Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I think it's a great idea, I don't need to walk out of a store and get enveloped in a gagging mass of cigarette smoke. I don't need to smell it or taste it in my food either. What would you rather smell? A freshly baked pizza or acrid cigarette smoke wafting out of some dumb schmucks pie hole?
My wife is allergic to perfume. Let's outlaw that too. I think most prefumes smell like S**T and they can't be healthy for you either.
Really, what is this country coming to? Nobody cares about anybody else's rights except their own.
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I think it's a great idea, I don't need to walk out of a store and get enveloped in a gagging mass of cigarette smoke. I don't need to smell it or taste it in my food either. What would you rather smell? A freshly baked pizza or acrid cigarette smoke wafting out of some dumb schmucks pie hole?
My wife is allergic to perfume. Let's outlaw that too. I think most prefumes smell like S**T and they can't be healthy for you either.
Really, what is this country coming to? Nobody cares about anybody else's rights except their own.
Right. Most notably, most people who smoke.
:roll:Originally posted by: ahurtt
What are the figures on the people who die of cancer in the US who also happened to be smokers? Or is it just that you still don't believe that cigarettes are detrimental to your health?
It's too much to ask for me to be able to enjoy a cigeratte in a business where the owner of such business has no objections to it, because your right supercedes mine.
Go to a bar and have a vote and we will see who is trying to force the issue.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I think it's a great idea, I don't need to walk out of a store and get enveloped in a gagging mass of cigarette smoke. I don't need to smell it or taste it in my food either. What would you rather smell? A freshly baked pizza or acrid cigarette smoke wafting out of some dumb schmucks pie hole?
My wife is allergic to perfume. Let's outlaw that too. I think most prefumes smell like S**T and they can't be healthy for you either.
Really, what is this country coming to? Nobody cares about anybody else's rights except their own.
Right. Most notably, most people who smoke.
Yes, your rights are more important then mine.
It's too much to ask for me to be able to enjoy a cigeratte in a business where the owner of such business has no objections to it, because your right supercedes mine.
Go to a bar and have a vote and we will see who is trying to force the issue.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
It's too much to ask for me to be able to enjoy a cigeratte in a business where the owner of such business has no objections to it, because your right supercedes mine.
Go to a bar and have a vote and we will see who is trying to force the issue.
Right unless you can argue this: "People are forced to come in contact with second-hand smoke, therefore it should be banned"...then you can win the argument. But you can't, nobody is forced to go anywhere or work anywhere where there is smoking.
Originally posted by: Vic
C'mon, Harv... 100k people die every year from alcohol abuse in the US alone. Surely you can link me the figures backing up these claims (and not just "positions").
Originally posted by: Vic
:roll:Originally posted by: ahurtt
What are the figures on the people who die of cancer in the US who also happened to be smokers? Or is it just that you still don't believe that cigarettes are detrimental to your health?
That is not relevant to this discussion. That cigarette smoking is detrimental to health is not debated, not even by those who smoke. They do so voluntarily, with knowledge of the risks, and have always done so. It is a myth that cigarettes were ever considered healthy or even safe.
That you personally are on a religious crusade to protect all peoples from themselves is not something I care about or even give one ounce of respect to.
It's hardly outrageous, and according to The American Lung Association, your basic assumption that these laws harm businesses is just dead ass wrong. See their conclusion starting on page 7:Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Are they only thinking of themselves or do they even care about business owners? If business picks up because of non-smoking then somebody should have opened up a non-smoking establishment. I just can't believe you can OWN property and OWN a business but can't let people smoke on it. It's outrageous.
If you disagree, you can start with their list of references. Get back to us when you've got anything to refute them:The Debate Is Over
Legislators need to be made aware that there is no longer any need to argue about the economic impact of smokefree air laws. The only economic issue left in the debate is the influence tobacco industry lobbyists and their front groups have in the halls of state capitals. This influence is eroding as more evidence surfaces regarding smokefree ordinances that have been in place for years. Even some restaurant and bar associations are beginning to take notice and have changed their stance to neutral on the issue, including groups in California and Florida. The New York State Restaurant Association actively supported passage of New York state?s smokefree air law in 2003.
We also are seeing a positive ?domino effect? in smokefree air laws at both the state and local level. Seven states have passed laws prohibiting smoking in restaurants and/or bars in the past two years. Georgia came close to passing a statewide law prohibiting smoking in most workplaces and restaurants in 2004. Cities such as Columbus, OH, Lawrence, KS, Lincoln, NE, and Minneapolis, MN have enacted smokefree ordinances in 2004 as well. These are encouraging trends, but we shouldn?t lose sight of the fact that it doesn?t matter what neighbors are doing. Whether the jurisdiction is a small suburb or a large state where most of the population lives hours from the border, smokefree air laws simply don?t have a negative economic impact.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESOURCES
Economic Impact Studies
Bartosch, W., Pope, G., Economic Effect of Restaurant Smoking Restrictions on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts, 1992 to 1998, Tobacco Control 2002; 11(suppl. II): ii38-ii42.
Bartosch, W., Pope, G., The Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts, Journal of Public Health Management Practice 1999; 5(1): 53-62.
Bartosch, W., Pope G., Preliminary Analysis of the Economic Impact of Brookline?s Smoking Ban, Health Economics Research Inc., 1995.
Bourns, B., Malcomson, A., Economic Impact Analysis of the Non-Smoking Bylaw on the Hospitality Industry in Ottawa, KPMG, 2001.
Dai, Chifeng, et al., The Economic Impact of Florida?s Smokefree Workplace Law, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, June 2004.
Dresser, J., Boles, S., Lichtenstein, T., et al., Multiple Impacts of a Bar Smoking Prohibition Ordinance in Corvalis, OR, Pacific Research Institute, 1999.
Dresser, L., Clearing the Air, Wisconsin: Tobacco-Free Wisconsin Coalition, 1999. Ferrence, R., Luk, R., Gmel, G., The Economic Impact of a Smoke-Free Bylaw on Restaurant and Bar Sales in Ottawa, Canada, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, 2003.
Fletcher, J., An Analysis of Sales Tax Receipts from Restaurants with Bars and Free Standing Bars in Chico, CA 1995-1997, California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, 1998.
Glantz, S., Wilson-Loots, R., No Association of Smoke-Free Ordinances with Profits from Bingo and Charitable Games in Massachusetts, Tobacco Control 2003; 12: 411-413.
Glantz, Stanton A., Effect of Smokefree Bar Law on Bar Revenues in California, Tobacco Control 2000; 9:111-112.
Glantz, Stanton A., and Charlesworth, Annemarie, Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 1999; 281: 1911-1918.
Glantz, S., Smith, L., The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenues: A Follow Up, American Journal of Public Health 1997; 87: 1687-1693.
Glantz, S., Smith, L., The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales, American Journal of Public Health 1994; 84: 1081-1085.
Goldstein, A., Sobel, R., Environmental Tobacco Smoke Regulations Have Not Hurt Restaurants? Sales in North Carolina, North Carolina Medical Journal 1998; 59:284-287.
Hayslett, James A., Huang, Philip P., Impact of Clean Indoor Air Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in Four Texas Cities, Bureau of Disease, Injury and Tobacco Prevention, Texas Department of Health, March 2000.
Huang, P., De, A.K., McCusker, M.E., Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues ? El Paso, Texas, 2002, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) February 2004; 53(07): 150-152.
Huang, P., Tobias, S., Kohout, S., et al., Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinances on Restaurant Sales ? West Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), May 1995; 44(19): 370-372.
Hyland, A., Before and After Smoke-Free Regulations in New Taxable Sales From Eating and Drinking Places in New York State, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, June 2002.
Hyland, A., Cummings, K., Restaurant Employment Before and After the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act, Journal of Public Health Management Practice 1999; 5(1): 22-27.
Hyland, A., Cummings, K., and Nauenberg, E., Analysis of Taxable Sales Receipts: Was New York City?s Smoke-Free Air Act Bad for Restaurant Business? Journal of Public Health Management Practice 1999; 5(1): 14-21.
Hyland, A., Puli, V., Cummings, K.M., Sciandra, R., New York?s Smoke-Free Regulations: Effects on Employment and Sales in the Hospitality Industry, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 2003; June.
Hyland, A., Tuk, J., Restaurant Employment Boom in New York City, Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 199-200.
Hyland, A., Vena, C., Cummings K., et al., The Effect of the Clean Air Act of Erie County, New York on Restaurant Employment, Journal of Public Health Management Practice 2000; 6(6): 76-85.
Hild, C., Larson, E., Weiss, L., et al., Review of Municipality of Anchorage Chapter 16.65 ? Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places, Institute for Circumpolar Health Studies, October 2001.
Lal, A., Siahpush, M., Scollo, M., The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Policies on Sales in Restaurants and Cafes in Victoria (Australia), Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2003; 27 (5): 557-558.
Maroney, N., Sherwood, D., Stubblebine, W., The Impact of Tobacco Control Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in California, Claremont, California: The Claremont Institute for Economic Policy Studies, 1994.
Moseley, F., Schmidt, K., The Economic Impact of Minot?s Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinance, Minot State University, 2003.
New York City Departments of Finance, Health and Mental Hygiene, Small Business Services and New York City Economic Development Corporation, The State of Smoke-Free New York City: A One-Year Review, March 2004.
Ong, M., Lightwood, J. and Glantz, S., Health and Economic Impacts of the Proposed Florida Smokefree for Health Initiative, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, 2002.
Pope, G., Bartosch, W., Effect of Local Smokefree Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Revenues in Massachusetts, Center for Health Economics Research, April 1997.
Sciacca, J., Eckrem, M, Effects of City Ordinance Regulating Smoking in Restaurants and Retail Stores, Journal of Community Health 1999; 18(3): 175-182.
Sciacca, J., Ratliff, M., Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant Sales, American Journal of Health Promotion 1998; 12: 176-184.
Styring, W., A Study of the Fort Wayne (IN) Restaurant Smoking Ban: Has It Impacted the Restaurant Business? Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, 2001.
Taylor Consulting Group, The San Luis Obispo Smoking Ordinance: Study of the Economic Impacts on San Luis Obispo Restaurants and Bars, San Luis Obispo, California, 1993.
Wakefield ,M., Siahpush, M., Scollo, M., et al., The Effect of a Smoke-Free Law on Monthly Restaurant Retail Turnover in South Australia, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2002; 26: 375- 382.
Because (as I already noted) the number of deaths caused by active smoking is irrelevant to this discussion. How hard is that to understand? And I find it hypocritical in the extreme to be told I am selfish by someone who quite obviously has no respect for the rights of others. Just because you think God has called you on a mission to save the world from itself does not mean the world actually wants your salvation.Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: Vic
:roll:Originally posted by: ahurtt
What are the figures on the people who die of cancer in the US who also happened to be smokers? Or is it just that you still don't believe that cigarettes are detrimental to your health?
That is not relevant to this discussion. That cigarette smoking is detrimental to health is not debated, not even by those who smoke. They do so voluntarily, with knowledge of the risks, and have always done so. It is a myth that cigarettes were ever considered healthy or even safe.
That you personally are on a religious crusade to protect all peoples from themselves is not something I care about or even give one ounce of respect to.
Why did you leave off your original post (which I had quoted) in the post to which you replied above? You seemed all to eager to point out how many deaths alcohol caused per year but seemed oblivious to how many cigarettes cause? If you choose not to respect my view so what? From reading the majority of your posts it doesn't seem like you are the type of person who really respects much at all aside from your own values.
Originally posted by: ahurtt
I am talking really about the kind of smokers who feel it is their God given right to light up whenever and wherever they feel like it. Which seems to be most of them. I respect your right to smoke and as I mentioned before, I myself enjoy the occasional cigarette. But I try to be considerate of non-smokers because, yes, I do feel that their right not to have to breath my sidestream smoke does supercede my right to enjoy a cigarette should I choose to do so. But to your point, yes, anybody who goes into a bar (and I am singling out bars) should not be surprised if they find themselves surrounded by smoke. But I am congnizant of the fact that if I smoke, I am potentially causing others harm or discomfort. They, on the other hand, are not doing any such thing to me by NOT smoking.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: ahurtt
I am talking really about the kind of smokers who feel it is their God given right to light up whenever and wherever they feel like it. Which seems to be most of them. I respect your right to smoke and as I mentioned before, I myself enjoy the occasional cigarette. But I try to be considerate of non-smokers because, yes, I do feel that their right not to have to breath my sidestream smoke does supercede my right to enjoy a cigarette should I choose to do so. But to your point, yes, anybody who goes into a bar (and I am singling out bars) should not be surprised if they find themselves surrounded by smoke. But I am congnizant of the fact that if I smoke, I am potentially causing others harm or discomfort. They, on the other hand, are not doing any such thing to me by NOT smoking.
Hey, I smoke 5 to 10 cigs a day, but I don't even smoke in my own house. I smoke in my car (with the windows cracked) unless they're people with me who are non-smokers. I feel like I bend over backwards to accomdate non-smokers, but they continue to force the issue by trying to outlaw smoking anyplace and everyplace they can. With me it's not an issue of accomdating non-smokers, it's more an issue of civil rights. I have a right to smoke as much as the next guy has a right not to smoke. It's time for them to get down off their high horses and acknowledge that FACT.
I'm for choice, and I want as many choices as I can get. Anybody who thinks they can make those choices for me has another "think" coming.
That's active smoking. We're talking about ETS (aka "secondhand smoke"). Where are those numbers?Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: Vic
C'mon, Harv... 100k people die every year from alcohol abuse in the US alone. Surely you can link me the figures backing up these claims (and not just "positions").
87% of all lung cancer deaths are direct results of smoking. More than 500'000 people die annually as a result of smoking-related conditions.
References:
Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975?2001, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 2004
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Targeting Tobacco Use: The Nation?s Leading Cause of Death. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003.
P.S. As for debating medical consequences of smoking, I could line up experts for you if necessary. But given that I am in the process of getting an M.D.-Ph.D. in Molecular Oncology/Immunology, I think I have at least some right to speak on the matter myself.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LMAO, I woked as a machinist for over 20 years. They had over 200 welders in the same building and in the winter they shut the place up to save on the heat bill. Of course, OSHA would call them up whenever they would come to inspect them, so they would turn on all the smoghogs, open the vents and open all the doors as far as possible before OSHA got there. As soon as they left things would go back to normal. Now tell me the goverment is concerned with my health again. Of course, if I get lung cancer it will be because I smoke 5 cigerettes a day, or was exposed to second hand smoke once.
I guess it's only zero tolerance for tobacco smoke. Everyone else get's a free ride. Are you guys really this dumb?
Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that gives the right to smoke...
Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that gives the right to smoke...
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
[If you don't like smoke, then don't go somewhere where they smoke. You can avoid it. I'm not saying the the owner of an establishment can't ban smoking if he chooses, I'm saying that he should be able to allow it if he likes. It's a free country, or is supposed to be.
It's not the same comparing smoking to drunk drivers. You can't avoid them on the public roadways and they are dangerous. I think your the one with the "stupid logic".
Smoking is legal on the sidewalks, do I have to cross the street? I'm talking about smoking in general, not in some particular business. So again, how do I avoid smokers like drunk drivers? Why should I have to avoid either?
Smoke is harmful, you have no right to harm others with a bad habit.
Oh BS, prove that walking by a smoker on an outdoor sidewalk harms you in anyway what so ever. You can't and you know it. Just more stupid logic.
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No easy answer to this.
I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.
He may not be able to, but I CAN.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Oh BS, prove that walking by a smoker on an outdoor sidewalk harms you in anyway what so ever. You can't and you know it. Just more stupid logic.
Originally posted by: daveshel
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
[If you don't like smoke, then don't go somewhere where they smoke. You can avoid it. I'm not saying the the owner of an establishment can't ban smoking if he chooses, I'm saying that he should be able to allow it if he likes. It's a free country, or is supposed to be.
It's not the same comparing smoking to drunk drivers. You can't avoid them on the public roadways and they are dangerous. I think your the one with the "stupid logic".
Smoking is legal on the sidewalks, do I have to cross the street? I'm talking about smoking in general, not in some particular business. So again, how do I avoid smokers like drunk drivers? Why should I have to avoid either?
Smoke is harmful, you have no right to harm others with a bad habit.
Oh BS, prove that walking by a smoker on an outdoor sidewalk harms you in anyway what so ever. You can't and you know it. Just more stupid logic.
How can I prove the asthma attacks I get with even the incidental exposure on the sidewalk? Yes, I have to be very vigilant in any public place, even outdoors, and will absolutely cross the street to avoid an experience that is like having someone stand on my chest. I could stand on your chest, but I somehow doubt that would convince you.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No easy answer to this.
I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.
Well, I could live with that, but if laws are going to have to be passed (and then enforced) then I think smoking areas (with proper ventilation) should be provided in public buildings. The state took all the settlement money from the tobacco companies, now spend it on the people who paid it and all the other state, federal and local taxes they are paying on their habit.
Why should I have to smoke outside of a public building when it's 20 below out? Heck my lungs are weak already, I might catch pneumonia or something.
Maybe you should learn to read it properly. I'm looking for the part of the Constitution that gives the government the power to ban smoking.Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm looking for that part of the Constitution that gives the right to smoke...
I agree. And this was how the situation was BEFORE the law in question in the OP was passed.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
No easy answer to this.
I think that all public government buildings be smoke free and certain businesses that allow children (e.g. shopping centers, most restaurants, toy stores, etc.). But I do believe that some businesses are and should be inheritantly friendly to smokers, such as bars or bar & grills, concert halls, etc., should be allowed to have smoking provided that they have proper ventilation systems in place that would minimize second-hand smoke.