Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional

Kyboy wrote:

<quoted text>The Revenue Performance of Casinos after a Smoking ...
www.docstoc.com/.../The-Revenue -...
Mar 27, 2011 – Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper Series The ... Illinois casinos with out-of-state casinos (no smoking ban) that share a market with ...

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2009/2009-0...

Hugh Jass wrote:

There are NO grounds offered for suspecting the specific data, and there are now ALTERNATE data sets provided.

Typo, folks. Should have read "NO" alternate data sets provided.

Kyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
The Revenue Performance of Casinos after a Smoking ...
www.docstoc.com/.../The-Revenue -...
Mar 27, 2011 – Research Division Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Working Paper Series The ... Illinois casinos with out-of-state casinos (no smoking ban) that share a market with ...

Once again, you dodge any relevant content and pretend to be addressing the issue. A SINGLE STUDY does not PROVE anything, and any presentation that claims it does is just contributing to the janitor's workload.

Hugh Jass wrote:

<quoted text>Once again, you dodge any relevant content and pretend to be addressing the issue. A SINGLE STUDY does not PROVE anything, and any presentation that claims it does is just contributing to the janitor's workload.

How about this one. It will answer the question I asked early.

http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/...

Who's making money.

Tobacco control advocates lie to the public about the merits of smoking bans to advance their Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) financial sponsors’ agenda to increase sales of nicotine gums, patches, lozenges nasal sprays and inhalers. Smoking bans prohibit use of tobacco nicotine products that compete with pharmaceutical NRT products. Hospitality trade small business owners are caught in the middle of the Nicotine Market Share Wars. Small business hospitality trade establishments going of out business due to smoking bans becomes mere collateral damage in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s and its namesake Johnson & Johnson corporation’s “Assault on Smoking.” It appears that $446 million in direct financial grants to tobacco control advocates from that foundation to anti-tobacco activists since 1992 has more sway in politicians’ and activists’ minds than the now-predictable harm they are imposing on hardworking small business owners. The fact that the foundation was listed among the top five institutional shareholders of NicoDerm CQ manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, holding a position valued at $3.9 billion in common stock, becoming an expediently omitted fact in all the ballyhoo about smoking bans. But why should any bar, tavern, or restaurant small business owner in any state be forced to lose one dime in revenues to assure the pockets of activists are lined with a continuing stream of special-interest grants, that Johnson & Johnson enjoys increased sales of its “Smoke Free” nicotine delivery devices, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation continues to profit through appreciation of and dividends from its multi-billion-dollar stock position?

OK, I have a thought (scary) for the sake of discussion let say that tobacco is NOT a hazard to personal health. BUT it does cause carpet & furniture burns, puts lighters & matches somewhat available to children who 'play' with them & occassionally creating fires, butts litter streets & parks, thay can clog drains & be ingested by animals & toddlers, & on an occassional grand scale they DO start forest fires.
Ultimately, the logical conclussion is that smoking is bad for everyone.
BUT it should be the business owners & their customers to choose.
How about we replace tobacco with Hemp for the agriculture income? It grows in more soils, sometimes 2 crops a year, makes oil from it's seeds, clothing & cheap ropes from it's fiber, fodder from it's leaves & compost from any of it. And soes NOT need crop rotation to grow.
If I did more research I would be certain to find more benefits from hemp.

Kyboy wrote:

Who's making money.
Tobacco control advocates lie to the public about the merits of smoking bans to advance their Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) financial sponsors’ agenda to increase sales of nicotine gums, patches, lozenges nasal sprays and inhalers. Smoking bans prohibit use of tobacco nicotine products that compete with pharmaceutical NRT products. Hospitality trade small business owners are caught in the middle of the Nicotine Market Share Wars. Small business hospitality trade establishments going of out business due to smoking bans becomes mere collateral damage in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s and its namesake Johnson & Johnson corporation’s “Assault on Smoking.” It appears that $446 million in direct financial grants to tobacco control advocates from that foundation to anti-tobacco activists since 1992 has more sway in politicians’ and activists’ minds than the now-predictable harm they are imposing on hardworking small business owners. The fact that the foundation was listed among the top five institutional shareholders of NicoDerm CQ manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, holding a position valued at $3.9 billion in common stock, becoming an expediently omitted fact in all the ballyhoo about smoking bans. But why should any bar, tavern, or restaurant small business owner in any state be forced to lose one dime in revenues to assure the pockets of activists are lined with a continuing stream of special-interest grants, that Johnson & Johnson enjoys increased sales of its “Smoke Free” nicotine delivery devices, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation continues to profit through appreciation of and dividends from its multi-billion-dollar stock position?

Yawn. Think for yourself.
Your cut-and-paste propaganda from Forces is exactly as effective here as it is in keeping bans from passing.

Kyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
How about this one. It will answer the question I asked early.
http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/...

And it will do so in so obviously unbiased a manner.

Kyboy wrote:

Who's making money.
Tobacco control advocates lie to the public about the merits of smoking bans to advance their Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) financial sponsors’ agenda to increase sales of nicotine gums, patches, lozenges nasal sprays and inhalers. Smoking bans prohibit use of tobacco nicotine products that compete with pharmaceutical NRT products.

Tobacco remains the ONLY commercially viable source of nicotine.

NRTs remain a very SMALL portion of the product line of the corporations that produce them. The strength of incentive you and yours imply just does not exist.

RJR is currently seeking FDA approval to market its OWN line (NicoNovum) of NRTS in the US after buying the company that was selling them in Europe.

NRTs are, at best, an effort at a stop-gap. Companies today are racing to develop the product that will make NRTs obsolete by addressing the addiction rather than the vector for sustaining the addiction. Champix was one step along the way and, though there are problems with it, those problems are nowhere near the same level as the problems arising from tobacco use. NicVax was another effort to solve this problem, but failed to perform in final FDA testing. I believe Pfizer owns the rights to do second-generation R&D on the basic concept there.

It is in the tobacco companies' interests to keep people focused on NRTs as "THE" solution to nicotine addiction, and not only because it has so low a success rate. So long as they can keep people addicted to nicotine, they can profit from the desperation of those addicts. As noted, there just IS no other source for viable quantities of nicotine.

Kyboy wrote:

<quoted text>
How about this one. It will answer the question I asked early.
http://www.IAmAStupidSmoker.com

Maybe you should have checked up on Plakko BEFORE you posted his study:
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/pakko.pdf
Needless to say, I am NOT impressed.

BTW, Maybe you should look at the studies that show the financial impact of the adverse health effects of smoking. I would love to see you try and make a positive spin out of the financial difficulties someone faces with COPD or cancer.

Was this ladies constitutional rights being provoked ?

http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/celebrit...

Need A Light wrote:

Was this ladies constitutional rights being provoked ?
http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/celebrit...

The extent of the Anti Smoker Agenda shows it's pathetic characteristics right here, if it had been hero doper Lance Armstrong would you see the same thing ?

Need A Light wrote:

Was this ladies constitutional rights being provoked ?
http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/celebrit...

First, your question makes no sense

Constitutional rights being PROVOKED???????

Good God, man! Exactly what do you mean?

The good thing is that the article points out how repulsive and repugnant smoking truly is. Hillary Duff made no bones about it: She was NOT smoking, thank you very much! It was almost if she was standing around and everyone smelled a rancid fart and looked in her direction. "It wasn't me!" would have been an appropriate response to that. When you look at someone, especially a public figure, as being completely brain dead for doing something as retarded as smoking, it does not PROVOKE their constitutional rights- It correctly points out what society as a whole is thinking. Next time you light up, remember the world is looking at you as a pathetic excuse for a human and wants you around about as much as they want dog sh!t on their shoe.

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text>
The extent of the Anti Smoker Agenda shows it's pathetic characteristics right here, if it had been hero doper Lance Armstrong would you see the same thing ?

Let's see. They will probably strip Lance of all of his tour de France titles. Most likely if they had seen HIM with a smoke, they would take little to no notice as he has already fallen about as far from grace as he could fall. So what if a bunch of doper fiends see a picture of him smoking and think that smoking is a good idea. No big loss there.

Need A Light wrote:

Was this ladies constitutional rights being provoked ?
http://www.lfpress.com/entertainment/celebrit...

Smokers are stupid. You've made a valid point.

Not sure what the rest of your unintelligible gibberish is suppose to mean, as I speak English.

The constitutional question was just that, a question and you answered it . Rather idiotically and like a child I might add.
Really what news is there in holding somebodies unlit cigarette for them other than a non smoker trying to impress with his idiotic fantasies. Had the lady actually been smoking the cigarette her legal constitutional right to do so, what business is it of the story teller and you to question it.
Lance Armstrong is caught between 2 addictions, his own and as a leading established star of smoking bans (Paid) who says smokers are addicted to a legal product well his is not.

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>
Smokers are stupid. You've made a valid point.
Not sure what the rest of your unintelligible gibberish is suppose to mean, as I speak English.

Sorry broken Frisbee that I insulted your low level inteligence you should be happy the consitution protects you from futher harm.

Dont wanna breath that poison

yuck wrote:

Dont wanna breath that poison

Thats too bad Monica

Need A Light wrote:

Sorry broken Frisbee that I insulted your low level inteligence you should be happy the consitution protects you from futher harm.

Your inability to spell "intelligence", "Constitution", and "further" ends all discussion pertaining to which of us is more intelligent.