Feelings on smoking ban in bars/clubs as of Nov.19th!!!

[digitaldan]

MOST WORTHLESS THREAD EVER

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

OK - i don't have that much time today, but I promise to post a bunch of links to articles about ETS and ETS litigation tonight.

here's some stuff though:

1. studies show that it takes 3 hours for 95% of the smoke from a cigarette to disappear from a closed room (like a bar) - so the smoke being gone when the ciggy's out just ain't true (you'll see information on the study in one of the links i post tonight).

Is Closed Room defined as a small space with no ample ventilation? If so then this doesn't apply to a bar/club.

2. 2nd hand smoke has been classified as a class A carcinogin by the government since the early 90's (maybe even earlier - its in one of the links i'll post) because it is found to contain an even HIGHER percentage of cancer causing substance per volume than the smoke smokers inhale. This is because lots of 2nd hand smoke is "idle smoke" - the smoke that comes up from a lit cigarette just burning on its own between puffs. this is because it burns at a lower temperature then when being actively drawn.

Absolutely correct. The smoke we blow out is basically the "toxins" left over from what we inhale and it's supposed to be worse. However, If I went around giving people shotties, then I would understand non-smoker's being miffed. But I don't and as stated before there's no real evidence that proves my non-smoking counterparts will get cancer becasue of this.

2. "Um, yeah, any moron can PROPOSE anything..but the Accept pr deny process involves lawmakers to question the proposal and bring "case and affect" into play."

sure, they can question or not as they see fit. however, no evidence is required, no one has to ask questions, and lawmakers can vote on the evidence or not as they see fit. Many issues, like death penalty and abortion for two have (for most people) very little to do with evidence but only questions of faith or morality for example.

Are you from this planet? Death penalty and abortion INCLUDES ethical question but are not the entire basis for these subjects.

Death Penalty: a huge factory involves MONEY and the costs of keeping inmates in the system for life.

Abortion: Due to health reasons to keep abortion illiegal and underground would lead many women to RiSK their lives with shady doctors and botched abortions. The social issue of overall women's health comes into question. (I'm not even gonna get into their RIGHTS).

3. ""Perhaps" is not good enough in awarding soemone money for their accusations. It's not a question of CAN i prove they didn't get lung cancer through second hand smoke, it's more a question of HOW can the PLANTIFF prove that that he/she did? No one said anything about proving the case frivolous.....what was questioned was the credibility of the plaintiff. "

Incorrect again: the entire insurance industry is based upon percentages and probabilities. Car insurance works this way for example. And if something is found to be "partially" or "statistically probable" to have caused something money can and often is awarded. Awards are based on perhaps and likelihoods every day.

Actually, no. Statictically probable?? Give me a break. Dude, take a fucking law class and then come back with your 'real facts' n how inusrance companies work and how cases are won. I'm still waiting to read up on this "alleged" case due to second hand smoke!

5 "When we are disussing medical problems "persuasion" doesn't come into play. You can "persuade" someone to vote on your bill outlawing immigrants for REASONS other than the obvious. (SUch as a senator happens to be racist and wants to keep minorities out ) Does that make it right? Absolutely not!"

I thought we were discussing how laws were made...its all about persuasion. Do you really think politics aren't involved with medical things? like how, when and for how much money the FDA approves drugs? Most drugs are shown to work in only X % of people - so they don't affect everyone the same way. no one says that EVERYONE who comes in contact with smoke or smokes themselves will get cancer either. Its all percentages and probabilities and since there are no 100%'s persuasion is all there is.

Who ever said that politics and political figures are not involved in medical issues?? Learn how to read dumbass.

Perhaps you have Persuasion and Majority confused. If a MAjority of people dislike smoking in bars then we're gonna have an easy time passing these no-smoking laws.

But to PERSUADE people that so and so is bad for you WITHOUT real facts for them to see, is a whole another issue. You are acquiring PROPOGANDA by putting up no smoking billboards, graphic commercials, and surgeon's helth warnings, but with then issue of second hand smoke, there is yet any real fact or substatial study to convince me that Jow Blow next to me is gonna get sick because of my smoking.

I want to see your example of a law that was passed by the work of "persuasion". Oh please do elaborate!

6. "There are problems with these studies....you have a hard time comprehending that don't you?"

I've agreed several times that there are problems with these studies...however that doesn't refute them entirely, only means you need to take things with a grain of salt. Political polls aren't exact either and like studies post a % of error in their findings. The thing is that the vast majority of scientists and doctors who have looked at these studies agree without reservation that 2nd hand smoke is a pollutant and contains cancer causing substances and poses a risk to non-smokers. For a long time it couldn't be proven that pennicilan prevented and cured infections. However doctors use what they call annectdotal evidence and evidence of practice cause they KNEW it helped even if they couldn't explain why or prove it with studies and statistics.

I want you to define annectdotal evidence.

Plus, research in penicillin has a differenct structure to it than researhcing the harmful affects of second hand smoke.Plus, it had nothing to do with supressing people's rights in enjoying themsleves.

7. "Can they change their minds later? Um, no. You don't see the U.S lowering the legal drinking age to 18 just becasue a MAJORITY of us wants to and feels we're 'responsible' enough. PLEASE READ UP ON LAW MAKING POLICIES AND OUR GOPVERNMENT!"

YOu've got to be kidding. 1st the majority of people don't want the drinking age lowered - sure young people do, but parents and older don't especially since statistics of drunk driving accidents point to young drivers.

As for changing our minds on other things:

- temperance

- speed limit

- legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and reduction of criminality for recreational purposes

Just a couple obvious examples

ANd weren't those changed due to cause and affect???????

-iliana

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

Dog shelters and recycling are the least of our short term worries. Recycling was a great idea, but the hordes of people who don't give a shit (landlords, etc) never followed through with it properly. This city is bleeding cash by the billions of dollars, between 9/11 and W's slumping economy. Bloomberg is a billionaire business person and his job is to get the city back on its feet while at the same time avoiding the situation we had back in the 70s. And unlike his predecessor, he's popular among most all racial groups in the city.

ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL!

Having a "business man" as a mayor is the worst thing to happen to a city that tries to provide environmental and social solutions to certian communities. If you;re all for that then you're the enemy bro....go leech of the billionaire mayor who can't see eye to eye with the everyday working class schmuck.

When he startes closing down clubs in order to build banks and brokerage houses in their place..don't start fucking crying!

Unfortunately that erases most of your credibilty

LOL...well since you're a fucking guinea, I would expect for you to enjoy all the racial slurs. what does jokin ghave to do with anyone's crediblity ya anal gumba!

Lollllol

-iliana

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL!

Having a "business man" as a mayor is the worst thing to happen to a city that tries to provide environmental and social solutions to certian communities. If you;re all for that then you're the enemy bro....go leech of the billionaire mayor who can't see eye to eye with the everyday working class schmuck.

I am for real. As stated before, this mayor's primary agenda is to re-establish financial stability to a hurting city. The previous mayor's primary agenda was to reduce the high crime rate and cut down on quality-of-life crimes, hence the closing down of your beloved clubs.

When he startes closing down clubs in order to build banks and brokerage houses in their place..don't start fucking crying!

Mayor Mike has no interest in shutting down clubs. He knows they bring people -- and money -- into the city. Last time I checked, tourism was a business. If he sees things getting out of hand he'll shut them down...it's that simple. And no one is going to build more banks and brokerage houses. We can't even keep the existing ones IN the city, as everyone either closes down or flocks across the river (or country) where it's cheaper and safer.

Apparently you're not just out of touch with smoking issues, but everything you talk about.

LOL...well since you're a fucking guinea, I would expect for you to enjoy all the racial slurs. what does jokin ghave to do with anyone's crediblity ya anal gumba!

Your parents must be proud of you.

[barvybe]

1. "Is Closed Room defined as a small space with no ample ventilation? If so then this doesn't apply to a bar/club."

Actually bars are specifically used as examples. Not only do many bars not have ample ventilation and are quite small, but there are many more than a single person smoking a single cigarette...so the size of the room that this applies to multiplies with the number of cigarettes smoked. Even with good ventilation it takes X minutes for all the air in a room to be transferred.

2. "Absolutely correct. The smoke we blow out is basically the "toxins" left over from what we inhale and it's supposed to be worse. However, If I went around giving people shotties, then I would understand non-smoker's being miffed. But I don't and as stated before there's no real evidence that proves my non-smoking counterparts will get cancer becasue of this."

LMAO - no, the opposite is true. the smoke you exhale has fewer toxins in it than that which wafts up from a lit cigarette in your hand. when you take a drag you increase the oxygen available to the cigarette and it burns at a higher temp REDUCING the level of toxins.

3. not gonna address your death penalty and abortion stuff...i could have picked anything like speed limit laws, etc. there are always multiple factors...with cigarettes in general there is the tons of MONEY and JOBS the industry creates and the insurance / medical costs etc. as well...but specifics aren't that relevant. my point is that while many laws may have evidentiary arguments made for them NONE ARE REQUIRED to pass a law. The best case of this is a referendum to the public on voting day where there is a simple yes / no question on the ballet. I've never seen evidence or arguments on the ballot. And sure someone may have come up with some and given a speech about it by the majority of people voting won't have heard it.

There used to be laws like "no buggies are allowed before 10am on the village green" (actual law on the books in some towns in westchester) - was passed just because that's what people wanted. again - this is just an EXAMPLE.

4. "Actually, no. Statictically probable?? Give me a break. Dude, take a fucking law class and then come back with your 'real facts' n how inusrance companies work and how cases are won. I'm still waiting to read up on this "alleged" case due to second hand smoke! "

Have you ever sat on a civil case as a juror? You are INSTRUCTED that the defendant can be found partially guilty or probably guilty and that is taken into account when a settlement is reached. Insurance works the same way - for example if in MA you are found 1% guilty for the accident your insurance company can be sued for damages. In NY they happen to have No Fault insurance instead that's all. The vast majority of insurance cases involve both parties paying some - as in they can't definitively decide who was at fault - they take the history of similar circumstances and their outcomes and don't waste everyone's time.

Since you're refuting my "facts" on how law and insurance works, why don't you tell me about what you learned in class? how do you know i'm wrong otherwise?

As for the case - there are a couple - one sets aside 350 million dollars for airline stewardesses for health related claims based on 2nd hand smoke from flights before the no smoking laws were passed. The other is a specific award for, I believe 700k though i don't remember the specifics at the moment. Like I said i'll post it later.

5. "Perhaps you have Persuasion and Majority confused. If a MAjority of people dislike smoking in bars then we're gonna have an easy time passing these no-smoking laws"

your right, it won't be a problem.

i'm well aware of what those words mean honey...you still haven't defined "vaporate" for all of us though.

6. "I want you to define annectdotal evidence.

Plus, research in penicillin has a differenct structure to it than researhcing the harmful affects of second hand smoke.Plus, it had nothing to do with supressing people's rights in enjoying themsleves. "

LOL - use your dictionary. But since you have so much trouble looking stuff up (the cases i mentioned can be found using a google search) when you call up a doctor and say, hey i was walking in the woods and now i have a rash and he asks you questions about it that's annectdotal evidence. he hasn't gone and collected the thing you brushed up against and run tests on it or taken a sample from your skin. but guess what!? he can make a diagnosis of your condition through experience of patients with similar situations - reports of similar symptoms and how treatments may or may not have worked etc. without any clinical testing. of course, he's probably only gonna be right 90% of the time or so

Sorry, didn't realize you were an expert on the structures of this research. Care to share? Which research principals are used in each and how do they differ?

As for supressing your rights or not - you're giving up your argument that all that's needed is evidence and proof? why should it matter if it has to due with pleasure or not if there's evidence (according to you) - pick an argument and stick with it. Once you get into the my pleasure vs. your pleasure thing then its ALL about persuasion and opinion and not fact.

[barvybe]

sorry, missed one:

as for cause and effect: unless you're a proponent of chaos theory yes, everything thing has a cause. but we're not using it the same way. causes for voting or changing laws can be as simple as:

- my constituents like it

- it costs us too much money

- its unconstitutional

- etc.

none of these have to have anything to do with evidence or "proof".

[sdeelite]

Personally I only smoke when I go out so I suppose in a way it would be good for me (might help me quit completely)...

However not being able to smoke when I am out would be very hard for me...

Therefore, this bill kinda pisses me off for that reason.

Plus, doesn't this city have more important things to worry about other than smoking? (i.e.-terrorism-security, economy).

[barvybe]

I smoke when i go out too sometimes so the same issues. Pisses me off too actually. Just that i'm not gonna pretend that there aren't legitimate health reasons for the ban or that my desire to smoke (since smokers are a minority) should supercede non-smokers desire for reasonably clean air. there are lots of other polutants in NYC air, but few can be fixed as simply as controlling the smoke content of a bar.

[somebitch]

Originally posted by sxyaznchiq

this thread reminds me of that twilight zone episode last night...

a guy keeps having the same nightmare over and over. each time he "wakes up", he's relieved that it was just a dream. he goes on with his day and lives the nightmare again. "wakes up" again, confronted with the nightmare again... wakes up again, confronted with his nightmare again.. and so on and so on...

:cry: i feel your pain...

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

I am for real. As stated before, this mayor's primary agenda is to re-establish financial stability to a hurting city. The previous mayor's primary agenda was to reduce the high crime rate and cut down on quality-of-life crimes, hence the closing down of your beloved clubs.

And sometimes the course a politican takes to secure "financial stability" to a city backfires. Our streets have been much cleaner and presentable since they introduced recycling. Now we all have to sit and watch as this city gets filthier?

WE have to sit and watch community programs, care for the elderly and animal shelters become defunct. If that's the type of city you want to live in, then kudos to you! But don't label this as the "least' of our problems. It's true that since sept 11 new york city's economy has been going nohere but downhill. Perhaps raising cigarette taxes was a smart decision but to impose your values and judgements because you're anti-smoking is total bullshit!

Apparently you're not just out of touch with smoking issues, but everything you talk about.

Now now, just because i disagree doesn't mean you have to resort to petty accusations. Just face it that you won't ever bring me down. I will always be here to refute your opinions!

-iliana

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

And sometimes the course a politican takes to secure "financial stability" to a city backfires. Our streets have been much cleaner and presentable since they introduced recycling. Now we all have to sit and watch as this city gets filthier?

you obviously haven't been to the east village or the LES and chinatown at night...not exactly clean.

WE have to sit and watch community programs, care for the elderly and animal shelters become defunct.

Please provide proof that anything is becoming defunct

I will always be here to refute your opinions!

I thank God for that every day.

[leftymo]

Finally, I always thought NY is a little behind on things. It's a public place, its proven detrimental to your health (which is up to you anyways) and others around you (which isn't!). Smoke outside...

Spare my clothes, others around you, any potential burn hazards...

Can we get past the 60's... or stop trying to emulate euro's?

Oh and California has had it for years, and its quite successful, also prohibited in restaurants out there. Smokers just go outside that's all.

[gsk411]

Well...

I guess my take for what's worth (I'm from Chicago, which does not yet have a smoking ban, but probably will someday soon if you guys get one), is that I have always thought clubs were sort of like dens of vice. The sound factory is not church, even if you take away the smoking. Vices, pretty much by definition, are dangerous in some fashion, to oneself, and usually to others. If you banned drinking in bars, you would probably save many more lives than banning smoking by reducing drunken drivers, but of course, no one would actually show up in bars anymore, since what would be the point.

Many people don't like smoking, but believe it or not, a whole lot of people dont like drinking....they are into other refreshments or just plain sober and find the behavoir of drinkers to be pretty obnoxious. I for one, would love to see drinking outlawed, all other things being equal, but I would never propose such a thing because it is obviously completely ludicrous.

As far as danger to employees...an easy compromise, one never even considered, is establishing clean air standard for bars, to force bar owners who want to allow smoking to install ventilation equipment that will take most of the smoke out of the air (such things exist, not even all that expensive). Not perfect, but for sure much better, and would probably reduce the risks to less than that of the other risks of working in a bar or club (and there are many - clubs, dont even talk about resturants are not the safest places in the world to work, smoking or non smoking).

This thing is all about who has the power, and the group with the most power dictating to the group with less. When everyone smoked, this would never even be considered (as in most of europe, where they would even now consider this a joke).

When there are enough non drinkers...you won't be drinking in bars either. Happened once before.

I say let people have their damn vice dens....there's too many frickin rules for everywhere and everything as it is. Lets all be cool and leave a few relatively "no rule" zones left. Smoking is banned indoors EVERYWHERE else. Isn't that enough for all you people? Can't there be ONE public gathering place where it is allowed? Isn't there any kind of compromise here? After all, it is still LEGAL. If society is really serious about not liking it, then make it illegal like other supposedly "dangerous" things. Then its de facto banned everywhere, done deal. oops...can't do that, the government is addicted to the taxes the way smokers are addicted to smoking.

By the way, I myself do not smoke, and I also hate the smoky clothes, etc. from going to bars. But you know, I still don't want to sit on a high horse and tell other people what they can and can't do.

[barvybe]

Hey, you make some good points...and I don't completely disagree with you and with the general attitude of your post. But there are a few things that weaken what you're saying somewhat:

1. bars sell alcohol - they have a specific license for it and other places can't sell it. If you want to go and get a drink your choices are make one at home or go to a bar. Unlike smoking, you already can't drink out of doors in public.

2. drinking does kill many alcoholics from liver disease and other things. however, there is no such thing as 2nd hand drinking. when someone has a drink next to you, it doesn't affect your health. if they get rowdy the bar should do something about them, but this is totally different from someone smoking next to you.

3. drunk driving - people aren't dying from the alcohol but from the cars. if the US was serious about drunk driving laws we wouldn't have this sort of problem. there are other countries (scandinavian ones in particular where people drink a lot) where you go to jail...end of story if you drive drunk. i think its retarded that you can't drink until your 21 but you can vote, get drafted and get married. which should you have to be more responsible to do? buy a beer or shoot a gun? order a drink or get married? 21 is the result of drunk driving more than anything else.

4. there already are clubs that don't allow drinking (Arc for example) and after hours clubs (SF, etc.) you can go at 6am and there's no alcohol around.

The air cleanliness requirements are a great idea, one we even mentioned like 15 pages ago or something lol.

anyway...good job

[barvybe]

here you go Iliana, as promised. now i'll be the first to admit that these are pretty onesided, but there are plenty more articles out there if you bother to search for them and these cite the specific cases that your legal buddy assured you could not take place, pretty clearly refute many of your statements about smoke dissipation and the lack of evidence for 2nd hand smoke being dangerous...take a look.

ETS components and dangers summary of studies (largely dealing with childrens health)

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/chmhets.htm

Legislation proposal from BC: sites deaths attributatable to ETS and notes that bars have 4 - 6 times the concentration of ETS particals as a home with smokers in it

http://www.cvihr.bc.ca/publications/smoking/

Discusses how ETS worsens respiratory conditions, levels of ETS in bars and casinos, cites the 350 million flight attendent suit and other that were pending in 1998.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n22/fpdf/jed80103.pdf

Cites several cases won for money damages by employees suing due to ETS issues (right to smoke free environment or illness related) and more details on the flight attendant case where, unlike most suits, the burden of proof will be on the defendant, not the plaintiffs, plus more.

http://www3.oup.co.uk/eurpub/hdb/Volume_11/Issue_02/pdf/110201.pdf

Summary of some ETS issues on publically accessible legal aid site

http://www.legallawhelp.com/safety_and_health/tobacco/other_people_smoke.html#top

Discusses the tobacco industries attempts to discredit ETS as classs A carcinogin (like asbestos and radon) concluding with: "It is important for all to understand the lengths to which the tobacco industry will go to influence and confuse the public and policy makers on issues of public health," says Dr. Hurt, who was recently awarded a $2 million grant from the National Cancer Institute to study tobacco industry documents on ETS. "They did it in the 1950s when cigarette smoking was scientifically proven to cause heart disease and lung cancer, and they are doing it now because ETS is a hazardous environmental toxin."

http://www.tobaccoweek.com/tw3_news.asp?article=2429

"Despite overwhelming agreement among experts that cigarettes cause disease in smokers, that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease in nonsmokers, and that nicotine is addictive, the report finds: " etc.

http://www.tobaccoweek.com/tw3_news.asp?article=3151

[brooklynkid]

good reads...thanks pete!

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by barvybe

here you go Iliana, as promised. now i'll be the first to admit that these are pretty onesided, but there are plenty more articles out there if you bother to search for them and these cite the specific cases that your legal buddy assured you could not take place, pretty clearly refute many of your statements about smoke dissipation and the lack of evidence for 2nd hand smoke being dangerous...take a look.

ETS components and dangers summary of studies (largely dealing with childrens health)

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/chmhets.htm

Legislation proposal from BC: sites deaths attributatable to ETS and notes that bars have 4 - 6 times the concentration of ETS particals as a home with smokers in it

http://www.cvihr.bc.ca/publications/smoking/

Discusses how ETS worsens respiratory conditions, levels of ETS in bars and casinos, cites the 350 million flight attendent suit and other that were pending in 1998.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v280n22/fpdf/jed80103.pdf

Cites several cases won for money damages by employees suing due to ETS issues (right to smoke free environment or illness related) and more details on the flight attendant case where, unlike most suits, the burden of proof will be on the defendant, not the plaintiffs, plus more.

http://www3.oup.co.uk/eurpub/hdb/Volume_11/Issue_02/pdf/110201.pdf

Summary of some ETS issues on publically accessible legal aid site

http://www.legallawhelp.com/safety_and_health/tobacco/other_people_smoke.html#top

Discusses the tobacco industries attempts to discredit ETS as classs A carcinogin (like asbestos and radon) concluding with: "It is important for all to understand the lengths to which the tobacco industry will go to influence and confuse the public and policy makers on issues of public health," says Dr. Hurt, who was recently awarded a $2 million grant from the National Cancer Institute to study tobacco industry documents on ETS. "They did it in the 1950s when cigarette smoking was scientifically proven to cause heart disease and lung cancer, and they are doing it now because ETS is a hazardous environmental toxin."

http://www.tobaccoweek.com/tw3_news.asp?article=2429

"Despite overwhelming agreement among experts that cigarettes cause disease in smokers, that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease in nonsmokers, and that nicotine is addictive, the report finds: " etc.

http://www.tobaccoweek.com/tw3_news.asp?article=3151

All interesting, but their is ample evidence to the contrary (however, I'm too busy to do research for Clubplanet). This shouldn't be at battle of sources, because, in the end it boils down to a "My-source-is-better-than-your's" argument, which no one will win because arguments on both sides are compelling. You seem to fail to be dismissive of and fail to acknowledge that there ARE valid, strong arguments on the other side, and that's where you lose credibility. And yes, some of those sources are clearly one-sided.

[£ddie]

Originally posted by barvybe

these cite the specific cases that your legal buddy assured you could not take place,

Isn't the discussion here about smoking in New York? I thought so. Frankly, people suing their employers in great Britain, the Netherlands and Australia is dandy and all, but has little significance to us here. We have different laws. With that being said . . .

"The Omnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act (Chapter 635 Laws of 1996 NY State) prohibits any party from suing the employer unless the employee sustained a "grave injury." This is some relief for the employer since it reduces exposure except in serious cases.

The primary statute involved defines grave injury as:

"only one or more of the following: death, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand or foot, loss of multiple fingers, loss of multiple toes, paraplegia or quadriplegia, total and permanent blindness, total and permanent deafness, loss of nose, loss of ear, permanent and severe facial disfigurement, loss of an index finger or an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability."

If you think 'death' might apply in ETS cases, think again, 'death' means sudden on the job death (same goes for amputations).

I don't know, and never claimed to know, what the law is in every state, but in the vast majority of states the law is similar, which means, ya can't sue your employer. As for the New Jersey case, it was a Superior Court case and not a New Jersey Supreme Court case, which means you shouldn'tassume it's the law of New Jersey. You'd have to track its history before you could say it's a valid cite. In any case, Jersey may have different Worker's Comp laws than New York does.

Of course you can go ahead and sue Philip Morris for work place smoke if you think you've got a case, but I never said you couldn't--you can sue for whatever the hell you want in this country as long as a lawsuit is in good faith and not prohibited by law. But your original point was something to the effect that this NYC ban would be good, because liability would be minimized for bar/restaurant owners here. That point is still invalid because it wouldn't apply here (that is, unless you arguing for a national ban, which is (a) a pipe dream, and ( not the issue here). This is a discussion about how a smoking ban would affect us here, not in South Dakota or Great Britain, or Australia.

By the way, Edward Sweda is a member of an anti-smoking propaganda group (read the footnote and run some searches on his organization). I wouldn't take his opinions and conclusions at face value (and I wouldn't take evidence from ANY propaganda group on either side at face value)--there are very very few unbiased sources in this debate.

[£ddie]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

Cell phone talkers are merely an annoyance. Their rude chatting isn't going to cause you any physical harm.

You might want to rethink that. My firm is defending several major telecoms in suits claiming that cell phones cause cancer because of excessive electromagnetic radiation emanating from the handset, While I have every reason to believe that the plaintiffs will fail miserably, you never know, we could be talking about cell phone makers being sued regularly in a few years. Cell phones are a relatively new thing. It will be decades before we know how they can affect us. It doesn't take much electromagnetic radiation to damage DNA. Hey, then we might have to ban them too if there's evidence they cause cancer.

While we're at it, we know car makers can make zero emission vehicles and cars that run on alternative fuels such as propane, so let's ban every car with an internal combustion engine. Those cars just cause heavy smog, and a big fat hole in the ozone that will lead to increased skin cancer rates and the melting of polar ice caps.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

4. there already are clubs that don't allow drinking (Arc for example) and after hours clubs (SF, etc.) you can go at 6am and there's no alcohol around.

If you show up to clubs at 6am then you won't find alcohol because BY LAW bars must stop selling at 4am. (Did they skip this in your law class???)

anyway...good job

Thanks! We're doing great on this side. We're still waiting for you and brooklynkid to catch up though!

-iliana

[Twilo Beauty]

DING! DING! DING!

My God Eddie, did you make barvby and brooklynkid look stupid again?????

By George I think you did!

LOOLLLLOL

:laugh:

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by £ddie

You might want to rethink that. My firm is defending several major telecoms in suits claiming that cell phones cause cancer because of excessive electromagnetic radiation emanating from the handset, While I have every reason to believe that the plaintiffs will fail miserably, you never know, we could be talking about cell phone makers being sued regularly in a few years. Cell phones are a relatively new thing. It will be decades before we know how they can affect us. It doesn't take much electromagnetic radiation to damage DNA. Hey, then we might have to ban them too if there's evidence they cause cancer.

I can understand if cell phones possibly harm their owners, but are you trying to tell me that it harms those around you as well? If so, this is the first I'm hearing of that.

While we're at it, we know car makers can make zero emission vehicles and cars that run on alternative fuels such as propane, so let's ban every car with an internal combustion engine. Those cars just cause heavy smog, and a big fat hole in the ozone that will lead to increased skin cancer rates and the melting of polar ice caps.

Valid points, but if I may refute that...

You're certainly right about us having the capability to make zero-emissions cars. We don't though, because the technology is still expensive (for electric cars at least) and the bigger issue, the oil industry, and how tightly the US is wrapped around it. Uncle Sam makes money off of every gallon of gas you buy, just like every pack of cigs.

In regards to pollution-causing engines, most cars made within the last decade or so have extremely low emissions. Just ask your inspector to explain it to you...newer cars barely even register a significant amount of pollutants in their exhaust. And speaking of inspections, the governent has implemented them as a way to protect the public and the environment. Further, the emissions laws get stricter every few years. I'm not saying there are ZERO emissions, but things certainly have improved. Also, a little info about the ozone layer...NASA recently released a report claiming that the hole in the ozone has split in two and shrunk by nearly 50% in recent years. Of course, take this info with a grain of salt, but I think we've come a long way in the last 40 years.

Which leads back to the ETS studies. Whether they are accurate or just biased, even if you disregard the longterm effects and consider the immediate effects (eye and respiratory irritation, etc), the fact that smoking is still allowed in some indoor places is just medievel. You even can't light up in a huge outdoor baseball stadium. Even just 20 years from now we'll look back in disbelief about how ignorant we were.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

Valid points, but if I may refute that...

You're certainly right about us having the capability to make zero-emissions cars. We don't though, because the technology is still expensive (for electric cars at least) and the bigger issue, the oil industry, and how tightly the US is wrapped around it. Uncle Sam makes money off of every gallon of gas you buy, just like every pack of cigs.

We're at the brink of war. I think it's a good time to stop depending on oil supply.

In regards to pollution-causing engines, most cars made within the last decade or so have extremely low emissions. Just ask your inspector to explain it to you...newer cars barely even register a significant amount of pollutants in their exhaust. And speaking of inspections, the governent has implemented them as a way to protect the public and the environment. Further, the emissions laws get stricter every few years. I'm not saying there are ZERO emissions, but things certainly have improved. Also, a little info about the ozone layer...NASA recently released a report claiming that the hole in the ozone has split in two and shrunk by nearly 50% in recent years. Of course, take this info with a grain of salt, but I think we've come a long way in the last 40 years.

According the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, vehicle emissions cause ground level ozone, a major component of smog. Not only do these emissions damage air quality but they damage water quality as well. Newer cars certainly don't pollute as much as older cars, but pollution is STILL an issue with vehicles!

Which leads back to the ETS studies. Whether they are accurate or just biased, even if you disregard the longterm effects and consider the immediate effects (eye and respiratory irritation, etc), the fact that smoking is still allowed in some indoor places is just medievel. You even can't light up in a huge outdoor baseball stadium. Even just 20 years from now we'll look back in disbelief about how ignorant we were.

That' YOUR OPIONION. I think dropping e every weekend is medieval! (even if it doesn't cause me any physical harm like second hand smoke allegedly does)

In 20 years we'll realize that eating meat is good again and milk is bad again, and cell phone towers will be ripped out because they def cause cancer, and prozac will be outlawed becasue it causes long- term terminal sickness and so on and so on,......

-iliana

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

We're at the brink of war. I think it's a good time to stop depending on oil supply.

That's the first smart thing you said all week, no matter how obvious it is. We all know the reason why the US has anything to do with the Middle East is oil. But that's a whole other thread on a whole other message board.

That' YOUR OPIONION. I think dropping e every weekend is medieval! (even if it doesn't cause me any physical harm like second hand smoke allegedly does)

a) again, thank you Miss Obvious. Yes, dropping E every week is stupid.

no one is involuntarily partaking in YOUR rolls. Why do we need to repeatedly address this whole voluntary/involuntary issue?

Just a quick example of how ignorant we can be as a society and how views can change in just decades: has anyone ever seen that old commercial from the 60s featuring Fred and Wilma Flintstone promoting Winston cigarettes?? It's like, what the fuck we we thinking?!?! Let's get beloved cartoon characters and push our product on children! Uh huh, that's a noble industry to be defending.

In 20 years we'll realize that eating meat is good again and milk is bad again, and cell phone towers will be ripped out because they def cause cancer, and prozac will be outlawed becasue it causes long- term terminal sickness and so on and so on,......

Stating the obvious is your strength, I can see. What? we outlaw things that harm people? What an idea! Pick a side, yo!

[barvybe]

Originally posted by iliana

If you show up to clubs at 6am then you won't find alcohol because BY LAW bars must stop selling at 4am. (Did they skip this in your law class???)

gee thanks!

the point is you can go out clubbing and not deal with people drinking alcohol already. I'm sure we're all aware of the law on this one, but its good to see you found something you can cite accurately