restaurant smoking ban

“Ok, I didn't mean for this thread to be fuego.

And guess what? The ban in WA is for everywhere. Restaurants, bars, anywhere public. And guess what? The people voted for it. So I don't see people's rights being infringed upon, when the people voted for the ban.

What is pretty unfair is that the ban extends to the outside of buildings, within 20 feet of doors and air intake vents. That is kinda crummy. So the smokers have to go outside and walk way far away to smoke. And no smoking out on patios of restaurants or bars either. Unless it's big enough to be sitting 20 feet from the door. I think it's a tad extreme.”

“Why do you think its okay for the government to tell you what you can do to your own body? - birch

Are you talking to me? When did I say or imply that?”

“I am asking you sarge. Its simple, if the Gov has the authority to regulate how I treat my own body (mans ultimate castle) how can it not have equal authority to regulate private business?”

“I'll ask again. What makes you think I believe the government should be able to regulate how I treat my own body?”

“birch - Before you jump to conclusions, read this:

http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/38630,-1,1.php”

“Why should a private company be told they need to reduce pollution or else?

Lets just say smoke stack pollution/emissions.”

“I am not assuming anything sarge. I am saying that the gov does have the authority to dictate personal or private conduct (business or not) its happened in the US forever. We may disagree with particulars of a law but the Gov has an etablished record of controlling conduct. For better or worse we can vote the perceived rights of smokers away just as we can do take away the rights of potheads and drunk drivers. That is democracy in action. Given the opportunity to vote I would vot to ban smoking in michigan similar to FLA.”

“Gonna have to dissent myself ...

I think this was a mistake. Leave it to the states.”
Sarge
1:39:54 PM
6/06/05

You agree with me. Its up to the government to decide.”

“You agree with me. Its up to the government to decide. - birch

You left something off that sentense which is very important. "what to do with your body"

I don't think the state should decide against drug use because of what it might do to the person's body. The reason I think the states should decide is because drug use sometimes affects others in areas such as murders and other crimes where an innocent person (someone not involved with the drug user, or a private establishment where they hang out) has no say in their personal safety or protection.

And for the record, if I were to vote, I'd say allow the drug use - harshly prosecute the ones who commit crimes. I'd allow it up to the states so that the people can make the determination through voting.
last edited: 12/09/05 12:55:17 PM”

“smoking affects others who dont smoke. Its a continuation of the same logic, to protect the innocent. You agree with me sarge, its okay.”

“Smoking affects others who don't smoke if they hang out next to the smoker.

They won't do that if they choose not to hang out in a smoking establishment.”

“the people of WA were given the choice to vote about smoking. the non smokers won....

I'd allow it up to the states so that the people can make the determination through voting.
last edited: 12/09/05 12:55:17 PM”
Sarge
12:52:28 PM
12/09/05”

“What is your point with that post?”

“birch - Do you think that since I don't agree with how the people voted, that somehow means that I think they should not have voted?

How very strange...”

“You agree that the government (the people ) have the right to establish what is legal and permissible conduct, that is what my point has been. Allow the government to establish (through voting) wether smoking (or any variety of conduct) should be permitted in places of public assembly.”

“birch - Do you think that since I don't agree with how the people voted, that somehow means that I think they should not have voted?

How very strange...”
Sarge
1:02:28 PM
12/09/05

when did I say that?”

“when did I say that?

Then answer the question as to why you posted that post about WA voters. I put it in the form of a question, but you're just leaving it unanswered. Why did you post that? What was the point?

You agree that the government ...

Yes, I have never disagreed with that. I was expressing my opinion on the subject. Am I not allowed to do that? I am a "people" too. I would have voted "no". Are you just trying to be argumentative? Am I only supposed to post things that agrees with the way someone else voted? Maybe only people who would vote "yes" should post their opinion on here birch, would that be acceptable to you?
last edited: 12/09/05 1:14:19 PM”

“My whole discussion with DDX had to do with the banning of smoking in public places. Your first post here was in agreement with him. He said that the gov essentially doesnt have the right to ban smoking in public places and used williams argument as support. You have chnaged views since then, you now say that you agree that the gov does have the right. I am just trying to follow your path which made a 180 degree turn at somepoint which is where I lost you.”

“I was only replying to the post of his before mine. I didn't read what he wrote in the past. Nowhere did I turn 180 degrees, although I can see why you'd think that if you thought I was replying to past posts.

The only Williams arugment mentioned was this: "All Williams and I want is the right of the owner of the airplane or restaurant to make that decision on if you are allowed to smoke there." which I agree with. If you add to that, or change it's context, I may disagee with the change. I was working under the assumption that smoking is otherwise legal, otherwise there would be no point in pigeonholing this discussion to just "restaurants".
last edited: 12/09/05 1:45:59 PM”

“I haven't read everything here but....

A no-smoking section of a restaurant is like a no-peeing section of a pool.....”

“LMAO! Love that saying!”

“the rest of DDX quote is "I prefer non-smoking establishments myself, but I would prefer for the owner of the restaurant to make the decision not the government telling him he has to make it non-smoking."

This is where I get lost. You say you agree with that and then say "You agree that the government ...

Yes, I have never disagreed with that..." you say this in reference to my post ...

"You agree that the government (the people ) have the right to establish what is legal and permissible conduct, that is what my point has been. Allow the government to establish (through voting) wether smoking (or any variety of conduct) should be permitted in places of public assembly.”
birch
1:05:14 PM
12/09/05

Thats the 180.

Of course by omitting 1/2 of the DDX williams quote you dont have a 180.”

“Let me boil this down:

A rule by the vote of the people at the state level is imperative to prevent innocent people from becoming victims.

The government should not be able to tell private citizens what legal activities can and cannot happen on their residence (place of business), as long as it is an otherwise legal activity.

I disagree with what the voters voted on in WA, but would rather have that bad law in that bad state than to take the vote from the people.

The government, on the other hand, without a vote of the people, has no business telling people what they can do as long as it isn't creating victims of innocent people (see my definition of innocent people in the previous post).

I do agree with that entire quote, that "I would prefer for the owner of the restaurant to make the decision not the government telling him he has to make it non-smoking." As that quote stands, I agree with it COMPLETELY. That is what I would prefer. That being said, I recognize that citizens should have the opportunity to vote on certain issues.

No 180, no way, no how.”

“I think you all are missing the point. The government of WA did not say no smoking, the people did. Majority rules. It's called a law. And to what some of you are saying laws in general take away people's rights. Well let's have anarchy then. Sheesh!

You people make some weird arguments.”

“It is illegal to serve a pregnant women. It is illegal to serve an obviously innebriated person

These laws are handed down by the govt. Who would care to say a "private" business should not have to follow these laws?”

“And to what some of you are saying laws in general take away people's rights.

Gosh, I hope somebody didn't say that!

Where are you and bm getting the idea that laws from the government are said to be inherently bad?
last edited: 12/09/05 3:07:07 PM”

“The second-hand smoke myth: junk science's greatest triumph

John Luik
Financial Post

The alleged dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke, also known
as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS for short, represents
junk science's biggest success story. Ever since the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency decided 10 years ago that
ETS caused cancer in nonsmokers, the ETS junk science
juggernaut has been unstoppable. Most of us now believe that
ETS is dangerous and virtually all of us live out our public
lives -- working, shopping, eating, in smoke-free
environments.

But the ETS junk science crusade encountered a major and
unanticipated setback a few weeks ago when the British
Medical Journal published a study by two U.S. researchers
that found no statistically significant association between
not only ETS and lung cancer but also between ETS and heart
disease.

The study focused on 35,561 Californians who never smoked
but had smoking spouses. The participants were all part of
the massive American Cancer Society cancer prevention Study
(CPS 1) and their lives and deaths were followed from
1960-1998. The relative risks for never-smokers married to
smokers was 0.94 for coronary heart disease and 0.75 for
lung cancer. Unlike the government reports cited by junk
scientists as proof that ETS causes lung cancer and heart
disease, this study is not a meta-analysis -- a combination
of individual studies to create a pooled result) -- or a
so-called "consensus statement" by hand-picked experts. It
is an original, primary study of ETS. As the authors note
"none of the other cohort studies ... has more strengths,
and none has presented as many detailed results."

To anyone who has followed the scientific literature on ETS,
as opposed to the anti-smoking movements, statements and
government pronouncements, this study should come as no
surprise. For one thing, the pattern of study results has
been unchanged since the first studies in the 1980s. Over
the 20-odd years of ETS studies, some 60 studies have
reported results similar to this one, finding no
statistically significant association between ETS and lung
cancer. Of the 11 studies that have found a statistically
significant association, none has reported an overall strong
relative risk. This is particularly telling since
epidemiological studies of real as opposed to phantom risks
are usually weak at first but gain strength and clarity with
time. The ETS studies have continued to be equivocal.

The only way in which the "case" against second-hand smoke
has been made is through the highly controversial use of
meta analysis in which individually inconclusive studies
have been pooled to produce statistically significant
relative risks. This is the way in which every major
government report on the alleged dangers of ETS has been
created. The logic here is that if you put 10 leaking
buckets together, they might just hold water. Unfortunately,
this hasn't worked, for however hard you pound the data the
relative risk for ETS and lung cancer and heart disease just
won't rise beyond about 1.50, a relatively insignificant
level.

Ironically, this study should come as no surprise because it
confirms the WHO's own large 1998 ETS study spanning 10
years and involving 12 cities in seven European countries.
The WHO study found no statistically significant increase in
lung cancer risk for nonsmokers exposed to ETS in childhood
settings, workplace environments and homes. Of particular
interest for the ongoing Canadian debate about smoking in
restaurants and bars is the fact that WHO found such smoking
did not result in a statistically significant risk of lung
cancer for non-smokers.

In a sane world, sans junk science, one would expect that
after 20 years of failing to find a significant risk from
ETS, the game would be over. But the strength of junk
science comes not from the power of its evidence but rather
from the fervency of its believers and their willingness to
do virtually anything to silence dissent. Indeed, the weaker
the evidence the stronger the belief. There is no room for
dissent in the church of junk science; unbelievers face the
stake just as surely as the medieval heretic.

Even before the release of the British Medical Journal
article, the anti-smoking movement was in high attack mode,
denouncing the study as funded by the tobacco industry.
Former U.S. surgeon general Julius Richmond was pulled out
of retirement to muse that, "This study is just the latest
in a long string of studies designed to deny the evidence
and confuse the public. The first study linking second-hand
tobacco smoke and lung cancer was published 22 years ago
when I was surgeon general, and the evidence has only become
stronger since then." Perhaps the good doctor is a bit
confused, for the evidence has been remarkably consistent in
not linking ETS and cancer and it has not become stronger
with time. The first ETS study to which Dr. Richmond refers
did not find a statistically significant association between
ETS and lung cancer. Ironically, the author of that study is
thanked by authors Enstrom and Kabat for his help in making
their study successful.

So successful has been the junk science counterattack that
virtually every major story on the study has concentrated on
the fact that one of the authors has received funding from
the tobacco industry, rather than on the merits and findings
of the study itself. The peculiar and effective pathology of
junk science is thus on full display: Deny or downplay the
results and instead attack the character of the researcher.
What makes this strategy so transparently loathsome is that
Prof. Kabat is a well-known expert on cancer and has carried
out previous ETS studies that no one has attacked.

After 20 years of failing to link ETS with significant heart
and lung disease, one would think that it is time to call it
quits on public smoking bans, or at least to acknowledge
they have nothing to do with health but merely with the
desire to avoid the nuisance of second-hand smoke. One might
even think that an apology, however grudging, might be
offered up by various governments to the six million smokers
of Canada who have been portrayed as recklessly endangering
the health of their families, friends and co-workers.
None of this will, of course, happen for the ETS junk
science crusade, like all junk science campaigns, has
nothing to do with science but everything to do with
manipulating the public's perception of reality for
ideological ends.”

“Links.”

“It says "John Luik, Financial Post".

Do you want him to hold your hand too?”

“Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.”

“thats fukin hilarious, you slacker”

“Slacker? At least I did it for the nookie! LOL!”

“God I wish I had an electronic fly swatter.

For DDX only. Visited John. Not much help. Very Right leaning. Was hoping for links to the primary sources.”

“buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!”

“Although a self-proclaimed staunch ethics analyst, Luik has been fired from numerous universities and teaching positions for repeatedly misrepresenting his own credentials since 1977. One university's assessment of Luik reads:

"The fact that there has been a consistent pattern of misrepresentations gives such misrepresentations a direct bearing on the question of ability since the teaching of applied and professional ethics involves the exercise of moral judgment. The misrepresentations in which Prof. Luik has engaged in the course of his professional career provide examples of how he exercises moral judgment and reflect adversely on his ability as an instructor in applied and professional ethics."3

http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=77”

“More trolling posting ;-)


The facts
Is secondhand smoke really deadly? Let's look at the facts carefully. In
summary:

1.. South Carolina judge William Osteen ruled that the EPA's evidence
against secondhand smoke was not found in the proper conditions. He ordered
the 600-page report vacated.

2.. The EPA did not any new research. They simply aggregated the results
of a number of existing studies into one "super study" from which to draw
conclusions.

3.. The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

4.. The EPA excluded nearly two thirds of the data from their analysis.

5.. When they still couldn't arrive at the desired conclusion by ignoring
most of the data, they doubled their margin of error.
Think about this. Does this make the EPA report seem more credible, or less
credible?

"Aren't you aware that Osteen's ruling was ITSELF vacated by the U.S. Court
of Appeals in 2002?"
It is true that the EPA appealed Osteen's ruling, and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted EPA's appeal. However, the reason
for granting the appeal was based on a legal technicality, not on the
scientific merit of the Osteen decision.

You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to the
EPA report, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were
facts. That includes everyone who calls secondhand smoke a "class A
carcinogen." Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be
considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

"But what about the individual studies? What do THEY say?"
Well, let's see.

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with
passive smoke exposure in the workplace"
Brownson et. al., 1992, American Journal of Public Health, November 1992,
Vol. 82, No. 11

"... an odds ratio of 0.91 ... indicating no evidence of an adverse effect
of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace"
Janerich et al., 1990 New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"...the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and
not statistically significant"
Kalandidi et al., 1990 Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"Among women exposed only at work, the multivariate relative risks of
total CHD were 1.49 ... among those occasionally exposed and 1.92 ... among
those regularly exposed to second-hand smoke, neither of which is
statistically significant according to commonly accepted scientific
standards"
Kawachi et al., 1997 Circulation, Vol. 95, No. 10, May 20, 1997

"No association was observed between the risk of lung cancer and smoking
of husband or passive smoke exposure at work."
Shimizu et al., 1988 Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 154:389-397

"We found no increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with
ETS exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al., 1996 Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social
activities...."
Stockwell et al., 1992 Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and
risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998 International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

Furthermore, according to the largest study ever performed on the topic:

"No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke, before or after adjusting for seven
confounders, and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing
disease."
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective
study of Californians, 1960-98

Every major study whose parameters were not changed to bolster a
preconceived result shows little or no health risk from secondhand smoke.

"Never mind the studies. If you can see it, and you can smell it, that
means there's SOMETHING THERE, and that ain't CLEAN AIR!"
Secondhand smoke is not pure air.

About 95% of secondhand smoke is composed of ordinary air with a slight
excess of water and carbon dioxide.

The remaining 5% contains the rest of the "4,000 chemicals" supposedly found
in tobacco smoke -- but found, obviously, in extremely small amounts.

Far from all 4,000 of those chemicals are normally labeled as toxic in the
first place, with the 1989 Surgeon General's report only noting that "some"
are -- without reference to how many or to what amounts would be considered
toxic. One of the most fundamental principles of toxicology is that "the
dose makes the poison" -- a fact always ignored by anti-smoking crusaders.

Dr. Gio Batta Gori and Dr. Nathan Mantel -- both ardent anti-smokers --
actually burned cigarettes and measured the chemicals produced. Then they
consulted the U.S. government's list of safe levels of exposure for each of
the chemicals detected in the smoke.

How many cigarettes would it take to reach these levels? Let's see.

FIGURE 1. Estimated number of cigarettes required to reach OSHA safe
exposure limits from secondhand smoke emission of selected chemicals in a
sealed and unventilated 20' x 20' x 9' enclosure (Gori & Mantel, 1991)

ETS Component ETS Output
(mg/cig) Safety Limit
(mg/m3) Cigarettes
Required
Methyl chloride 0.88 0.30 1,170
Acetaldehyde 1.26 180.00 1,430
Nitrogen oxides 2.80 50.00 1,780
Phenol 0.25 19.00 7,600
Benzene 0.24 32.00 13,300
Dimethylamine 0.036 18.00 50,000
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00009 0.20 222,000
Polonium 210 0.4pCi 3pCi/l 750,000
Toluene 0.000035 375.00 1,000,000

It does not look like these enormous amounts will be reached in any normal
environment, at work or at home.

According to Michael J. McFadden, "the risk of secondary smoke to nonsmokers
has been twisted and exaggerated beyond all reason purely as a tool of
social engineering. Even the infamous EPA Report of 1993 testified more to
the safety of secondary smoke than to its danger. According to the EPA
figures themselves, a nonsmoker living with a smoker for 30 to 40 years
would have better than a 99.9% chance of not getting lung cancer from such
long-term and constant exposure."

Unfortunately, that says it all.

Nobody denies the presence of harmful compounds in tobacco smoke, but the
amount of those compounds even in high concentrations of secondhand smoke is
so small, it cannot possibly have serious consequences for health even after
years of exposure. The dose is the poison.
last edited: 12/09/05 4:15:21 PM”

“Junk Science. Don't have the time.”

“The PEOPLE of WA state voted for this law! Simple as that. If you didn't vote, then no crying is allowed ;-) I actually vote, so I got my say! Woo-hoo!
I am ALL for laws that help prevent stupidity and bad choices....DUI laws? Awesome!Not serving pregant women? Good! Seat belt laws? I rember my mom hated them, would never wear one, till the time my dad took a corner too fast and her door opened......my dad caught her, and she has since wore a seat belt EVERY time! Car seats for kids? Indeed a master law-WA state has some of the toughest laws in the country for them. Vaccinations for kids? It is for the good of the majority. Making parents send kids to school? Keeps stupidity down....”

“The underlying question is "What is bad choices?"

Many people feel that taking away freedom is the worst choice of all.”

“Majority rules? We don't live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic form of government. Democracy and majority rules are a bad form of government. What if the majority in WA decided they wanted to take all of Pixie's money or that they all wanted to have sex with Pixie. Would that be ok?”

“Like I said before. You people have some really bizarre arguments. It's like the bumper sticker I saw this morning:
"If guns kill people, spoons make Michael Moore fat." Ooooooookaaaaaaay.....

all of you, get off my happy dining in a smoke free environment and go argue on the fuego side (which I have set my preferences not to see.)

BTW I thoroughly enjoyed those tacos without being disturbed by the foul, choking, asthma inducing smell/fumes of someone's nasty bad habit.”

“Hey, Pixie. We've enjoyed the smoking ban in New York City for years now. Restaurants, bars, any public places. I like it and don't feel threatened by the government over it. It hasn't started any trends that erode civil liberties here. I get enough of that just trying to get to work without being searched. Enjoy the ban. It's a good thing, IMO!”

“I wish the government would ban more stuff. It's a good thing!

Heil!”

“Quebec bars and restaurants are about to go smoke-free in the New Year. The bar and restaurant association (or whatever) are already b!tching about the potential lost revenues. They want the ban to be gradually put into effect (whatever that means).

Vancouver and Toronto bars and restaurants already are under smoke-free laws. They say their business dropped for the first two to three weeks....afterwards, the customers came back.”

“DDX is right. I saw a show on second hand smoke and it is absolute bullshlt.”

“It doesn't matter if some studies say it's bull or not. Cigarette smoke has been proven to contain carcinogens and has been proven to promote and aggravate asthma. Why should workers be exposed to that when they don't need to be.

The government has been regulating the workplace to protect workers for years and this is no different than any other law to protect workers.”

“I generally tend to respect others right to clean air and smoke outside even at home.

However...

Dont expect me to stand out in the pouring rain and so on. If they want me to smoke away from the building fine... I expect a resonable shelter. Otherwise all bets are off


On the second hand smoke thing those studies have all been shot down. The real problem is all the studies were done by people with an agenda and reached the conclusions they intended to reach. Call me when you find a fair and unbiased study.

One final interesting note there was a recent article over the lack of decline in lung cancer rates (still going up) inspite of how many have quit. They were claiming it was a statistical hump of sorts as all the ex smokers were still dying off ect.They just dont want to admit that our air quality is growing worse.”

“smoking is evil and stupid

that said, i dont think it should be banned”

“Most people always think of lung cancer when they think of cancer and smoking, but smoking and the risk of head and neck cancer are well documented. One of my ear, nose and throat doctors told me that if people quit smoking he would be out of business. I believe him when he tells me that because if you look around his waiting room, what you see when you talk to the patients is that they are ex-smokers. They need an electro-larnyx to speak because they lost their vocal cords to cancer. They breathe through a trache tube in their neck because they lost their windpipe to their mouth. The pain and misery of this kind of surgery just isn't worth it. That's not even mentioning the others with oral cancer due to tobacco use.”

“you said "oral"”