Ohio approves state smoking ban

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
provided only that the conditions i stated were met.
<quoted text>
you don't get it. non-smokers are waging a war against the cigarette, not the smoker. i say this a lot and i will say it again: people make a choice at some point in their life to become a smoker, at which point they believe society owes them some sort of leeway and should somehow relvolve around them "just a bit". this is untrue. if you make an adverse choice in your life, you must work around society. no one owes you anything because you smoke cigarettes. you want to smoke? do it away from those who never picked up the habit. it's the right of anyone to be able to go anywhere they please, when they please and breathe smoke-free air.
as far as businesses making their own choices? if businesses made their own choices then they would choose to allow smoking. not only would this defeat the purpose of issue 5, it would be counter-productive in allowing non-smokers to breath smoke-free air in any public establishment they wish to go to.
there are no "smokers' rights". they never have existed, they don't now, and certainly never will.

What gives (YOU) the right to tell people how to run there Establishmet (I THINK YOU SHOULD LIGHT UP A CIG AND STIMULATE A BRAIN CELL) you have no clue how to talk for yourself without using a vary corrupt EPA report.

kzsteele wrote:

here's something else i just thought of...
what if cigarettes were never invented? "smoker's rights" would never have been conceived of. that said, what else is out there right now that hasn't been invented yet that we could claim as "a right"?

Tobacco was here long before we took the land from the Indians So go run your own life leave ours alone (WE DONT NEED YOU)

Bill Hannegan wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a good link on smoke exposure in restaurants and bars: http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_p...

I found it this time. Thanks.
I will reprint it now.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_p...

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
don't believe anything you read, basically. i don't believe a lot of what i read from ACS or american heart association. at the bottom of all this pandemonium is a bag of money and someone is trying to get their hands on it, but who? who do we trust?
you have to ask yourself: of all the organizations, who has a financial interest in keeping smoking around and who has a financial interest in getting rid of it completely? i wouldn't doubt if some of those links you provide come from financially influenced organizations paid off by the tobacco companies. they want smoking to stay.
your turn: who do you think has a financial interest in banning smoking? who would be influencing ACS and america heart assoc? hmmmmm!

The pharmacuetical companies for one. Show me the evidence that big tobacco is backing it. Here is a link
http://www.forces.org/evidence/papers/paper1/...
Now, show me yours.

Kzste look you don't get it do you it's not about the smoking ....its having a cop telling you to put down that redbull...telling you to spit that gum out... telling you to put that condom on...
State got us down to privages that's you and all of us...that's the right we are talking about...
and the statement of : they don't have rights...
think very hard about that one or do we have to translate it for you...
good day to you sir and good nite!

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
provided only that the conditions i stated were met.
<quoted text>
you don't get it. non-smokers are waging a war against the cigarette, not the smoker. i say this a lot and i will say it again: people make a choice at some point in their life to become a smoker, at which point they believe society owes them some sort of leeway and should somehow relvolve around them "just a bit". this is untrue. if you make an adverse choice in your life, you must work around society. no one owes you anything because you smoke cigarettes. you want to smoke? do it away from those who never picked up the habit. it's the right of anyone to be able to go anywhere they please, when they please and breathe smoke-free air.
as far as businesses making their own choices? if businesses made their own choices then they would choose to allow smoking. not only would this defeat the purpose of issue 5, it would be counter-productive in allowing non-smokers to breath smoke-free air in any public establishment they wish to go to.
there are no "smokers' rights". they never have existed, they don't now, and certainly never will.

Thank you very well said. I have heard people who do drugs and smoke pot use the same analegy. I'm not hurting anyone. It's my right to smoke pot yadda yadda.. Yeah I know it is illegal. But it hasn't always been. Are their rights taken away? Coke use to be legal. Weed use to be legal, acid use to be legal, opium use to be legal I'm sure there are more drugs out there.. Just don't have the list.. So after you fight this fight to smoke in restaurants and bars are they going to fight the fight for the coke users? Pot heads? and other drugs??

KHartman wrote:

<quoted text>
I tend to favor sources that reflect a sense of scientific impartiality, rather than those that have an obvious political agenda. To that end, I look for research conducted by professionals, written for publication in scientific journals which utilize peer review.
Just to demonstrate that I DID check out your link:
FORCES lists five "researchers", but NONE of them are doctors, biologists, chemists, epidemiologists. Seems a bit odd for a group studying a health issue. What are their specialities? Here's my favorite: "Martha Perske is an award-winning illustrator and stamp designer."
Wow! How did this "scientific" organization come to be? Let's see what they say: "FORCES is an acronym of Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking. That name reflects the organisation’s original intent when it was founded in 1995 in San Francisco, USA."
Ah, so FORCES made up their mind first, to fight anything which tried to restrict smoking and then tried to find evidence to support their point of view. REAL SCIENTISTS try to keep an open and impartial mind, and see where the data takes them.

OMG an award winning illustrator and stamp designer??? OMGosh I am convinced now!!!! LOL thanks so much.. I needed that laugh..

MarineWife wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG an award winning illustrator and stamp designer??? OMGosh I am convinced now!!!! LOL thanks so much.. I needed that laugh..

You wont be laughing when your rights are takin away. When will you people get it! There leaving faster than ever
The food we eat is being monitored now soon it will be caffine and sugar. After that where does it stop how many kids we can have what kind of music we can listen to.it was attempted and passed if you remember (ITS ALL FORMS OF Censorship)this one is no different

Greven wrote:

<quoted text>You wont be laughing when your rights are takin away. When will you people get it! There leaving faster than ever
The food we eat is being monitored now soon it will be caffine and sugar. After that where does it stop how many kids we can have what kind of music we can listen to.it was attempted and passed if you remember (ITS ALL FORMS OF Censorship)this one is no different

Scare tactics.. Not working.. Sorry. As for music.. do you not realize how much music has changed? In the 60's you couldn't say or sing about half of what these rappers are singing about..And yes our food watched.. Thank goodness.. Can you imagine a store owner selling you ground hamburger with dog in it?? Eeesh.. Or remember was it Kroger??? that had ground up saw dust in their hamburger?? Maybe not Kroger.. Some grocery store..

Seems like the smokers are grasping at straws more each day. Eventually there won't be anymore straws to grasp at.. Then what??

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
don't believe anything you read, basically. i don't believe a lot of what i read from ACS or american heart association. at the bottom of all this pandemonium is a bag of money and someone is trying to get their hands on it, but who? who do we trust?
you have to ask yourself: of all the organizations, who has a financial interest in keeping smoking around and who has a financial interest in getting rid of it completely? i wouldn't doubt if some of those links you provide come from financially influenced organizations paid off by the tobacco companies. they want smoking to stay.
your turn: who do you think has a financial interest in banning smoking? who would be influencing ACS and america heart assoc? hmmmmm!

The ACS and AHA as well as former Surgeon General Carmona all want to get rid of smoking. So they aren't interested in paying for or publishing any research that says SHS is not such a big deal.

Feb. 14th's article, "Airport Air Unhealthy..." shows just how silly the Smoking Prohibitionists have become.

The article claims "frequent fliers may be getting a dangerous dose" of secondary tobacco smoke. A “dangerous dose”? In an airport? An airport where hundreds of planes are freely spewing jet fuel fumes into the terminals’ air intakes??

Looking at just two of the emissions that jets and cigarettes have in common shows how ridiculous this is. According to the Surgeon Generals' 1986 Report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, a cigarette puts out a total of 3 mg of nitrogen oxide (NO) and 40 mg of carbon monoxide (CO). The 1995 EPA study on airplane emissions cites a single 747 takeoff/landing at about 115 pounds of NO and 32 pounds of CO.

That's 52 million mg of NO and 14 million mg of CO if you do the math.

Doing a bit more math for a typical 500 takeoffs/landings per day shows us that the nice clean smokefree air being pumped into those terminals has the CO equivalent of over 160 million cigarettes and the NO of Eight and a Half BILLION cigarettes.

All of which is being shwooshed right into the lungs of travelers who are supposedly receiving a "dangerous dose" from a few cigarettes being puffed in secluded and sealed off terminal areas and bars. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Michael J. McFadden
http://cantiloper.tripod.com
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com

References:
1986 SG Report pgs. 129, 130, 136
EPA Report "Technical Data... Commercial Aviation" 09/29/95

Here's a link to Dr. Siegel's latest blog and some airport studies info, showing how the antis twisted them, too:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/116...

maybe you Anti's can ban travel next
Hell lets ban everything so we can all live in your bubbled world (give Ultimate control to big gov) because i guess we all need to be babysitted

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>
because they know how stubborn smokers would stay home and pout and not spend money at their establishment (at least for a few weeks until smokers get tired of sitting at home and realize how much they actually miss pool and dancing and bingo).
but none of this is about the lost revenue of businesses who have grown indirectly dependent on being a smoking establishment. it's about the health of the person who never made it a point to start smoking.

First, just for the record I dont play pool, I can dance anywhere I want, and I actually do (try it, it makes your day better), and I have not been inside a Bingo Hall since the Columbus Ban went into effect. So none of those directly affect me nor do I think you will find most of the smokers on this thread that do.

Bingo Halls are known to donate money for various causes no matter where. The catholic high school my son attended had bingo there twice a week which helped keep tuiton down. Since the Columbus Smoking Ban, they are down by half. Tuition increased this year and will continue to do so as the Bingo profits go.

When the Columbus Ban went into effect some 22 months ago everyone flew to the suburbs as smoking was still allowed. Some little cities passed their own exclusive of any Townships. So now were down to Townships that allowed smoking. Liberty twonship as an example, even though smoking was allowed, Bob Evans built a new facility and it opened non smoking. It was their choice to do so.

Even in Columbus and the cities that went non smoking, there were exemptions. Although most places on one end of downtown Columbus consistently allowed smoking (even though banned) and some places at the other end. There policy, I dont see anything. That will not change with Issue 5, businesses will just be more careful in their clientele.

And lastly, you said it exactly how most non smokers are thinking THIS IS NOT ABOUT LOSS REVENUE OF BUSINESS. Its not? Maybe I missed something. You yourself said if given the choice most would allow smoking, dosent that tell you something? You said ITS ABOUT THE NON SMOKERS HEALTH. Im sure alot of struggling business owners would disagree with you on that. December 7 the ban started, was delayed and most places are continuing to smoke. Those who are not and quite apparent (where I live) with two or three cars in their parking lots.

kzsteele wrote:

<quoted text>

you don't get it. non-smokers are waging a war against the cigarette, not the smoker.

It may look that way to a non-smoker but when you hear about ASH complaining about a hospital building a smoking shelter (because they've banned smoking on the premises) then it takes on a different slant.

i say this a lot and i will say it again: people make a choice at some point in their life to become a smoker, at which point they believe society owes them some sort of leeway and should somehow relvolve around them "just a bit".

It's too much to expect society to have ANY consideration for 25% of its population is it?

it's the right of anyone to be able to go anywhere they please, when they please and breathe smoke-free air.

Making up rights again are we?

as far as businesses making their own choices? if businesses made their own choices then they would choose to allow smoking.

Really? Then how do you explain the increasing numbers of non-smoking establishments in places without bans.

there are no "smokers' rights". they never have existed, they don't now, and certainly never will.

There aren't any non-smoker rights either. What's you point?

and in continuation of my previous post, whenever you talk to a business owner who was forced to go non smoking because of a ban, his main reason for voting for a full ban, because they wanted a level playing field. It has nothing to do with the health of a smoker v non smoker. Its about revenue.

NW Ohio wrote:

If smoking is so safe for everyone how come you can't smoke in a hospital?

well i beilive hospitals have oxygen tanks running and probably alot of other highly explosive within the hospital one spark boom.. besides their are alot of unhealthy habbits people get into.. their are alot of things people use that pollutes the air we breath.. hairsprays, bug spray anything you spray or put into the air pollutes it. i do smoke yet i do agree somewhat with this new law yes i understand not smoking in public inclosed places but this new law is also banning the outside unless your in or on your own private property i dont think alot of people realize that.. most were confused about what issue 5 entalled...that is the stupid part to me..

Cas wrote:

<quoted text>
To tell you the truth I think he's Dave in cinci, and just changed his name. I was killing Dave to the point of maybe he thought the only way to continue would be to change his name. But the bottom line is neither have a point to make. It's kind of sad really. When you have to resort to reading other peoples posts looking for a typo or two.... Wow... Just Sad.

Not me Cas. I went back and read from the time I left work on. My last post was the talking heads post. I leave work at 2:30 in the afternoon( I start at six). And, the fact that I chose not to debate this anymore with someone who takes small parts, twists them around and then declares victory.

Again, don't know who this JAS is but, it's not me.
Dave

I was at the birth of a family I am close too. Just outside the door and within minutes after she was born I was asked into the room. The baby's Grandmother wasn't the first person outside the father and mother to hold the child I was. Why? The Grandmother had to go outside to smoke a cigarette. She had been in the room for the whole birth but her addiction robbed her of her first right. I hesitated to take this sweet baby in my arms as I felt I shouldn't hold her before her Grandma but the Mother shrugged her shoulders and said, "She made her choice and she chose a cigarette rather than stay here and hold her Granddaughter.

So no one makes anyone go outside in the cold it's their addiction that forces them outside. I have no addiction therefore I need no step outside. I feel for people who have such horrible cravings that it forces them to light up vs not.

Doxielvr wrote:

I was at the birth of a family I am close too. Just outside the door and within minutes after she was born I was asked into the room. The baby's Grandmother wasn't the first person outside the father and mother to hold the child I was. Why? The Grandmother had to go outside to smoke a cigarette. She had been in the room for the whole birth but her addiction robbed her of her first right. I hesitated to take this sweet baby in my arms as I felt I shouldn't hold her before her Grandma but the Mother shrugged her shoulders and said, "She made her choice and she chose a cigarette rather than stay here and hold her Granddaughter.
So no one makes anyone go outside in the cold it's their addiction that forces them outside. I have no addiction therefore I need no step outside. I feel for people who have such horrible cravings that it forces them to light up vs not.

How long was the grandmother in the room, an hour, six hours, see you dont actually say how long she was in the room. and yes she should have stayed the extra five minutes to hold her grandchild.

And good for you. you have no addictions, do you like choclate? do you like good movies, we all are addicted in one way or another to something.

Doxielvr wrote:

So no one makes anyone go outside in the cold it's their addiction that forces them outside. I have no addiction therefore I need no step outside. I feel for people who have such horrible cravings that it forces them to light up vs not.

Oh p*** off. We've had to endlessly listen to how we've been FORCING non-smokers to inhale our smoke (despite them voluntarily entering the premises under their own power). NOW we have to listen to how it's not non-smokers who're forcing us outside, it's the cigarettes!
Just wait until summer rolls around in Ohio and see the non-smokers complain because THEY want to sit outside in the beer garden but "can't" because it's full of smokers.

Anyway, as for your story. Who gives a monkey's who holds the baby in what order? Old Granny there sounds like a bit of a pragmatist if you ask me and not bothered by such silliness. She went and had her cig knowing the baby would still be there when she came back.