Smoking ban upheld in my city!! Critique my letter....


PDA






Moparmike
February 11, 2004, 12:52 AM
February 10, 2004
To: Fayetteville City Council
CC: Arkansas Traveler, Northwest Arkansas Times, Morning News

To the residents, business owners, and Council Members of District 2:

First, I would like to commend the efforts of Free Choice Fayetteville and their struggle against tyranny in the name of “feel good lawmaking” in our good town. I wish I could have participated more and helped prevent this dark day for liberty and property rights.

I am incensed by how Smoke Free Fayetteville and its supporters welcome oppressive laws in the name of “health.” I cannot possibly fathom how anyone would openly support the growth of a “Nanny State” where the government dictates what is good for you without your say. I am ashamed to be a resident of this town today, even more than I was after the spawning of that Tree Law.

I write to all of you today to offer my condolences to the businesses of Fayetteville, as they will no longer receive one red cent of my money. I will buy all of my goods in surrounding towns. I will not give any money to my City Oppressors, and may even move out if I can. The abominable string of events that led to this flogging of the principles that this country was founded upon shall not go unanswered by this liberty-minded individual’s wallet.

As for the Council Members representing District 2: You will never get my vote. I don’t care if you repeal this tomorrow. NEVER.

Disgustedly yours,


{moparmike}
Lifelong Resident of FayettevilleOk, in my own defense, I realized later that the "Representatives of District 2" were called Aldermen. Oh well.

BTW, this passed with only 400 votes, and had the biggest voter turn out in some time. Over 11,000 voted out of 50,000.

If you enjoyed reading about "Smoking ban upheld in my city!! Critique my letter...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dorian
February 11, 2004, 02:10 AM
Don't hold back Mike... Tell them how you really feel!

Pendragon
February 11, 2004, 03:35 AM
So what is the framework of the "Ban"?

Is it a city-wide ban on all smoking? or just in public buildings or workplaces or restaurants/bars, etc - ?

I leveraged the CA smoking laws to excellent effect - I had people smoking literally 6 feet from my desk - which was next to a door which was next to a bench, etc.

I have no problem with people consuming nicotene or whatever, I just object to my own involuntary exposure while working for a publicly owned corporation.

Andrew Rothman
February 11, 2004, 03:38 AM
Well, since the rest of us have NO BLOODY IDEA what you are talking about...

http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/nwatimes_what_matters.html
http://nw-ar.com/smokefree/ordinance_4512.html

Personally, I think the law is a good idea.

If OSHA had any balls at all it would regulate tobacco exposure in the workplace in the same way that it regulates asbestos or cyanide.

Since it doesn't, good for Fayetteville!

You smokers have every right in the world to poison yourselves, but your right stops at my lungs. Standard libertarian principles.

I know, I know. If I don't like a smoky bar, don't work or drink there.

Sure. And if you don't like radiation poisoning, don't work at the nuclear plant. What? Put up shielding? DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY PRIVATE BUSINESS!

:D

Have a nice night, everyone.

0007
February 11, 2004, 04:39 AM
Anybody able to quote any SCIENTIFICALLY BASED studies that show that "second hand smoke" is anything other then a bad smell, step up to the plate. Really good comparison there, radiation, asbestos, cyanide, and smoking. Usual non sequitur move by someone with no pertinent argument. :scrutiny: And by the way I'm not a smoker and never have been.

Double Naught Spy
February 11, 2004, 05:17 AM
Health tyranny? Gotta hate people arguing for better health.

In am insensed by your use of incensed.

By being 'incensed,' do you mean you reek of cigarettes? If you get really mad, do you smell that much worse? Oh, wait, you probably can't smell it.

Ryder
February 11, 2004, 05:53 AM
Anybody able to quote any SCIENTIFICALLY BASED studies that show that "second hand smoke" is anything other then a bad smell, step up to the plate. Really good comparison there, radiation, asbestos, cyanide, and smoking. Usual non sequitur move by someone with no pertinent argument. And by the way I'm not a smoker and never have been.

As I remember it some housewives who had been continuously exposed to second hand smoke over a period of several decades developed cancer and it was suspected that this may have been the cause of having cancer. That's about as close as you are going to get to any kind of scientific study on humans.

I don't smoke either. I could care less if I catch a whiff of someone's cigarette. People can't seriously be so brainwashed as to believe occasional exposure will harm them in the least. My guess is it's just a convenient excuse to exercise their prejudiced oppressive nature against others. If it isn't one thing it will be another.

TCD
February 11, 2004, 06:55 AM
People can't seriously be so brainwashed as to believe occasional exposure will harm them in the least. My guess is it's just a convenient excuse to exercise their prejudiced oppressive nature against others. If it isn't one thing it will be another.


tell that to Asthmatics....

A slight odor change and in particular cigarette smoke can cause athma attacks in many individuals. And I can tell you that a bad asthma attack sucks, as does being told that you are dangerously close to not making it.

hillbilly
February 11, 2004, 07:59 AM
Be careful, however.

The "public health" argument is often resorted to by nanny-staters when it comes to gun bans.

In fact, I've heard more than one anti say "We don't allow cigarettes into restaurants, so why should we allow concealed handguns? They both kill people."

It is a logical fallacy of course, but when's the last time the voting public showed an ability to discern between logic and logical fallacies?

So be careful about self-righteously crowing too much over smoking ban laws.

Because the exact same tactics and statements used against smokers will be and have been used against gun owners, over and over and over. And in some areas, they have been used to great success for the antis.

hillbilly

Byron
February 11, 2004, 08:55 AM
0007, I can not quote a scientific study but allow me to quote my experience.I am 56 and recently had chest x rays.I had told the doctor I had never smoked and I haven't.I grew watching my Dad chain smoke.At times, it was difficult to breath in the house or car.He died at 56. The doctor told me my lungs had the appearance of a moderate smoker. For me,second hand smoke has done damage. Byron

Stetson_CO
February 11, 2004, 09:05 AM
Byron,

Not that it matters to me one way or the other, but is the condition of your lungs due to cigarete smoke or car exhaust fumes...or any other pollutant?


c):{

PS - I quit smoking Dec 10th, 2003.

Pendragon
February 11, 2004, 10:10 AM
Interesting how smokers always want scientific proof that cig smoke causes cancer.

"oh, its just an unpleasant smell!"

I will not contend that it causes cancer with 100% certainty - but I wonder if any smokers will contend that it is 100% harmless?

I have heard what amounts to "oh, its harmful probably, but just barely".

If its even a little harmful, then its harmful.

"Oh, but the arsenic and cyanide and all the other dangerous chemicals in smoke are only present in trace amounts".

Also - saying "careful! they will use health issues to take your guns" is pretty silly. The fact is, they will use anything they can to take our guns - but a lit cigarette is more properly compared to the discharge of a firearm. If we are responsible for where our bullets go, are we not also responsible for where our cigarette smoke goes?

I don't want to intersect with your bullets or smoke and legally, if you inflict a bullet on me, you make have a good reason and a defense - but what possible defense is there to inflicting smoke on me (in a place I have a right to be)?

I think most of the people here fall into the "smoke yourself silly, just don't get it on me" crowd - thats a very different breed from the nanny types who are offended by what you do to your body. I only care about what you do to my body.

Byron
February 11, 2004, 10:37 AM
Stetson,the doctor attributed it to cigarette smoke. I grew up in a rural area of GA thus no pollution. My Dad's smoking was beyond belief. As a kd, I could count on a hospital stay due to bronchitis. He quite when I was about 12 and no more hispitalization due to bronchitis. Byron

Mikul
February 11, 2004, 11:20 AM
I have no problem with people smoking, but I can't be around them. I don't have asthma or any other breathing problems, but if anyone is within 50 feet of me, I can smell it and it will literally cause me to gag. I can't breathe.

When my parents took me to a restaurant as a child, I dreaded it because there was no non-smoking section. I spent 2 hours gagging and breathing through my napkin. Until non-smoking sections came along, I had resigned myself to never eating out as an adult.

If I walked into a room with people smoking, I'd leave. However, if I were in a room and someone wanted to light up, the polite thing to do is ask if it's okay.

meathammer
February 11, 2004, 11:25 AM
The effects of smoking aside, the REAL issue here is the city telling business owners what they can and can't do on their PRIVATE property.

I'm sure there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants. Business owners that have personally made the choice to not allow smoking. Don't like smoke, don't take your business there. It's that simple.

kbr80
February 11, 2004, 01:25 PM
Good letter Mike. Let them have it.


A side note: This is a real step back. Today smoking, tomorrow all guns will be a health issue. Thats the big picture.

Moparmike
February 11, 2004, 02:09 PM
Don't hold back Mike... Tell them how you really feel!You know, I think I will: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: I feel better now.

As for the "guns are ok but cigarettes are evil, duh!" crowd: I really dont want to get into that age-old heated arguement that gets threads closed, but if you insist, I will. Your ability to dictate what legal substances I openly (public signage) use stops at my property line. If people want to use my property, they come in understanding that there will be smoke or not. The whole reason I am pissed about it is the welcome the Nanny State recieved yesterday. I cant believe almost 6000 sheeple in this liberal hellhole bleated in favor of the government doing their thinking and parenting for them. The whole arguement against the ban wasnt the health issue, but the fact that the right of someone to tell me what legal activities I can do behind my property line stops at my property line. If they want to ban smoking on private property, they should ban tobacco, not the activity using it. It is a dark day for property rights and individual thinking.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/internetworkers/2001-May/003237.html
I really am starting to think that common sense is truely dead.

Thanks kbr80.

hillbilly
February 11, 2004, 02:53 PM
Some points made, Moparmike.

But once an individual opens a business to offer services or products to the public, all sorts of "private property" issues are not so cut and dried anymore.

For example, if I don't allow green-eyed left-handed people into my own private home because of whatever weird hangups and prejudices I have against green-eyed left-handed people, that is my right.

I can decide who I want or don't want in my house.

However, once I open a business and offer products or a service to the public, I can no longer openly keep green-eyed left-handed people out of my business without running afoul of all sorts of laws and basic principals.

So yes, private property concerns. But once you open a business patronized by the public, it's not exactly private property any more in the same way a private residence is.

I don't agree with the cigarette banners completely, and I don't want this idea to spread too much as it will be, and has been applied with success against guns and gun owners.

hillbilly

spacemanspiff
February 11, 2004, 03:10 PM
its been my personal experience that smokers care little about not just their own health, but the health and preferences of those around them. it also seems like smokers care little about a clean environment, as they are always dropping their butts anywhere they please, even if an ashtray is within arms reach.

i'm not saying all smokers are littering people who blow their smoke in nonsmokers faces, but the majority of smokers i know are like that.

whats really frustrating is when smokers congregate right at the entrance of a 'smoke-free' building, forcing everyone who enters to wade through their clouds of smoke.

just as smokers have a right to smoke, i have a right to never be exposed to that filthy rotten stench.

Bob Locke
February 11, 2004, 04:11 PM
But once you open a business patronized by the public, it's not exactly private property any more in the same way a private residence is.
Not picking on you in particular, hillbilly. You just distilled the argument down better than anyone else so far.

The idea of a "place of public accomodation" has no foundation in the Constitution.

There is public property, owned by the people at large and operated by their representatives, and there is private property, owned and operated by a person or a group of people. No middle ground legitimately exists.

Do I believe the government has the authority to ban smoking in any publicly-owned building? Absolutely.

Do I believe the government has the authority to tell the local bowling alley proprietor that he or she cannot allow smoking in their establishment? Not on your life.

Here's what it boils down to:

Many people would like to have a smoke-free environment in which to spend some of their leisure time. Hard to fault them for that. But rather than go about it the American way, which would be to put up their own money and/or become part of a group of investors and open their own establishment, they go to the government and have their will imposed upon the people who have put their time and money at risk.

If you don't like the fact that a business allows smoking, take action that's in accord with the idea of a free marketplace. Don't patronize those businesses. Or, even better, tell the owner that you will bring him or her your business as soon as the "No Smoking" signs go up. Let THEM make the decision; don't use the power of the government to make your decision for them.

Smoke
February 11, 2004, 04:54 PM
I don't care if anyone wants to smoke. I do NOT care to smell your cigarette while I'm dining on a $30.00 steak.

The Feds/State/City have no business telling businesses they can not allow smoking. That decision goes back to the consumer. IF I don't want to smell smoke I go to a place that doesn't allow it or that has a seperate smoking section that I feel is satisfactory. It is NOT the Governments business. Remember they are banning a perfectly legal product. (Sound like guns? You can own them, just not here...)

It is my beleif that second hand smoke probably is harmful if inhaled in quantity over long periods of time and even then only to certain individuals.
But second hand smoke is offensive to non-smokers.

If you want to blow your cigarette smoke on me, you shouldn't mind if I spit my Copenagen on you.

Smoke - who doesn't

Moparmike
February 11, 2004, 04:59 PM
Thank you Bob. You said my feelings and arguement in a much more detatched and concise manner than my current feelings about the issue will allow.

thefitzvh
February 11, 2004, 05:52 PM
I think smoke summed it up nicely...

I think that if you blow your smoke on me, I reserve the right to tell you what a nasty :cuss: you are.

However, government has no place telling a business owner that they cannot allow smoking. Just as government has no place telling a bar owner that he can't allow CCW (some states ban CCW in bars, right?)

It's ridiculous.

Now with regard to the smokers who say "Prove to me that secondhand smoke is harmful..." yada yada yada:

Who cares? Even if it isn't harmful, the fact remains that you still smell like :cuss: , and regardless of legality, you're offensive if you smoke near a non-smoker. It would be tantamount to me crapping on your doorstep. Sure, it might not HURT you, but it's damn sure offensive.


James

N3rday
February 11, 2004, 05:53 PM
Second hand smoke IS harmful, but again, a business owner should have the right to CHOOSE whether or not to allow it. Just keep it away from MY lungs and you are fine...

Bob summed it up nicely: MY property, MY rules. What the heck you do on YOUR property is your own business.

CommonSense
February 11, 2004, 06:29 PM
Well said, Bob Locke! This thread reminds me of a lot of old sayings such as:

“Put your money where your mouth is.” (Build your own establishment)
“Put up or shut up.” (See above)
“If you don’t like it – Leave!” (No one is forcing you to be here)
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” (No comment required)
“When cigarettes are illegal, only Al Capone will hav.. (nevermind – wrong product.)
“Built it and they will come.” (Advice to all non-smokers that think they have a better business plan)

Anyway, whatever happened to capitalism and free enterprise in this country?

Jeeper
February 11, 2004, 08:20 PM
I assume that everyon here that thinks the goverment cant regulate on "private" property thinks that all OSHA regulations, asbestos requirements, and alike are completely un-needed and would support working in a workplace that didnt have any health standards for their employees. You would happily work around toxic waste with no protection and so forth. Just like back in the good old days in the mines where everyone died of black lung and other diseases. Otherwise you would really be quite a hypocrite.

Moparmike
February 11, 2004, 08:34 PM
I wouldnt work there because it was unsafe. You forget that libertarian principles dictate that a company like that would go down in flames due to the unpopularity it would recieve from its employees dropping like flies.

No server, bartender, or restaurant owner would come foward and complain about smoking and join the Smoke Free side. All of them said it would impact them negatively with the money lost in revenues and tips. If smoking was bad enough to discourage the workers and customers enough to harm the business in the libertarian utopia, then the free market process would force everyone to become smoke free. Otherwise, its a moot point.

Pendragon
February 11, 2004, 08:56 PM
I wouldnt work there because it was unsafe. You forget that libertarian principles dictate that a company like that would go down in flames due to the unpopularity it would recieve from its employees dropping like flies.


Or, all business would operate with minimal regard to safety and health and they would still find people to work there.

Why do you think these regulations came to exist? Was it because private industry was doing such a bangup job keeping the work environment safe and healthy and harassment free, etc - that the government was afraid a spontaneous libertarian utopia could break out at any moment?

Newsflash - the Constitution is not overwhelmingly a "libertarian" document. It grants congress the right to regulate interstate commerce - how are they supposed to do that without, in some way, infringing on your limitless private liberty?

thefitzvh
February 11, 2004, 08:59 PM
Ensuring that buildings are up to code, and that things are done properly to ensure employee safety are a tad different than allowing a bar owner to let people smoke in his bar.

That's why people GO TO BARS... to sit around, and entertain their many vices...


I'm not a smoker (read comments above) and I still think that a bar or restaurant should be able to allow smoking if it wants. Nonsmokers can either deal, or go elsewhere.

Same with employees.


James

CommonSense
February 11, 2004, 09:06 PM
Hi Jeeper: You bring up an interesting question. At what point should the government interfere with business. Let’s keep the conversation on thread though.

1. Do you think smoking is unhealthy?
2. Do you think working in an environment with smoking people will harm your health?
3. Have you ever seen a warning regarding the risks of being around tobacco smoke?
4. Have you or anyone you know suffered harm from tobacco smoke?

If you answered YES to any of those questions, you should not visit places where the owner allows smoking if it worries you.

That said, no. I would not work in a place with asbestos or coal dust. Why? Because I answered the same questions I just asked you above and decided that wasn’t for me. I don’t care to put myself in what I believe to be harms way. Hypocrite? If you insist.

But seriously, working around asbestos or coal dust is now regulated with laws that dictate you have to wear certain clothing and breathing apparatus because of the proven effects of these items.

If you believe it’s been proven that second-hand smoke is killing you, you’d be wise to wear special clothing and breathing apparatus if you feel forced in to entering a business that allows smoking.

Moparmike
February 11, 2004, 09:08 PM
Interstate commerce has nothing to do with my bar or restaurant. Each establishment is a separate entity, performing its own business for itself or for an owner. That Ma & Pa diner down the road has nothing to fear from the regulation of Interstate Commerce in relation to its smoking/non-smoking status.

Now if it was Intrastate commerce, you might have an arguement, albeit weak.

CommonSense
February 11, 2004, 09:41 PM
Pendragon: Bullets have been proven to kill people. Should those be banned as well? Okay, you have the right to bear arms – just no ammo.

Ryder
February 11, 2004, 11:28 PM
There is no end to appeasing control freaks. It's only a matter of time until they conquer the secondhand smoke issue enough to move on to the next item on their hit list. As was mentioned gun ownership is at risk but what about microwave radiation? I can hear it now. "Are not the waves of your cell phones intruding on my body? I don't care if you want to cook your brain and die after 30 years of use but what about me? Why should I be forced to live in a soup of microwave radiation 24 hours a day?". Scientific evidence exists that cell phone use does cause a localized elevation of brain tissue temperature. Why wait another 10 or 15 years until people start dropping like flies?

What about electromagnetic radiation? Should the government shut down electric companies? Make sitting too close to an electrical appliance illegal? Science shows that this affects fertility rates. That's a public health issue! Some suspect it increases cancer risk too but it doesn't take real science, only enough brainwashed people to complain.

So what is next? I sure don't know. Maybe we can skip straight to the sight of certain people being offensive and ban them as was done in Germany during WWII?

Andrew Rothman
February 12, 2004, 12:54 AM
Ensuring that buildings are up to code, and that things are done properly to ensure employee safety are a tad different than allowing a bar owner to let people smoke in his bar.

What is that difference? Bar employees that breathe secondhand smoke for eight hours a day ARE being poisoned.

Go read about studies on both sides of the argument: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

Pendragon
February 12, 2004, 01:06 AM
CommonSense:
Bullets have been proven to kill people. Should those be banned as well? Okay, you have the right to bear arms – just no ammo.

I am trying to discern if you are using this fallacy on purpose, or if you really do not see the difference.

Bullets in my pocket harm nobody (even if installed in a gun also in my pocket).
Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.

Smoking in public places is at best only extremely annoying, at worst, a serious health hazard. The only reason to smoke in public is to enjoy the God-given gift of tobacco.

Discharging a firearm in public is, at best annoying, at worst, tragic. There are several good reasons to discharge a firearm in public - to preserve life being the primary valid reason. In this world of "competing harms", the risk of discharging a firearm in public in a self defense situation is mitigated by the need to avoid assault or death.

Many Non-smokers believe that the pleasure derived from smoking does not mitigate the risk and annoyance of second hand smoke in a public area.

Oh, but of course, your RIGHT to smoke is inviolate. I am curious if your state constitution or local charter has any passages about the regulation of "private" business.

Surely there are all sorts of other laws that are imposed on your private business? Why were you not down there protesting fire inspections and health regulations?

Your Ox not getting gored?

Well, now your Ox is run through and you are upset. It seems to me that you are upset because now you cannot smoke in places you used to be able to smoke in.

Of course, its much grander to step up on the soap box and proclaim that your libertarian sensibilities are now deeply wounded.

But where were you when the Taco bell had to install a $50,000 ramp for wheel chair access? What about the business that had to upgrade its fire alarm and sprinkler system or any other expense or inconvenience foisted upon the owners of "private property"?

Maybe you were there, fighting the fight - upholding your principles, living your words. I don't know - I don't know you or your town.

But I do know that when I leveraged the CA smoking laws to have the smoking area moved from the main courtyard to a less used corner of the property, MOST of the people I worked with were ECSTATIC.

Most people do not smoke and do not like to be around it. The nice, pretty courtyard was unuseable to most employees because it was not possible to sit out and enjoy the scenery and weather and eat your lunch with people smoking.

Most people do not smoke and are glad when smoking is removed from their environment. Also, most people are intelligent to be able to think, simultaneously "lets heavily restrict smoking while not heavily restricting other products".

The reason the slippery slope scare tactics do not really work is because 99.9% of gun owners do not bother people with their guns. We keep them tucked away and hidden, we just try to enjoy our hobby without bothering people.

The reason the smack is coming down on smokers is because smoke is just so annoying and so everywhere and non-smokers are just tired of it.

And if the smokers write and tell us they are not going to show up or go to our favorite hot spots, most of us are going to think "great! now not only do I not have to breathe the smoke, I dont have to sit near people who reek of it!".

Ryder:There is no end to appeasing control freaks. It's only a matter of time until they conquer the secondhand smoke issue enough to move on to the next item on their hit list. As was mentioned gun ownership is at risk but what about microwave radiation? I can hear it now. "Are not the waves of your cell phones intruding on my body? I don't care if you want to cook your brain and die after 30 years of use but what about me? Why should I be forced to live in a soup of microwave radiation 24 hours a day?". Scientific evidence exists that cell phone use does cause a localized elevation of brain tissue temperature. Why wait another 10 or 15 years until people start dropping like flies?

What about electromagnetic radiation? Should the government shut down electric companies? Make sitting too close to an electrical appliance illegal? Science shows that this affects fertility rates. That's a public health issue! Some suspect it increases cancer risk too but it doesn't take real science, only enough brainwashed people to complain.

So what is next? I sure don't know. Maybe we can skip straight to the sight of certain people being offensive and ban them as was done in Germany during WWII?

I am sorry Ryder, libertarians are few enough as it is - and of the ones out there, a lot of us (I suspect - ok, maybe just me) are willing to betray our principles to live in a world without smoke. Thats how much I hate I hate being around it. Out of the normal population, virtually all non-smokers are willing to put you under the collective boot because smoking is just so annoying - did I use the word annoying enough yet - smokers just do not seem to comprehend how much smoking is hated by most non-smokers.

Microwave and EMR do not annoy me. I rarely think about them except when I want a really fast meal, then I think happy thoughts about them - as most people probably do. If people want to ban microwave foods, all the soccer mommies will be taking up rifles because microwaves are such a time saver.

We all tried that whole "lets all just have dialog and be civil about smoking". It didn't work. We still got way too much annoying smoke.

Principles and ideologies are fine for discussion and forming opinion, but when people really have a problem with something, they want a solution - a quick, easy, painless solution. Yes, I do think the ban violates people rights.

I will be writing them appology notes during the times I cannot sleep because of it.



:evil:

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 01:15 AM
There is public property, owned by the people at large and operated by their representatives, and there is private property, owned and operated by a person or a group of people. No middle ground legitimately exists.Incorrect. The courts have ruled that there is private property where there is "usual and customary public access". Sounds like middle ground to me. I manage one of those types of properties.

In fact, the USSC ruled in PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=74) that privately held properties which have usual and customary public access cannot prevent persons from entering those properties in the pursuit of political free speech. That includes leafletting, signature gathering, and speaking to patrons of those properties.

Pendragon
February 12, 2004, 01:17 AM
Oh no jimpeel, someone needs to tell them bozos that private property is immune to all forms of regulation and that anything less is tyrranical oppression.

To arms!

:neener:

Smokers brought this on themselves.

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 01:41 AM
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:

[quote]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:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 01:46 AM
Smokers brought this on themselves.No, anti-smokers brought this onto smokers. It is laughable to think of smokers going out and recruiting others to abrogate their rights.

If someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves; you can bet your sweet a-- that there is someone, somewhere, working diligently to curtail that activity; and they are coming for you, next.

Pendragon
February 12, 2004, 03:08 AM
No, anti-smokers brought this onto smokers. It is laughable to think of smokers going out and recruiting others to abrogate their rights.

But thats exactly what they have done.


When I worked at the previously mentioned job and had people smoking litterally 6 feet from my desk and where I had to walk through clouds of smoke every time I came and went from my office, it annoyed the holy hell out of me. It made me angry and vindictive.

There was exactly one way to my office and it was through the smoking area - and the smokers congregated right by my door.

I started by asking my manager - please do something, I smell smoke all day, it annoys me, it is gross, etc.

He did not do nothing because he was a political eunuch.

Fine - next level was facilities supervisor - he said they had checked and the smoking area was legal and I was SOL.

Next level was regional facilities manager - he said he had to find a way to balance the rights of smokers against non smokers. Ah, I see. After further complaints, he came over and moved the "line" about 8 feet. Didnt help.

The political reality was that the managers did not want to mess with the "smokers lobby" at the company - most of the smokers were union and union complaints carry more weight than exempt (non union) techs.

I went to chief legal counsel. She liked me and I told he what I did and what I was going to do - I had an attorney interested in my case already. I told her what they did - she went over and checked out the area and the SHTF situation happened right there. She scolded the whole line of fool managers and shut the smoking area down on the spot (it was completely illegal under CA law).

The people at my site had been complaining about the smoking area for YEARS. Every complaint was ignored. The non smokers ate lunch inside, the smokers (less than 20% of the employees) owned the courtyard.

When I finally won, dozens and dozens and dozens of people thanked me - for weeks and weeks.

I did not do it because I saw people having fun. If smoking is a thrill, I say enjoy it. But to me, and many many many others, it is a nasty, gross, annoying habbit that forces us to gag and choke for the enjoyment of someone else - and that just pisses people off.

I have never seen a smoker ask me if the smoke bothered me or care one bit about the comfort of others.

So hop down off the soap boxes - smoking is not being banned because we non smoking puritans cannot stand to see you all enjoy your little habit. Its not about you, its about us.

If someone comes up with a way to make smearing dog feces all over yourself enjoyable, and 10% of the population decides to take that habit up, I will be first in line to help hand out the woop-a**. Smoking and wearing dog feces smeared on your clothing - in my mind, the same thing. Do it at home, in your car, etc - but I see it as fair game for society.

The majority of Americans are more or less live and let live types - but the smoking bans are getting traction because - and the smokers all seem absolutely impervious to this dynamic:

/Johnny Cochran voice on:

For the smoker to enjoy! - He must annoy!

/Johnny Cochran voice off.

Same deal with the loud sub blasting stereo freaks. You like to listen to crummy music really loudly? Fine - keep the noise in the car.

Dogs on leashes
Mufflers on cars
Stereos not disturbing the peace
Total ban on wearing of dog feces
Ban on public nudity
Ban on casual discharging of firearms
Ban on public smoking
Ban on public intoxication
Ban on "fire hazards"

Lordy take me home - civilization is oppressing me.

0007
February 12, 2004, 10:45 AM
Yep, pendrag, I'm glad to hear that you managed to move them eeeevil smokers, and by the way that brand of cologne you are wearing annoys the hell out of me and my nose, so stop wearing it or go somewhere else...:neener:

Still haven't got anyone to come up with the SCIENTIFIC STUDY to show that second hand smoke is harmful. BUT I got no arguement for the "it sure does stink" crowd 'cause it surely does...

Pendragon
February 12, 2004, 11:36 AM
There was someone at work who did wear too much perfume and they were asked to go home and come back when they did not smell that way. If there was a "perfume test" area by your desk so that all the perfume lovers could "enjoy" their little "habit" at the expense of your olefactorial sensibilities, you would... what? Follow your livertarian principles and put up or go find a new job?

I had the smoking area moved not for the sake of all the fun the smokers were having, but because they were enjoying themselves at my expense.

Yet the smokers all want to climb up on to a cross and play martyr for the cause of liberty - they never want to discuss how incredibly offensive their habit is to others around them.

Used to be what? 40-50% of the adult population smoked? Now it is like 15-25% or around there - depending on location.

And let me also say this - if just 1-2% of gun owners were as annoying to the population as the smokers are (and yes, I know they are not annoying on purpose) then our gun rights would be obliterated in a decade - or less.

If there were ND/ADs in every town, every day and the world really was the "wild west" scenario the antis are always predicting - then rights be damned, something would be done.

It is interesting how we often talk about the "unintended consequences" (not the book) of a law or policy or event. Ban AWs and mags over 10 rounds and what happens? We got lots of small, powerful handguns - they didn't see that coming.

The biggest thing gun owners can to to protect their rights is to just be safe and decent. Once the majority gets it in their head that something is a threat or an extreme annoyance, they are going to come after it.

The smokers have been oblivious or indifferent to the comfort of the majority, and now it is way past the discussion of rights and politeness and all that - now its to laws and fines. Thats the political reality - the rights of the minority, in reality, exist at the pleasure of the majority.

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 01:18 PM
And what would you do if the guy in the next cubicle was an Italian who just loved his Italian cuisine and whose flatulence was legendary for its garlic and onion aroma?

Pendragon
February 12, 2004, 01:45 PM
Ok, now the terms shift.

Smoking and perfume use are 100% optional and are done for personal enjoyment/enhancement.

If a person has a severe odor problem, at most companies, they will be talked to. If they have an actual medical condition that causes them to smell, then perhaps they will be moved - to a closet or something - it is unlikely they will act as receptionist or field sales agent.

Everyone farts from time to time - sometimes people have bad breath or poor grooming. My freshman algebra teacher was practically a WMD just with her breath and B.O. - I skipped class almost all the time because it was intolerable.

But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about voluntary behaviors, not biological functions/malfunctions.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 02:04 PM
Health tyranny? Gotta hate people arguing for better health.

Here's my take on it:

I had the good fortune to be born allergic to cigarettes, but the son of a chain smoker. I had pneumonia or bronchitis a minimum of four times a year until the age of 14 due to that exposure. At age 18, I had a lung X-ray done and the radiologist said that I had so much scar tissue it looked worse than his patients with TB.

I developed asthma at age 14, which almost killed me on a few occasions. I now have to carry two different steroid inhalers to prevent that from happening, and the side effects are not fun.

I spent the first 40 years of my life choking on people's smoke in restaurants, bars, movies, stores, and every other public place. I also spent many nights at 3AM watching an old movie instead of sleeping because I was coughing so much sleep was impossible.

So.... I'll bet you can guess which side of the "no smoking in public places" laws I am on.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 02:08 PM
The smokers have been oblivious or indifferent to the comfort of the majority, and now it is way past the discussion of rights and politeness and all that - now its to laws and fines. Thats the political reality - the rights of the minority, in reality, exist at the pleasure of the majority.

But smokers conveniently forget that they are (and always have been) the minority. Yet somehow, their addiction should give them the right to inflict early death on the general public.

I've got an idea: if you want to smoke, do it at home and kill your kids and pets. Don't try claiming it's a constitutional rights issue to pump public places full of noxious fumes.

Bob Locke
February 12, 2004, 03:33 PM
jimpeel,

I said "no middle ground legitimately exists". The fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong doesn't mean my assertion is any less valid. (This isn't the only case where I am of the opinion they erred, and I'm sure you think they've missed the mark several times as well.)

This is where the boat is being missed: You do NOT have the right to be on someone else's property without their consent. If you did, they could not order you to leave or have the option to call the police to have you arrested for trespassing for failing to comply with that order. It is a PRIVILEGE extended to you by the proprietor for you to be in his establishment.

The person or people who have put the capital at risk to open a place of business should be the ones who set the rules for the use of that place of business. Period. It really is that simple. Bringing your personal biases or physical problems to the discussion makes it an emotional argument versus a reasoned, rational one, and when emotions take over bad laws result. Just look at Sarah Brady if you don't believe that.

And I say all I have said as a non-smoker who grew up in a non-smoking household.

But I am a BIG believer in property rights, and this "movement" is absolutely contrary to those rights.

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 05:00 PM
Yet somehow, their addiction should give them the right to inflict early death on the general public.

I've got an idea: if you want to smoke, do it at home and kill your kids and pets. Don't try claiming it's a constitutional rights issue to pump public places full of noxious fumes.So the study from the World Health Organization is wrong? It pales by comparison to your personally held beliefs?

Now, here's the real skinny on smoking:


It has nothing to do with health;

It has nothing to do with safety;

It has nothing to do with the preservation of life your your own good.


It has to do with POWER.

Live taxpayers pay taxes every year -- year after year.

Dead taxpayers pay taxes only ONCE.

The ONLY reason they want you alive; and the ONLY reason they have turned non-smokers against smokers; and the ONLY reason they have mounted this campaign against the tobacco companies is

MONEY, MONEY, AND MORE MONEY!

And non-smokers remain their biggest pawns as well as their greatest allies.

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 05:10 PM
I said "no middle ground legitimately exists". The fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong doesn't mean my assertion is any less valid. So a property that has usual and customary public access has the right to prevent that same public from entering the premises -- lawfully, peacefully, and without interfering with the businesses normal operating function -- to pass out leaflets or gather signatures?

They should only be allowed to come on the property for the purposes of shopping -- whether they buy anything or not, they are still "shopping" -- and they should shut the f--- up for the period of time they are on the property?

Should there be a requirement that something be purchased every time someone enters a property that has usual and customary public access?

Aren't they trespassing if they do otherwise and fail to purchase something?

You obviously didn't read PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=447&invol=74) or you would understand why they made the decision they did ... maybe.

cordex
February 12, 2004, 05:59 PM
libertarians are few enough as it is - and of the ones out there, a lot of us (I suspect - ok, maybe just me) are willing to betray our principles to live in a world without smoke. Thats how much I hate I hate being around it.
Sums it up nicely, don't it?
Principles are principles except when something is inconvenient or annoying, then it is to hell with it - we want ours.

Goes nicely for both extremes of this issue, come to think of it.

Our company had an employee who went into horrible coughing fits to the point of not being able to breathe whenever he was exposed to smoke. Or even mild cleaners. Or perfume. We limited the use of all of the above when he was around. Didn't take a law against smoking or cleaning for us to accomodate him. I should note that he also didn't push for banning the use of cleaning products that irritate him in businesses he frequents.

Lots of the arguments on this are scary similar to arguments about other "rights". Quite a bit of "there's no need to ..." and "right to not be exposed to ..." and "well, it's annoying, so ..."

My take:
If you own the property, you should be allowed to set the rules for that property. If you want to let people smoke, you should have that choice. If you sell people eat unhealthy foods cooked in awful smelling grease, you should have that choice if they want to eat them.

If no one wants to come over to your house or patronize your business, don't come whining to me.
By the same token, if your business suffers because you don't let people smoke, and people who want to smoke go down the road to a place that will, don't go and pass a law to bring them down to your level.

Jimpeel,
I skimmed that decision. I still don't understand why the shopping center should be required to allow people to collect signatures for a petition on shopping center property. Or why a business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason.

jimpeel
February 12, 2004, 06:31 PM
It came down to the California Constitution and the right to free speech clause. It is far more liberal with those rights than the federal constitution and as such the CA Constitution trumps the federal Constitution.

I'm sure there are those who would believe that the state Constitutions should not trump the federal Constitution but then there's that part in thirty-two of them that declare firearms rights to be an individual right ...

From the decision:

[ Footnote 2 ] Article 1, 2, of the California Constitution provides:


"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments [447 U.S. 74, 80] on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press."

Article 1, 3, of the California Constitution provides:

"[P]eople have the right to . . . petition government for redress of grievances."

[ Footnote 3 ] The center had banned handbilling because it "was considered likely to annoy customers, to create litter, potentially to create disorders, and generally to be incompatible with the purpose of the Center and the atmosphere sought to be preserved." 407 U.S., at 555 -556.

[ Footnote 6 ] The term "property" as used in the Taking Clause includes the entire "group of rights inhering in the citizen's [ownership]." United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945). It is not used in the "vulgar and untechnical sense of the physical thing with respect to which the citizen exercises rights recognized by law. [Instead, it] denote[s] the group of rights inhering in the citizen's relation to the physical thing, as the right to possess, use and dispose of it. . . . The constitutional provision is addressed to every sort of interest the citizen may possess." Id., at 377-378.

Bob Locke
February 12, 2004, 07:58 PM
Some other excerpts (now that I've had a chance to at least skim the decision):
It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment.
Seems they consider a shopping center or mall and a bar or bowling alley to be quite different animals.

Much of the rest of the decision seems to be contridictory, IMO. I'll get to the rest of it tonight or tomorrow.

CommonSense
February 12, 2004, 08:09 PM
Pendragon:
Bullets in my pocket harm nobody... Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.

You are correct that my cigarettes in my pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

You are correct that your bullets in your pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

Are you suggesting that they next pass a law dictating that bullets are only legal if carried in your pocket? Why would anyone own a gun if that was the case?

CommonSense
February 12, 2004, 08:20 PM
Mpayne:
Bar employees that breathe secondhand smoke for eight hours a day ARE being poisoned.

Please post reports of people being kidnapped and forced to bartend. Thank you.

CommonSense
February 12, 2004, 08:28 PM
Pendragon:
Smokers brought this on themselves.
That has to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard. Non-smokers are forcing their wishes on business owners. Are you reading along here?

CommonSense
February 12, 2004, 08:41 PM
bountyhunter: I’m sorry if you have health problems you feel are related to your father. I suggest you sue your father. You didn’t have a choice but to be there.

That’s not what this thread is about though. It’s about forcing your will on a person that has built a business, feeds a family, pays employees and is just trying to fulfill his/her vision (aka – the American Dream).

If you feel a business doesn’t want your business, go elsewhere!

CommonSense
February 12, 2004, 09:12 PM
bountyhunter:
But smokers conveniently forget that they are (and always have been) the minority.

The people that want to carry concealed are an extreme minority in Wisconsin. At best they’re guessing 3 percent. Even in a vote for it with the general population is 35/65 at best (I know numbers suck, so don’t hold me to them.) Smokers are over 20 percent. Tell me again what you’re saying because it almost sounds like you were saying that a majority ruling is tops regardless of right or wrong.

Pendragon
February 13, 2004, 01:43 AM
CommonSense,

CommonSense:


Pendragon:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullets in my pocket harm nobody... Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are correct that my cigarettes in my pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

You are correct that your bullets in your pocket at someone else’s business will not harm anyone.

Are you suggesting that they next pass a law dictating that bullets are only legal if carried in your pocket? Why would anyone own a gun if that was the case?

First, if you are going to quote me, at least do it accurately:

Bullets in my pocket harm nobody (even if installed in a gun also in my pocket).
Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.


When the whole thing is quoted, it makes me wonder if you even read what anyone writes - or of you just look for quotes to take out of context for the purpose of clouding the issue.

My quote on bullets in the pocket was a direct response to something else you said:


CommonSense:

Pendragon: Bullets have been proven to kill people. Should those be banned as well? Okay, you have the right to bear arms – just no ammo.


(note that that is not a quote of me, it was addressed to me)


Somehow you seem to think that when I make a comparison or analogy, that I am simultaneously proposing legislation or policy.

non sequitur (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur)

non sequitur

n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises



My point was that comparing bullets to smoking was a false analogy. Bullets are more properly compared to cigarettes - and this is not about a ban on carrying cigarettes into restaurants or public places.

bullets are to cigarettes as firing a weapon is to smoking.

I am saying there is currently a ban on firing a weapon in "public" except under extreme circumstances - either at a proper range or in defense of life.

There are all kinds of other restrictions on the use of your private property - the State and local charter have the authority to impose these restrictions as the law is interpreted today.

Ky Larry
February 13, 2004, 05:49 AM
At least you got to vote on the issue, Mopar Mike. My city,Lexington,Ky; tried to institute a smoking ban by city council decree. The voters weren't allowed to decide. Of course they claim they are acting in our best intrests. Smoke if you want or don't smoke but please don't try to protect me from myself.:fire:

Bob Locke
February 13, 2004, 06:37 AM
At least you got to vote on the issue, Mopar Mike. My city,Lexington,Ky; tried to institute a smoking ban by city council decree. The voters weren't allowed to decide.
To be honest, that's the way it's supposed to be. America is still a republic, not a democracy. We elect our leaders to make the laws for us. But that's a whole other discussion.

MicroBalrog
February 13, 2004, 11:51 AM
tell that to Asthmatics....

My deceased sister was an asthmatic. She smoked. She did not die of asthma.

Jeeper
February 13, 2004, 03:08 PM
Hi Jeeper: You bring up an interesting question. At what point should the government interfere with business. Let’s keep the conversation on thread though.

1. Do you think smoking is unhealthy?
2. Do you think working in an environment with smoking people will harm your health?
3. Have you ever seen a warning regarding the risks of being around tobacco smoke?
4. Have you or anyone you know suffered harm from tobacco smoke?

If you answered YES to any of those questions, you should not visit places where the owner allows smoking if it worries you.

That said, no. I would not work in a place with asbestos or coal dust. Why? Because I answered the same questions I just asked you above and decided that wasn’t for me. I don’t care to put myself in what I believe to be harms way. Hypocrite? If you insist.

The choice to work in a place like that is not really a luxury for some people. It is a necessity. I am not saying one way or the other about the smoking issue( although Jimpeel knows how I feel about it :):) ). I am just trying to argue the point about private property regulations imposed by the government. My basic point is that a very very small percentage of the population has a problem with child labor laws and the basic health and safety regulations from things like OSHA. If you conceed that those are OK then it is just where you choose to draw the arbitrary line versus where the rest of us do. I have never understood the mentality that "private property is mine and I can do with it whatever I damn well please" This has NEVER existed in our country from the beginning. That mentality is basically anarchistic.

Mopar,

Why did you try and discuss the interstate commerce? Just curious. It isnt the fed regulating this.

Art Eatman
February 13, 2004, 03:56 PM
(I'm not really sure why I haven't closed this thread...)

Anyhow, I've been in the bar/nightclub business. It's not at all difficult to control the airflow such that non-smokers aren't bothered by cigarette smoke.

So I have no problem with a legal requirement tnat provision be made for non-smokers; it's easy to do. I have no problem with a ban in stores with no provision for separation--retail shops, e.g., although there should be some latitude for the owners' wishes.

Still, to have a blanket ban, city- or state-wide, with no allowance for a business owner's wishes strikes me as just plain wrong.

The petty hypocrisies surrounding this issue amaze and amuse: In Austin, Texas, cigarette smoke is apparently not harmful between the hours of 10PM and 6AM, when smoking is allowed in restaurants In the entertainment district on 6th St. in Austin, outside doors of restaurants are often wide open to the sidewalk. I'd like someody to explain to me how in comparison the automobile exhaust from a heavily travelled street is not harmful, but secondhand smoke is.

Art

Moparmike
February 13, 2004, 04:16 PM
At least you got to vote on the issue, Mopar Mike. Well, yes I did. But that was only after the Council passed the law, and we got enough signatures for it to go to a referendum. But I agree that it should be the original republic style, not done like California. However, it should also be possible to get a seat on the council when you arent a screaming Liberal or a Green (otherwise forget it), and a tree-hugger. (18mos crafting a tree law.:rolleyes: :banghead: )

It turns out that half the Council and the Mayor himself were signees or trustees (something) on the original funding from the Tobacco Settlement Money. :cuss: :eek:

Art, thanks for keeping it open. If it gets too bad (which wont take long) please do what you think is necessary.:)

Mastrogiacomo
February 13, 2004, 04:47 PM
Well the only medical basis I can think of as proof of the dangers of second hand smoke is that all the smokers in my family are all dead -- and those that didn't smoke -- died from smoking related illnesses from having to breath it in....

I can't say I feel sorry for you with this smoking ban. I've been sick too many times when I've gone out because people wouldn't put out their cigarettes -- and chain smoked one after the other after the other.....

jimpeel
February 13, 2004, 05:04 PM
Well the only medical basis I can think of as proof of the dangers of second hand smoke is that all the smokers in my family are all dead -- and those that didn't smoke -- died from smoking related illnesses from having to breath it in....

So THIS ARTICLE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F03%2F08%2Fwtob08.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=61716) and THIS ARTICLE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/11/wsmok11.html) are of no consequence when placed against your contentions to the contrary?

This TEN YEAR study from the premiere health organization for the entire planet, The World Health Organization, is wrong? This study disappointed the entire anti-smoking and scientific communities when it stated that second hand smoke may have a preventative effect against cancer.

But what do they know?

Ky Larry
February 13, 2004, 05:26 PM
Mr. Locke, the state of Kentucky allows local option voting on many issues.Among them are alcohol sales and paramutal wagering. We just had an election in November. Why not put the issue on the ballot and let the citizens of Fayette County decide? We have a city councilman named Mike Scanlon who makes Homer Simpson look like a genius. He owns several Applebee's restaurants in the area and says he's in favor of ban. However, he allows smoking in his restaurants. Go figure.:scrutiny:
The real problem in Lexington is our LEO's are underpaid and overworked. They're leaving for other jobs and we're worrying about someone in a bar lighting up a Marlboro?:confused:

thefitzvh
February 13, 2004, 07:32 PM
whether or not it's bad for you makes no difference.

Your right to smoke ends where I have to hold my breath to avoid the stench.

However, I also feel that an outright BAN is wrong. Force restaurants to have a non-smoking section: MAYBE, just maybe. But a ban? Wrong. Dead wrong.

But let's not argue whether it's bad for you or not. It's not BAD for you if I spit my tobacco juice on your shoe, but it's certainly not RIGHT.

James

BlkHawk73
February 13, 2004, 08:43 PM
A Maine law forbiding smoking in almost all public places - even bars - took effect in January. Made going out to eat a much more enjoyable time. All I heard was the smokers complaining about ti saying "if you don't like the smoke don't go there". Well, why should they be allowed to do something that is proven to harm others without any responsibility placed on themselves. 'Course they're the same one that in a few years will complain that their insurance won't cover all thier lung cancer elated medical bills. :rolleyes: :p

MicroBalrog
February 13, 2004, 08:45 PM
proven to harm others

Proven?

BlkHawk73
February 13, 2004, 08:47 PM
Proven?

You mean to say that the Surgeon General or other studies hasn't shown that second hand smoke is a health issue for non-smokers? yeah Right:rolleyes: :banghead:

jimpeel
February 13, 2004, 09:03 PM
You mean to say that the Surgeon General or other studies hasn't shown that second hand smoke is a health issue for non-smokers?

So THIS ARTICLE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1998%2F03%2F08%2Fwtob08.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=61716) and THIS ARTICLE (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/11/wsmok11.html) on a ten year study by the World Health Organization; which states that second hand smoke is not a danger; does not cause cancer; may have a preventative effect; that there's no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood is, what, a lie? A fabrication? Erroneous? Wishful thinking?

I am only going to continue to post this study for as long as others posting here continue to ignore it.

BlkHawk73
February 13, 2004, 09:12 PM
Yup those sure appeard "official" notifications.:uhoh:
So all that smoke emitted from the end of that cigarette that is not filtered is perfectly 100% safe for anyone to breathe? This being true, wouldn't the filtered smoke inhaled by the smoker be even safer? Hmmm...then I guess there should be no age limit for smoking then either. Kids...light up!:banghead: Pregnant women should have no concern about smoking during thier pregnancy. :rolleyes:
Sorry but you're not likely going to convinceme otherwise. You wanna slowly kill yourself - all the power to ya just don't effect my -or any other non-smoker's envoronment while doing so. :barf:

MicroBalrog
February 13, 2004, 09:18 PM
This being true, wouldn't the filtered smoke inhaled by the smoker be even safer?

Not really, see, smokers inhale smoke in much greater concentrations than passive smokers. :)

jimpeel
February 13, 2004, 09:53 PM
Hmmm...then I guess there should be no age limit for smoking then either. Kids...light up! Pregnant women should have no concern about smoking during thier pregnancy. Sorry but you're not likely going to convinceme otherwise.YOW! :what: The shallow end is over there. You just jumped off the deep end.

The articles were about the study. They were NOT the study. Know the difference.

The fact remains that the study is out there and the WHO tried to cover it up because it went against the belief system of the anti-smoking establishment -- including yourself.

It was one of the largest and most comprehensive studies ever conducted and it stood the former belief on its ear. Of course there are those whose mind is made up in spite of the facts and they will state, as you stated, "not likely going to convince me otherwise".

Now there are those who want to ban "Nicowater" (See HERE, second and third posts) (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57841&perpage=25&highlight=nicowater&pagenumber=3) even though there is no health risk to anyone, even the person consuming it.

It is proven fact that nicotine of and by itself is not a carcinogen. It is the other components of cigarette smoke which are carcinogens. So why the effort to ban that which bothers noone and causes no health risk?

Let's see if you get the answer to that last question.

CommonSense
February 13, 2004, 11:33 PM
For the sake of the thread, I’m bowing out.

In closing: If you don’t like cigarette smoke – leave. If you think others have the same feelings – open your own business and become the next millionaire.

Jeeper: There is a line. PM me if you want to continue. This thread is getting old and it sounds like it’s about to be shut down.

Pendragon: Three periods means it’s a partial quote. I apologize for your lack of awareness. I stand by my question though. What if people didn’t want you to have bullets in an area that was comfortable with them? You never answer my questions. I did find your post cute though. I really enjoyed the “that I am simultaneously proposing legislation or policy” comment. If one thing is proven “bad”, shouldn’t all other “bad” things follow suit? PM me if you have more of your wisdom to pass on to me.

Good luck to anyone that sticks with the thread and tries to explain it to the sheeple.

faustulus
February 14, 2004, 12:15 AM
Anybody able to quote any SCIENTIFICALLY BASED studies that show that "second hand smoke" is anything other then a bad smell, step up to the plate. Really good comparison there, radiation, asbestos, cyanide, and smoking. Usual non sequitur move by someone with no pertinent argument. And by the way I'm not a smoker and never have been.
no because it doesn't exist

jimpeel
February 14, 2004, 12:33 AM
Three periods means it’s a partial quote.Yes, it is called an elipsis and means that there is a lapse or gap in the quoted materal that is not germane to the quote or shortens the quote to its pertinent, salient points for brevity.

el·lip·sis
n. pl. el·lip·ses (-sz)

1.
a. The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.
b. An example of such omission.

2. A mark or series of marks (... or * * *, for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.

Bob Locke
February 14, 2004, 12:34 AM
I'm done with this thread, too.

I am amazed at how many people here cling to the thought that they are entitled to their rights while being willing to deny the rights of other people. It's truly saddening.

If you enjoyed reading about "Smoking ban upheld in my city!! Critique my letter...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!