[Jeff White]

Well here we go. And it would figure that handgun banning Wilmette bans smoking in public places. The state is facing a fiscal crisis rivalling California's in fact it may be worse, because we are losing jobs right and left...but I'll bet the legislature wastes most of the session debating stupid, politically correct anti-freedom legislation....Unlike California, we have no recall provisions or other way to show our displeasure with the leadership.

Jeff


Restrictions on tobacco are offered in Illinois
By BRIAN WALLHEIMER
Post-Dispatch
01/14/2004

Cities may be allowed
to regulate smoking
in public places

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Tobacco will have a target on it in the Legislature's session starting today.

Several bills would make it more difficult to smoke.

One of the most far-reaching ideas would be to allow municipalities to make their own laws regarding smoking in public places - a power that could lead to outright bans in some communities.

Spokeswomen for the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association said their organizations are backing bills promoting local regulation.

"Illinois has some of the weakest laws in regulating and frankly for keeping smoke out of air," said Margaret Farina, government relations director of the American Cancer Society. "We just want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to breathe clean air."
Philip Morris USA spokeswoman Jamie Drogin said the tobacco company is not against allowing municipalities to make their own clean air laws, but worries that some communities might get carried away with that power.

"Business owners should be allowed some discretion as to what they want in their establishments," Drogin said. "We believe that outright bans go too far."

Bars and restaurants stand to lose business if cities were to ban smoking in their establishments, some say.

"About 95 percent of my customers smoke cigarettes," said Paul Schuerbaum, owner of the Fifth Quarter, a Collinsville bar. "It would affect me a lot."

Under the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act, only municipalities that had clean-air laws in place before 1990 can make and enforce clean-air laws. There are 19 cities allowed to make such laws in the state, none in the Metro East area. Currently, only Skokie and Wilmette have laws banning smoking in public places. The cities have bans on smoking in all public places, though Skokie allows smoking at taverns.

Kathy Drea, American Lung Association public policy director for Illinois and Iowa, said Illinois ranks near the bottom when it comes to smoking and tobacco laws. The association gave Illinois mostly failing grades on its annual report card last week.

"We rank 31st in (tobacco prevention) spending in the United States," Drea said. "What's funny is we rank fifth in the amount of money we receive from the tobacco settlement."

Drea and Farina said their organizations support bills that would tighten smoking and tobacco restrictions, including: raising the age to buy tobacco to 19 from 18 unless the person has a military identification card, forcing tobacco sellers to be licensed by the state and banning smoking from all stadiums, health facilities and restaurants in the state.

Farina said the only bill the American Cancer Society does not support is one that would make it illegal for minors to possess tobacco. Right now Illinois law bars minors from buying tobacco, but possession by a minor is legal. Farina said minors should not be fined for having tobacco since adults are responsible for restricting youth access to it.

Drogin said Philip Morris USA also supports bills for licensing tobacco sellers and preventing youth smoking.

Reporter Brian Wallheimer
E-mail: bwallheimer@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 217-782-4912

[Nightfall]

...raising the age to buy tobacco to 19 from 18 unless the person has a military identification card...
Oooookay... :confused:

If you're 18 and in the military, it's okay to smoke, but you have to be 19 if you're a civilian? Anybody want to explain this one?

[carpettbaggerr]

arina said the only bill the American Cancer Society does not support is one that would make it illegal for minors to possess tobacco. Why not just lock 'em up? Works for other drugs, no?

[sm]

I respect the fact some persons have an aversion to smoke. I respect those with allergies and asthma...

Jeff White, you noted the unemployment situation...*DING*...

In the mindset folks people have rights, and folks are gonna do what they are gonna do..."Port a Smoker"

Like having the Canteen show up outside for coffee, food and all...A portable smoking hut complete with ventilation, TV and a coffee pot...

Let 'em put that in their "pipe and smoke it" :D

This idea will probably take off and make a bunch of money...and once again I will look at my checkbook, a paperclip, and "Post It" note and think I coulda ,I shoulda, but didn't...

[El Tejon]

Will this bill apply to the crack smokers that have been elected to the Illinois General Assembly?:D

[Starpower]

That's an interesting concept El Tejon! 18 year old cigarette smokers can be sent to jail and fined, while pot and crack smokers get probation. And those with a smoking gun? Oh, wait, that's a different thread. Chicago and the rest of illinois must be suffering under the dilusion that you can legislate and regulate every form of behavior known to man, and pretty soon, when they have "enough" regulations they can start expanding their horizons to "save" the rest of the country. Seems to me that's been done elsewhere, like maybe around 1933 or 34, somewhere on the European continent? Not to mention any names, but it was East of Poland and South of the Netherlands. Oh yeah, that's why we call that state Illinazi!

[wolf]

here in Santa Monica CA...(two, count em two) green party members are on the city council:

NO SMOKING
-in any public place
-in any public park
-on any beach
-500 ft from any school

wait,,,that ain't quite enough...Neighbor City, West Hollywood (San Francisco south) wont let you smoke in your own Condo..because its attached to other residents..

In a beach city not far from me..if you are applying for a sheriff's deputy job..you cant smoke on or OFF the job.

It wont be long before you cant smoke in your own home (unattached).

Of course not one word of protest from even the most Pro-Smoking corners.

smoke today--gone tomorrow

wolf

[Jeeper]

In a beach city not far from me..if you are applying for a sheriff's deputy job..you cant smoke on or OFF the job.


That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals.

[Cellar Dweller]

That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals.

So, you'd be OK if that city mandated no-alcohol-ever? Only low-fat food in the home? Daily PT (even on off days)? Mandatory prophylactics and no sexual encounters unless it is with your faithful spouse (if the spouse is suspected of cheating, no sex until he or she passes a test for STDs)? No lifting anything above 50 lbs? A minimum of 6 hours a night sleep, no exceptions? No chainsaws or knives or log splitters? After all, these measures would make for healthier employees...

Where do YOU draw the line, or is it OK because it's only cigarettes? :confused:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget if it was Crook County or just @%#$%^#@ Chicago that wants a $1/pack tax increase, to pay for services such as ensuring that nobody smokes. They don't want people to stop BUYING cigarettes, just stop SMOKING them... :banghead:

[Jeeper]

Daily PT (even on off days)?

Most firestations have this one while you are on your duty days

The rest of them that you have listed have limited if any relation to health that can be proven. It would also be impossible to monitor. I am all in favor of mandating a level of health to become a public servent if I am the one who is paying for their medical insurance. It isnt any different than keeping the obese out of the military.

I think smokers are just getting pissed that the rest of us who have tolerated your rudeness for years are finally getting fed up. I have no problem with smoking as long as it is away from me. I see smoking as another form of natural selection for the stupid eventhough my grandfather and 2 uncles died of lung cancer.

[Jeff White]

jeeper said:

I think smokers are just getting pissed that the rest of us who have tolerated your rudeness for years are finally getting fed up.

I started this thread, and I've never smoked in my life. Was fortunate enough to have a very bad experience with a cigarette when I was about 6 and they remain disgusting to me.

However there are some things the government has no business being involved in. Regulating smoking is one of them. If you don't want to be around people who are smoking, don't go around them..it's as simple as that. Existing laws already establish smoking areas in resturants etc. In the meantime, if people want to use tobacco, it's their business not mine and definately not the state legislatures...

Jeff

[Jeeper]

Jeff,

I agree with you to an extent. The problem is that there are a lot of areas where people have no choice but to walk through smoke. Outside most buildings entrances is where people smoke. Designated areas are fine if they dont interfere with others. I hate it when I have to walk through a bunch of smokers at the front of a building and then I stink the rest of the day. As far as the police go. If I have to talk to a policeman then I shouldnt have to have him spewing toxic waste in my face. Their own private time is another matter except for the fitness requirements that police should have like the military. I really dont mind smoke all that much in social situations(Bars etc). I just understand how the shoe is finally on the other foot with smokers. For years eveyone had to tolerate smoke whether they liked it or not. Now it is the opposite. Both extremes are bad. The middle might be impossible.

[Delmar]

Jeeper-the middle is not impossible, just harder to get to because you are asking both sides to give a little.

[Cellar Dweller]

I think smokers are just getting pissed that the rest of us who have tolerated your rudeness Mighty presumtuous of you. As I live in IL, I find it interesting that the politicians want to stamp out smoking, but are attempting to balance a good part of the state budget on CIGARETTE taxes and TOBACCO settlement money. If tobacco is so bad, why isn't it banned? Could it be that the tax revenue outweights the "social" costs?

Most firestations have this one while you are on your duty days That's why I specified OFF days.

The rest of them that you have listed have limited if any relation to health that can be proven. In order:
Alcohol: beer= beer belly :D Wine may have some medicinal value but JD or JB or Captain Morgan don't.
Low-fat food: allegedly healthier diet. No donuts for the coppers= no donut belly.
Daily exercise: is healthier than not exercising, everyone can agree with that.
Foolin' around: could get you an STD ranging from irritating to dead.
Lifting: improperly= muscle strain to total debilitation.
Chainsaws/knives/etc: you could poke out an eye or lose a body part.

No motorcycles? No loud music? No hunting? No swimming unless it is job related?

If police can't smoke because it's unhealthy (yet somehow enforceable off-duty) then surely one can enforce a prohibition on all "unhealthy" behaviors for public servants; then you can force it on the general population as well. I am all in favor of mandating a level of health to become a public servent if I am the one who is paying for their medical insurance. By your logic, I should be in favor of mandating a level of health for everyone if I am paying (through taxes) for their medical insurance and/or they are "polluting" my insurance risk pool. :neener:

[Starpower]

OK. Cellar Dweller. Now you've really done it. MY doughnuts? No way. You can have my doughnuts when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

BTW, I gotta quit watching the Chicago news. Tonight, the next thing on the list of stuff they're banning is certain breeds of DOG! I didn't catch it all as I was putting some of my toys back in the safe, but Rots and Pits were both mentioned. Next it'll be Bow Ties, (Well, Paul Simon is gone, now) and blue eyed people, and how much longer before he starts building gas chambers? Sounds like he's taking a page from the gun grabbers book. Little steps.

[jimpeel]

People, even those who do not smoke, should fight these ordinances and stall them for as long as they possibly can. Once they are finished with their attack on smoking, they will take up some other cause. The best that can be done is to delay them because there is no stopping them.

[Chuck Jennings]

It seems like there must be some competition between a few states (CA, IL, MA, NY) to see who is able to take the most freewill and personal accountability.

It is only going to get worse this year. It is a big election year, and politicians want to make the sheeple think that they are doing something.

[WonderNine]

here in Santa Monica CA...(two, count em two) green party members are on the city council:

NO SMOKING
-in any public place
-in any public park
-on any beach
-500 ft from any school

wait,,,that ain't quite enough...Neighbor City, West Hollywood (San Francisco south) wont let you smoke in your own Condo..because its attached to other residents..

Land of the free....

[StuporDave]

The problem is that there are a lot of areas where people have no choice but to walk through smoke.
I hate it when I have to walk through a bunch of smokers at the front of a building and then I stink the rest of the day.

What about the woman at my office who wears so much perfume I can't stand to be around her? It makes me sneeze and my eyes water. I can't avoid her, part of my job. Can we legislate away annoying perfume too?

I'm an ex-smoker. I quit about five or six years ago. Smoke stinks, but not so bad that I'll inconvenience myself to avoid it.

If we try to make things illegal because it might annoy someone, everything will end up illegal!

[Devonai]

Here in southern NH, a restaurant is running TV ads that include the words, "all in a non-smoking environment." At first I was put off, but then it occured to me: that's exactly the way things should be! Let the consumer decide which restaurant to visit.

Honestly, unless you're in a GP medium where everyone is smoking (or have asthma) I don't see what the big deal is. There are many worse smells out there.

Then again, I have a problem with people who, sitting in a smoky bar, turn around and complain about my pipe smoke! :scrutiny:

[seeker_two]

If we try to make things illegal because it might annoy someone, everything will end up illegal!

Can we make SOCIALISM/LIBERALISM illegal?... :evil:

[Zach S]

That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals. My last year in HS, I smoked about a pack a day, and ran the mile in a little over six and a half minutes. Might not be a great time, but not too many non-smokers could do that. I also had the third fastest time (out of 20 students) in the 100 yrd dash, in a class primarily for school atheletes. When the football players who could press 300lbs were struggling at 40 pushups, out of 50, I could keep going, to their amzement, to 100 (I'd start struggling in the mid-80s). A LEO (regular at the same range I go to) that smokes as much as I do is one of the fastest guys on the force.

Just because we're smokers, doesnt mean we're outta shape.

[Jeeper]

Just because we're smokers, doesnt mean we're outta shape.

Zach,

Everyone can find the rare instance of this not being true but you cant tell me that you honestly think that smoking isnt extremely bad for you.

By your logic, I should be in favor of mandating a level of health for everyone if I am paying (through taxes) for their medical insurance and/or they are "polluting" my insurance risk pool.

I think that all insurance and such should be dictated by your level of health. If you want to eat krispy kreams and burger king everyday then your fat ??? should pay for your own heart bypass surgery. NOT ME!!! Everyone here always talkes about individual responsibility except when they want to violate others rights. Me having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into a public building violates my rights. It is so funny when people here saw one thing about one subject and the revers on another subject. I think smoking shouldnt be illegal. I think that making me be around it where I have no choice should be.

[Mikul]

Well Illinois has mangled the budget and made the state one big hostile environment for businesses. They've already screwed things up with the major issues. It's time to move on to day-to-day activitites that people enjoy.

The cluster of smokers outside of a building is a problem. If a bunch of kids were hanging around a 7-11 they'd be shooed away for loitering. I smoke cigars, but I would never stand in front of a doorway and smoke it so that the maximum number of people would have to breathe it because it's rude. The questions is: how can you write a law to prevent this? I don't think you can. It's too complicated. How do you make it legal at a bar, but illegal at a bank? What about the Phillip Morris offices? Should it be illegal there too? These buildings are private property. If the building owners determine it to be a problem, they should ask the smokers to go away not the police.

While I have no problem with a smoker wandering around in public with a lit cigarette, I do have a problem with a group of them or if they're outside in public and I'm stuck in line behind them. What if your walking through the park on a narrow trail and the three people walking in front of you are all smoking? Asking them to stop isn't going to work most of the time. So you can make it illegal for them to smoke there, yet if they're along in that part of the park, who cares?

This is an issue of manners instead of criminality, and a difficult one at that.

[Starpower]

First, they came for the Jews, but, not being Jewish, I did nothing. Then they came for Catholics, but still, I did nothing. After all, it's not me they were after. Then they started on the Blacks, and while I had nothing against them, personally, I'm not black, so it really didn't affect me, so why should I get involved? Now, they've come for me. Oh, God, won't somebody, please, do something?

Ok, now let's substitute a few names. (I know, I know, I've liberally substituted already). First the cigarettes, then the dogs, then the guns. Then in a really grand sweep, its not just the cigarettes, but the smokers.

Next, not just the dogs, but the owners and trainers , and after that, the shooters and collectors. Then, oh what the hell, look at how much GOOD we've already done. Let's just go after the Republicans! That way, we can still be seen a s a Democracy but there's no one left to run against us. Hey, we can't lose!

[jimpeel]

The people who stand outside and smoke are there because those who complain about their standing there told them to go stand there to smoke. Control freaks are never happy; even when those they seek to control do exactly as they are directed.

I wonder if those who will populate Bush's fantasy Moon colony will have to go "outside" to smoke.

[Russ]

I'm from the PRK. I don't smoke now but I used to many years ago. Both of my parents died from lung cancer because of smoking. When the no-smoking in public places laws went into effect in the PRK, I could have cared less. However, at the time my parents were still living and this created a problem for them. As far as I'm concerned, they should have a smoking and non-smoking section. This way if you are really worked up about it, go to one or the other. So long as smoking tobacco is legal, I don't think banning it in public places is a great idea.

BTW, I would be interested in hearing how the Illinois deficit even remotely approaches the PRK's since Davis got the boot. Was this on a per capita basis? Certainly in real dollars it can't compare.

[Jeff White]

Russ,
Yes it would be on a per capita basis...only a few billion compared to the 10s of billions in California. Illinois is a much smaller state. We also have the disadvantage of being in the rust belt. Once California gets it's house in order, business will still want to locate there.

The solution to packs of smokers at the front doors of buildings is to require designated smoking areas to be loacted away from the main entrance. SM may be onto something with his Port a smoker. A motorhome type lounge selling tobacco and soda, coffee etc, comfortable chairs out of the weather....could work....

Jeff

[jimpeel]

The solution to packs of smokers at the front doors of buildings is to require designated smoking areas to be loacted away from the main entrance. The real solution would be for companies to build a separate area with a proper exhaust system that would be for smokers only.

[Jeeper]

I think that Mikul nailed it.

It isnt the act that bothers me as much as the attitude in doing it. Smokers assume that they arent doing anything that upsets or hurts anyone else by standing in front of a building and smoking. This attitude is what upsets people. If they were courteous about it then less people would have a problem.

I really wish there was a little animated gif that showed a guy putting a tin foil hat on. It would apply to some of the previous posters here. I think some of you really believe that everything ever done by any goverment is the end of the world.

[Chuck Jennings]

The real solution would be for companies to build a separate area with a proper exhaust system that would be for smokers only.


A few bars around southern CA have them and advertise the fact. The problem is that they are very costly to install and maintain. And you can bet that they have CalOSHA breathing down their necks!

[jimpeel]

It isnt the act that bothers me as much as the attitude in doing it. If they had an "attitude" they would not be standing outside where you told them to go. Smokers assume that they arent doing anything that upsets or hurts anyone else by standing in front of a building and smoking. They aren't. They are standing exactly where the anti-smoking Nazis have relegated them. This attitude is what upsets people. If they were courteous about it then less people would have a problem.How much more courteous do you want them to be? They have moved outside into inclement weather per your demands; and you are still not satisfied. You continue to b---- and moan on how "discourteous" they are because they have met your demands. You continue to defame them. You will never be satisfied no matter what they do or where they go.

What do you want them to do; stand on the double yellow line in the middle of the boulevard? :banghead:

[Zach S]

It isnt the act that bothers me as much as the attitude in doing it. Smokers assume that they arent doing anything that upsets or hurts anyone else by standing in front of a building and smoking. This attitude is what upsets people. If they were courteous about it then less people would have a problem. If we werent courteous about it, we'd be sitting inside.

Zach,

Everyone can find the rare instance of this not being true but you cant tell me that you honestly think that smoking isnt extremely bad for you.
Anyone who ran as much as I did, and did 200 pushups, 160 situps, and 60 pullups a day* would stay in shape no matter how much thay smoked. I know its bad for me, but since I dont drink, dont do any drugs and try to eat healthy I've to poison myself somehow:D


* 50 pushups, then 40 situps, and then 15 pullups, two sets, in that order, every morning before school, and every night before bed. I wish I was as dedicated now...

[westex]

Someone posted a site awhile back giving figures on the number of deaths caused by medical malpractice (confined to hospitals I think). Can eone help me locate this info?

We're in a similar city fight with anti-smoking zealots in my part of the country. For some reason they remind me of The Night of the Living Dead movie.

It must be great to know what's best for everyone and make sure they do right and don't inconvenience anyone else. Are they born with this gift or is it a learned trait?
:rolleyes:

[jimpeel]

This was posted at TFL back in October 2000. Is this what you were looking for?

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=134365

Ban all doctors?
I didn't even bother to do a search and see if this has already been posted, if so, just ignore it.

No data on the source so take it with a grain of salt.

Statistics
a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 1.71 per year (US Dept. of Health and Human Services

Now ...
a. The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000,
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1, 500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE
DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.

As a public health measure; I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention!

[Jeeper]

If we werent courteous about it, we'd be sitting inside.

No then you would be in Jail or fired so go ahead and light up. ( This is talking about goverment buildings where it is illegal which is my point)

If they had an "attitude" they would not be standing outside where you told them to go.

Do you really not think it is rude to literally stand next to a door and smoke when other have to pass by you? Would you do this if you could walk 15 feet away where is wouldnt be so blatant?

It must be great to know what's best for everyone and make sure they do right and don't inconvenience anyone else. Are they born with this gift or is it a learned trait?


Tell me how this isnt what you are doing? :banghead:

Do you not think people should be able to be left alone and not interfered with? Your smokeing interferes with the health of others. What right do you have to do that. I can go around popping off rounds from an AR into a crowd but I can smoke in one. The difference is what exactly? This isnt like the perfume example since that isnt very prevelant. Not everything that bothers people and is unhealthy could ever or should ever be addressed. Large issues should be. It is basically the same as common law nuisance that dates back to the founding of our country.

Neither of us are going to convince eachother. I at least know I am on the side that is going to prevail whether you whine about it or not. :neener:

[jimpeel]

Do you really not think it is rude to literally stand next to a door and smoke when other have to pass by you? Would you do this if you could walk 15 feet away where is wouldnt be so blatant?No! It is not rude to stand where one has been ordered to go under the threat of deadly force.

They have moved as far as they are required to go because people like yourself feel that it is justifiable to send them to jail if they don't do as you say; and that people, like yourself, would be very happy to call armed men to haul them away and, if they resist sufficiently, to shoot them to death.

And that's why they should go no farther than they do.Do you not think people should be able to be left alone and not interfered with?Please go to the mirror and re-read that statement.I at least know I am on the side that is going to prevail whether you whine about it or not.You will prevail because you have armed men on your side of the equation who will come, at your behest, and take the offenders away or shoot them if they resist; and on that day, you will feel that you have done a noble deed.

[westex]

Jeeper
No it's not what I'm doing. I certainly don't intend to tell you to start smoking or go to a resturant where you feel uncomfortable. It's your choice to make. I just believe I should have the same choice.

By the way, I haven't smoked in years. My choice, no one else's. And if all the whiners I hear about with asthma and allergies were true our hospitals wouldn't have room for anything else. So there!:)

[Cellar Dweller]

Jeeper

Chicago BANS smoking within (I think) 50' of an entrance, subject to fine (not less than $50).

Of course, at O'Hare, the smoking areas and most of what was clear space around the terminals are all blocked off because of construction and the smokers have to stand in close proximity to the general public (or in the street, which is illegal).

Force them outside, take away anyplace that one COULD smoke "legally;" I'm waiting for the day they start fining. Ban by increments, and only criminals are left. But in your world, it's OK, because you don't like smoking.

[StuporDave]

Do you really not think it is rude to literally stand next to a door and smoke when other have to pass by you? Would you do this if you could walk 15 feet away where is wouldnt be so blatant?

I was on a job downtown the other day. (I don't have to work in an office, thank God) The building I was working in is headquarters for a good sized corporation you might have heard of. The smoking area is outside the side entrance to the building. The large concrete ashtrays, which are set into the sidewalk, are about five feet from the door. Where would you like the smokers to go?

[Jeeper]

No! It is not rude to stand where one has been ordered to go under the threat of deadly force.


and that people, like yourself, would be very happy to call armed men to haul them away and, if they resist sufficiently, to shoot them to death.


Does your tin foil hat ever get sweaty? Show me the deadly force incidents. Are they the same as the gunfights that occur everyday with CCW holders that the Brady bunch sees?

If you read my posts you would know that I really dont mind smoke. I just can really empathize with those that it really bothers. Rude is rude whether you like it or not. I wouldnt sit in my garage at 2am and use my router because i know it would offend my neighbors even if there wasnt a noise law against it. I am suggesting that for years smokers would not compromise certain areas where most normal people do not like to be around smoke. Now since this compromise did not happen then the smokers are losing out. If smokers would have stayed away from the entrances and such then I doubt this would have happened. I understand that they were first forced outside so the inclination is to go close to the door. But courtesy would dictate that you be polite to others as well. You have no right to polute my body. I just want to be left alone. I know that is all the smokers want but they also feel it is their right to infringe on others rights. Honestly this isnt any different that OSHA or other health laws. But I guess that you would allow companies to make people work in unsafe conditions.

Please go to the mirror and re-read that statement.

I know what it means, DO YOU?? Why should smokers be allowed to infringe on others. Noise ordinances, polution control and other nusiances are all the same. But I guess those are bad in your mind also. Come up with a cigarette that only goes into your lungs and nowhere else and everyone will be happy.

The large concrete ashtrays, which are set into the sidewalk, are about five feet from the door. Where would you like the smokers to go?

I agree that it is not smart for someone to do that but that is private property and they can do whatever they want. I am talking more about how public facilities should be setup. I dont think smoking should be banned but the middle is a tough area.

[StuporDave]

I agree that it is not smart for someone to do that but that is private property and they can do whatever they want. I am talking more about how public facilities should be setup. I dont think smoking should be banned but the middle is a tough area.

Private property, they can do whatever thay want? I think that's the whole point. They should be able to do whatever they want with regard to smoking, but they can't. The government has again overstepped it's bounds by telling people they can't smoke on private property. Or more correctly, telling the legal owner of the private property that he or she can't allow people to smoke on their property, that the owners can't even enjoy a cigarette or cigar on their own property.

If a government entity bans smoking in public buildings, I can see that. They have no right to ban smoking on private property. Hell, if they can ban it in a private business, they can ban it in a private home. Didn't some town in CA already do or try that? What's next after smoking?

Let the market decide. If a restaurant or bar allows smoking and you don't want to put up with it, don't go there. Go to the one down the road that's no smoking. If a business allows smoking in the workplace and you don't want to put up with it, don't accept the job.

It's another example of the gov't taking our freedoms, bit by bit.

And by the way, I'm a non-smoker. Actually an ex-smoker. I quit five or six years ago.

Dave

[jimpeel]

Does your tin foil hat ever get sweaty?I should hope not. The acidity of the sweat would react with the aluminum and the metal plate in my head and cause brain dam bu dam bu damaeg bu dam bu damage. Show me the deadly force incidents. Are they the same as the gunfights that occur everyday with CCW holders that the Brady bunch sees?
Because they haven't happened yet doesn't mean they won't.

If you called the police because some guy in the bar you were in wouldn't put out his cigarette and, when the cops got there, he resisted them and got shot in the process I honestly feel you would likely have no remorse whatsoever over his demise. You would deny your culpablilty and say that he was the one who set things in motion, not you. He should have complied with the law and he had it coming if he was so belligerent. His instantaneous death can in no way compare to your lingering death because of his second hand smoke; and he will never again be able to harm another individual with his anti-social behavior.
If you read my posts you would know that I really dont mind smoke. I just can really empathize with those that it really bothers. Rude is rude whether you like it or not. I wouldnt sit in my garage at 2am and use my router because i know it would offend my neighbors even if there wasnt a noise law against it. I am suggesting that for years smokers would not compromise certain areas where most normal people do not like to be around smoke. Now since this compromise did not happen then the smokers are losing out. If smokers would have stayed away from the entrances and such then I doubt this would have happened. I understand that they were first forced outside so the inclination is to go close to the door. But courtesy would dictate that you be polite to others as well. You have no right to polute my body. I just want to be left alone. I know that is all the smokers want but they also feel it is their right to infringe on others rights. Honestly this isnt any different that OSHA or other health laws. But I guess that you would allow companies to make people work in unsafe conditions.I know what it means, DO YOU?? Why should smokers be allowed to infringe on others.I find it interesting that throughout your posts the subject of infringement comes up but always in reference to the smoker's infringemment of others; while completely ignoring the infringrement others have placed against them.

I'm not just talking about the infringement of having to go outside.

I'm talking about the infringement of being fired from their job.

I'm talking about the infringement of laws telling them they can't smoke in their own home.

I'm talking about the infringement of threats to take their children from them.

I'm talking about the infringement of having to pay a $6,000 fine for having an ashtray.

So before you throw around the "I" word about them, you should look to your own behavior in relation to them.

[RightIsRight]

"a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 1.71 per year (US Dept. of Health and Human Services)"

That is incorrect.

The accidental death per physician is .171 per year.

While I don't agree with the government outlawing smoking, there is a large piece of this pie missing here.

How many 100s of billions of dollars a year are lost to health related problems caused by smoking? Lost productivity at work which the consumer pays for, raised insurance premiums for everyone, our tax money used to pay for indigent smokers who can't afford their lung transplant, etc., etc., etc.

So the person who chooses to live a healthier life by not smoking is also footing the bill for the damage caused by smokers.

While it may fit nicely into the belief that all government regulation is bad regulation, this particular situation has waters that run a lot deeper.

[artherd]

I don't give a flying ???? what you do in your own home, but if you have the right to blow smoke in my face (I'm alergic) Then I have the right to blast you in the face with a C02 Fire Extinguisher.


Sorry, keep your disgusting and damaging habbits to yourself. It has no place in my face.

PS: I can't discharge a firearm within 100yds of any road either, makes perfect sense to me. Get the ???? off the road.

This is not socialist, or an unreasonable infringement on rights.

Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. This is the same position your right to smoke ends.

[Jeeper]

Jim

I think we agree more than we realize. I dont think it should be banned. I dont think they shoudl tell you that you cant do it in your car or your home. AS for the original topic which was the policemen: I think that requireing a level of physical fitness is the best way to do it. If they smoke or not a certain level should be necessary. I DO STRONGLY think that everyones helth level should dictate what they pay for health insurance.

I think that the point we differ on is how we consider the act itself. I consider it like being able to walk around shooting my gun wherever I want. This would harm people. By telling me that I have to only shoot on a range or safe area are you infringing on my rights? I dont think you are. I can see how someone could possibly view it as not similar but I dont.

Stupor Dave,
There was a good debate here a while back about private property and such. I was more talking about in front of public buildings on public property. The whole ban in private property is another issue. If there were ever bars that had no smoking sections then I think people would leave it alone. But since this doesnt occur then no compromise is really going to happen. Someone is going to get screwed either way. I havent been to but a handful of bars that were actually non-smoking. They jsut really dont exist. It isnt because of the market so much as it is that people go where they want to.

[kbr80]

That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals.


Ok, lets ban cops who smoke. Lets ignore cops who are 300 + pounds, you know the ones, at least everybody on this forum knows a cop who is akin to porky pig. The one that could not roll out of his patrol car fast enough if he needed to. Probably wears a high and tight as well, gotta look cool.

[jimpeel]

Based on your post I agree that we mostly agree.

Shooting a firearm ramdomly in a crowd situation does immediate and irreparable harm. There are people who have smoked every day for their entire lives and lived to over 100 with no ill effects. Then there are those who will swear that their lung cancer came from once walking past a group of people who were smoking a block away.

So what if we outlaw cigarettes and tobacco products of all kinds (which will never happen because the federal, state and local governments have their lips firmly locked on that teat) and the cancer rate fails to decrease? What if the rates continue unabated? What do we blame next and take another stab at to see if this one is correct?

How about THIS ARTICLE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F03%2F08%2Fwtob08.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=61716) from the London Daily Telegraph Sunday 8 March 1998 which states "THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect."?

The World Health Organization conducted the largest study in world history and got that result. The scientific community was eagerly awaiting this study and when it got here they spiked it because it didn't have the expected results. In fact, it stood all prior studies on their head.

Here is the full text of the article:Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.
In a later article entitled "Study fails to link passive smoking with cancer" published Sunday 11 October 1998 they stated "THE World Health Organisation has finally published a study which shows that there is no significant statistical link between passive smoking and lung cancer."

The article is located HERE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/11/wsmok11.html) and here is the text of that article:Study fails to link passive smoking with cancer

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE World Health Organisation has finally published a study which shows that there is no significant statistical link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

As reported by The Telegraph in March, the 12-centre, seven-country European study failed to prove the anti-tobacco lobby's assertion that there is a significant correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer.

The 10-year study was co-ordinated by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, based in Lyons, France, and involved 650 lung cancer patients who were compared with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to or worked with smokers, who worked with and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

Data was also collected on other environmental factors, such as heating and cooking arrangements, exposure to known occupational lung carcinogens, and, in some centres, dietary habits.

The study, which has been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and is the largest of its kind in Europe, shows that there is "no relationship between childhood exposure to second-hand smoke at home and lung cancer".

And it found a "statistically non-significant positive association" between exposure to spousal smoking and lung cancer and for those who work with smokers.

The IARC scientists said in March that their findings translated into a 16-17 per cent relative risk of contracting lung cancer if you lived or worked with a smoker. But they now concede that 16-17 per cent is statistically non-significant, implying that it could have been produced by random chance.

The Telegraph was criticised for reporting the findings, which had been quietly published in abstract form in the WHO's biennial report. Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) reported The Sunday Telegraph to the Press Complaints Commission claiming the article was "false and misleading".

Clive Bates, the director of Ash, said in a press release that the publication supported his interpretation of the statistics. Mr Bates's objection to this newspaper's report was largely founded on the headline: "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer - Official". The word "official" referred to the provenance of the findings - the WHO.

Mr Bates continued: "As yet, there has been no retraction, correction or apology by the newspaper . . ."

The PCC has not yet made a decision on the complaint and the Ash press release suggested that this was because of the appointment of Dominic Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, to the commission.

Mr Lawson said last night: "The Sunday Telegraph has no intention of apologising for stating that the WHO study showed no significant statistical correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer. The press release from the National Cancer Institute refers to 'statistically non-significant' links and in the case of childhood exposure 'no association' with lung cancer."

Mr Lawson added: "It is reprehensible of Ash to imply that I could in any way delay the judgment of the PCC and, indeed, it would be most improper of me to play any part in the PCC's deliberations on this matter."

In an interview with this newspaper on Friday Mr Bates said: "We are not saying that if you are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke you are going to fall down dead. If you are a non-smoker, you are not that likely to get lung cancer."

He also said that the issue was heart disease. This was not, however, the subject of the IARC report.All of the links at the Telegraph page to the ASH site do not work as ASH has taken them down. All you get at the ASH pages is "Sorry - we couldn't find the page you requested."

This story was published NOWHERE in America. We had to go to a foreign news source to see it.

It ... just ... doesn't ... fit ... the ... agenda.

[StuporDave]

It isnt because of the market so much as it is that people go where they want to.

Jeepers,

That is the market. Just my opinion, but I think the non-smokers will go to the bar that allows smoking but the smokers won't go the the non-smoking bar. So if you want access to the most business, you allow smoking in your bar.

Dave

[Jeeper]

Jim,

Interesting article. Maybe second hand smoke is good. The goverment has always said low fat is good but I dont believe that. Very interesting. I try not to believe what the burocrats say but since they control everything it is hard not to buy into it.

Dave,

I hear ya that this would seem to make sense. I just think that the concept of non-smoking bars has never really been tried. I dont think that it is from a lack of public desire. I think bar owners just dont want to do it whether the customers want it or not. Since basically all bars are smoking bars then they have no detrimental effect on their business if this status quo continues. If one bar opened that was non-smoking and business started going away then it might change some minds. The problem is that most places dont even have one bar so the status quo remains.

[Cellar Dweller]

One of the most far-reaching ideas would be to allow municipalities to make their own laws regarding smoking in public places
Other than excluding smokers as being members of the public...their money is welcome but their presence is not...Once again, a goodly portion of the state budget is BUILT on tobacco settlement money (being spent on non-tobacco related ventures) and tobacco tax revenue. I'll concede (for now) the "risk" to non-smokers and continue.

their organizations support bills that would tighten smoking and tobacco restrictions, including: raising the age to buy tobacco to 19 from 18 unless the person has a military identification card Magic age limits that accomplish nothing other than the appearance of "doing something," just as teenagers find ways to get alcohol and cigarettes and firearms and drugs now.

forcing tobacco sellers to be licensed by the state Revenue generation only. There are already local and/or county licenses required so adding another layer of bureaucracy adds nothing of practical use.

banning smoking from all stadiums, health facilities and restaurants in the state. All stadiums are open to the public; not all are government-owned. Other than restaurants in government buildings the rest are in PRIVATE-owned locations. Healthcare facilities may get gov't money subject to being controlled by the gov't leash.

Nonsmokers cry about nonsmoking restaurants and bars but resort to the government to create them because the free market won't. If there is such a huge market surely SOMEONE would cater to it...I have no compassion for smokers who light up in the nonsmoking section, nor do I have compassion for nonsmokers sitting in the smoking section.

Health-care costs and insurance? Very simple: no freebies, no subsidies, no handouts, no entitlements. YOU get what YOU pay for from YOUR own pocket. If you can't afford a lung transplant or a liver transplant or $3000/month for your old age pharmacy bag, you do without. I see no government guarantee that one is entitled to live at least 100 years in any document.

[jimpeel]

And then there's this little discussion we had here on THR on the current effort on the part of the governor of Colorado to sell the state's tobacco settlement money for a lump sum. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51349

The governor wants to use 80 million dollars to restore programs that have been cut, and put the rest in a rainy-day fund; but we all know when it comes to politicians, there are always clouds on the horizon.

[jimpeel]

During prohibition people couldn't afford cigarettes so they smoked cornsilk. What will the smoking Nazis do when people rediscover cornsilk; ban the number one cash crop in America? Will they disallow the sale or possession of unshucked corn? Ban cultivation for private use?

Nothing is beyond contemplation for those with a mission.

[jimpeel]

This story ought to get the antis up in arms. Maybe there's a small town in Illinois ...

Do ya think that smoking Roesmary is legal in Illinois?

SOURCE (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040119-121424-3714r.htm)

Light-up time leaves some Italians fuming

By Suzanne Bush
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES

CAPENA, Italy — Yesterday was light-up time in Capena, a medieval town where everybody smokes on St. Anthony's Day. Nobody remembers why, but nearly everybody does it — even children as young as 2 years old.

For years, the event has gone unnoticed by public-health advocates, who just this month succeeded in getting the Italian government to order bars and restaurants to ban smoking or to allow it only in well-ventilated smoking areas.

Hundreds gathered under gray skies to light cigarettes from the trunk of an olive tree set ablaze in the town square.

One mother, who gave her name only as Rosalba, said she has been participating in the festival for 11 years and has taken photos of her children posing with cigarettes since they were 1. Her eldest, Giulia, is 9.

"They don't smoke properly," Rosalba said, chuckling. "Then again, Giulia did just try inhaling and started choking. ... It's a lovely thing. I'm not worried about them taking up smoking. It's only for one day, and they know it's bad for them."

Rosalba's friend, Katia, encouraged her son, Augustino, to take his first puff, but the 2-year-old seemed unenthusiastic.

Although the youngest children were accompanied by parents, many older children smoked all day without supervision.

"I like smoking," said 10-year-old Tancredi. "I help out with Mass, then I come here, and my parents think it's OK because it's only one day a year."

The festival of St. Anthony usually is celebrated across Italy with the traditional blessing of animals to bring prosperity in the year ahead. Capena's unusual custom began centuries ago with the smoking of rosemary.

Some remain faithful to that habit, but the majority now opt for cigarettes instead.

The tradition is awkward for Mayor Riccardo Benigni, who also is the town doctor.

"It's not a good thing. This I can say as a doctor and a nonsmoker. It's not that I like this new tradition. Of course, it's not a good example for anyone, but the origins were completely different."

Mr. Benigni says he has tried to discourage children from taking part and, for the first time this year, there was a sign suggesting parents give their children sweets instead. But only a few of the smaller children chose candy cigarettes over the coffin nails.

Raffaele Luise of the Italian Cancer League was appalled by the practice.

"I'm convinced that when children associate the souvenir of their first cigarette with having fun in a happy situation with the whole village and all their mates, these memories can lead a kid to repeat that behavior."

Most Italian adults seem oblivious to the effects of smoking on their children. Despite a 30-year-old ban, it's not unusual to see Italians smoking in schools and hospitals.