It is almost too bad that King James is better known for sponsoring a translation of the bible than for this observation:
“Should men not be ashamed, to sit tossing off tobacco pipes, and puffing of the smoke of Tobacco one to another, making the filthy smoke and stinke thereof, to exhale athwart the dishes, and infect the aire, when very often men that abhorre it are at their repast? . . . it makes a kitchin also oftentimes in the inward parts of men, soiling and infecting them, with an unctuous and oily kind of Soote, as hath bene found in some great Tobacco takers, that after death were opened.
. . . Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbear this filthie noveltie. . . a custome loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.”
It would get old if there was an answer from the anti-smoking-pro-car crowd other than repeating the same phrases and anthems the smokers did 30 years ago
<<So that’s why we can support regulations against smoking in enclosed public spaces with undisturbed consciences.>>
Or is it more that you know what you are against (smoking) more than what you are for? (clean air and a healthier society)
Try to define “enclosed public space” and you get the poor patchwork of meaningless laws we’re dealing with in these debates. Are you defining all businesses as public space? And you avoid the actual public spaces outdoors I’ve been fighting for - here and in real life. Why do those on the anti side keep wanting to do that? I thought this was a health concern - you mean to say it isn’t?
Most of the United States are car junkies today the way they were cigarette junkies 30-50 years ago. You use the exact same phrases and excuses they did. “The “obvious” part that continues to elude you is that virtually everyone in our society, directly or indirectly, derives significant benefits from cigarettes, whether “essential” or not. We recognize that there is a downside, in part due to second hand smoke, and we’ve accepted costs and restrictions that reduce their impact. Driving, on the other hand, provides “benefits” to a much smaller group, there is far less that positively impacts society as a whole, and significant dangers to that large majority.”
I don’t bother stamping my foot much and asking for honest answers has never been whining. So expect those of us owning the “air quality dog” in this fight to keep our boots right on the proper necks. On both sides of the debate.
You could pay a die operator more to remove safety equipment. You would probably get an employee to agree. Should that be allowed. After all he knows the dangers and agrees to do it. It might be a little faster so the owner makes more money and he has less upkeep.
Then why haven’t the rates of the related diseases gone down, or decreased, as dramatically as the reduction in that second hand smoke has? And first-hand smoke for that matter.
Could it be the data we were given on the anti side was as flawed as that produced by RJR?
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html EPA says the statistics are indisputable. The stats on children of smoke is clear and even the cigarette companies wont argue them.
KOPEK is floundering in his weak ass attempts to pretend smokers are being treated unfairly. All they do is blow cancer causing agents and smoke in non smokers faces while declaring themselves being mistreated. The stats are clear . The results are known.
While he wasn’t exactly clear, it seems The Master might disagree with you gonzo, about how clear cut this issue is. Not that I expect you to see this post, but maybe someone else will link to the same SD article…so you can ignore it.
As for the OP, I think it’s another instance of nanny state bullshit. I don’t like it when people smoke in a restaurant either, even though I’m a cigar smoker. So, I don’t go to restaurants or bars that allow smoking…simple as that. The second hand smoke is going to give you cancer is complete BS, IMHO, but I sympathize with folks who simply don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke while they are eating. But to ban it from all public places? Ridiculous. It’s a slippery slope IMHO…and an unnecessary one, since smoking has been pretty much ostracized and the places where people can smoke have been shrinking now for years anyway.
There is no “anti-smoking-pro-car” crowd, any more than there is a “pro-smoking-clean air advocacy” crowd (the latter construct is even more ludicrous than the first)
I’ve been ever so impressed in this thread by the revelation that defenders of “smokers’ rights” are such dogged advocates for clean air. Except I strongly suspect that it’s the anti-smoking folks who are considerably more likely to be concerned about air quality as a whole, compared to the pro-public smoking crowd who’d probably defend the right of industries to pollute our air. After all, you’d expect those who profess outrage over government regulation of bars to similarly proclaim that we have no right to tell factory owners how to run their businesses. I mean, you guys have demonstrated in this thread that not only are you motivated by environmental concerns, but are also gung-ho Chamber of Commerce groupies.
Bold words coming from a small and ever-shrinking minority.
I look forward to seeing cadres of vengeful smokers seeking to convince the masses to give up their cars and/or driving freedom to accomodate smokers’ new-found zeal for clean air. I’m sure everyone will be just as impressed as I’ve been by the sincerity of these convictions. :dubious:
I think that even Cecil, with all of his public health expert credentials, would concede that his findings are out of date, seeing that his column was written six years before the Surgeon General’s voluminously documented report on the health hazards of secondhand smoke.
That is so lame, and so hypocritical, and so ridiculous, and so unfair, and so bad.
If you are going to outlaw smoking, then it should be everywhere, no exceptions for casinos!!!
Are you really trying to telling me that Indians do not have to obey all the other Michigan laws like laws against murder or child rape? …I didnt know that.
Geeee - call your program “smokefree” and then wonder why folks doubt your motive. Want to bet I can find some stats from the EPA and DoT that your car isn’t a real safe bet? Bet we can find a government study finding just about anything a threat.
And it is you, my friend, who is foundering. You have yet to tell me why you want my wife harmed! Her mother is in the hospital and she can’t get through the door past the smokers to visit (and I am not kidding or making a hypothetical - we had to have her rushed in Christmas morning) without having me there to scout first. This isn’t theory - this is the real world result of the regulation you support. As I keep asking - why?
I wanted to take some time with this because we are both making it very personal at this point. I lost one grandpap to the mines and one to the mills and I have had relatives injured on the job and fired for it. Not just from dangerous jobs like that but from safe ones as well. And not just two generations ago but this summer. No government regulation has or can stop things like that from happening. MY WAY of thinking was for your folks to do the same mine did, the same thing I did - walk and shut down the operation. Organize as workers in Unions or Craft/Guild Halls. When that happened, real change happened and happens even today. Money talks and bullshit lobbies congress.
The voters in Michigan will indeed decide. They may make things more strict. And they may change their mind and throw out all the bans. I wonder if you will be as comfortable with one choice as you are the other? I mean, laws being so important to you and all. You gonna love you some Uncle Sugar then?
And we are our biggest fans; what we accomplished is something worth being fanatical over.
Perhaps he’ll update the article in that case. From what I’ve read, it’s still a controversial assertion that SHS causes lung cancer, and the data on things like SIDS are pretty tenuous, IMHO, despite the obviously unbiased report from the Surgeon General…
Not that ludicrous to me! Actually a lot of things get tied together; property rights and more. But for this thread and this time you do point out what seem to be the two most vocal minorities.
<<I’ve been ever so impressed in this thread by the revelation that defenders of “smokers’ rights” are such dogged advocates for clean air. Except I strongly suspect that it’s the anti-smoking folks who are considerably more likely to be concerned about air quality as a whole, compared to the pro-public smoking crowd who’d probably defend the right of industries to pollute our air. After all, you’d expect those who profess outrage over government regulation of bars to similarly proclaim that we have no right to tell factory owners how to run their businesses. I mean, you guys have demonstrated in this thread that not only are you motivated by environmental concerns, but are also gung-ho Chamber of Commerce groupies. >>
Not being for or against all smoking I can’t speak for thse who are but as for myself — the “anti-public smoking” side is for smoking in public and the “pro-public smoking” side is against smoking in public; public being outside in space we all need to share. And as I have said before, they look to be cheap fucks about it all; trying to legislate things economics handle better. Also tried to point out the differences between private businesses and public corporations. So please - enlighten me: define public property. Or at least public businesses.
I don’t think much of the CofC or the JayCees for that matter; never been interested in either thing. I’m just a simple employee - and one who doesn’t have to worry about these laws entering his workplace because my boss did it long ago. Convince me you know more about business than my boss does. Because I have a feeling you may be after him next for other things you just don’t approve of.
<<Bold words coming from a small and ever-shrinking minority.
I look forward to seeing cadres of vengeful smokers seeking to convince the masses to give up their cars and/or driving freedom to accomodate smokers’ new-found zeal for clean air. I’m sure everyone will be just as impressed as I’ve been by the sincerity of these convictions. >>
Smokers? Sorry - not my crowd. I’m more the watershed association type. And our numbers are going up nicely, thanks for asking. We already bike the trails a lot and we’re claiming more old railroad land for our own every week. And you won’t hear us coming.
<<I think that even Cecil, with all of his public health expert credentials, would concede that his findings are out of date, seeing that his column was written six years before the Surgeon General’s voluminously documented report on the health hazards of secondhand smoke.>>
But I would be curious to know what he’s thinking today. Don’t know if I would change my mind about it all ------- but I would be curious.
Loopholes. My argument with the whole debate and, to be frank, both sides at the same time. Too many loopholes. At least for those on the top of the pay scales.
I can’t speak to/for Presidents but the argument in general goes that at times a public office is also a private residence. Your right to smoke in your own home makes your home business or office an exception.
Want to talk real loopholes and we can get into the whole “X% of food sales” restrictions put on bars in PA and other places. It’s fun if for no other reason than the giggle factor.
Most safety laws are reactionary by their very nature. You can’t impose a law until a problem manifests itself. Just because the Mining Act was imposed too late to prevent my granddad and yours from being hurt didn’t make the laws less legitimate. Whether the safety standards were imposed by the state/federal legislatures or by unions applying pressure, the end result is the same: fewer people dying. And that is a good thing.
As far as unions go, the people of Michigan and Ohio discovered that they could force entire industries to bend to their will without paying union dues or hiring lobbyists. They can unionize on a singular issue with amazing results. It’s called a statewide referendum. And they can bring about change almost overnight.
As far as you being proud of yourself, I’m glad you can be proud. Seriously. Just as I’m proud that I helped pass anti-smoking laws. One day I hope that my children will praise my generation for cleaning up the indoor air just as I praise the generation that passed the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. I remember the Ohio River and Mill Creek when they were so polluted that you couldn’t eat the fish out of them, if you could find any fish at all. It’s another example of government successfully forcing change when an industry refused to clean itself up voluntarily.
If you want to know whether smoking bans are reasonable, watch when a child walks into a smoking bar. The “ewww” comes straight from their gut. That’s how I used to respond when I saw the Mill Creek in all its neon green glory.
The ‘ewww’ factor could equally be applied to porn or alcohol as well. They next on the hit parade? There are a LOT of things that we don’t want children to participate in…should we ban those as well? Some of them are dangerous after all…plus they are, in some cases, icky. Or something…
Good article but two things- it is just about whether or not SHS causes Cancer, not whether or not it is dangerous. Take a look at this part of the article "Smoking opponents say there’s a scientific consensus in the U.S. that ETS is bad, citing an impressive list of articles and official pronouncements–for example, a 1998 review in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 100 studies, 63 of which found some evidence of harm from ETS. I agree ETS is harmful, broadly speaking;…" Next Cecil wrote that in 2000, nearly a decade aog. Since then we have had in http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/index.php "…* the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that “Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or ‘environmental’ tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans.”*
Or as wiki sez "# *Lung cancer: the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. A series of studies from the USA from 1986–2003,[13][14][15][16] the UK in 1998,[17][18] Australia in 1997[19] and internationally in 2004[20] have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.[21]
Breast cancer: The California Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2005 that passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal women by 70%[3] and the US Surgeon General has concluded that the evidence is “suggestive,” but still insufficient to assert such a causal relationship.[2] In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that there was “no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers.”[4]
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A recent study shows an increased RCC risk among never smokers with combined home/work exposure to passive smoking.[22]
…
Brain tumor: The risk in children increases significantly with higher amount of passive smoking, even if the mother doesn’t smoke,[24] thus not restricting risk to prenatal exposure during pregnancy."
We also have an increased risk of:
heart disease
asthma
Cognitive impairment and dementia
Low birth weight
Premature birth
Worsening of asthma, allergies, and other condition
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
and many more. Yes, in 2000 Cecil was right- the evidence that SHS caused cancer was weak. That was then, and that was just cancer, not a whole host of other bad things.
It has been settled for any one but a die hard smoker who wants to reject any evidence to the contrary. KOPEK needs to believe it is OK. I understand that. That does not make it so.
