Smoking & health concerns
To all the people that complain about unable to smoke in taverns, restaurants and now casinos. Please hold off your constant whining an wait until you get some kind of cancer and then complain after years and years of smoking. Then stated that you had no idea about the link of smoking and cancer. Even though it say it on the pack. And some people stated that the letters should be larger on the cigarettes. Oh, one more thing. Alcohol can also harm you. So start reading what is on the items that you consume.
This letter has not been edited.
What?!
Posted by on July 23, 2007 03:12 PMHa Ha Ha,
I can't wait until the alcohol consumers have their vices taxed or prohibited. The bars are smoke free, lets see how long they can keep the doors open being alcohol free.
Drunk drivers kill, even we can save one child isn't it worth it?
Ha Ha Ha
It is for the children!
Ha Ha Ha
They are just trying to protect your health
Ha Ha Ha
Leroy, you keep up the good work! I hate coming home from the bar smelling like alcohol, and seeing all of those empty beer bottles.
Posted by on July 23, 2007 03:20 PMI demand the right to go to alcohol-free bars!
My child gets asthma from hops--they shouldn't have to be exposed to those toxic smells!!
Second hand alcohol exposure leads to increased stress and spousal beatings!!!
I don't care how many people it will put out of work!!!! The owners will just have to change their business model to suit me!!!!!
ME!ME!!ME!!!
Posted by on July 23, 2007 03:33 PMOh Lord, not another smoking blog. Can't the apologists just get over it already?
Here we go again...
Posted by pwa on July 23, 2007 03:37 PMI can hardly wait for January and the casino smoking ban. I will be able to lose all my money but it will be in a "smoke free" atmoshpere. It's the American way now!
Posted by A on July 23, 2007 03:58 PMMr. Martinez's last two sentences (assuming they're intended sincerely) are actually very telling of the anti-smoking crowd. While they were pushing for the ban in 2005 and early 2006, I would argue the issue with my friends and ask them if they a) thought that the smoking ban advocates and backers would be happy merely with the ban or if they would go for smoking being illegal anywhere, and b) if they thought cigarettes would be the only target of the nannyists, and not alcohol and/or fatty foods. \
Most thought my slippery-slope argument was pure alarmism, but Martinez's last comments show the mentality behind those who want to take away others' ability to do what they want, even if it's bad for them.
Will alcohol be banned? Will prohibition get a second wind? Nobody has a crystal ball, but I wouldn't be surprised. We may have a hard time picturing such a thing happening in our lifetimes, but 10 years ago I would have laughed at anyone who told me that during my life it would be illegal to smoke in a friggin' BAR!
Posted by Jeff on July 23, 2007 04:14 PMWhile reading the last few commentaries, and associated comments on the smoking ban, I have noticed that the assumption seems to be that only those who smoke would oppose the smoking ban.
I am a non-smoker, I have never smoked and I do not allow smoking in my home. I have been to the casinos in the mountains only once, and quickly left because they were nauseatingly smoky and I don’t care to spend my time in bars, but I would be even less inclined to hang out in one that is smoke infested.
All of that said, I vehemently oppose the smoking ban, simply based on business owners rights. Smoking is legal for adults here, and I therefore oppose any business being restricted from allowing adults to partake in legal activities on their premises if they want to. If a business feels they can be more successful by allowing smoking, then I feel that is their right and choice. They will probably not get my business, but why restrict them from catering to another population.
The arguments for the ban seem to revolve around smoking impacting the health of non-smokers, but there are many things that impact health in public. We all have to breath the cancer inducing exhaust from cars, yet there is no ban on driving a gas guzzler. The smoke from your neighbors BBQ that drifts over your fence also impacts lung health, but again no ban there.
The other common argument seems to revolve around other forms of regulation in business. Things like health codes and not selling alcohol to minors are often cited. These are specious arguments, because they involve methods of making sure illegal activity is not occurring, they do not generally restrict a legal activity. Bars are not allowed to sell to minors, because that activity is in and of itself illegal. They are however, welcome with the proper licensing to sell a legal product to adults. Health codes exist to protect the consumer from both illegal activity (say tainting the food supply) and to protect the consumer from actions that they can not readily discern for themselves. The health department ensures that the kitchen is clean, because you as a customer can’t go traipsing through to check that out yourself most of the time. Smoking however, is an activity that can be easily disclosed to the public by posting a sign on the entrance that lets a customer know, before they choose to patronize an establishment that smoking is allowed. This is similar to a sign at a swimming pool disclaiming that there is no life guard on duty. The consumers can choose for themselves whether or not they want to take that risk.
Most businesses are non-smoking these days, and without a law in place consumers can regulated the number of non-smoking businesses by choosing not to patronize those businesses that allow smoking. If non-smokers refused to eat a smoking restaurant, I am certain that most restaurants would choose to forbid smoking. Sure a few would carve out a niche for themselves by catering to smokers, but proportionally, most would be smoke free. I see no reason to force (mostly) mom and pop businesses to change their business practices at high cost (i.e. installing a patio to retain smoking customers) to restrict a legal activity. If you don’t want to be around smoke, go to a non-smoking establishment, do not punish a small business who is just trying to survive. I hope this law is challenged and found to be unconstitutionally restrictive of freedom.
Keri,
Very well said. I am another non-smoker, and I have never allowed smoking in my home or car; but, I would never dream of imposing my will on anyone else on their property.
People arguing for the ban often throw out the bad analogy of health codes. Your swimming pool analogy was great, though.
Posted by Mike on July 23, 2007 04:27 PMWe need more non smokers like Keri and Mike. I would never light up in front of you out of respect.
Posted by Larry on July 23, 2007 04:38 PMKeri,
Great letter,
I was beginning to think that NOT smoking could cause brain damage, you have proven me wrong.
Such clarity of thought is,for a nonsmoker,a reliable indicator of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Posted by Jimminy on July 23, 2007 06:00 PMDang Leroy! I can't even figure out what most of your sentences mean. Maybe you should get off the anti-smoking bandwagon and get on the grammar band-wagon! But apparently the anti-smoking campaign that your elementary school is running is working very well.
Posted by shaupeen on July 23, 2007 06:07 PMLeroy's posts are better mental exercise then sudoku. Trying to fit in the missing words and not destroy the sentence structure is a challenge.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 23, 2007 11:51 PMI applaud Keri's clear thinking approach to the smoking ban issue. I note with some humor how pwa tries to make the issue a none issue, he should be able to see the truth of the matter; the issue will not die just because you think it should. There are serious questions involed in the way in which this law was enacted and the real why behind it. I won't go onto that now.
And, I flat busted out in laughter at Jimminy's lame attempt to attribute Keri's clear thinking as a nonsmoker to her exposure to second hand smoke. I'm still trying to figure out how he thought convoluted logic would make a clear point. But that is really beside the point andwell---------.
Back to Keri, the well thought out and considered statements she makes are the type of logical, common sense approach that seems to escape the comprehension of the zealous few who get confused when face with simple, logical resolutions. And, it shows their invective, name calling and debasing attempts to paint freedom of choice as a vice instead of the honorable and cherished consituional right it is, are the too close to the tactics used by Joseph Paul Goebbels, Hitler's propagandist; " Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the new truth".
As for the alleged risks of second hand smoke, see forces .org. There you will see how OSHA'S, the federal regulatory agency that sets the statutory requirements for work place and workers safety, seven year study that set the acceptable safety standards for ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in work places, including bars and taverns which was also upheld in Federal Appeals Court, was replaced by non governmental, ON Demand studies payed for by tobbaco control advocates with the grant money they recieved from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who's involvement in advancing smoking bans is well documented for reasons also explained on forces.org.. These, so called, studies were done specifically to support the false claims of tobacco control that ETS is a health hazard in direct opposition to OSHA'S findings. I will let the truth speak for it's self all you need do is access it. Or if that's to much trouble for you, you can wait until the truth is revealed through litigation that the public will have have to pay for and which will show just how much you have been lied to and duped by.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 24, 2007 05:40 AMBy the way, we have never advocated that smoking should be allowed in restaurants or any way else for that matter. All we have ever contented is that the owners of hospitality venues should have the right to choose what they will and will not allow and let the free market system determine the success or failure of that choice as appossed to governmental regulatory dictation determining what legal product a privately owned business can allow.
It's ever so simple, let the people employ their freedom of choice and let that be the determining factor. All true adults are perfectly capable of making their own choices and have no need for the government to baby sit them or protect them.
If a driver ignores a warning stop sign or a red light it is considered an intensional violation of law that has no defense except in the rare situation of no fault of the driver brake failure but, even then he is held responsible for any damages.
Why then is it considered an involuntary action that results in being exposed to second hand smoke if a person ignores a smoking allowed sign on a bar entrance and walks in to the place. Why is he/she not held resonsible for their own actions and, why on earth is it necessary for the government to remove all chance of that happening by implementing a law that has had catastrophic financial effects on bars and taverns to protect these few poor, self misguided souls.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 24, 2007 07:12 AMAllen,
Question for you.
Do you support the legalization of marijuana?
If marijuana were made legal and the smoking ban was repealed, would YOU allow marijuana smokers to light up in your establishment?
Would YOU have a problem with being in an establishment that does allow people to smoke marijuana?
9:23,
I hope you don't mind if I answer this one; hopefully, Allen will give his answer, as well.
1) Yes.
2) I don't own a restaurant, but the answer would be no. I wouldn't allow the smoking of tobacco, either.
3) Not necessarily. If it was overwhelming, I would leave; same with tobacco. If it wasn't overwhelming (to me), I would stay.
Yo,Allen! I'm glad my little post got you to smile.It was supposed to make people do just that,although now I'm concerned about something else.....I was being deadpan,but I wonder if maybe you didn't see that and took me seriously.If that's so then the antis will take you to task for being insensitive to pans,both dead and undead.
Posted by Jimminy on July 24, 2007 09:53 AMAnd Keri-I do think your post was clear and concise,and made excellent good sense.No flame,just fun.
Posted by Jimminy on July 24, 2007 09:58 AMI knew it had to be a joke Jimminy and it was well done. I threw in the convoluted jus to be sure. If you were serious I would of really like to se the explanation, it would no doubt be along the lines of a Robin Williams manic retort'
Mike, are you talkin about the second posting? If you are, I'm confused by the intent of your comment. I am unaware that there were question therein.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 24, 2007 10:08 AMAllen,
I was answering the questions from the anonymous post at 9:23. The questions were directed to you, but I threw in my answers, as well.
Posted by Mike on July 24, 2007 10:18 AM9:23 Yeah I support the legalization of marijuana. No I would not allow it in my bar because people would likely not order as much beer etc. What I would do is open up another bar for pot smokers, but not limited to them and, hire a friend of mine who smokes marijuana to run the joint (pun intended). I go into bars where people do smoke marijuana, albeit in the head or outside the back door. I don't smoke it myself but have no problem at all with people who do.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 24, 2007 10:23 AMJimminy,
No offense taken, I took your comment as humor. I appreciate the compliment on logic.
9:23
I am thought I would also take a stab at your questions.
1) Yes I support legalization of marijuana.
2) If legal I would not allow it in a business of mine. Similar to my stance on smoking, I think non-medical usage of pot is lame and the smoke is even more foul than cigarette smoke. But if another business wanted to cater to adult pot smokers, it would be fine with me.
3) I also would be unlikely to patronize an establishment that allowed marijuana consumption (if it were legal) because it is not something I want to be around. But I also don't patronize bars cause I don't like being around excessive drinking either. I find both those who are drunk or high to be repulsive. But as long as they are not driving, harming others, or on my property. I can make the choice to avoid them while still letting them choose to imbibe. I value the freedom of personal choice and yet can find many choices that people make distasteful at the same time.
9:23 why do you pose your questions, was the thought that you might reveal an inconsistency in Allen’s (and my) arguments? (Which happens all the time on the boards so it would be reasonable), or were you trying to extend the debate to include pot? Or was there some other point you were trying to make? I know tone is hard to discern in the medium, so for clarification, I am just curious where your thought process was going, not attempting to attack.
Also, if you are not a regular poster on these boards, you might find it useful to use a name (fake is fine) that is consistent to make it easier for everyone to track the conversation.
Ban everything, turn your kids over to the Socialist Democrats and depend upon
HillaryCare. Thank Democrat Ritter for standing up for banning a legal product, and
by the way,,never go outside alone. No doubt there is a smoker lurking someplace.
Ah, yes, the dreaded lurking smoker. You never know when, where or how he will appear, nobody knows but, the Shadow knows for he has been on the trail of this lurking fellow for a long, long time.The knave borrowed a pack of cigarettes from him and did not pay him back. If you see the lurking smoker do not approach him, instead call the shadow's girl friend at the Metropolis News. She will get the message to him next time she sees him. Help the Shadow put the collar on this menace and, get back his smokes.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 24, 2007 12:40 PMHello Everyone,
My wife was finally able to kick the habit before she got pregnant with our now first born beautiful baby gilr, so I tought I'll share the resource that she has used to help her quit the smoking habit with as many people as I can.
She was a heavy smoker for about ten years and just a couple of weeks after finding out about the program that I have researched online, she was able to quit smoking permanently and now can't stop telling people about how she had kicked the habit for good.
Anyway if you want to check it out, here is the site that my wife has used to help her quit smoking; http://endthehabitnow.com