Smoking bans in bars

[wanna be drummer]

I'll probably regret asking this, but why? To me, it's cut and dry....not everyone thinks that way, I understand that. If I run a business and the local government comes to me and says "We have a non-smoking ordinance for all _____ establishments. We ask that you comply within 30 days or lose your liquor license." If my livelihood depends on that business remaining open, why would I jeopardize that? Making money, keeping my bills paid and a roof over my head is more important than whether I personally think it's fair or not. I don't necessarily like having to drive the speed limit, especially when I'm in a hurry or there's no one on the road, but the "fairness" of the ordinance doesn't matter - I have to follow it.

Liz, I specifically said I wouldn't advocate breaking the law. Perhaps I worded it wrong now that I think about it. What I'm saying is that people should comply with the law, but that doesn't mean they have to like it.

From the building proper or from the premises? If you have a special enclosure on the property for smokers that is not the actual establishment, but is a part of the establishment, those consumers can still patronize your bar and you can still remain in compliance with the law. Look at restaurants that have outdoor patios. Those are smoking areas because you're outdoors. It's not inside the physical premises, but it's still on the plot of land. You have non-smoking indoors and smoking outdoors.

Public health would be my guess. Smoking is hazardous to the public health. Not just to the smoker but to those around the smoker. This to me would be no different than sanitation ordinances; it's to the benefit of both owner and consumer that some degree of cleanliness is expected.

Yes, we've established that. Let me ask you this, should I be "allowed" to open a bar or restaurant that only accepts smokers? Secondhand smoke is there, but firsthand smoke is obviously far more prevalent.

Some restaurants don't allow small children, some only allow them up to a certain time of the day. Babies aren't a public health hazard, unless the mother is changing a poopy diaper on your table.

Wouldn't be the weirdest shit I've seen

Get educated if you truly believe that.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2009/0...effects-of.html

to name a few good sources.

I realize that it kills many people a year, but I seriously doubt that being exposed to it for maybe an hour every few weeks will affect you in any way.

No. I never complained about you. I complained to you. You're a very articulate and intelligent guy, but I'm someone who doesn't appreciate other people ramming their opinions down my throat. That's why you have yours, and I have mine. I find it aggressive, and you don't need to be. You might like to pick fights, but that just comes across as slightly immature to me. You don't need to argue with people, especially as you appear as intelligent as you are.

Where have I dont that? Please, this isn't rhetorical. Show me where I'm forcing my opinion onto you.

Don't, for one second, think I'm part of any such group. Others may talk about you (not that I'm aware), but I don't. Whatever you say doesn't bother me, and there are plenty of people on this board that disagree with others - they just aren't so argumentative about it. You only lose your Brownie points when you make others feel they have to fight their corner. It's an opinion, and you are no one to argue that.

Fight their corner? Isn't that what people are doing to me? Isn't that what happens in an online discussion? Shall I send you some forums dedicated specifically to politics and you can read how its done? I'm not kidding here either, I will if you'd like. This is how the game is played

And for the record, I don't see anyone else complaining, nor do I actually care.

Edited April 8, 2009 by wanna be drummer

[~tangerine~]

I realize that it kills many people a year, but I seriously doubt that being exposed to it for maybe an hour every few weeks will affect you in any way.

The information found in the links is pretty clear. Inhaling second hand smoke has immediate effects on the body. How courageous are you? Would you be willing to walk into a building with known asbestos in the air without a mask? Even with a mask? Read the links and then make your decision.

[Dzldoc]

Not to defend smoking in any way, just to make a comparrison with the second hand smoke police.

The first 10 min. after starting your car in the morning will emit more toxic fumes into the atmosphere than the average smoker will emit in a month of smoking.

I test vehicle emissions in the course of doing my job so I can state this as fact.

Maybe we should all stop driving our cars and start walking more or biking it?

Just a thought.

[wanna be drummer]

The information found in the links is pretty clear. Inhaling second hand smoke has immediate effects on the body. How courageous are you? Would you be willing to walk into a building with known asbestos in the air without a mask? Even with a mask? Read the links and then make your decision.

You're going to compare prominent asbestos to secondhand smoke?

Well let me try the opposite end. You walk around outside do you not? Do you know how much we pollute the air with our vehicles and smoke-stacks, etc. Why don't you wear a mask every time you leave your home?

Edited April 8, 2009 by wanna be drummer

[Dzldoc]

I worked in the petro-chemical field for years and some of the gloop! i've seen oozzing out of these plants and into the waterways and air and ground.

Well for all I know it may have contributed to my cancer even though it is hereditary to my family.

One thing i've since done is get rid of as much plastic in my home as possible related to food. Especially in the micro-wave.

It's glass for me from now on as much as possible.

No children in the house so that hazard isn't around now.

Soft drinks in cans bye-bye.

[~tangerine~]

You're going to compare asbestos to secondhand smoke?

Well let me try the opposite end. You walk around outside do you not? Do you know how much we pollute the air with our vehicles and smoke-stacks, etc. Why don't you wear a mask every time you leave your home?

You obviously haven't read any of the information i provided. I know that some places are more polluted than others, ie... big cities vs. the country. I live in a non-congested part of the city bordering suburbs and just a few miles from country/farms where the air is much cleaner. The point is, you talk like cigarette smoke is no big deal, when it is... the reason for my question. Cigarette smoke AND asbestos both cause lung disease. Don't try to minimize the effects. I know environmental "pollution" is a cause of many illnesses. As others have said, however, smoking is something some choose to do and others don't want to be exposed to. It can be avoided. So far, efforts to "go green" are in infant stages. Hopefully we will make improvements in the future.

[wanna be drummer]

You obviously haven't read any of the information i provided. I know that some places are more polluted than others, ie... big cities vs. the country. I live in a non-congested part of the city bordering suburbs and just a few miles from country/farms where the air is much cleaner. The point is, you talk like cigarette smoke is no big deal, when it is... the reason for my question. Cigarette smoke AND asbestos both cause lung disease. Don't try to minimize the effects. I know environmental "pollution" is a cause of many illnesses. As others have said, however, smoking is something some choose to do and others don't want to be exposed to. It can be avoided. So far, efforts to "go green" are in infant stages. Hopefully we will make improvements in the future.

I'm not playing off the effects of cigarette smoke at all. But you seem to be overplaying it. I looked at every link. None of them give any form of time frame of how long of exposure it takes to reach any of the longterm effects noted. They all say what can happen, of which I'm (as are most people) aware of. But being exposed for an hour every few weeks or so is not going to kill you or give you cancer. As with everything, I'm sure there are a few miniscule exceptions but by and large, that is a fact. If it wasn't, most everyone I know would be dead or have tumors by now.

And come now, asbestos vs. cigarette smoke? Which would you rather inhale?

Edited April 8, 2009 by wanna be drummer

[Dzldoc]

On a side note concerning asbestos, the average consumer may or may not know.

Take a tape measure and if you have vinyl tiles in your home measure the tiles, if they are 12"X12" you should presume that there could be asbestos in those tiles.

Even though it has been banned from manufactor for years they were allowed to sell off their stock.

[wanna be drummer]

I'll be letting my parents at home to check, thansk for the heads up

[~tangerine~]

I'm not playing off the effects of cigarette smoke at all. But you seem to be overplaying it. I looked at every link. None of them give any form of time frame of how long of exposure it takes to reach any of the longterm effects noted. They all say what can happen, of which I'm (as are most people) aware of. But being exposed for an hour every few weeks or so is not going to kill you or give you cancer. As with everything, I'm sure there are a few miniscule exceptions but by and large, that is a fact. If it wasn't, most everyone I know would be dead or have tumors by now.

And come now, asbestos vs. cigarette smoke? Which would you rather inhale?

I work with patients every day that have all types of cancer, and a large majority of them are smokers... but many with lung cancer and lung disease are not. A good majority of the patients with lung disease are also young (under 50).

Anyway, here is a list of what you breath in when you inhale smoke (whether you are puffing on the cigarette or being exposed by someone else's smoke).... and as for asbestos vs. cigarettes, i don't want to inhale either, thank you!

EDIT: as for a timeframe, that's individual. The point is, the risk is there, and it's real. If you frequent a smoky bar once a week for an hour or two, you have increased your risk. They're your lungs, you decide how much protection they deserve (and that's just one organ that is effected by smoke).

Check out this link (too long to post) for a description of what chemicals smoke exposes us to (here's the list):

AMMONIA, HYDROGEN CYANIDE

1,3-BUTADIENE, HYDROQUINONE

1-AMINONAPHTHALENE, ISOPRENE

2-AMINONAPHTHALENE, LEAD

3-AMINOBIPHENYL, METHYL ETHYL KETONE

4-AMINOBIPHENYL, NAT

ACETALDEHYDE, NICKEL

ACETONE, NICOTINE

ACROLEIN, NITRIC OXIDE

ACRYLONITRILE, NNK

BENZENE, NNN

BENZO[a], PYRENE PHENOL

BUTYRALDEHYDE, PROPIONALDEHYDE

CADMIUM, PYRIDINE

CARBON MONOXIDE, QUINOLINE

CATECHOL, RESORCINOL

CHROMIUM, STYRENE

CRESOL, TAR

CROTONALDEHYDE, TOLUENE

FORMALDEHYDE

http://www.smoke-free.ca/health/healtheffectssmoke.htm

other links:

http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com/harmful-c...cigarettes.html

http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccof...ngredients.html

Cigarette Ingredients

Chemicals in Tobacco Smoke

There are over 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke and at least 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer.

The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret.

Tobacco companies reporting this information were:

American Tobacco Company

Brown and Williamson

Liggett Group, Inc.

Philip Morris Inc.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

While these ingredients are approved as additives for foods, they were not tested by burning them, and it is the burning of many of these substances which changes their properties, often for the worse. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette – 69 of those chemicals are known to cause cancer. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanides and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke or both. It's chilling to think about not only how smokers poison themselves, but what others are exposed to by breathing in the secondhand smoke. The next time you're missing your old buddy, the cigarette, take a good long look at this list and see them for what they are: a delivery system for toxic chemical and carcinogens.

Edited April 8, 2009 by ~tangerine~

[Jahfin]

How about a ban on farting in public places?

[JimmyPage1977]

WBD, you've totally lost touch with this debate.... now you're worried about asbestos!!

You are quickly becoming the "Spats" of the Smoking Ban discussion.... lets just run around in circles attempting to educate you!

What if government had no say in what went on in bars..... drugs, guns, lawyers, money, etc.... I can take every example that you gave and come up with a far worse scenario that makes the other side look better!! Your example was .....wait for it..... FRENCH FRY FUMES!!!!

You really need to look at this issue in a logical way, rather than a political idealistic way. Just my two cents.

[~tangerine~]

WBD, you've totally lost touch with this debate.... now you're worried about asbestos!!

You are quickly becoming the "Spats" of the Smoking Ban discussion.... lets just run around in circles attempting to educate you!

What if government had no say in what went on in bars..... drugs, guns, lawyers, money, etc.... I can take every example that you gave and come up with a far worse scenario that makes the other side look better!! Your example was .....wait for it..... FRENCH FRY FUMES!!!!

You really need to look at this issue in a logical way, rather than a political idealistic way. Just my two cents.

I think we need to ban public farting first (as suggested by Jahfin) and then discuss the french fries

[Jahfin]

[~tangerine~]

That's fantastic!!!

Anyway to anyone who thinks (Wannabedrummer it seems) i'm overexagerrating (which i'm not).... i have seen it, and so it's real to me, and i avoid exposure to cigarette smoke very effectively in my everyday life (nobody smokes in my house and i don't go into one where people do... and that goes for bars/club/restaurants)... so i'm not complaining. I just hope smokers will try to quit for their sake as well as their loved ones. Breathing is one of the nicest things we can do, and probably the most frightening thing that anyone can experience when they can't breath. Treat your lungs with kindness, once they are damaged you don't get a second chance. One last link for anyone who wants encouragement to quit smoking:

http://www.helpwithsmoking.com/smoking-and-copd.php

[wanna be drummer]

I work with patients every day that have all types of cancer, and a large majority of them are smokers... but many with lung cancer and lung disease are not. A good majority of the patients with lung disease are also young (under 50).

Anyway, here is a list of what you breath in when you inhale smoke (whether you are puffing on the cigarette or being exposed by someone else's smoke).... and as for asbestos vs. cigarettes, i don't want to inhale either, thank you!

Again, I'm well aware what's in cigarettes, what's in cigars, what comes out, etc. That's not the point.

EDIT: as for a timeframe, that's individual. The point is, the risk is there, and it's real. If you frequent a smoky bar once a week for an hour or two, you have increased your risk. They're your lungs, you decide how much protection they deserve (and that's just one organ that is effected by smoke)

There's risk everywhere in life. What's your point? Should they just ban smoking altogether to end that risk?

WBD, you've totally lost touch with this debate.... now you're worried about asbestos!!

What?? Did you even read the posts between both me and tangerine or not? She brought it up, not me.

You are quickly becoming the "Spats" of the Smoking Ban discussion.... lets just run around in circles attempting to educate you!

Ok this is your second post in a row that was made simply to make me look like a dick and yet it contains no information whatsoever for either side. Your point please?

What if government had no say in what went on in bars..... drugs, guns, lawyers, money, etc.... I can take every example that you gave and come up with a far worse scenario that makes the other side look better!!

Great, then do it! I'm not advocating the absolute withdrawal of government, merely the limiting of its powers.

Your example was .....wait for it..... FRENCH FRY FUMES!!!!

Christ, that was off the top of my head, calm down.

You really need to look at this issue in a logical way, rather than a political idealistic way. Just my two cents.

Ah, but I am. My "Political idealism" is moderate-libertarianism. Logically, we are only free when we can do as we please. The govenment's duty is to protect us from those that would harm or steal from us and thus, infringe upon our rights. If I can't open up a smoking-only bar, how is that nota violation of freedom?

[~tangerine~]

Again, I'm well aware what's in cigarettes, what's in cigars, what comes out, etc. That's not the point.

There's risk everywhere in life. What's your point? Should they just ban smoking altogether to end that risk?

It would save alot of illness and suffering... yes, i think the dangers of smoking are SO GREAT that it should be banned. Let me add, i'm not planning on starting any campaigns!!!! We have known the dangers of this drug since the 60's i believe, and it should have been banned back then.

Edit: this information should be compelling enough to substantiate my reasons:

http://www.thestopsmokingguide.com/chapters/smokingFacts.php

Smoking Facts and Figures

Smoking is the number 1 preventable cause of death in the United States.

Around 8 ½ million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking.

Each year, smoking kills more people than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car accidents, homicides, and suicides.combined.

Smoking is responsible for 87 percent of deaths from lung cancer, 21 percent of deaths from heart disease, 18 percent of deaths from stroke, and 80 to 90 percent of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema and chronic bronchitis).

Smokers will usually die 10-12 years younger than non-smokers.

Every eight seconds someone dies from tobacco use...that's about as long as it takes to read this sentence.

The top mortality rates, by cause, in the United States consist of heart disease, heart attack, stroke, lung cancer and chronic pulmonary disease, all proven to be associated with smoking.

This was just a short list of smoking related illnesses and causes of death. But if you sit back and look at it carefully, you'll soon realize that this is a list that nobody wants to be on. If you are a smoker, chances are high that you will one day be on this list in one way or another.

Edited April 8, 2009 by ~tangerine~

[Mangani]

Maybe we should all stop driving our cars and start walking more or biking it?

Just a thought.

Did that already. I gave up private motor transport years ago. Now I'm healthier (and have more money) than I did before. Of course, I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where private motor transport isn't a necessity. Others aren't that fortunate.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

Again, I'm well aware what's in cigarettes, what's in cigars, what comes out, etc. That's not the point.

I smoke cigars on a rare occassion. You don't inhale cigars becvuase if you did, you cough ridiculously. That being said, you are more likely to get an oral cancer of some sort instead of lung.

[Bong-Man]

Smoking is the number 1 preventable cause of death in the United States.

No, actually obesity is the # 1 preventable cause of death in the U.S.

Latest Obesity Statistics

USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions

58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese

Eight out of 10 over 25's Overweight

78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations

25% completely Sedentary

76% increase in Type II diabetes in adults 30-40 yrs old since 1990

So why aren't we taxing the shit out of soda, chips, and fat-content the same way we are cigarettes and other tobacco products ?

[Bong-Man]

25% completely Sedentary

Ponder that a bit. 1 out of every 4 Americans can't even be bothered to move.

[bigzepfan]

I read through some of the links. Lots of reading.

They claim that second hand smoke kills hundred of thousand per year of lung cancer.

I wonder how many die of lung cancer than from something other than cigarette smoke.

I would be interested in seeing what....they claim.... the ratio is.

[longdistancewinner]

Where have I dont that? Please, this isn't rhetorical. Show me where I'm forcing my opinion onto you.

Fight their corner? Isn't that what people are doing to me? Isn't that what happens in an online discussion? Shall I send you some forums dedicated specifically to politics and you can read how its done? I'm not kidding here either, I will if you'd like. This is how the game is played

And for the record, I don't see anyone else complaining, nor do I actually care.

Eurgh, just stop. All I said was that you can be slightly aggressive with your opinions. Some may enjoy it, but I don't. Whether it's on me or someone else. I really can't be arsed to trawl through every single post that you ever made in response to me, because, to be honest, my time is so much more valuable and I feel you do it to anyone who you disagree with. So, I'd be stuck for a while.

If you're actually bothered enough to waste your time 'showing' me political forums, by all means, be my guest. I won't bother reading 'em, though, and I guess others won't care for them littered here, either. I'm not interested in politics, and as this is a Led Zeppelin forum, not a political one, I don't see the point of it bringing it up here, either - so explain, what 'game' am I supposed to be playing?

And for the record, I'd actually forgotten what I'd said to you, so, to me, it appears that you did care. You're not a bad guy, as I've already told you before, but that must've fallen on deaf ears.

[longdistancewinner]

I read through some of the links. Lots of reading.

They claim that second hand smoke kills hundred of thousand per year of lung cancer.

I wonder how many die of lung cancer than from something other than cigarette smoke.

I would be interested in seeing what....they claim.... the ratio is.

My mate's dad was diagnosed with lung cancer yesterday. He doesn't smoke (at least, I don't think so), but he does run his own pub. I'm willing to bet that that would've had a hand in it.

[wanna be drummer]

It would save alot of illness and suffering... yes, i think the dangers of smoking are SO GREAT that it should be banned. Let me add, i'm not planning on starting any campaigns!!!! We have known the dangers of this drug since the 60's i believe, and it should have been banned back then.

Well then we're simply nowhere near being on the same page, because I'm an anti-drug law kinda guy. Regardless of how much damage something does to yourself, it is your right to do so. Until you violate someone else's rights, then its' not for anyone to decide what's right or wrong for you.

I smoke cigars on a rare occassion. You don't inhale cigars becvuase if you did, you cough ridiculously. That being said, you are more likely to get an oral cancer of some sort instead of lung.

Cigars are the only thing I smoke and thats only once in a while as well. To be honest though, I think I'll take the lung cancer. You can live and lose a lung with lung cancer, but try living and losing half your jaw with oral cancer.

Eurgh, just stop. All I said was that you can be slightly aggressive with your opinions. Some may enjoy it, but I don't. Whether it's on me or someone else. I really can't be arsed to trawl through every single post that you ever made in response to me, because, to be honest, my time is so much more valuable and I feel you do it to anyone who you disagree with. So, I'd be stuck for a while.

Methinks I do exactly what everyone does to me. I return fire just as others do. Nothing I say is personal or has been an attack thus far and my posts won't be like that until someone decides to do so to me.

Yes, I'm outspoken. But I think it's more noticeable to you because I'm arguing from the opposite side. You have 3 or 4 on yours, whereas no one is coming from my angle save myself. So of course my posts are going to seem heated, but in reeality they are not.

If you're actually bothered enough to waste your time 'showing' me political forums, by all means, be my guest. I won't bother reading 'em, though, and I guess others won't care for them littered here, either. I'm not interested in politics, and as this is a Led Zeppelin forum, not a political one, I don't see the point of it bringing it up here, either - so explain, what 'game' am I supposed to be playing?

I'm very interested in politics. Look, I've been here for going on 4 years or so. One can only talk about Led Zeppelin so much before the topic becomes boring, which it most definitely has for me.

As far as the game, I'm simply saying that this is how debates/discussions work online. My apologies if i didn't make that clear.

And for the record, I'd actually forgotten what I'd said to you, so, to me, it appears that you did care. You're not a bad guy, as I've already told you before, but that must've fallen on deaf ears.

I heard you and I appreciate it,