Atlantic City Mulls Casino Smoking Ban

No Smokie Near Me wrote:

<quoted text>Do you think the government will tell you how to live, perhaps maybe your own place like an adult, air conditioning and some other adult things you cant seem to grasp. Don't accept anything for the good of mankind. Do everything you can do to harm people and put as many out of business as possible thats your agenda. Why would you think a smoking ban for the good of all people is not in the best interest of America, You are truly sick.

Best interest of all america eh? So, Should we ban fast foods? That would be in the best interst for all america? How about make everyone drive around in yellow cars? Much easier to see at night. No drinking anymore.. that does no one any good... How about rationed brussel sprouts. Everyone knows brussel sprouts are good for you, therefore in the best interest of america. What great atrocities people are willing to endure for the good of the children... Phooy.. Mind your own business and your own life. Dont go to places where smoking is allowed if you fear it so much. Why must you take away peoples choice. There is risk in everything, and trust me, the risk in other activities you partake in are probably much more serious than the chance you may walk by some smoke..

Gcd wrote:

<quoted text>Who is responsible? I will tell you who...its the smokers who now refuse to go to a business just because they dont want to go outside to smoke & stamp their feet like big babies "Im not going anymore wah wah" are the ones who put these mom & pop places out of business. Congratulations folks. And if you cared so much about these places you would still frequent them. Unreal selfishness smokers are so pathetic.

You are so wrong. It is not our responsibility to make any government forced bans work. The ANTIS pushed & pushed for them, let them make the bans work.

Oh, I forgot. You proudly spout your mantra---Who cares if people lose money; if it saves just 1 life it will be worth it. Now that nobel rhetoric is selfish & pathetic.

Jord wrote:

<quoted text>
Wait.. why should we choose to patronize a business that no longer caters to our need? We are not spineless like some other group that posts on here. If you chose to do what we are doing,t hen there would have been a lot more non smoking venues for you non smokers. Business owners are looing to make money. How does one make money? Cater to the most people as possible(for the most part) Now if it was a well known fact that there were so many non smokers out there that just flat out hated being around smoke, they easily could have only patronized non smoking venues or stayed home. The lost of revenue for these places of business would have been so great that they would have mimicked the non smoking venue down the street with all the business.
But instead, you continued to go, just bitching and moaning. You are the ones sitting in the smoking sections and complaining of smoke. You didnt have to go, but you had to hurry and get seated cause you couldnt wait to eat..(not you, generalizing)
Middle ground is possible. We dont want to smoke everywhere, but we want to be able to do it without having to weather the elements outside.

So you no longer want to patronize a business that doesn't cater to your need. Let's put it this way. Smoking wouldn't be your need if you didn't start this filthy addiction in the first place. Our real need is to have our health.

Sylanne wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so wrong. It is not our responsibility to make any government forced bans work. The ANTIS pushed & pushed for them, let them make the bans work.
Oh, I forgot. You proudly spout your mantra---Who cares if people lose money; if it saves just 1 life it will be worth it. Now that nobel rhetoric is selfish & pathetic.

Sylanne, Jord and Funlife,
All three of you should be totally ashamed of yourselves. MONEY is not everything!!! Health of employees and patrons TRUMP money any day. Cry and whine all you want, trash the Government too but guess what? Smoking Restrictions are coming whether you like it or not. People have got to the point where they really look down on smokers and rightfully so. You are nothing more than Addicts, wanting to shoot up wherever you please. Times have changed and smoking is no longer socially accepted anywhere. You are basically outcasts from society. No one with any sense listens to you anymore. I'm here just to screw with your heads. Isn't life Grand???

All smoking bans should be lifted. Smoking should be allowed everywhere including, hospitals, child care centers, and in churches.

Now if you believe you are losing freedoms, why is it that smokers are not insisting on lighting up in hospitals? Have hospitals gone out of business? Have all the churches close? How about them child care centers, workers should be allowed to light-up and blow smoke into a two years old's face. It's only SHS, it will do no harm.

If you want to smoke go to your house, your car, or near the dumpster.

Now if you want to gamble go to a smoke free casino.

Justinpr wrote:

All smoking bans should be lifted. Smoking should be allowed everywhere including, hospitals, child care centers, and in churches.
Now if you believe you are losing freedoms, why is it that smokers are not insisting on lighting up in hospitals? Have hospitals gone out of business? Have all the churches close? How about them child care centers, workers should be allowed to light-up and blow smoke into a two years old's face. It's only SHS, it will do no harm.
If you want to smoke go to your house, your car, or near the dumpster.
Now if you want to gamble go to a smoke free casino.

Bravo!

Hup 2-3-4, hurry hurry, there is someone waiting to tell you how to live. Don't miss out, the next "right" we lose will hopefully be one that you don't want to lose.
Oh yeah, you like being told what to do. I forgot that, sorry.

You people are realy Funny. Do you think this NJ smoking ban is realy for everyone. NO its only for the little people. Stop by any Major Private country club and you will find they still have a smoking room. Check places like Ridgwood CC, Knicerbocker CC, Rockleigh CC. Also many of you Major Corporate CEO's still have their smoking room, and NO ONE is going to bother stoping them. Check the corporate boxes at the meadowlands they are still smoking in them. In The Trenton Sate House there is still a room for the politicians to have a smoke. (Shhh don't tell anyone) This whole thing in NJ is a JOKE. and you guys are realy eating it up.

Bzzzzzzzzz does anyone here a fly, where is the swatter.

No Smokie Near Me wrote:

Some people just need to be told how to live they havent figured it out yet. Smoking is not a right its a digusting smelly habit. The right to be able to breathe definetly comes before the right to smoke.

King George is just itching for the next Boston Tea Party?

fun lovin life wrote:

Hup 2-3-4, hurry hurry, there is someone waiting to tell you how to live. Don't miss out, the next "right" we lose will hopefully be one that you don't want to lose.
Oh yeah, you like being told what to do. I forgot that, sorry.

A right will only be lost if it is a danger to self or society & actually I do not do anything that is danger. I dont smoke, drink, do drugs. If fast food was banned so be it , trans fat who cares. Im not perfect but Im just saying there is nothing that has the potential to be banned that I do or would care about. YOu smokers on the other hand are not taking this ban very well. Addiction is a scary thing folks. P.S And they did not take smoking away from anyone just cant smoke indoors. Oh my what if they banned cigarettes totally? What would you guys do? So my advice is to accept the bans like adults before the next thing is banning cigarettes entirely ...I mean off the shelves cant purchase them gone goodbye poof! Just be lucky you have the right to still smoke & that the hospitals & doctors are not refusing to treat smoke related illnesses. After all, if you get a smoke related illness it is definately brought on by ones self & the I dont care attitude should go right along with a I dont care attitude by doctors. You know that saying you play you pay.

Gcd wrote:

<quoted text>A right will only be lost if it is a danger to self or society & actually I do not do anything that is danger. I dont smoke, drink, do drugs. If fast food was banned so be it , trans fat who cares. Im not perfect but Im just saying there is nothing that has the potential to be banned that I do or would care about. YOu smokers on the other hand are not taking this ban very well. Addiction is a scary thing folks. P.S And they did not take smoking away from anyone just cant smoke indoors. Oh my what if they banned cigarettes totally? What would you guys do? So my advice is to accept the bans like adults before the next thing is banning cigarettes entirely ...I mean off the shelves cant purchase them gone goodbye poof! Just be lucky you have the right to still smoke & that the hospitals & doctors are not refusing to treat smoke related illnesses. After all, if you get a smoke related illness it is definately brought on by ones self & the I dont care attitude should go right along with a I dont care attitude by doctors. You know that saying you play you pay.

I have been smoking outside for years......who cares.
I am quitting smoking anyway.

My problem is that it should be in the hands of the establishment owners. Let them choose for themselves. Then everyone can have a choice until the day they close down the tobacco companies themselves. It's about the "Freedom of Choice" to use a legal product.

Smokers Toxic to Bar, Restaurant Workers
By Ed Edelson
HealthDay Reporter

,
HealthDay
Posted: 2007-06-28 16:05:40
THURSDAY, June 28 (HealthDay News)-- It's a tip waiters and bartenders could do without.

A potent carcinogen rises quickly in restaurant and bar workers' urine after even brief exposures to secondhand smoke, a new U.S. study finds.

Concentrations of the cancer-causing toxin, called NNK, appear to rise steadily as bar workers' exposure continues, the researchers add.

NNK is "unsafe at any level," according to study lead author Michael Stark, a principal investigator in the health department of Multnomah County, Ore., which includes greater Portland.

"Even with a brief workplace exposure, we were able to detect increases in the level of NNK," Stark said. "On the average, there was a 6 percent increase per hour of work," he said.

His team was expected to report the findings in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Stark said he and his colleagues did the study because "there had been some prior research suggesting you could detect NNK in women and children in homes where workers had smoked."

Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Policy Research Program, Stark and his colleagues focused on 52 nonsmoking employees of bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. They compared NNK levels in the workers' urine with those of 32 workers in areas where laws prohibit smoking in such establishments.

Three of every four employees working where smoking was permitted had detectable levels of NNK, compared to fewer than half of those in no-smoking establishments, the researchers found. NNK levels rose 6 percent per hour of workplace exposure, strengthening the notion that these concentrations do, indeed, reflect on-the-job intake levels.

But Stark pointed out that "this is workplace exposure that is completely avoidable."

Oregon has recently moved to ban smoking in workplaces, including bars and restaurants, he said. "Just last week, the legislature passed a law that goes into effect in January 2009," Stark said.

Oregon is the 22nd state to implement such a law, said Danny McGoldrick, vice president for research at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"The implications of this study are pretty obvious," McGoldrick said. "Any worker in a bar, restaurant or anyplace else, should be protected from the carcinogens in secondhand smoke. There is no reason for exemption for any class of workers, particularly in the recreation industry."

Fears that laws banning smoking in eating and drinking places would hurt businesses have been long ago disproved, McGoldrick said. "In fact, they seem to help business," he said. "About 80 percent of people are nonsmokers, and they prefer to be in a smoke-free environment."

Another report in the same issue of the journal noted that employers are increasingly likely to be held legally liable for exposing workers to secondhand smoke, even in localities where laws permit workplace smoking.

The legal analysis, from the Public Health Institute in Oakland, Calif., found that workers harmed by secondhand smoke are turning to worker compensation laws, state and federal disability laws for redress. It is now employer's responsibility "to provide a safe workplace" to have smoking banned where they work, the researchers wrote.

May 15 - More frauds, more frauds!- Here we go again with fraudulent statements from the antitobacco industry – of course, appropriately combined with scare tactics to instigate social hatred against the smoker, the killer of his own children and non smokers!

The false representation of evidence this time comes from the Cancer Center of the University of Minnesota and it is published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. While we are unable, at the moment, to ascertain how much money (and from which antitobacco tax-funded program) these people were paid to fabricate this umpteenth piece of propaganda, we are outraged (and baffled) at the supreme level of skills reached by the antitobacco industry when presenting useless information as “science”. And, of course, the media are the un-critical carriers as usual. To better understand how people are being conned this time, first please read the article we are linked to.

Done? Good, let’s go, then. We must reiterate first that the issue of the ***NNAL and the NNK*** is a good piece of junk information to mislead the public and to stoke the fire of antismoking hatred. Here are some simple observations that will help you understand why:

a) The truth: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyr idyl)-1-butanone (NNK) is a nitrosamine unique of tobacco smoke.

b) The fact: the metabolites are 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyr idyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and its glucuronides (NNAL-O-Gluc and NNAL-N-Gluc). The sum of these metabolites represents NNAL.

c) Dishonest assumption number 1: the linear model without threshold, condemned by all honest scientists because it is scientifically absurd, assumes that if one gram of substance "X" harms you, then one milligram will still harm you, although 1,000 times less. This is false. If it were true, we would have no medicines but only poisons, as most medicines are powerful poisons in higher doses. This junky model, however, has been fully adopted by “public health” and environmentalists to justify their abuses and to give value to studies that prove nothing.

d) Dishonest assumption number 2: the presence of a substance in the body only indicates exposure, and exposure does not imply risk. This delinquent tactic is used abundantly by antitobacco – for example: cotinine in urines indicates exposure to passive smoke (implication: danger!). Exposure to passive smoke, however, is not proven to be dangerous, so the presence of cotinine, although real, becomes irrelevant.

e) Misleading, partial information: Keeping in mind the facts in (c) and (d), the presence of NNAL read in urines turns out to be utterly insufficient to represent any danger whatsoever, but this is not stated in order to scare the readers.***Experiments have demonstrated that it takes the equivalent of actively smoking 40 cigarettes a day for 40 years in a row to increase cancer rates in lab animals from NNN and NNK, thus NNAL.*** This fraud has been already revealed by Steven Milloy and researcher Martha Perske in 2001, but the antismoking gangsters let it “sit” for a few years and now they try it once again - however, it was a fraud then as it is now. In both cases the aim of this misinformation is to justify intervention programs to force parents not to expose their children to harmless secondhand tobacco smoke.

The above is tantamount to criminal behaviour, as it is clearly meant to make people believe that insignificant amounts of suspected carcinogens (and they will remain only suspected as long as the etiopathology of cancer continues to be a scientific mystery) can constitute a danger for the child. That in turn induces guilt and fear in the parents and sets the judicial stage for the removal of parental authority from smoking parents on the base of child abuse, which is exactly the position that antismoking villains are taking today to institute a reign of terror. Unless solid, political and legal actions are undertaken by all the liberty forces that are involved against these mobs, this will lead to very, very ugly consequences. In the meantime let us straighten up the words of Stephen Hecht, team member of this piece of disinformation: "The take-home message is,'Don't worry about smoking around your kids'", as you are not doing anything immoral or harmful. If you go outside to smoke because of fear and guilt, however, you will surrender to abuse and fraud – once again.

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/art-ar19...

Justined wrote:

d) Dishonest assumption number 2: the presence of a substance in the body only indicates exposure, and exposure does not imply risk. This delinquent tactic is used abundantly by antitobacco – for example: cotinine in urines indicates exposure to passive smoke (implication: danger!). Exposure to passive smoke, however, is not proven to be dangerous, so the presence of cotinine, although real, becomes irrelevant.
e) Misleading, partial information: Keeping in mind the facts in (c) and (d), the presence of NNAL read in urines turns out to be utterly insufficient to represent any danger whatsoever, but this is not stated in order to scare the readers.***Experiments have demonstrated that it takes the equivalent of actively smoking 40 cigarettes a day for 40 years in a row to increase cancer rates in lab animals from NNN and NNK, thus NNAL.*** This fraud has been already revealed by Steven Milloy and researcher Martha Perske in 2001, but the antismoking gangsters let it “sit” for a few years and now they try it once again - however, it was a fraud then as it is now. In both cases the aim of this misinformation is to justify intervention programs to force parents not to expose their children to harmless secondhand tobacco smoke.
The above is tantamount to criminal behaviour, as it is clearly meant to make people believe that insignificant amounts of suspected carcinogens (and they will remain only suspected as long as the etiopathology of cancer continues to be a scientific mystery) can constitute a danger for the child. That in turn induces guilt and fear in the parents and sets the judicial stage for the removal of parental authority from smoking parents on the base of child abuse, which is exactly the position that antismoking villains are taking today to institute a reign of terror. Unless solid, political and legal actions are undertaken by all the liberty forces that are involved against these mobs, this will lead to very, very ugly consequences. In the meantime let us straighten up the words of Stephen Hecht, team member of this piece of disinformation: "The take-home message is,'Don't worry about smoking around your kids'", as you are not doing anything immoral or harmful. If you go outside to smoke because of fear and guilt, however, you will surrender to abuse and fraud – once again.
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/art-ar19...

You're saying that it's ok to allow smoking in child care centers? Smokers should puff away there is no danger to children?

If there is no issues with SHS, why do all smokers drive with their windows open when they are smoking?

Justinpr wrote:

<quoted text>
You're saying that it's ok to allow smoking in child care centers? Smokers should puff away there is no danger to children?

Why Not? Most of us baby boomers grew up with at least one smoking parent. Wonders of wonders, we lived to tell about it.

No Smokie Near Me wrote:

<quoted text>I dont go places where smoking is allowed however there are smokers who just dont care and choose to smoke in non smoking areas and venues. It happens as muich as you dont want to admidt it, this does happen. Places that people smoke being limited are a good thing no matter what you say. The right to smoke has not been taken away, only the right to smoke wherever you want. Now on the lighter side i had a yellow volkswagen in 1973 it was a great car lol. Now I really dont think the smoking ban could be called an atrocity, it really is for the good of mankind. I know this annoys you since its something you like. Brussel spouts have nothing to do with the smoking ban, nor does fast food. Lets face it if you eat a lot of brussel sprouts you wount harm the person next to you, well maybe you will as they produce gas and fast food is only bad for the person eating it. You cannot compare apples and oranges.
It is not that I fear smoking I honestly believe it is bad for the person smoking and the people inhaleing the SHS. THAT IS MY RIGHT.........

More of "No Smokies" psycho-babble. Wouldn't pay her any attention - that's how she gets her kicks. I'm surprised they let her out of the "looney bin" long enuf to use a computer. Don't bother trying to argue with her - nothing she replies with makes any sense. he he he he he

Justined wrote:

<quoted text>
Why Not? Most of us baby boomers grew up with at least one smoking parent. Wonders of wonders, we lived to tell about it.

Even parents who smoke would not agreed with you.