby child. One. So, it needs to be controlled.

Expected?

Yes, that's why people go to concerts... to hear the music. They don't go to bars and restaurants to be choked by cigarette smoke.

And at bars, it's pretty much 'expected' that people will be smoking, just as much as it is expected you will hear loud music at a concert.

Again, no. People go to concerts to hear the music. They don't go to bars to be choked by cigarette smoke.

TLJ

06-27-2007, 08:53 PM

TLJ

06-27-2007, 09:06 PM

Actually there was a little law passed in a nearby city that stated that private establishments such as bars & restaurants had to make a decision and declare themselves either/or...as in, they were either smoke free or a smoking establishment. No more smoking & nonsmoking areas. This way the bars & restaurants that catered to the smoking patrons could continue to accomodate, and the nonsmokers could enjoy a totally clean air environment. I'm not sure this didn't complicate matters more....thoughts?
I'm a nonsmoker, so what if I like a particular place & liked sitting in the nonsmoking area...which is now gone if the place declares itself a smoking establishment....I guess I won't go there anymore?

mat1583

06-28-2007, 09:02 AM

OK, just wondering. No point in continuing the debate, then. We'll never see eye to eye on smoking bans when we don't have much in common concerning philosophy of government.

I am not a close minded person, and my philosophies have changed quite a bit over the last few years. When I was younger I subscribed to the philosophies of a democrat simply because my parents are registered as such. As I developed as an adolescent and became more rebellious, I flipped over to the exact opposite mostly because I wanted to be different from my parents. Now I am much older and wiser and have had a chance to talk to many people with many different philosophies, often debating and defending my own. My own philosophies have changed greatly in the past few years, and I owe that in part to some close friends of mine that had very different views that I. Maybe we can create a completely separate thread to discuss the role of the US government?

-washboard

mat1583

06-28-2007, 09:32 AM

I didn't bring up alcohol - that is a totally different animal. This thread is about the smoking ban ...

It was purely analogous in nature.

I disagree - if I'm in a public building, or outside area, I have every right to clean air. It is my air - my tax dollars pay for public property upkeep.

I think we agree on the same things. That's why I was referring to private establishments, not public property owned by the city. :)

-washboard

mat1583

06-28-2007, 09:57 AM

Still false comparisons. A person has to Abuse alcohol then make a poor decision to drive afterwards in order to kill someone drunk driving. All a smoker has to do is light up. A person has to Abuse alcohol Repeatedly to become a "drunkard father", but all a smoker has to do is light one cigarette to harm people around him.

False comparisons? I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was using alcohol as an analogy. People enjoy the pleasure of drinking alcohol even though there are obvious negative effects on the person drinking if they consume in excess. There are also direct negative effects on society in the form of drunk drivers and abusive drunks. Most drunk people are also annoying.

Smoking is far more dangerous, annoying and harmful to people just standing around while one person smokes One cigarette.

From the department of transportation:
----------
The Transportation Department said that drunken driving deaths rose 2.4 percent to 17,941 after a slight decline in 2005. It was the highest level since 1992 when 18,290 deaths were reported.

Alcohol-related fatalities accounted for 41 percent of all traffic deaths, which dropped less than 1 percent last year to 43,300. Annual auto deaths have hovered around 43,000 for the past five years.
-----------

All of these deaths can be confirmed by a name and time. Now please provide me with factual statistics on how many people die annually from second hand smoke. Not estimations by the epa or the lung association, but death by illnesses directly caused by second hand smoke. If you can prove without a doubt that more people have died from causes related directly to second hand smoke, then maybe I can accept your statement. And please, don't throw the infamous 1992 EPA report on second hand smoke. It is a skewed, inconsistent and biased meta analysis - not even a true study on second hand smoke.

And yes, I agree that smoking is annoying, but so are people that smack their lips, talk about their mother's toe fungus and crying children (that's why I chose not to eat at Chucky Cheese's).

One cigarette can ruin the meals for an entire section of a restaurant or trigger an asthma attack of a nearby child. One. So, it needs to be controlled.

If it ruins so many peoples' meals, then why do these restaurants have so much repeat business, and why don't more people complain to owners and managers and demand that they change their smoking policy? It seems if you truly had a majority of people that had their meals 'ruined', restaurants wouldn't be able to stay open.

Yes, that's why people go to concerts... to hear the music. They don't go to bars and restaurants to be choked by cigarette smoke.

Many people go to bars after a long day's work to light up and have a drink. They sit in smoking sections to enjoy the same thing. You think you have the right to impose your rules in a private establishment. It's just like me walking into your home and forcing my own set of rules on your household and the guests you invite into your home.

-washboard

in hiding

06-28-2007, 06:23 PM

Limits yes, but on private establishments. Do you believe your very own home should have capacity limits, regulations for serving food to invited guests, and sanitation requirements all set by the government? What if they decided that you could only have 10 people total in your house at once, had to have a license to serve food and alcohol to any of your guests, and inspected your home weekly for sanitation violations?

And if you say yes, should your neighbors have to pay for the 'services' performed at your house?

-washboard

no, a home is a different than a business. I think that people should be able to do most anything they want in their homes, but when you are having a business that is regulated by the gov't I think the gov't can add to the regulations. I'd rather see this issue left up to the people than a gov't mandate though.

mat1583

06-28-2007, 07:00 PM

no, a home is a different than a business. I think that people should be able to do most anything they want in their homes, but when you are having a business that is regulated by the gov't I think the gov't can add to the regulations. I'd rather see this issue left up to the people than a gov't mandate though.

Please explain to me how it is different than someone's home in regards to private property.

Home - owned and operated by a private entity.
Business - owned and operated by a private entity.

Home - No person other than the owners have the right to enter the property unless invited. If a guest is asked to leave and doesn't, it is considered trespassing. Non-invited guests are trespassing to begin with.
Business - No person other than the owners have the right to enter the property unless invited. If a guest is asked to leave and doesn't, it is considered trespassing. Non-invited guests are trespassing to begin with. (In the case of a business, all are invited during store hours unless otherwise posted.)

What's the difference between a small, family owned bed & breakfast which operates with nearly no restrictions and a small, family owned motel?

-washboard

in hiding

06-28-2007, 07:31 PM

Please explain to me how it is different than someone's home in regards to private property.

Home - owned and operated by a private entity.
Business - owned and operated by a private entity.

Home - No person other than the owners have the right to enter the property unless invited. If a guest is asked to leave and doesn't, it is considered trespassing. Non-invited guests are trespassing to begin with.
Business - No person other than the owners have the right to enter the property unless invited. If a guest is asked to leave and doesn't, it is considered trespassing. Non-invited guests are trespassing to begin with. (In the case of a business, all are invited during store hours unless otherwise posted.)

What's the difference between a small, family owned bed & breakfast which operates with nearly no restrictions and a small, family owned motel?

-washboard

the answer is fairly obvious b/t home and business...taxation legal responsibility. You have to look at the goal of each as private property.
I understand the point your making, i just don't agree with it.

River

06-28-2007, 08:28 PM

False comparisons? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

What I mean by that is that comparing smoking to drinking is not accurate. They have completely different effects to the people around the smoker/drinker. You can be around a person having a beer and not notice. Not true of smokers. That's why smoking should be banned and drinking doesn't need to be.

All of these deaths can be confirmed by a name and time. Now please provide me with factual statistics on how many people die annually from second hand smoke.

See my point above. ABUSING alcohol causes those deaths that you mentioned... a person doesn't have to abuse cigarettes to annoy or harm people around them. One cigarette can. Massive difference.

And yes, I agree that smoking is annoying, but so are people that smack their lips, talk about their mother's toe fungus and crying children (that's why I chose not to eat at Chucky Cheese's).

Lipsmacking, toe fungus and crying children can't cause choking or asthma attacks. They also don't stink up your clothes. You are making comparisons of smoking to other activities that just don't line up.

If it ruins so many peoples' meals, then why do these restaurants have so much repeat business, and why don't more people complain to owners and managers and demand that they change their smoking policy? It seems if you truly had a majority of people that had their meals 'ruined', restaurants wouldn't be able to stay open.

Either that or the restaurant managers would separate the restaurant into "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections as a compromise because they Realize that it's a problem. Ditto hotels.

Many people go to bars after a long day's work to light up and have a drink.

They can still drink... smoke at home.

You think you have the right to impose your rules in a private establishment. It's just like me walking into your home and forcing my own set of rules on your household and the guests you invite into your home.

No, it's not "just like" that... if you want to have a serious conversation about this then you have to stop with the flase comparisons. A private home is a private home... these laws don't prohibit smokers from smoking at home so it's Not going into houses and changing their rules. The rules are for public places where people may not want to choke down unfiltered smoke just to get a steak.

River

06-28-2007, 08:32 PM

Please explain to me how it is different than someone's home in regards to private property.

Home - owned and operated by a private entity.
Business - owned and operated by a private entity.

Home - No person other than the owners have the right to enter the property unless invited. If a guest is asked to leave and doesn't, it is considered trespassing. Non-invited guests are trespassing to begin with.
Business - No person other than the owners have the right to enter the property unless invited. If a guest is asked to leave and doesn't, it is considered trespassing. Non-invited guests are trespassing to begin with. (In the case of a business, all are invited during store hours unless otherwise posted.)

What's the difference between a small, family owned bed & breakfast which operates with nearly no restrictions and a small, family owned motel?

-washboard

Does a person pay the same taxes for a home a family owned bed and breakfast? No, because they are a business and as such have different laws surrounding them. You're lumping together all "private property" but there's a distinction made between business and personal.

In fact, in restaurants and bars (and anywhere that sells and serves food) there are laws that the property owner Must abide by to make certain that the food is safe for consumption. So, what's the difference between having a law to regulate the safety of food (or mold or asbestos) and a law for the safety of second-hand smoke?

mat1583

06-29-2007, 09:00 AM

the answer is fairly obvious b/t home and business...taxation legal responsibility. You have to look at the goal of each as private property.
I understand the point your making, i just don't agree with it.

All entities are required by law to report income for taxation purposes - businesses and home owners. If you operate a bed & breakfast for a profit, no matter how much of a profit, you are required by law to report any gains.

You disagree with the fundamental purpose of government, which goes against how the founding fathers fashioned the new government, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The founding fathers of our country constantly stressed the importance of individual liberty...the protection of life, liberty, and property. A regulatory government like we have today ignores the second two completely and in some cases even the first.

"Founding Fathers Quotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

-washboard

mat1583

06-29-2007, 09:34 AM

What I mean by that is that comparing smoking to drinking is not accurate. They have completely different effects to the people around the smoker/drinker. You can be around a person having a beer and not notice. Not true of smokers. That's why smoking should be banned and drinking doesn't need to be.

Smoking should be banned simply because you notice when a person is smoking? lol, that makes me laugh. And living in a college town, I strongly disagree. Alcohol makes people lose their inhibitions. They are more likely to incite violence, try to sexually assault someone, and some are awfully annoying and obnoxious.

See my point above. ABUSING alcohol causes those deaths that you mentioned... a person doesn't have to abuse cigarettes to annoy or harm people around them. One cigarette can. Massive difference.

Stop using the 'annoying' argument. It is weak and irrelevant. If we were to ban everything that some people considered 'annoying', we wouldn't be able to do anything at all.

You don't have to abuse alcohol to kill someone in a car accident. A couple of drinks can delay your reactions enough to hurt someone - even when you're not drunk. Besides people that have a strong allergic reaction to things like pollen, mold, smoke, etc...your statement that one cigarette can harm someone not smoking it is not supported by any factual basis unless you consider the junk science that has perpetuated the misinformation regarding second hand smoke.

Lipsmacking, toe fungus and crying children can't cause choking or asthma attacks. They also don't stink up your clothes. You are making comparisons of smoking to other activities that just don't line up.

I'm addressing your argument that smoking should be banned simply because it is annoying to some people. I'm making comparisons between things you would call annoying and why you can't regulate or ban something simply because some people consider it annoying.

Either that or the restaurant managers would separate the restaurant into "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections as a compromise because they Realize that it's a problem. Ditto hotels.

...which they have done by choice, not by law.

They can still drink... smoke at home.

If some people had their way, they couldn't.

No, it's not "just like" that... if you want to have a serious conversation about this then you have to stop with the flase comparisons. A private home is a private home... these laws don't prohibit smokers from smoking at home so it's Not going into houses and changing their rules. The rules are for public places where people may not want to choke down unfiltered smoke just to get a steak.
'public places'. I will repeat. An establishment owned privately is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. It is a private place, and you can be denied service and asked to leave. If you do not leave, you can be arrested for trespassing! It may be a place where the public is invited to enter and use the services, but it is not the right of the public to enter and stay at their own digression. It is private property.

Sorry, but you keep saying , "false comparisons". I don't understand what you mean by that. I am making analogies to your various arguments. If the analogies do not make sense to you, that does not make them "false" as you call it.

-washboard

in hiding

06-29-2007, 02:52 PM

All entities are required by law to report income for taxation purposes - businesses and home owners. If you operate a bed & breakfast for a profit, no matter how much of a profit, you are required by law to report any gains.

You disagree with the fundamental purpose of government, which goes against how the founding fathers fashioned the new government, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The founding fathers of our country constantly stressed the importance of individual liberty...the protection of life, liberty, and property. A regulatory government like we have today ignores the second two completely and in some cases even the first.

"Founding Fathers Quotes

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

-washboard

we put limits on liberty all the time. I can't just run red lights when i want to, I can't open a restaurant in my home when i want to. I have to follow the law , which is allowed to be changed...the constitution made allowances for that. There is no right to smoke, there's legal penumbra that extends and that people twist to make whatever they want sound constitutionally protected (abortion). I don't care if people smoke in their homes, that's their choice...I think the gov't should step in a regulate smoking in restaurants / bars. It sounds like to me, you'd be ok with restaurants using anything they want b/c hey, it's private property. Would you say that restaurants can use spoiled meat, and contaminated food? I wish we'd ban smoking entirely (outside of the home), I mean the amount of money spent on smoking related diseases is staggering... I realize that would never happen, but the public health benefits far outweigh the supposed intrusion into liberty and property that smoking bans would have.

River

06-29-2007, 06:34 PM

Smoking should be banned simply because you notice when a person is smoking? lol, that makes me laugh.

If you took the time to actually understand what people are saying then your opinion would be more valid.

Alcohol makes people lose their inhibitions. They are more likely to incite violence, try to sexually assault someone, and some are awfully annoying and obnoxious.

Not after just one drink. Large difference between that and the harm one cigarette can cause. As I've stated thrice now.

Stop using the 'annoying' argument. It is weak and irrelevant. If we were to ban everything that some people considered 'annoying', we wouldn't be able to do anything at all.

Annoying AND harmful.

You don't have to abuse alcohol to kill someone in a car accident.

If you're driving with an BAC level that's over the legal amount... then it's abuse.

Besides people that have a strong allergic reaction to things like pollen, mold, smoke, etc...your statement that one cigarette can harm someone not smoking it is not supported by any factual basis unless you consider the junk science that has perpetuated the misinformation regarding second hand smoke.

So, for the record, are you saying that it's not possible that an asthma attack can be triggered by one second-hand cigarette?

I'm addressing your argument that smoking should be banned simply because it is annoying to some people. I'm making comparisons between things you would call annoying and why you can't regulate or ban something simply because some people consider it annoying.

Annoying AND Harmful.

...which they have done by choice, not by law.

Which shows that the smoking issue Has been a problem for a while contrary to what you have previously stated.

If some people had their way, they couldn't.

Irrelevant.

'public places'. I will repeat. An establishment owned privately is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE. It is a private place, and you can be denied service and asked to leave. If you do not leave, you can be arrested for trespassing! It may be a place where the public is invited to enter and use the services, but it is not the right of the public to enter and stay at their own digression. It is private property.

You can be forcibly removed from Any "public place". Streets, alleys, parks... can you name one "public place" where a person Cannot be removed in the US?

Sorry, but you keep saying , "false comparisons". I don't understand what you mean by that.

I know, and it's disheartening. You see a person specifically paying for a ticket to be inundated by loud music is the same as a person paying to enter a bar and have drinks but, against his will, being inundated by smoke. If that's how you're going to choose to see things then that's just how you will.

mat1583

06-30-2007, 10:37 PM

we put limits on liberty all the time. I can't just run red lights when i want to,
Traffic laws are a whole 'nother breed of discussion :) Maybe when I get back from Africa from my mission trip.

I can't open a restaurant in my home when i want to.

Actually you can, but if it's to make a profit then the government wants to know about it so they can get their hands in there for taxes and regulation. As I stated about the Bed & breakfasts, I don't know of any that are regulated by government health inspections. All I know is that they are 'supposed' to report income from it to the IRS.

There is no right to smoke, there's legal penumbra that extends and that people twist to make whatever they want sound constitutionally protected (abortion).

Do you think the government should be able to prohibit a person from harming their very own body, and nobody else's? I believe a person should be able to put whatever substance into their body that they so desire.

It sounds like to me, you'd be ok with restaurants using anything they want b/c hey, it's private property. Would you say that restaurants can use spoiled meat, and contaminated food?

Of course I'd be ok with it. I would not eat at any restaurant that doesn't have monthly health inspections done though. "HUH?" you say. Right, I would not eat at any place that does not have monthly health inspections. Here's the catch. I think it's the private sector that should provide these inspections, not the government. In fact they already do this in a few areas. Take for instance electronics. I've stated before that Underwriter's Laboratories, a private company, performs inspections on thousands and thousands of household appliances and electronics. (UL) is their symbol. This is a private corporation that is doing inspections on something that you want to know for sure is safe to use.

And by the way, people still get sick from eating contaminated food at restaurants. Maybe that says something about their inspection process...or the inevitability that sometimes you can't prevent certain kinds of contamination.

I wish we'd ban smoking entirely (outside of the home), I mean the amount of money spent on smoking related diseases is staggering... I realize that would never happen, but the public health benefits far outweigh the supposed intrusion into liberty and property that smoking bans would have.

It wouldn't just stop at smoking. They've already tried prohibiting alcohol (which failed miserably); the US is spending BILLIONS on the drug war which has not slowed down drug use, has put millions of non-violent people in prison, and has wasted billions of taxpayers dollars.

-washboard

mat1583

06-30-2007, 11:32 PM

If you took the time to actually understand what people are saying then your opinion would be more valid.

Please don't resort to insults. I consider myself a learned man, but I do take the time to read over everyone's posts at least a few times. You said, "You can be around a person having a beer and not notice. Not true of smokers. That's why smoking should be banned and drinking doesn't need to be." You gave me two premises and a conclusion. I read the conclusion to be that smoking should be banned because you notice when a person is smoking. If that's not what you meant, then you need to make clearer points.

Not after just one drink. Large difference between that and the harm one cigarette can cause. As I've stated thrice now.

The University of Wisconsin Center for Health Sciences, Center for Disease Control, Police, EMS...would all disagree with you. Alcohol impairment begins at about .02 for the average sized adult, which would result from only one drink:

http://www.addict-help.com/drinking-alcohol.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm

Annoying AND harmful.

Oy! You misunderstood me. I'm not saying your only argument is that smoking is annoying and thus should be banned. I was addressing one point at a time. You cannot band something on the basis that it is 'annoying'. Something could be harmful, deadly, etc...but 'annoying' cannot be a reason because it is relative.

If you're driving with an BAC level that's over the legal amount... then it's abuse.

What is your definition of abuse? Because mine seems to be quite different than yours...

So, for the record, are you saying that it's not possible that an asthma attack can be triggered by one second-hand cigarette?

Substitute 'someone' with 'everyone'. Too many misunderstandings tonight. I must have been tired when I wrote all that. Sorry.

Which shows that the smoking issue Has been a problem for a while contrary to what you have previously stated.

Previously stated where? Please quote me when you refer to something I may have said. I post in a lot of threads, so sometimes I don't remember everything I've said.

Irrelevant.

My main goal here isn't even about smoking. It's to get you to see that no, it isn't irrelevant. When the government or people elected to government start believing that they know what is best for us and start making it into law, we start losing liberties VERY quickly. First it started with the prohibition of alcohol, then drugs, now smoking in private establishments, the banning of trans fatty acids (NY), assisted suicide...where does it stop? When we'll people finally wake up and see they they have no liberties left? It obviously hasn't stopped at warrantless wiretapping. Or will Americans keep giving up every choice they once had for themselves such as what they ate, what they drank, where they spend their earned income, and what religion they once chose to believe?

You may think it's irrelevant, but it is affecting your future liberties more than you could imagine. Our founding fathers warned us of this, and our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to reflect this concern and protect us from this very thing happening. Yet each day your Constitutional rights are being eroded away little by little and you think it is irrelevant.

You can be forcibly removed from Any "public place". Streets, alleys, parks... can you name one "public place" where a person Cannot be removed in the US?

Yes, you can be removed in both. The key difference between public property and private property is that with public property, you are deemed to have the right of access to. With private property, you are not given any right to have access to it unless you are the owner. You are granted permission to enter private property, which can only be granted by the owner. Please consider the important differences between a right and a privilege.

I know, and it's disheartening. You see a person specifically paying for a ticket to be inundated by loud music is the same as a person paying to enter a bar and have drinks but, against his will, being inundated by smoke. If that's how you're going to choose to see things then that's just how you will.
The purpose (as I see it) to go to a concert is not to be "inundated by loud music". Maybe some do go to a concert for that reason, but not myself. I go because I want to see the band perform live, not to have my eardrums destroyed.

but anyway it's getting late and I've had about 6 hours of sleep in the past 48 hours. I'm out

-washboard

in hiding

07-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Traffic laws are a whole 'nother breed of discussion :) Maybe when I get back from Africa from my mission trip.
enjoy Africa

Do you think the government should be able to prohibit a person from harming their very own body, and nobody else's? I believe a person should be able to put whatever substance into their body that they so desire.

well we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this one. As long as some part of the money i've earned is going to the healthcare of others (insurance premiums, medicaid, medicare etc...) I should be protected from having to pay more for my health insurance. If everyone paid cash for their own health care and there were no costs spread out to others, by all means do what you want b/c then only you are responsible for paying for that. But as long as my premiums can go up based upon an entire pool of people's actions that I can't control I think they should regulate what a person does with their body to some degree. but that is a different thread altogether.

Of course I'd be ok with it. I would not eat at any restaurant that doesn't have monthly health inspections done though. "HUH?" you say. Right, I would not eat at any place that does not have monthly health inspections. Here's the catch. I think it's the private sector that should provide these inspections, not the government.

I agree I think the private sector should be responsible for the inspections and not the government.

It wouldn't just stop at smoking. They've already tried prohibiting alcohol (which failed miserably); the US is spending BILLIONS on the drug war which has not slowed down drug use, has put millions of non-violent people in prison, and has wasted billions of taxpayers dollars.

That's why I said outside of the home. People will smoke cigarettes, even if they are illegal, but you won't see them doing it in public. The public health benefit of a complete ban of smoking outside the home would be amazing. The towns that have these bans report less ER visits, less heart attacks etc... which saves money and lives.

mat1583

07-01-2007, 11:25 PM

enjoy Africa

Thanks! I'm not sure I'll exactly 'enjoy' it, but I know it will definitely be an eye opening experience and life-changing as well.

well we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this one. As long as some part of the money i've earned is going to the healthcare of others (insurance premiums, medicaid, medicare etc...) I should be protected from having to pay more for my health insurance. If everyone paid cash for their own health care and there were no costs spread out to others, by all means do what you want b/c then only you are responsible for paying for that. But as long as my premiums can go up based upon an entire pool of people's actions that I can't control I think they should regulate what a person does with their body to some degree. but that is a different thread altogether.

Actually most life insurance and some health insurance companies require you to have a physical which also tests for levels of cotidine in your body, the major by-product of the body's absorption of nicotine. If found, insurance costs only for the smoker go up, not the other way around.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/28/pf/insurance/q_nicotine/

The whole conundrum of this whole ordeal is that if you ban smoking, you aren't going to lower insurance premiums by much if anything. When non-smokers quit smoking and alcohol abusers stop drinking, they live longer and thus incur more medical expenses in the long run. I know...it's a bit ironic.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v6n1/voluntary.html

In my opinion, I do not think society should be forced to subsidize the health care of individuals who participate in risky behaviors - whether it's smoking, abusing alcohol, overeating, being a couch potato, etc.

That's why I said outside of the home. People will smoke cigarettes, even if they are illegal, but you won't see them doing it in public.

I've seen people smoking pot at concerts, and cigars/cigarettes at college football games where it's prohibited. People will do it anywhere they can get away with it.

The towns that have these bans report less ER visits, less heart attacks etc...

Could you please provide me with a resource. Thanks!

-washboard

HotWireD

07-02-2007, 01:35 AM

1ST July 2007 - It is now illegal to smoke in any public place in any country in the United Kingdom - the final country to bring in the ban was England.

Ominously, this morning (the first Monday after the ban came into effect) the radio had more articles about noise bans and control than smoking restrictions - it is the new 'health hazard we have to fight cause'.

One article was about New York - where new laws on noise state that a person will be fined if their dog barks for more than ten minutes during daylight hours and for more than five minutes after dusk. Music must not be able to heard more than fifteen minutes from premises (bars, shops etc).

The next but one article was about how we (in the United Kingdom) have to fight the inciduous hazard to our health. Noise can lead to several health problems, not only that but some injuries cannot be measured for years afterwards, so a young person listening to loud music could permanently damage their hearing twenty years in the future! So turn down those rock concerts etc etc

So........ Clean lungs and earplugs for everyone?

The 'We Know Better' monitored society is great. :eek:

I look forward to the day I go to leave my front door to go to work and discover a speaker system stating that there is a 70 per cent chance of rain and if I do not take an umberella with me I will be fined...:rolleyes:

River

07-02-2007, 04:44 AM

Please don't resort to insults. I consider myself a learned man, but I do take the time to read over everyone's posts at least a few times. You said, "You can be around a person having a beer and not notice. Not true of smokers. That's why smoking should be banned and drinking doesn't need to be." You gave me two premises and a conclusion.

No, I didn't. You posted my entire quote except for the first sentence which explains what my point was and why. My "premise" was: "What I mean by that is that comparing smoking to drinking is not accurate". I was answering your question about why your comparisons were false by showing you that smoking and drinking are different in that drinking one beer affects no one around you.

The University of Wisconsin Center for Health Sciences, Center for Disease Control, Police, EMS...would all disagree with you. Alcohol impairment begins at about .02 for the average sized adult, which would result from only one drink:

http://www.addict-help.com/drinking-alcohol.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm

Ok then, provide an example of someone "inciting violence" or "sexually assaulting someone" as you stated, because of a .02 BAC.

Oy! You misunderstood me. I'm not saying your only argument is that smoking is annoying and thus should be banned. I was addressing one point at a time. You cannot band something on the basis that it is 'annoying'. Something could be harmful, deadly, etc...but 'annoying' cannot be a reason because it is relative.

That depends upon the level of annoyance. A child can be caused to go into a coughing fit, but not be "harmed".

What is your definition of abuse? Because mine seems to be quite different than yours...

Read my statement that your comment was in reply to again...

Substitute 'someone' with 'everyone'. Too many misunderstandings tonight. I must have been tired when I wrote all that. Sorry.

Fair enough... not everyone has asthma, so That level of harm does not come to everyone. But still, inhaling smoke is not healthy, no matter who you are.

Previously stated where? Please quote me when you refer to something I may have said. I post in a lot of threads, so sometimes I don't remember everything I've said.

That's below.

If it ruins so many peoples' meals, then why do these restaurants have so much repeat business, and why don't more people complain to owners and managers and demand that they change their smoking policy? It seems if you truly had a majority of people that had their meals 'ruined', restaurants wouldn't be able to stay open.

My main goal here isn't even about smoking.

Ok, but the thread is. I understand what you're saying, but cigarette smoke is harmful. Now the person smoking assumes the risk, but it's not fair to expect people around them to. Each one of those issues that you mentioned needs to be taken on their own individual merit... and in the case of cigarettes, no one's being told that they Can't smoke. Just that they can't harm other people in the process.

Yes, you can be removed in both. The key difference between public property and private property is that with public property, you are deemed to have the right of access to.

As long as you obey the rules.
Some parks have had rules about smoking for decades... some don't allow dogs, frisbees, glass. Private facilities such as restaurants and bars have laws that they have to abide by also (such as the asbestos and paint that I mentioned earlier). They both have laws they have to abide by... how is this different?

The purpose (as I see it) to go to a concert is not to be "inundated by loud music". Maybe some do go to a concert for that reason, but not myself. I go because I want to see the band perform live, not to have my eardrums destroyed.

Well, you don't go to be "inundated by low music" so I beg to differ. :) I mean, it depends upon the concert and the type of music... inundation will occur at Linkin Park shows. Yanni concerts, not so much. It's known going in and it's part of the "experience". Some music is meant to be loud.

What does Not happen is that no non-smoker goes to a bar looking to damage his lungs a little because of the second-hand smoke that he'll be inhaling while he's drinking or dancing or whatever. I mean, it's just like how fatty foods are harmful, but they're not banned in public because there's no such thing as "second-hand cheeseburger".

in hiding

07-02-2007, 03:02 PM

The whole conundrum of this whole ordeal is that if you ban smoking, you aren't going to lower insurance premiums by much if anything. When non-smokers quit smoking and alcohol abusers stop drinking, they live longer and thus incur more medical expenses in the long run. I know...it's a bit ironic.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v6n1/voluntary.html

yes but what about the effects of second hand smoke as well. the more people that aren't exposed to second hand smoke could help them from developing some of the associated diseases

In my opinion, I do not think society should be forced to subsidize the health care of individuals who participate in risky behaviors - whether it's smoking, abusing alcohol, overeating, being a couch potato, etc.

i couldn't agree more.

I've seen people smoking pot at concerts, and cigars/cigarettes at college football games where it's prohibited. People will do it anywhere they can get away with it.

yes, but again the amount of second hand smoke inhaled at a concert or at a football game is extremely small, so the excuse of people will do it even though it's illegal, while it's true, imo it doesn't hold much water.

Could you please provide me with a resource. Thanks!
-washboard
The Pueblo Heart Study
http://www.jeffco.us/news/news_item_T3_R100.htm

here's a snippet, from wiki re: the above link In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change. Raymond Gibbons, M.D., American Heart Association president said, "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of secondhand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks

go to www.pubmed.gov and search for second hand smoke and you will get a lot of hits.

: J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2006 Nov-Dec;21(6):457-62.
Cardiovascular effects of second-hand smoke help explain the benefits of smoke-free legislation on heart disease burden.
Barnoya J, Glantz SA.

: Curr Opin Cardiol. 2007 Jul;22(4):280-5.
Smoking cessation: lessons learned from clinical trial evidence.

mat1583

07-02-2007, 03:59 PM

yes, but again the amount of second hand smoke inhaled at a concert or at a football game is extremely small, so the excuse of people will do it even though it's illegal, while it's true, imo it doesn't hold much water.

Apparently you haven't been to many rock concerts, or maybe any outdoor festivals.

The Pueblo Heart Study
http://www.jeffco.us/news/news_item_T3_R100.htm

here's a snippet, from wiki re: the above link In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%.

There are a few interesting things about this study. For of all, it provided no controls. They did not distinguish between smokers and non-smokers. The 27% drop could have been from the pressure on getting smokers to quit. Most or all of that percentage could have come from smokers that simply quit smoking, not from limiting exposure to second hand smoke. Secondly, it was only assumed that a ban on smoking was the cause of the drop in heart attacks...which is a bunch of bologna. Correlation is not causation, and the study did not even attempt to discover causation.

Even a top non-smoking activist who is for Tobacco bans disagreed with the supposed results of the Pueblo study:

"The only explanation that I think makes most sense, in the absence of data that would allow one to draw an evidence-based conclusion, is that reductions in active smoking explain the observed effect. It is plausible, based on the extent of smoking in the population and the magnitude of the relationship between smoking and heart attacks, that reductions in smoking could cause a 27% drop in heart attacks in Pueblo, but I don't see the same magnitude reduction in heart attacks being plausible from a reduction in secondhand smoke exposure (unless there were evidence to support such a conclusion)."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot. com/2005/11/pueblo-study-on-reduced-heart-attack.html

-washboard

in hiding

07-02-2007, 04:16 PM

Apparently you haven't been to many rock concerts, or maybe any outdoor festivals.

don't assume too much. Again, the exposure to smoke in a bar is much higher than at a rock show, or at a festival. Also, the venue size has a lot to do with it. If you're outside the fresh air helps out the cause, if it's an arena show, they aren't too bad b/c you have an AC system and you have a lot of airflow...Now club shows are EASILY the worse. Small spaces and lots of people smoking. A few places around here are smoke free music venues, which is much nicer.

There are a few interesting things about this study. For of all, it provided no controls. They did not distinguish between smokers and non-smokers. The 27% drop could have been from the pressure on getting smokers to quit. Most or all of that percentage could have come from smokers that simply quit smoking, not from limiting exposure to second hand smoke. Secondly, it was only assumed that a ban on smoking was the cause of the drop in heart attacks...which is a bunch of bologna. Correlation is not causation, and the study did not even attempt to discover causation.

Even a top non-smoking activist who is for Tobacco bans disagreed with the supposed results of the Pueblo study:

"The only explanation that I think makes most sense, in the absence of data that would allow one to draw an evidence-based conclusion, is that reductions in active smoking explain the observed effect. It is plausible, based on the extent of smoking in the population and the magnitude of the relationship between smoking and heart attacks, that reductions in smoking could cause a 27% drop in heart attacks in Pueblo, but I don't see the same magnitude reduction in heart attacks being plausible from a reduction in secondhand smoke exposure (unless there were evidence to support such a conclusion)."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot. com/2005/11/pueblo-study-on-reduced-heart-attack.html

-washboard

all public health reasearch makes assumptions. I don't think that 2nd hand smoke accounted for all of the decreases but to take the other side and say it had no effect is just as short sighted.

prayercloth sis

07-04-2007, 12:57 AM

This is easy. I think smoking should be banned everywhere period.

I agree...after losing several family members to lung cancer and seeing what it does with 2nd hand smoke...

Cigerettes are just a lie from Satan ....he deceives folks into thinking if they smoke, they won't get fat, or be nervous, helps them relax & calm down....etc...

but all the while they are polluting the air, killing others and killing their lungs.....all at the same time....

God deliver us from this killer...the cigerette.../cigar....& deliver those who have been deceived....

in Jesus name amen...

Rhonie

BobC

07-07-2007, 08:51 AM

What about alcohol? It is one of the leading killers. Or how about peanuts in restaurants. I know a couple people that are extremely allergic to peanuts - so allergic they could possibly die if they touched them. Loud concerts? No more Third Day for you since it damages peoples' hearing. It could keep going on and on.

The guy (or girl) sitting there drinking is not forcing you to drink as well.oui,dui or what ever its called where you are is all ready against the law.
You dont have to eat or even touch peanuts or anything else you are allergic to.
You dont have to go to the concert.
Where I work you step through just about any door that goes outside you are inundated with cigarette smoke. walk down the public side walk and its every where.I shouldnt have to quit my job to avoid it or stay inside just because some inconciderate person wants to smoke.
It is a health hazard to everybody thats exposed to it.A drain on everyone finantualy.Tobbaco serves no useful purpose that I`m aware of.