Charlotte City Council Considers Sidewalk Smoking Ban 3 min ago

With restrictions on smoking in bars and restaurants going into effect next year, it's only fitting for sidewalks to also be smoke free.

This is the second thread this week about an educational institution in a tobacco state requesting smoke-free sidewalks. The appended article seems to imply something beyond what it actually says is being considered. If only the sidewalks impacting the campus are affected, it should be a no-brainer to go ahead with it.

If it involves a larger chunk of the city, then WHOO-HAW!!--but it will be a much harder sell.

Someone suggested a while ago that Davis CA had smoke-free sidewalks in the downtown area. It is a logical outgrowth of having a smoke-free buffer zone around the door of a smoke-free business, where businesses are close together. If those buffer zones interconnect, there is technically a ban on sidewalk smoking in that area.

Nashville could certainly benefit from that approach. Unfortunately, for Nashville to have it, we would have to convince the entire state that it was needed, since the tobacco industry succeeded in getting a preemption clause into the state law.

I don't anticipate anything so sweeping from the language of this article.

just candid wrote:

With restrictions on smoking in bars and restaurants going into effect next year, it's only fitting for sidewalks to also be smoke free.

Kinda like the KKK days, how dare those smokers be accomadated

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> Kinda like the KKK days, how dare those smokers be accomadated

It is not smokers but those who insist on smoking in public--to the lack of accommodation of those who wish to avoid exposure--that are not accommodated. There is a definite difference.

If nothing else, smokers have the accommodation afforded by available alternative sources of nicotine to temporarily ease the addiction.

The Health Nazis are at it again. For scientific and medical reports that discuss the health benefits to be gained from smoking and nicotine, just click on this link:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm

Here's an exerpt:

Powered by reason, driven by passion

Click on the banner to donate now


The Evidence
The scientific archive that debunks 50 years of superstitions on smoking




HOME PAGE
Information and ContactsAbout us
FAQ

Epidemiological

Miserable Gains - or: the fraud of the potential years of life lost
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONTINUING STUDIES ON SMOKING AND HEALTH
ADDICTIVENESS OF NICOTINE
TOBACCO-ATTRIBUTED DEATHS
THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING
MODERATE SMOKING IS NO HEALTH RISK
SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
SMOKING AND BIRTH DEFECTS
SMOKING AND BRAIN CANCER
SMOKING AND HEART - ATHEROSCLEROSIS
SMOKING AND EMPHYSEMA
SMOKING AND CHRONIC PULMONARY OBSTRUCTION
SMOKING, LIFE EXPECTANCY, AND HEALTH SURVEYS


Hystorical

ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY

Assorted

OTHER ASSORTED EVIDENCE


Comparative

SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,
COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES

Awards













THE EVIDENCE ARCHIVE
Welcome to FORCES' Evidence section. Here you'll find a collection of material -- with particular emphasis on scientific evidence -- that explodes many of the most cherished claims of the antismoker industry.

These claims have been advanced to gather public support for smoking bans, high taxes, employment discrimination, and even the advocacy of legal action against neighbours who smoke in their own apartments!
Passive smoking

STUDIES, AND HUGE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SECONDHAND SMOKE
THE PASSIVE SMOKE WHOPPER


INDOOR AIR QUALITY: BETTER WITH SMOKING AND VENTILATION



DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OF METAPHORICAL MEASUREMENTS. CAN THEY BE RESOLVED?


October 31, 2006 - In this letter to the Editor just published by the International Journal of Epidemiology, Gio Gori, a distinguished epidemiologists, questions once again the validity of multifactorial, questionnaire-based, self-reported epidemiology as a scientific tool and as a base for any kind of honest public policy. The problem of this kind of epidemiology is always the same: the researchers do not know what they have measured. Reducing self-reported, personal memories of exposure to numbers is the great cheat, for numbers can indeed be processed, but what do they mean? What do they represent, in the end? The quantification of vague memories? And how much can memories be affected by on-going propagandas and cultural fear mongering - such as the frauds against smoking, for example? Already for this simple reason alone any and all studies based on this kind of trash methodology must be discarded - regardless of their results and/or of the issues they are dealing with. It just so happen that the overwhelming majority of "studies" on eating, drinking, smoking and other lifestyles belongs to this kind. It follows therefore that all the "epidemics" concerning lifestyle are either an intentional fraud by the health authorities or they are based on such unreliable data to make them a fraud for all intents and purposes. And THIS is the institutional dishonesty and incompetence we are facing today with "public health" and its propaganda tool, the media.
... AND THEY CALL THIS "SCIENCE"!

u cannot own me wrote:

<quoted text> Kinda like the KKK days, how dare those smokers be accomadated

The hell with smokers who are sidewalk butt chuckers.(for all you perverts, we're talking cigarette butts here). I think 'no smoking' on public sidewalks would be good for everyone. It would help protect the enviroment, save taxpayers money gettint all the chucked butts picked up' and help keep the air sightly cleaner. PS/ I feel the same disgust for anyone who chucks anything, be it beer can or Mk/Ds wrapper. They are nothing but lazy lowlife scum.

Get a grip and wait for the smoke to clear so you can unsquint your eyes. The purpose of the request involved here is to permit a campus that has already opted to be "smoke-free" to close a loophole that has been sabotages their decision and denies their students, staff, and visitors the protection the school has decided to provide. That's ALL that it is.

If you oppose that, justify yourself. It's a pretty specific issue.

When people are leaving or going to classes these sidewalks are likely to be very crowded. A high concentration of very hot cigarette ends is, in itself, a health hazard in such a situation simply due to the risk of burns.

just candid wrote:

With restrictions on smoking in bars and restaurants going into effect next year, it's only fitting for sidewalks to also be smoke free.

Anyone who is seriously worried about smokers in the great outdoors either has an extreme issue with controlling others or an extreme phobia.

You people are nuts.

Lafe wrote:

The Health Nazis are at it again. For scientific and medical reports that discuss the health benefits to be gained from smoking and nicotine, just click on this link:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm
Here's an exerpt:
Powered by reason, driven by passion
Click on the banner to donate now
The Evidence
The scientific archive that debunks 50 years of superstitions on smoking
HOME PAGE
Information and ContactsAbout us
FAQ
Epidemiological
Miserable Gains - or: the fraud of the potential years of life lost
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CONTINUING STUDIES ON SMOKING AND HEALTH
ADDICTIVENESS OF NICOTINE
TOBACCO-ATTRIBUTED DEATHS
THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING
MODERATE SMOKING IS NO HEALTH RISK
SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER
SMOKING AND BIRTH DEFECTS
SMOKING AND BRAIN CANCER
SMOKING AND HEART - ATHEROSCLEROSIS
SMOKING AND EMPHYSEMA
SMOKING AND CHRONIC PULMONARY OBSTRUCTION
SMOKING, LIFE EXPECTANCY, AND HEALTH SURVEYS
Hystorical
ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY
Assorted
OTHER ASSORTED EVIDENCE
Comparative
SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,
COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES
Awards
THE EVIDENCE ARCHIVE
Welcome to FORCES' Evidence section. Here you'll find a collection of material -- with particular emphasis on scientific evidence -- that explodes many of the most cherished claims of the antismoker industry.
These claims have been advanced to gather public support for smoking bans, high taxes, employment discrimination, and even the advocacy of legal action against neighbours who smoke in their own apartments!
Passive smoking
STUDIES, AND HUGE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SECONDHAND SMOKE
THE PASSIVE SMOKE WHOPPER
INDOOR AIR QUALITY: BETTER WITH SMOKING AND VENTILATION
DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OF METAPHORICAL MEASUREMENTS. CAN THEY BE RESOLVED?
October 31, 2006 - In this letter to the Editor just published by the International Journal of Epidemiology, Gio Gori, a distinguished epidemiologists, questions once again the validity of multifactorial, questionnaire-based, self-reported epidemiology as a scientific tool and as a base for any kind of honest public policy. The problem of this kind of epidemiology is always the same: the researchers do not know what they have measured. Reducing self-reported, personal memories of exposure to numbers is the great cheat, for numbers can indeed be processed, but what do they mean? What do they represent, in the end? The quantification of vague memories? And how much can memories be affected by on-going propagandas and cultural fear mongering - such as the frauds against smoking, for example? Already for this simple reason alone any and all studies based on this kind of trash methodology must be discarded - regardless of their results and/or of the issues they are dealing with. It just so happen that the overwhelming majority of "studies" on eating, drinking, smoking and other lifestyles belongs to this kind. It follows therefore that all the "epidemics" concerning lifestyle are either an intentional fraud by the health authorities or they are based on such unreliable data to make them a fraud for all intents and purposes. And THIS is the institutional dishonesty and incompetence we are facing today with "public health" and its propaganda tool, the media.
... AND THEY CALL THIS "SCIENCE"!

Document contains no data

Mazed wrote:

Get a grip and wait for the smoke to clear so you can unsquint your eyes. The purpose of the request involved here is to permit a campus that has already opted to be "smoke-free" to close a loophole that has been sabotages their decision and denies their students, staff, and visitors the protection the school has decided to provide. That's ALL that it is.
If you oppose that, justify yourself. It's a pretty specific issue.
When people are leaving or going to classes these sidewalks are likely to be very crowded. A high concentration of very hot cigarette ends is, in itself, a health hazard in such a situation simply due to the risk of burns.

So who are the ones going there to smoke, if they are not students, or College staff? It's not likely that folks from "elsewhere" are flocking to this certain part of town just to smoke. So my question is, where else are they supposed to go to smoke? And is there REALLY a "high concentration" of smokers blocking everyone (to the point there "might" be an injury caused by a cigarette burn?). I get the feeling you just dont like being around smoke, and wish to convey that onto everyone else. Is it a "control" thing (like another poster suggested) or an intolerance to anything you don't enjoy doing? If it a "health" issue, you are probably already getting an unhealthy dose of Carbon Monoxide from the many cars, trucks and busses passing by.Maybe they should seal off the streets and Ban them too.

DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO DATA wrote:

<quoted text>
Document contains no data

Mazed wrote:

Get a grip and wait for the smoke to clear so you can unsquint your eyes. The purpose of the request involved here is to permit a campus that has already opted to be "smoke-free" to close a loophole that has been sabotages their decision and denies their students, staff, and visitors the protection the school has decided to provide. That's ALL that it is.
If you oppose that, justify yourself. It's a pretty specific issue.
When people are leaving or going to classes these sidewalks are likely to be very crowded. A high concentration of very hot cigarette ends is, in itself, a health hazard in such a situation simply due to the risk of burns.

Wow you really have us fooled! Not !!!

Mazed wrote:

Get a grip and wait for the smoke to clear so you can unsquint your eyes. The purpose of the request involved here is to permit a campus that has already opted to be "smoke-free" to close a loophole that has been sabotages their decision and denies their students, staff, and visitors the protection the school has decided to provide. That's ALL that it is.
If you oppose that, justify yourself. It's a pretty specific issue.
When people are leaving or going to classes these sidewalks are likely to be very crowded. A high concentration of very hot cigarette ends is, in itself, a health hazard in such a situation simply due to the risk of burns.

Yes I can see your point. It would sound much better on the national news if a Campus Mass Murder should strike the college. I can hear it now. "I dont know how this could happen we have a no smoking on the sidewalk policy in place."

You ramble on and on and on about useless facts. Now what do you think the possibility of someone getting a little burn if any from the tip of a cigarette ? one in a Million, one in 10 million ? Yea thats a pretty big heatlh hazard. What do you think the ratio of those non smoking students walking on those sidewalks are on thier way to a party to smoke a joint/with fire on the end!?? OMG they could get burnt.

just candid wrote:

With restrictions on smoking in bars and restaurants going into effect next year, it's only fitting for sidewalks to also be smoke free.

Your idea of a "Perfect" world is impossible. Utopia is dead! No matter how hard you push there will always be those that will push back . There will always be those of differing opinions, different likes, dislike, habits, beliefs, and so on. You and your kind will learn that you can not force everyone to conform to "your" ways. "We" will not blindly follow like sheep to the slaughter.

Rainbowwarrior wrote:

<quoted text>So who are the ones going there to smoke, if they are not students, or College staff? It's not likely that folks from "elsewhere" are flocking to this certain part of town just to smoke. So my question is, where else are they supposed to go to smoke?

As the proscription against smoking on the campus is not intended to affect those who do not have business on the campus, there is no sense to your invention of an argument based on the unlikely presence of those who do NOT have business on the campus.

Rainbowwarrior wrote:

And is there REALLY a "high concentration" of smokers blocking everyone (to the point there "might" be an injury caused by a cigarette burn?). I get the feeling you just dont like being around smoke, and wish to convey that onto everyone else.

And I get the feeling that is the feeling it best serves your purpose to "get".

Be that as it may, I have no firsthand knowledge of this particular campus. I do, however, know from experience on a fairly sizable college campus criss-crossed by sidewalks that compliance with the local ordinance prohibiting smoking on those sidewalks made life much easier for the large majority of those involved in campus life.

I knew a woman there who was wheelchair-bound and routinely suffered burns in either clothing or flesh from under-attentive smokers as she wheeled her way from building to building for classes or other functions. Smokers still refused to cooperate in spite of having dozens of designated areas set up where they would have minimal impact on others and where they had tables, benches, ashtrays and, in most cases, umbrellas or shade trees. This was an artifact of trying to address the problem by halves instead of saying "don't smoke on campus".

In a setting where there are dozens of classes beginning at roughly the same time in various buildings, there is sure to be a high volume of pedestrians trying to get to those classes just before their starting time. If there are lit cigarettes mixed through there will inevitably be problems arising from smoking throughout, including occasional burns.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Your idea of a "Perfect" world is impossible. Utopia is dead! No matter how hard you push there will always be those that will push back . There will always be those of differing opinions, different likes, dislike, habits, beliefs, and so on. You and your kind will learn that you can not force everyone to conform to "your" ways. "We" will not blindly follow like sheep to the slaughter.

Document contains no data

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

<quoted text>Yes I can see your point. It would sound much better on the national news if a Campus Mass Murder should strike the college. I can hear it now. "I dont know how this could happen we have a no smoking on the sidewalk policy in place."
You ramble on and on and on about useless facts. Now what do you think the possibility of someone getting a little burn if any from the tip of a cigarette ? one in a Million, one in 10 million ? Yea thats a pretty big heatlh hazard. What do you think the ratio of those non smoking students walking on those sidewalks are on thier way to a party to smoke a joint/with fire on the end!?? OMG they could get burnt.

Document contains no data

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wow you really have us fooled! Not !!!

Document contains no data

Mazed wrote:

Get a grip and wait for the smoke to clear so you can unsquint your eyes. The purpose of the request involved here is to permit a campus that has already opted to be "smoke-free" to close a loophole that has been sabotages their decision and denies their students, staff, and visitors the protection the school has decided to provide. That's ALL that it is.
If you oppose that, justify yourself. It's a pretty specific issue.
When people are leaving or going to classes these sidewalks are likely to be very crowded. A high concentration of very hot cigarette ends is, in itself, a health hazard in such a situation simply due to the risk of burns.

Student Vigilante Group Armed With Guns Searching For Bad Guys Near UW Campus
A group of University Of Washington students are being called vigilantes after they armed themselves with handguns and tried to set up patrols on University Avenue and other areas around campus where students have been attacked over the past year.
Q13 FOX News Web Reporter

10:07 PM PDT, October 27, 2009

SEATTLE - A group of University Of Washington students are being called vigilantes after they armed themselves with handguns and tried to set up patrols on University Avenue and other areas around campus where students have been attacked over the past year.

Stanley Luong and Luis Garcia have armed themselves. Both are assault victims. Luong says, "Some guy just broke down the window, reached in and unlocked the door and came in and robbed us."

Garcia says, "Four men jumped out of a car. They assaulted me and threw my girlfriend to the ground and they attempted to rob me. Two times I've been jumped. I said it's not going to happen a third time."

So both got a concealed license permit and bought handguns. Now they walk with pistols in their pockets...looking for the bad guys.

Luong says, "I don't know if it's illegal to walk around and be bait. I'm kind of fishing for robbers."

Garcia says, "I believe the police they come after the fact. They aren't there when the incident is occurring I believe this is just the fastest means of protecting oneself and those around you… and so I decided to take that measure and execute my second amendment to bear arms."

According to the UW Daily Newspaper, there have been ten assaults and robberies in the area in just the past two months. The students also created a Facebook page with more than two dozen friends.

"I was just kind of sick of it and I watched a lot of movies like taxi driver and vigilante movies and I decided, why not make a Facebook" says Luong.

It was quickly removed but by then, the group was already together and remains loosely knit.

The University of Washington Police department doesn't think this style of vigilantism is a good idea. They would rather see the police work left to the professionals.

University Of Washington Deputy Police Chief Ray Wittmier says, "People when they are carrying weapons a lot of times they feel less vulnerable so they put themselves in bad positions sometimes increasing the likelihood that they might run into a bad situation."

It is illegal to carry a concealed handgun on college campuses in Washington. There has long been a move to change state law to allow it but so far it has not been successful.

DOCUMENT CONTAINS NO DATA wrote:

<quoted text>
Document contains no data

Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data
Document contains no data

PreachingtheGospel wrote:

<quoted text>
Student Vigilante Group Armed With Guns Searching For Bad Guys Near UW Campus
A group of University

So, in a word, what?