the problem is that these will be the coolest skankiest joints and the non-smokers will be SOL again. they do want control. bars ended up de facto smoking zones why?
why? thats not a debate or discussion, that is asking someone to capitulate just to finish the discussion. i am not interested in that. the answer is always going to be no if you speak to people you disagree with like that. * why 10% * which bars * what is the criteria for selection * what are the considerations for non smoking staff others, but i actually have to work. i'm done, actually, this is tedious. Hayes and Meowgi, i respectfully sign out. good luck w/everything, especially your dad's health, i am sorry to hear about it. hayes, you need to change you username so i can argue with you without somehow thinking i am arguing with elvin hayes in a kick ass old school home jersey flipping a ball over his head. it is honestly unfair.
In Minneapolis when its cold you get smokers crowding at the door so you have to pass to close to them when you enter or exit and since smokers don't like sitting in the cold wind either will cluster behind door setbacks where the wind isn't that strong. For that matter since smoking is allowed on patios many bars have built patios with three walls and shielded from the wind. Also given the temperature difference between outside and inside smoke from by a door is pulled in everytime the door opens. OTOH you could require that bars that have smoking install an air handling system that removes most of the smoke, such systems are expensive but if a bar figures it needs to allow smokers they will likely bear the costs.
That's good for you, and I mean that seriously smoking is a hard habit to break which is why I never took it. At the same time though tobacco is still a legal product and if bars choose to cater to those patrons why not allow them to? If ending tobacco use by legislation is the goal then why not just outlaw it and be done with it? I don't disagree at all that smoking is poisonous and personally find it noxious. At the same time I don't disagree that most bars have still remained profitable even with the ban but this isn't about profit or health but about the ability of people to enjoy a legal product and for businesses to have the freedom to cater to users of that product. As I said earlier there are a lot of things that people do that create unhealthy environments, loud music, having a backyard fire, drinking alcohal and etc.. All of those have potential negative consequences to the people who aren't engaging in those activities yet we still allow them to do those. These are still legal activities. To me I don't see why a blanket ban is necessary. If bars aren't hurt by a ban then why not allow a few to get smoking licenses? Drinking has potential negative affects through drunk driving and loutish behavior. Loud music causes hearing damage. We don't go around saying we are going to ban alcohal from all restaurants and pubs or live music but let those businesses get licenses to do so. The ones who don't feel they need those they are fine being alcohal and music free.
Actually, you aren't allowed to play loud music that disturbs neighbors, and you are not allowed to drink and drive and endanger other people. The fact is, when you light up, you are endangering people around you. It's the same as drinking and driving. There are certain establishments where you will be allowed to smoke - and those places can cater to smokers. But I think it's well within a non-smokers rights to be able to go out and be able to enjoy nightlife without having to deal with someone lighting up next to them. I'm in NC now, and eating at a bar earlier with all these people lighting up. It was hard to eat, and I realize, had it not been for the ban, I'd have never quit because it would be impossible with all the smoke around. People have every right to enjoy smoking. But just like you can't undress in public places, you can't light up either. And to all the smokers out there. I urge you to quit. It's hard as hell, and it will drive you nuts, but you'll be so happy when you quit. You'll feel better, less tired, happier, and you will be less anxious. I can't tell you what a difference it has made. And to this day, the temptation still exists - but I can tell you that after 6 months or so, you will not want to go back as your body recovers. Running a mile has never been easier. Smoking is a nasty, addictive habit that you think does something for you but it doesn't - it's all an illusion. It's sucking the life out of you and your wallet. Quit smoking and taking an expensive vacation to celebrate. Just think of it this way....$1,500 a year for 10 years is $15G. Imagine what you could do with that money.
First off there are places where people can undress in public, they are called nude beaches, second bars are still private property albeit regulated, third there are strip bars where people undress. Anyway you are largely making my point for me. I'm not saying that smoking should be allowed everywhere but that there should be the option of some bars to have smoking. It sounds like that is the case in NYC but its not here in Minneapolis and it sounds like that is the situation in Houston too. I will second that and I still think smoking is unhealthy and people should quit but at the same time as long as tobacco is a legal product bars should be allowed to cater to smokers. There are many things that are unhealthy to individuals who partake in them and to others nearby. Why drunk driving isn't allowed the fact that people drink in the first place is what leads to drunk driving.
I will personally ask every single smoker I see at bars to please stop smoking, because I do not want cancer.
How about funding, recognition, publishing, consensus driven chilling effect...there are many possibilities. Not at all - I'm suprised you don't think there can be science by agenda, which is an opinion that itself isn't very scientific. When you consider statements coming from a political office, like the Surgeon General, especially when those conclusions have historically come out as policy statements BEFORE studies were even done - it would be shocking if the studies concluded anything other than concurrance with the policy statement. This says that a survey found people had 47% less nicotine in their saliva after a ban than before - that's the science in this passage. There is no science that says 47% more nicotine is bad, that a decrease is good or anything else. They took some science, slapped it in an article about ETS, then added some political statements with no science about lung cancer and heart attacks. This is exactly what I'm talking about - read your own 'literature.' Your move.
Hayes, I am sorry, I retired from arguing this at the top of this page because I am just not enjoying the conversation or getting out of you what I am looking for, which is your minority report on ETS other than picking at science; I'm fine hashing it out with hotballa and whoever in the Faith night thread because it is illuminative of perspectives other than my own, but this is straight up tedious for me - I feel like you are responding to things i do not say (that science can never be flawed) and not responding to things I do say (that, in the case of ETS, the science is overwhelming). So, one last time with the benefit of a day off- you appear to have a method of determining facts about ETS that is superior to than the scientific method as employed by nearly every scientist who studies this, including those in the tobacco industry who have every incentive to find otherwise. I am trying to get at what you method for determining this is. To this point, I feel like all i get is you chucking rocks at the world of published scientific research, and thing like "you think ETS is bad, prove it" instead of something that supports your view. I want to know your rationale for believing passive smoke exposure is not that bad for you or your kids, and if that is the case, why the tobacco companies are essentially folding on the issue, settling their cases, and focusing their efforts overseas. That honestly is all - I want to know how you know something than scientists in the links I posted - you can remove the one you cited if you like - dont. I want to understand your rationale for believing what you believe, not just 'why CBFC and his ilk are robots of scientists who have been bought out by the media' or whatever. It is very easy to be reactionary to something, but your opinions on the effects of passive smoke exposure, and how you arrived at them, are very opaque to me. I have been trying to get at that for pages and am getting nowhere, so instead of expecting to get it, I hereby fold. Forfeit. Whatever. This one is yours, Happy Easter, enjoy the W in the D&D standings and breathe as much secondhand smoke as you think you and your loved ones can handle. You can breathe my share as well if its so overstigmatized. But until you can explain why your hypothesis and method of reasoning feels comfortable to you, it sounds to me like you are ignoring massive evidence contrary to what you would like to believe, choosing what you hope is true over what has been demonstrated to be true. Obviously you dont feel that way, and I never expected to convince you to feel otherwise. What I did hope to get was some insight as to your hypothesis, and what evidence you use to support it. I did not think it was just that "scientists are tools more often than not". There has to be some evidence to the contrary, hopefully something other that "I just think it." That is all I wanted, but did not get it because a) I did not ask clearly enough b) you have no evidence to support a contrary view, you just think it, so it's true. You can have the last word, but I am out of this one. Hopefully we'll do better next time. Have a nice weekend.
