Why do I think so - The anti-smoking lobby: I think it is magic bullet for the ASL. The ASL has for decades tried to ban smoking to no avail, mainly because it is a personal choice and the courts and legislatures have been hesitant to overrule that choice. ETS gives them a magic bullet to install their agenda and demonize the opposition. Political determinations: There is a history of entities (EPA Report, Surgeon General) that have come out against indoor smoking making such declarations before their own internal studies were completed - leading me to believe this is science by agenda rather than the other way around. In multiple cases these entities took data from other studies, changed things like confidence intervals etc until they got different conclusions. Conclusions that, by coincidence, fit their predetermined and announced finding. That makes me skeptical of these declarations of 'overwhelming fact.' Consensus: is a dangerous thing. There is little to be gained for a scientist to pursue a hypothesis that ETS is not a health hazard. Because of the climate surrounding the issue even Big Tobacco wouldn't really waste money of such a hypothesis regardless of whether or not it is true. If the study said such it would be dismissed as a product of BT anyway so it is pointless. OTOH there is a long list of entities willing to pay for the other conclusion. Problems with establishing causation: why is it than in Western Europe they smoke harsher tobacco in greater quantities but have less incidence of heart disease, cancer, and other 'tobacco related' diseases? Well, they work less, the eat better, spend more time with their kids and their pets than we do. Susceptibility: Unless you have some condition that makes you more susceptible to tobacco smoke than the normal person, short term exposure to ETS is not going to hurt you. It simply defies logic. In the long term, coufounding factors are going to play a much greater role in development of these 'problems' than ETS just by their sheer numbers. You can get similar results from a study of you backyard grill (standing over it, not indoors) or car pollution from a normal street, but we aren't banning those practices. Overexaggerated ASL claims: Example - some of the more famous numbers for the ASL are the 100,000 heart related deaths a year. That number is compiled from this amazing process - you check into a hospital with a heart problem, they ask if you smoke, you say yes and bingo - you go in the smoking related column. That isn't science I think we should depend on. They could just as easily say 'do you eat twinkies' or 'do you drink water' and then move to ban those. Example - exaggerations about how much nonsmokers are paying for smokers healthcare aren't done by economists, and they don't include the huge tax smokers pay, nor the comparison of cost vs longevity. If you DO contract lung cancer, for instance, your stay left on the earth is pretty darn short. Yet those of us who live longest are the people sucking up most of the resources, many of them spend one third or more time eating up resouces than they did contributing to them. Example - media release after release will throw predetermined scary headlines in with innocuous science, such as the first example you gave the other day. Is first hand smoking bad for you? In general, sure it probably isn't the best thing out there. But ETS is filtered twice, one by my filter and once by my lungs, then it is dispersed in an even less concentration into a large area. I don't think that exposure is going to affect you in a manner similar to smoking first hand, and many first hand smokers don't have any of these ill effects. Would I mind or care if some places were no smoking? Absolutely not. You can hook up to those nose thingys and suck pure oxygen for all I care. Do I think it's right to ban smoking? Not at all because we could have both. As I indicated earlier, if the public really thought it was a health issue rather than a matter of convenience, they could vote with their feet. When you've got 93+% of the market power, you certainly can affect change. Yet there would still be room for the random owner to tell the health facist, yogurt totin,' I should be able to go anywhere and enforce my opinion, sideburn wearin,' $3.50 pabst blue ribbon payin,' andrew weil book readin,' nuts to go somewhere else. That would also solve the 'save the poor bartender who must work in a smoking place' problem. Which as I have previously pointed out, and you haven't addressed, is another reason I am against this particular movement - the exceptions prove this isn't about the public's health, but rather about an easy political scapegoat similar to immigration. They don't allow some people to work with asbestos without suits, but they do with ETS - hmmm... I hope that's more what you were looking for - I haven't really gone over a lot of the more recent studies being what they are, but I did my master's thesis on ETS and was pretty amazed at the railroad job they were doing in the early 90s.
You can not go to any strip club and start undressing. The performances undress, as can performers in a play smoke for dramatic effect. So Minnesota doesn't allow public nudity anywhere - I guess they need to build clubs and bars where people can walk around naked? Smokers can step outside. Even in NY, there's like a few places that allow you to smoke inside, and 95% of smokers would never go there. And many smokers don't mind the ban since they like the air better inside, the fact that more non-smokers come out, and that they can socialize with other people outside on their smoke-break.
That some smokers don't mind the ban doesn't seem to be a big point. Plenty of nonsmokers weren't advocates for the ban.
Honestly the actual ACT of smoking doesn't disgust me, it's just the second hand smoke. I am so excited about this ban. I get the worst sinus pain when I'm near it. I can finally go out to eat and not worry about the monster headache I'm about to get. Yay!!!
I wonder how this will affect colleges & stadiums. I hope they reinforce it because it's not fair to the non-smokers.
Can you imagine trying to enforce this on open Air Day at Reliant? Must be a night mare. . by time you find security and get them there the cigarette is out and smashed on the ground Rocket River
It gets better. First of all, I've talked to several owners that are telling me that Sept. 1 there will be a major appeal, so don't expect it to happen anytime soon. Steve, the Owner at Tailgate in Midtown, has already stated he doesn't plan on stopping smoking whatsoever. Fumar, a new place opening by the people @ Crome, is self-explanatory, and Sherlocks Pub on Gray, also plans on letting people smoke. Pub Fiction is on the fence, but will still go the smoking route with the appeal. BUT, at the same time, I've noticed most new clubs opening are going the non-smoking route, where you do have to smoke on the patio. So we may all get what we want. ie. a lot of non-smoking venues, along with places that will allow it. While I.m not thrilled with it, I think it is a good compromise.
it's been illegal to smoke save for a few designated areas in most major sports stadiums for about 10-15 years.
I know, but I wish they would get rid of the designated smoking areas as well. At MMP, there is a smoking area right next to Squeeze Play, which is the kids' play area, and the smoke is still very harmful to the kids even if it is outside. Of course, it's not going to happen. Just wishful thinking...
I attend concerts once or twice a week, and even despite signs that say no smoking there is always a waft of smoke at the end of the show. There are even people smoking weed at the shows, and I've never seen any security guard ever stop any smoker. When I get home, my clothes reek of the smoke smell. I think its pretty hard to enforce when the lights go out at these shows. I think if they start kicking out people who are caught smoking, then maybe they won't light up in areas where they are not designated to.
I spoke to one of the head bartenders at my favorite spot, Warren's Inn. She said if there is a smoking ban then they will be a no smoking bar.
People shouldn't have to breath in your toxic exhaust because of your addiction. That's the bottom line, and at the end of the day, it will be enforced because non-smokers out number smokers 3 to 1 and they have significantly more buying power.
Not at bars, they don't. If an owner allows me to smoke, and a patron bothers me about it, expect me to tell you to f-off. If you do anything else, it's assault. Which means I can arrest you. However, as stated previously, you can't have me arrested for smoking. I'll do another "tee-hee" for that one. Live with it.
LOL at militant smoker and amateur policeman Fatty FatBastard. If you told me that to my face in a bar I think I'd "assault" you just to see you try and arrest me.
LOL, yourself, kiddo. I'm not worried about any amateur antics addressed to me. Fact is Sept. 1, a lot of you giddy non-smokers are going to be disappointed.
In fact, I just put a new song on my myspace below in honor of you and your non-smoking cohorts. Link is below...
How do you know whether I smoke or not? For all you know I smoke a carton of unfiltered Camels ever day. I could care less about this debate and haven't read more than a couple of the posts. Frankly I think anybody who gets severely upset about it either way is silly. But I am drawn into the discussion and most amused by your claim that you will arrest people who look at you cross-eyed, like a junior J. Edgar Hoover. Have you really arrested people? If so how many? Did you take them to the County Jail or the City Jail? Or maybe you skip that and take them directly to the Houston office of the FBI? Do you carry a pair of handcuffs when you go to bars in case you have to 'nab a perp' when you go out? How about a nightstick? Do you read these people their Miranda rights? Did the police give you a badge the first time you brought one in? Etc. Let us in on the lurid details of your life in amateur law enforcement. It sounds like an interesting hobby.
