Complaints few since smoking ban

Aug 2, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Times Herald

Three months have passed since Michigan's ban on smoking in public places went into effect -- and smokers seem to have eased into the new behavior.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of7,295
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Gonimom

Clarkston, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 3, 2010
 

Judged:

37

36

36

Smoking is a habit and habits adapt.
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 3, 2010
 

Judged:

31

27

25

Why doesn't the Times Hearld ask a real bar how business is? They ask Ted's coney island? It's killing all real bars. Where are all the "non-smokers" that were going to pour into these bars? I don't see them and alot of bar are going to go under because of this .
Baja K

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 3, 2010
 

Judged:

9

8

7

Officials are very afraid of any determination that a bar, restaurant, bowling alley or the like loses profits or goes out of business because of the no-smoking laws because then they'd be obliged, by the US Constitution, to compensate for the "takings" of profits and businesses. See the Fifth Amendment.

The government can, of course, take private property if there's a certifiable Public Interest for doing so. But, in the case of "Environmental Tobacco Smoke", there is actually no evidence yet presented that smoke even from highly-contaminated (pesticides, chlorine-dioxin, radiation from fertilizers, etc etc) cigarettes creates risk or harm that rises to Public Interest level. As far as smoke from tobacco plants is concerned, it seems that Not One Study yet presented to legislature to justify smoke bans has addressed tobacco itself. To say "cigarette" without qualification is to ignore what the cigarette is made of...and it is rarely just tobacco. To believe it's just tobacco is to accept the cigarette industry's fraudulent marketing rhetoric.

The "studies" NEVER say what they studied. There's no analysis or mention of non-tobacco ingredients (outside of menthol and other labeled flavors) and contaminants, and there's no qualification of the term "tobacco" to make clear if it's just tobacco, contaminated tobacco, or if any actual tobacco is in the product at all. To challenge the law, all one needs to do is ask "How do you know it's tobacco smoke or just tobacco smoke?" Some brands don't even have the word "tobacco" on the labels. We do not know what's being smoked. It may LOOK or SMELL like tobacco, but it may not be.

According to US Patents, any number of so-called "tobacco products" may contain No Tobacco. They may be made partly or entirely with all sorts of Industrial Waste Cellulose, none of it likely to be organic---pesticide or chlorine-free. Officials do not even require fake tobacco cigs to be labeled as such.

So, NO Public Interest has been shown to justify bans on plain tobacco, and no Public Interest has been shown to justify bans on fake tobacco products...even though a ban there is a good idea.

In truth, tobacco has been "convicted" without a trial, and businesses have been unjustly burdened by laws and prohibitions that have zero basis in science.

It seems that attorneys who defend bar owners and others are badly serving their clients when these issues are not raised. Also, if a lawyer fails to ask judges and jurors if they have economic links to the cigarette industry, especially via the pesticides, pharmaceutical ingredients, fertilizers, chlorine, paper and pulp, and other aspects (including their insurers and investors), the defendant's rights to Due Process have been violated. No hearing or trial is legitimate if judges and jurors have such a bias.

It is the legislators who ought be on trial for being AWOL from their sworn and paid duties to protect the public from exactly the risks and harms from the non-tobacco parts of most cigarettes. Legislators have ALLOWED the pesticide use for decades, and they've allowed the mass experimentation on millions with all the untested and unlabeled non-tobacco additives, they've allowed the fertilizers that hit un-protected smokers with cancer-causing levels of radiation, and they've allowed the chlorine pesticides and the chlorine-bleached paper DESPITE those things creating DIOXIN in the smoke.

Those legislators ought not be allowed to get away with this and with the fraud of their now being "concerned for health" of workers and kids or anyone. Those legislators and the anti-smoke groups work to distract from the topic of non-tobacco cigarette components by blaming the victims, blaming the natural tobacco plant, and by blaming utterly innocent bar owners and others.

An easily-found site called "Fauxbacco" has reference material for most of the points made above.
Baja K

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 3, 2010
 

Judged:

8

7

6

Ooops. I meant that no evidence exists that SECOND HAND smoke from highly-contaminated cigs causes the host of diseases that are claimed.

Studies DO exist however that find dioxin in cigarette smoke, that dioxin comes from industrial chlorine NOT from tobacco or any natural plant, and that dioxin is one of the worst industrial substances in existence.
No govt official can say they "didn't know" or that "studies are inconclusive" OR that "a little bit will not hurt you". No officials can say they never heard of Agent Orange or Love Canal, OR that the USA signed an international treaty to phase dioxin off the earth, OR that the US formally classifies dioxin as a KNOWN Human Carcinogen, the worst class.
That officials allowed and continue to allow dioxin in cigarette smoke by refusing to ban chlorine contamination of cigarettes is a crime of astonishing proportions. One can see why so many officials choose to Blame The Victims instead.

AND...studies exist about cancer-causing levels of radiation in smoke from tobacco grown using certain phosphate fertilizers. That too, like dioxin, is "legal" as pie.
To make matters worse, the combination of the dioxin and the rads greatly increases the harms because dioxin speeds up the cell damage caused by other carcinogens, like this PO-210 radiation, for one. Officials can't very well require warning labels about this because, well, it's the officials' fault that the stuff is there.

As frightening as this top-level tolerance for such deadly cigarette ingredients may be, it is worse to see that few, if any, hospitals or doctors even check patients for those industrial toxins and carcinogens, and patients aren't even humanely warned about them. That's just one big problem with a for-profit health system which is run by many parts of the cigarette industry... pharmaceuticals that make tobacco pesticides and cigarette additives, pesticides in general, chlorine, and the insurers that invest in all that.
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 9, 2010
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Freedom
andy

Elkhart, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 22, 2010
 

Judged:

7

6

5

Come on people is lung cancer not enough for you? It's not the 1950's anymore smoking is not the social norm like it used to be. So put out your cancer sticks or go outside and contribute to global warming.

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 22, 2010
 

Judged:

7

4

3

In my neighborhood, no one rats on their favorite bar. The only time the snithcline is called is when someone gets 86ed, even for the bars that comply. It's just another way to hassle a bar that someone doesn't like.
Thamyris

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 22, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Baja K wrote:
Ooops. I meant that no evidence exists that SECOND HAND smoke from highly-contaminated cigs causes the host of diseases that are claimed.
Studies DO exist however that find dioxin in cigarette smoke, that dioxin comes from industrial chlorine NOT from tobacco or any natural plant, and that dioxin is one of the worst industrial substances in existence.
No govt official can say they "didn't know" or that "studies are inconclusive" OR that "a little bit will not hurt you". No officials can say they never heard of Agent Orange or Love Canal, OR that the USA signed an international treaty to phase dioxin off the earth, OR that the US formally classifies dioxin as a KNOWN Human Carcinogen, the worst class.
I agree with you, for I do my own independent research rather than blindly believing the anti-smoking zealots!!
Which organizations have funded the most anti-smoking campaigns, and do they have a hidden agenda? If so what is it?
The Nazis at the beginning, or just before, tried changing human behavior by banning smoking.
If one wants to study "the other side of the story" regarding smoking and nicotine, just click on this link: forces.org
That officials allowed and continue to allow dioxin in cigarette smoke by refusing to ban chlorine contamination of cigarettes is a crime of astonishing proportions. One can see why so many officials choose to Blame The Victims instead.
AND...studies exist about cancer-causing levels of radiation in smoke from tobacco grown using certain phosphate fertilizers. That too, like dioxin, is "legal" as pie.
To make matters worse, the combination of the dioxin and the rads greatly increases the harms because dioxin speeds up the cell damage caused by other carcinogens, like this PO-210 radiation, for one. Officials can't very well require warning labels about this because, well, it's the officials' fault that the stuff is there.
As frightening as this top-level tolerance for such deadly cigarette ingredients may be, it is worse to see that few, if any, hospitals or doctors even check patients for those industrial toxins and carcinogens, and patients aren't even humanely warned about them. That's just one big problem with a for-profit health system which is run by many parts of the cigarette industry... pharmaceuticals that make tobacco pesticides and cigarette additives, pesticides in general, chlorine, and the insurers that invest in all that.
The web site that has evidence to backup what you said is: forces.org You'll like it.
smoke this

Albion, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 22, 2010
 

Judged:

7

3

2

B52sArecool wrote:
Why doesn't the Times Hearld ask a real bar how business is? They ask Ted's coney island? It's killing all real bars. Where are all the "non-smokers" that were going to pour into these bars? I don't see them and alot of bar are going to go under because of this .
Personally, I'd raher see bars die, than people.Just sayin.......

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 23, 2010
 

Judged:

7

5

4

smoke this wrote:
<quoted text>Personally, I'd raher see bars die, than people.Just sayin.......
These bans are specifically designed to close bars. They are a new way of legislating morality.
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 23, 2010
 

Judged:

5

3

3

smoke this wrote:
<quoted text>Personally, I'd raher see bars die, than people.Just sayin.......
Of course you would. People like you, Obama and Gramholm don't want anybody to be successful in business.
Go hug a tree.
Just sayin..........
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 23, 2010
 

Judged:

6

5

3

generalsn1234567 wrote:
<quoted text> These bans are specifically designed to close bars. They are a new way of legislating morality.
It's called socialism.

“Everybody gets one (L)”

Since: Apr 09

Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 31, 2010
 

Judged:

5

2

1

andy wrote:
Come on people is lung cancer not enough for you? It's not the 1950's anymore smoking is not the social norm like it used to be. So put out your cancer sticks or go outside and contribute to global warming.
Or just go somewhere else that is Non-smoking...to late that right is taken away... Who's rights are next?

“Everybody gets one (L)”

Since: Apr 09

Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 31, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

1

smoke this wrote:
<quoted text>Personally, I'd raher see bars die, than people.Just sayin.......
in other words....

Better Red then dead?
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 7, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FREEDOM!

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 7, 2010
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"Smoke Free Wisconsin" isn't wasting any time. Now that they got their ban, temperance is their next target. "Onward Christion Soldiers"

http://smokefreewisconsin.blogspot.com/2010/0...
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 8, 2010
 

Judged:

4

3

2

It's called socialism.
Non-Smoker840

Birmingham, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 9, 2010
 

Judged:

10

3

3

Honestly the government just keeps taking away our freedoms little by little. I don't smoke but have been around smokers my entire life. I'm also not a drinker so i cant really speak about bars but i can say that in restaurants it never bothered me the way they had it with smoker/non-smoker sections. what they're doing is just wrong. If a non-smoker didn't want to be around smokers there would always be non-smoking facilities. Bottom line it should be the restaurant/bar owners decision.
Non-Smoker840

Birmingham, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 9, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

1

smoke this wrote:
<quoted text>Personally, I'd raher see bars die, than people.Just sayin.......
You honestly think that making it so smokers cant smoker at bars or restaurants is going to save anybody? All its going to do is make them smoke somewhere else where you cant see them. The smokers are still going to smoke and take the risks associated with it.
B52sArecool

Detroit, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Sep 10, 2010
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Non-Smoker840 wrote:
Honestly the government just keeps taking away our freedoms little by little. I don't smoke but have been around smokers my entire life. I'm also not a drinker so i cant really speak about bars but i can say that in restaurants it never bothered me the way they had it with smoker/non-smoker sections. what they're doing is just wrong. If a non-smoker didn't want to be around smokers there would always be non-smoking facilities. Bottom line it should be the restaurant/bar owners decision.
If a bar doesn't even sell food what are they supposed to do?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of7,295
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••