Atlantic City Mulls Casino Smoking Ban

non smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Like Jords study? Where you post 2 pages of a 14 page document and talk about one sentance and refuse to believe the rest of the report? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic.
"Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there WILL BE SOME RISK OF LUNG CANCER FROM EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND TOBACCO SMOKE."

mic wrote:

February 19 [02:00 GMT]- Let the bastards freeze - A nursing home resident died last month after being forced out to smoke in the middle of a Canadian winter, and now the home is being charged with criminal negligence. Meanwhile, provincial nursing homes say that construction of proper smoking facilities has become too costly under new anti-smoking legislation, and the provincial health minister predictably shuns responsibility for the problem. This story highlights the utter lack of respect for elderly smokers and disregard for their safety that the “smoke-free society” movement has brought about.
“If Patterson's death is linked to the fact he went out for a smoke, it would bring under scrutiny the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which became law last year.
The stringent guidelines allowing smoking in long-term care facilities and psychiatric hospitals include creation of ventilated smoking rooms.
But with most facilities deciding not to build them, a situation has arisen where many elderly, frail and often sick long-term smokers who can't kick their habit have been forced outside – sometimes into the bitter cold – to smoke their cigarettes.
Patterson, a stroke victim, was taken to hospital on Jan. 16 with hypothermia after he was found in the courtyard of the home. It occurred "sometime after the established smoking period" outside, Manitoulin Lodge said in a release yesterday.
February 19 [02:00 GMT]- Let the bastards be crushed - Another Canadian incident: a man dies of a heart attack after an anti-smoking “shelter” collapses on him. The anti-smokers are the ones who have lobbied for these “shelters”. They’ll say they think the death is a shame; probably some of them have been hoping for something like this to happen. Because they hate.
NON SMOKER
here is some news for you.! should make you proud.

non smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately "catering to smokers" causes harm to everyone in the establishment. Catering to people that harm others is not a service jord. The workers, the non-smoking patrons, etc etc. When you open you bar or restaraunt to the public in order to profit from them, you have to follow rules that protect them. Rules about food preperation, rules about capacity due to fire hazards etc. Now you can't allow patrons to smoke and force that harmful smoke on everyone else.

non smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Like Jords study? Where you post 2 pages of a 14 page document and talk about one sentance and refuse to believe the rest of the report? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic.
"Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there WILL BE SOME RISK OF LUNG CANCER FROM EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND TOBACCO SMOKE."

eric wrote:

glensmark: Maybe just the journal it came from then?
This legislation has not been created from a "10 min" claim. The legislation has been created from scientific evidence by scores of scientists and doctors about the risks of tobacco smoke.
Whilst 10 mins exposure could POSSIBLY trigger a serious disease (the carcinogens are still in the smoke after all), this is not the evidence that this legislation has been created from, though doubtless it sells newspapers.

Jord wrote:

<quoted text>
Please everyone look at the above quote. This fricking DOLT is accusing ME of posting and I quote "2 pages of a 14 page document and talk about one sentance and refuse to believe the rest of the report?" Which is not true.. I asked that 3 pages be looked at because it had the actualy RR numbers.
But then follows it up with and I quote "Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there WILL BE SOME RISK OF LUNG CANCER FROM EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND TOBACCO SMOKE."
Fails to refute my numbers, then does exactly what he said I was doing. And my credability is the one in question???

glensmark wrote:

<quoted text>
you are Pathetic LOW LIFE, You can argue with Jords all you want, I will not bother to respond anymore I take it from where it comes.

non smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Buh-bye. Have fun smoking next to the dumpsters tonight. I'll be in the nice warm bar having my drink. HAHA!

non smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes everyone, please read my direct quote from the conclusion of Jords source.
In fact, read the report yourselves. I will provide a link to the entire report, as opposed to Jord who posted a link to a pro tobacco blog that only posted 2 pages or so.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol8...

Freedomfighter wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT was NOT poor judgment it is the LAW...(STUPID LAW)

Dennis wrote:

<quoted text>
I am sorry to hear about these reports; but come on, it's not new to hear about a building collapsing, it does happen. As for taking a patient out to smoke when it's frigid cold; that was just very poor judgement on the part of the nursing home.

Jord wrote:

<quoted text>
Entire report my ass... That is a written conclusion
Here ya go
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jn...
and since you like quoting conclusions..
Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Here is a link to the abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...
Refute my NUMEBRS

Jord wrote:

<quoted text>
Entire report my ass... That is a written conclusion
Here ya go
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jn...
and since you like quoting conclusions..
Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Here is a link to the abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...
Refute my NUMEBRS

MD BOY wrote:

Dennis:
I guess the antis just ceded the health point of their argumant.

Freedomfighter wrote:

<quoted text>
THAT was NOT poor judgment it is the LAW...(STUPID LAW)

MD BOY wrote:

Dennis:
Forcing elderly people to go out in sub-zero temperatures to do something they have done all of their life (and many at ages you'll never see)is not an example of the banners not ceding the health issue for their own self-serving purposes?