Smokeless, filled rooms

anyone who says the smoking ban is working fine as bruce did is a liar. The ban can never be working fine as long as it is not in line with constitutional rights for the private property owners. The ban can never be working fine as long as it causes good people to break the law to survive regardless of their constitutional rights.

It can never be working fine when one county spends 70,000.00 to collect 450.00 in fines to operate on among other counties within the same losing problem.

The whole state is a mess because of the ban and the antis still yell it works fime and there will be and are no losses due to smoking bans.

Liars

This si so funny
http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php...

Linda wrote:

anyone who says the smoking ban is working fine as bruce did is a liar. The ban can never be working fine as long as it is not in line with constitutional rights for the private property owners. The ban can never be working fine as long as it causes good people to break the law to survive regardless of their constitutional rights.
It can never be working fine when one county spends 70,000.00 to collect 450.00 in fines to operate on among other counties within the same losing problem.
The whole state is a mess because of the ban and the antis still yell it works fime and there will be and are no losses due to smoking bans.
Liars

but this is your personal idea of what is not fine. those are your perceptions and they do not work for you. bruce has his perceptions and they work for him.

like i said earlier, here in centerville/washington twp, the ban is being followed to the letter. i haven't seen a change in business at all. places like bw3's and frickers are still kicking. it smells a lot cleaner in all the places i visit. these are all positives in my book. i use these positives to conclude that the ban is working. i am not a liar for coming to this conclusion.

now if i go to the white trash areas of east dayton and xenia, i'd probably say the ban isn't working there as i know of several dive bars in those cities that are ignoring the ban.

just face it guys: it's fundamental to your cause to label all who have views or opinions that differ from yours as liars, bigots, and hypocrites. it just makes you grit your teeth thinking that just one of those people might actually be an honest and decent individual.

roffle wrote:

just face it guys: it's fundamental to your cause to label all who have views or opinions that differ from yours as liars, bigots, and hypocrites. it just makes you grit your teeth thinking that just one of those people might actually be an honest and decent individual.

Not all of those who disagree with us, just the wieners.

so this means you calling bruce a weiner for offering his statement that the ban is working, no?

roffle wrote:

<quoted text>
how do i perceive myself as an intellectual? i use all lowercase. intellectuals don't use all lowercase and i am fully aware of this.

now does our world descend
the path to nothingness
(cruel now cancels kind;
friends turn to enemies)
therefore lament,my dream
and don a doer's doom

create is now contrive;
imagined,merely know
(freedom:what makes a slave)
therefore,my life,lie down
and more by most endure
all that you never were

hide,poor dishonoured mind
who thought yourself so wise;
and much could understand
concerning no and yes:
if they've become the same
it's time you unbecame

where climbing was and bright
is darkness and to fall
(now wrong's the only right
since brave are cowards all)
therefore despair,my heart
and die into the dirt

but from this endless end
of briefer each our bliss--
where seeing eyes go blind
(where lips forget to kiss)
where everything's nothing
--arise,my soul;and sing

e.e. cummings

http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
now does our world descend
the path to nothingness
(cruel now cancels kind;
friends turn to enemies)

Friends turn to enemies due to the rANTIS' pogrom of the denormalization of smokers. Smokers’ are now the Politically Correct group to practice BIGOTRY on. Discrimination is once again on the rise.

Linda wrote:

<quoted text>
LIAR!!!

Why are antismokers so prone to lie like this?

Bill Hannegan wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are antismokers so prone to lie like this?

Well when you start of with a lie,AKA the wishcraft they call scientific proof, like the force once you start down that dark path where else do you have to go???

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
e.e. cummings
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings

I LOVE THIS ONE

Mark Twain on Nicotine Nannies

The Moral Statistician

Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893



I don't want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.

You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can't save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

MORE
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/marktwain.html

Linda wrote:

The ban can never be working fine as long as it is not in line with constitutional rights for the private property owners.

Your right to privacy includes the right not to be exposed to poisons spewed at you at your place of work.

Private property is not the relevant issue. Public accommodation is. Govt not only has the domain to regulate public accommodations, such is one of its very reasons for being.

The science has settled this. It has nothing to do with social policy nor tradition not "freedom to poison others". It is simply about workplace safety.

All an establishment has to do, in order to successfully challenge the ban, is certify that no worker is ever exposed to SHS. Come up with a way to do that, challege the law in court, and see what happens.

You do indeed have the liberty to challenge the law. That's what this country is about.

I for one love the idea of banning smoking in all public buildings. I would love to be able to enjoy My self at a lounge/establishment and go home and not have to jump in the shower and scrub off second hand smoke. I quit smoking to enjoy a better, healthy lifestyle but 10 minutes in a building with smoking and my lungs are polluted with all those harmful substances.

Also for parents to be able to take children bowling or to restaurants and not have to have the children inhaling second hand smoke. But I guess there still will inconsiderant selfish parents who smoke with the kids right on their laps.

I quit smoking about 7 years ago. I never realized how much of a DISCUSTING bad habit it was until I quit. When smokers talk to me with their nasty breath or when they walk bye they all smell like crap!! If I only realized it the 10 years that I did smoke!!

Im sure I sound very negative. Being a nurse and watching people SUFFER And they truly SUFFER with lung cancer,PAD or CHF. Watching them struggle to breathe. Begging me to turn up their oxygen tank(already is up) Sure put my ass in gear to quit.

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>
All an establishment has to do, in order to successfully challenge the ban, is certify that no worker is ever exposed to SHS.

You forgot to add the words 'against their will'. For one thing, would be kidnapping which is a crime and punishable by law.

nurseinpa wrote:

but 10 minutes in a building with smoking

Thats your problem and your solution is to not enter that building. I suspect if you really are a nurse you can think at least a little bit or has your brain been sucked out

Bill Hannegan wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are antismokers so prone to lie like this?

Those lies, use the kids, etc. is the excuse to take money to set up org.'s which keeps them happily employed at the expense of freedoms and private property owners constitutional rights.

If you read the news reports when Strickland busted them to cash 0, they whined about their job losses. Must not forget the profits from smoking cessation products that funded and allowed the orgs own workplaces.

The work real hard to get cigs over taxed by increases which fills in the tax losses for the state so they can be assured that smoking bans don't harm the economy.

The more bans, the higher the profits for big phrma. I bet they want to force smokers to wear the nicotine rather than smoke it. I would bet that is a good enough reason to go to war with big tobacco.

Think about this greed..now a group in Wash., not in Ohio, is fighting for Ohio's funds which actually belongs to Ohio alone. Think Ohio leaders are not paying attention to their self announced greed!!!

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>
Your right to privacy includes the right not to be exposed to poisons spewed at you at your place of work.

My rights period, includes my right to be exposed to harmless shs at my place of work if the owner chooses to allow it on theri own property.

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>
Your right to privacy includes the right not to be exposed to poisons spewed at you at your place of work.
Private property is not the relevant issue. Public accommodation is. Govt not only has the domain to regulate public accommodations, such is one of its very reasons for being.
The science has settled this. It has nothing to do with social policy nor tradition not "freedom to poison others". It is simply about workplace safety.
All an establishment has to do, in order to successfully challenge the ban, is certify that no worker is ever exposed to SHS. Come up with a way to do that, challege the law in court, and see what happens.
You do indeed have the liberty to challenge the law. That's what this country is about.

If all jobs were required to conform to the air quality that you want bars to conform to you would not have any of the modern conveniences that you are use to including the computer that you are posting with. So you are either willing to give up all modern conveniences or you are a hypocrite which is it. As proof I offer OSHA policy.

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_...

WaltBennett wrote:

<quoted text>

The science has settled this. challege the law in court, and see what happens.
You do indeed have the liberty to challenge the law. That's what this country is about.

Junk Science and Courtrooms

Understanding Carmona's report requires familiarity with a different report--the Federal Judicial Center's 2000 "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition," the official guide for judges to understand and rule on science introduced in courtrooms.

According to the manual, nearly all the studies cited in Carmona's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show are too negligible to be reliable.

For example, the Reference Manual states, "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Few of the studies Carmona cites found relative risks this large, and most found risks in a range that included 1.0, which means exposure to secondhand smoke had no effect on the incidence of disease. In the world of real science, that's a knockout blow.

Most of the research Carmona cites was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the most important findings, and failed to honor scientific standards. Carmona's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.

Missing Study

Did Carmona and coauthors cherry-pick the data? Absolutely. They ignore the largest and most credible study ever conducted on spouses of smokers, by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. The authors found:

"The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Carmona mentions the Enstrom study just once, in an appendix listing studies too recent to include in the report. But Enstrom's study was published four years ago, and Carmona cites more recent studies. In fact, Carmona's principal "findings" were taken from a 2005 report--not a scientific study, merely another report--from California's Clean Air Resources Board, mostly citing the very studies the federal judge rejected in 1993.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...
http://milkandcookies.com/link/101779/detail/

Linda wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot to add the words 'against their will'. For one thing, would be kidnapping which is a crime and punishable by law.

So you hinge your entire argument on "they don't have to work there".

OK, please show me your petition, signed by all of those workers who willingly agree to work in smoke filled rooms.

If your "evidence" is that they choose to work at such places today, you might just be missing the point that service level workers are easily replaced and must often subject themselves to less than agreeable conditions in order to find work at all.

I would point out to you that the modern labor movement was born out of the mistreatment of workers. Consider this issue a natural and necessary extension of that movement.

Once again, this is not a private property issue, this is a public accommodation and workplace safety issue.