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

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

Who do you think you are? A fucking New Kid on the Block???

Yeah. I'm the old one. And you are one of my groupies.

[somebitch]

Originally posted by barvybe

1st, eddie offered no facts...he offered opinions based on what he had studied

2nd my family has three ivy league law degrees and over 50 years actual legal experience versus eddie's 2 months of studying.

so, if you have actual evidence, like an opinion written by a judge about how cigarette smoke will or will not fall under the current laws regarding rights to sue for unsafe work environments lets see it.

otherwise, all you have is an opinion that isn't your own in the first place.

get back to me when you have that hard evidence you were talking about.

so, what law school did you go to? oh you didn't. so what law school did eddie go to?

so what??? just because you have some lawyers in your family doesn't mean you know anything.

my dads a lawyer, so i guess i am right.

anyway, what are you gonna prove by getting eveyone to agree wtih you??? no one is actually gonna change their opinion, they will merely say OK so this thread dies.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

Yeah. I'm the old one. And you are one of my groupies.

You got the right touch...BABY..Love the way you turn me on...

LOLLLLOL :laugh: :laugh:

"Djing at your local CHEESE venue.."

-iliana

[barvybe]

Originally posted by iliana

If it's in the bar exam review...then it's a fact. They are not going to offer students "opinions" to ponder.

You fail to tell me these wonderful Ivy league schools your family attended...why are you keeping so mum??????

The evidence, from RESEARCH SCIENTISTS, is out for you to read. Judges make their decisions through evidence from these reliable sources.

ANd you know that my opinion from the start is not to outlaw cigarettes in bars/clubs. It seems that you have a MAJOR problem with my opinion and that is why this thread has progressed the way it has.

-iliana

1. i guarantee you that the bar exam didn't say that people who sue cigarette companies for 2nd hand smoke will lose in court.

in FACT: in a case in CA a person won a multi milliion dollar settlement from cigarette companies for 2nd hand smoke related health issues. since u just stated that judges make their decisions on the evidence of scientific researchers then there must be some or the settlement wouldn't have been awarded

2. law is all about opinions and judges change rulings all the time. obviously you know nothing about law

3. the evidence from research scientists states that people who inhale large quantities of 2nd hand smoke over long periods of time are statistically at higher risk for respiratory ailments, reduced lung capacity and lung cancer. studies also show that living where there are high levels of polution also can have these effects. there are many studies on this that haven't been refuted. if you do your reading you'll note that the studies that show that smoking "causes" lung cancer also actually state that smoking statisically increases the changes of cancer. see some similarities.

4. why should i tell you any more about my family...u haven't shared anything about eddie, where he's going to school, if he has a job, etc. since all ivy league law schools are considered to be in the top 20 or so what does it matter? if you think i'm lying about them going to ivy league schools or being lawyers...well, whatever

[barvybe]

Originally posted by somebitch

so what??? just because you have some lawyers in your family doesn't mean you know anything.

my dads a lawyer, so i guess i am right.

anyway, what are you gonna prove by getting eveyone to agree wtih you??? no one is actually gonna change their opinion, they will merely say OK so this thread dies.

she's trying to say that eddie is right cause he took the bar exam. the point is i asked a bunch of people with lots of experience in corporate and HR law and they disagree. just cause its eddie's opinion doesn't make it fact...that's the point honey. you catch that now? good girl

i'm not trying to convince anyone...arguing with Iliana is an exercise in learning how to talk to children and is quite entertaining. you don't have to read it if you don't want.

[somebitch]

Originally posted by barvybe

she's trying to say that eddie is right cause he took the bar exam. the point is i asked a bunch of people with lots of experience in corporate and HR law and they disagree. just cause its eddie's opinion doesn't make it fact...that's the point honey. you catch that now? good girl

i'm not trying to convince anyone...arguing with Iliana is an exercise in learning how to talk to children and is quite entertaining. you don't have to read it if you don't want.

don't talk down to me you fool. you take this shit way too seriously. i was just pointing out the fact that having lawyers in your family doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

now do me a favor & don't respond to this. you need to learn how to respect people then maybe they will listen, there is an important lesson in how to talk to kids.

[barvybe]

you're taking it too seriously and you attacked me first laughing at me about something:

lets see...here it is:

so what??? just because you have some lawyers in your family doesn't mean you know anything.

my dads a lawyer, so i guess i am right.

___

if you had read a little more of the back and forth you would have known i don't think my opinion is more valid cause i'm related to lawyers, but that i asked them and got their opinions.

i'm not a fool and i'm polite to people who are polite to me. you give sarcasm you get it back.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

1. i guarantee you that the bar exam didn't say that people who sue cigarette companies for 2nd hand smoke will lose in court.

Wow...in that case you should write text books for law schools. I'm sure you would show fine examples.

in FACT: in a case in CA a person won a multi milliion dollar settlement from cigarette companies for 2nd hand smoke related health issues. since u just stated that judges make their decisions on the evidence of scientific researchers then there must be some or the settlement wouldn't have been awarded

I want to see where you got this information from and I would like to read the whole story that you have If that's possible of course.

2. law is all about opinions and judges change rulings all the time. obviously you know nothing about law

No. Law is not about OPINIONS. It is about the theory of cause and affect. A law goes into affect in order to restrain or enable a CAUSE. In order to do this law makers have to have sufficient evidence to pass a law. It goes into researcdh, statistical data, and so forth.

Read up on law deputy dog.

3. the evidence from research scientists states that people who inhale large quantities of 2nd hand smoke over long periods of time are statistically at higher risk for respiratory ailments, reduced lung capacity and lung cancer. studies also show that living where there are high levels of polution also can have these effects. there are many studies on this that haven't been refuted. if you do your reading you'll note that the studies that show that smoking "causes" lung cancer also actually state that smoking statisically increases the changes of cancer. see some similarities.

Again, it's been stated that those research tests has errors. There's NO HARD EVIDENCE of second hand smoke. If you find me reliable evidence I would be glad to accept the outscome.

4. why should i tell you any more about my family...u haven't shared anything about eddie, where he's going to school, if he has a job, etc. since all ivy league law schools are considered to be in the top 20 or so what does it matter? if you think i'm lying about them going to ivy league schools or being lawyers...well, whatever

Actually, I don't give two shits about your touro college family members! YOU were the one who through out "IVY league" out there!

-iliana

[barvybe]

As usual no substance.

1. if law isn't about opinions then why are judges decisions called "opinions?" ???

2. sure there are people arguing that there is statistical error in the research. people argued the same thing about cigarette smoking not being bad for you for a long time. eventually they stopped doing so. besides, people don't dispute that particulate matter in the air like polution and smoke cause respiratory distress and asthma. the studies under dispute are those linking 2nd hand smoke specifically to cancer.

3. go look up the case yourself. since you and eddie know lots about law i'm sure you know how to do a topical search in the system. yes of course the case is under appeal.

4. as for me writing questions: why don't you just ask eddie what the questions actually were. if i'm so full of shit why has he abandoned you?

5. law makers don't need any evidence to pass laws. they pass what they want, sometimes on logical arguments, sometimes not. what "evidence" is there that abortion should be legal or illegal, or that jaywalking should or shouldn't be legal? lawmakers pass the laws and then the courts can debate them and in rare cases get them revoked as unconsitutional.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

As usual no substance.

1. if law isn't about opinions then why are judges decisions called "opinions?" ???

When a judge is about to give a verdict (or even after) he states his/her OPINION on the case.

A judge does not sit there and MAKE UP laws.

(God, you're stupidity is baffling)

2. sure there are people arguing that there is statistical error in the research. people argued the same thing about cigarette smoking not being bad for you for a long time. eventually they stopped doing so. besides, people don't dispute that particulate matter in the air like polution and smoke cause respiratory distress and asthma. the studies under dispute are those linking 2nd hand smoke specifically to cancer.

Exaclty. SO how can you come to a conclusion or use the research conducted as your argument of that research IS NOT 100% FULL POOF?? You're riding on the coat tails of ASSUMPTIONS and that's making you look like an ASS. (Plus you're asking all your lawyer family! LOLLLOLOL)

3. go look up the case yourself. since you and eddie know lots about law i'm sure you know how to do a topical search in the system. yes of course the case is under appeal.

Ahh...you can't provide this article? ( That's what I thought)

You're a liar because if it's in appeal than NO ONE WAS AWARDED MONEY! (liar liar pants on fireLOLLOL)

4. as for me writing questions: why don't you just ask eddie what the questions actually were. if i'm so full of shit why has he abandoned you?

Hahhahahha OMG! I'm sure eddie has a life..unlike you. And you should really stop watching "as the world turns". "WHy has he abandoned you" LOLLLLLOLLLLOLLLOl fucking classic! Oh yes..i look unto other clubplanet post junkies to BACK ME UP!! LOLLLLOLLLLOLL . I'm Sooooo abandoned!!

5. law makers don't need any evidence to pass laws. they pass what they want,

Perhaps in communist cuba!

sometimes on logical arguments, sometimes not. what "evidence" is there that abortion should be legal or illegal, or that jaywalking should or shouldn't be legal? lawmakers pass the laws and then the courts can debate them and in rare cases get them revoked as unconsitutional.

Everything you just stated has a 'cause and affect' attached to it.

You don't jay walk becasue you can get run over....it's been PROVEN.

Abortion is legal because after much debate the right of a woman outweighed the ethical ramifications and the health risks in aborting was PROVEN so they made it legal.

-iliana

[barvybe]

1. exactly..so in the opinion of the judge the laws on awards damages pertained to this case of 2nd hand smoke. i never said judges make up laws...in fact i stated that law makers do and they don't require evidence to do so they simply vote on it. no one requires that people vote on the evidence. (go check out how our government works why don't ya). however the PRACTICE of law is all about opinion. otherwise legal arguments wouldn't be necessary.

2. no research is 100% fool proof on the pro or con of any argument. try thinking about terms like statistical probability and preponderance of evidence. every poll or research study has a stated margin of error (including those performed by cigarette companies to present their arguments on things)

3. i didn't say that i can't provide the article. just that since you guys have done all this research i'm sure you have access to legal research tools. otherwise STFU about how things have been refuted and there have been no cases. oh, guess you don't actually know how to find this stuff and only read what someone else posted

4. well, the only point you seem to be arguing is the one that eddie made...that's your fall back. nothing original of your own. but you keep stacking up the validity of his opinion...guess u'r just a follower.

5. regarding that cuba thing: again learn how our goverment works. sure, people can use evidence to make cases for why legislators should or shouldn't vote for things but they aren't required to vote on the evidence. in fact, most laws are based cause slightly more than 50% feel that it is the best available solution even if its not perfect, not cause any research or cause and effect is 100%

6. millions of people jay walk every day in NYC and don't get run over. part of the reason for the law has to do with keeping traffic moving, not just pedestrian safety. 1000's of people have anal sex every day and don't go to jail even though its illegal (and its not illegal cause of "factual evidence" that its bad for you. regarding abortion, the laws changed a couple of times so obviously the "facts" must have changed or laws are passed despite or without evidence all the time - and the fact that the abortion law was changed shows you that your "facts" of today can be nothing tomorrow (just like the fact that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer is dust in the wind. or is that sand's in the hourglass )

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

1. exactly..so in the opinion of the judge the laws on awards damages pertained to this case of 2nd hand smoke. i never said judges make up laws...in fact i stated that law makers do and they don't require evidence to do so they simply vote on it. no one requires that people vote on the evidence. (go check out how our government works why don't ya). however the PRACTICE of law is all about opinion. otherwise legal arguments wouldn't be necessary.

Well you keep jumping from one action to another. Now you mention the PRACTICE of law. And you are correct in stating that law makers offer opinions when DISCUSSING law.

To CREATE laws, however, is another ball game. You don't creat a law "because you want to". You have to support your basis for creating a law.

You can bring anything into a courtroom. The courtroom is the bottom of barrel for SOLVING a case. It has nothing to do with 'creating' laws. The law is NOT at it's finest here because of all the different aspects and examples that are thrown in order win something.

A judge can be bought, jurors can be bought....

It has nothing to do with creating laws.

Not to mention, I'm sure we can question the character and credibility of this person suing "because of second hand smoke". Someone making a quick buck?

2. no research is 100% fool proof on the pro or con of any argument. try thinking about terms like statistical probability and preponderance of evidence. every poll or research study has a stated margin of error (including those performed by cigarette companies to present their arguments on things)

with that in mind, then You shouldn't judge second hand smoke as a "hazard" just as much as I shouldn't deny its harm to the person next to me. Yet, what fairness is there in taking away my smoking right in bars/clubs without PROOF of it's deadly affects???

3. i didn't say that i can't provide the article. just that since you guys have done all this research i'm sure you have access to legal research tools. otherwise STFU about how things have been refuted and there have been no cases. oh, guess you don't actually know how to find this stuff and only read what someone else posted

OUch, such anger. (LOL) But you have proven that you are full of bullshit....this article and whole case doesn't exist probably. Keep making up cases sweetheart...it makes you sound somewhat on point! LOLLLLLOL

4. well, the only point you seem to be arguing is the one that eddie made...that's your fall back. nothing original of your own. but you keep stacking up the validity of his opinion...guess u'r just a follower.

Aside from Eddie, i also worship Satan! (lollllol)

5. regarding that cuba thing: again learn how our goverment works. sure, people can use evidence to make cases for why legislators should or shouldn't vote for things but they aren't required to vote on the evidence. in fact, most laws are based cause slightly more than 50% feel that it is the best available solution even if its not perfect, not cause any research or cause and effect is 100%

I'm pretty well educated on how our gevernment works. Tip: Learn how to structure your statements. Saying things like:

" law makers don't need any evidence to pass laws. they pass what they want" Make syou sound like a bigger schmuck than you already are. Plus it proves that YOU don't know how our government works!

6. millions of people jay walk every day in NYC and don't get run over. part of the reason for the law has to do with keeping traffic moving, not just pedestrian safety. 1000's of people have anal sex every day and don't go to jail even though its illegal (and its not illegal cause of "factual evidence" that its bad for you. regarding abortion, the laws changed a couple of times so obviously the "facts" must have changed or laws are passed despite or without evidence all the time - and the fact that the abortion law was changed shows you that your "facts" of today can be nothing tomorrow (just like the fact that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer is dust in the wind. or is that sand's in the hourglass )

Laws change when new problems surface surroudning the topic.

As far as abortion, there was a question as to how late a woman can abort and for what particular reason... so on and so forth.

To say, "it's against the law to smoke in this pub do to the health hazard it casuses other patrons' without one justifiable medical research that CAN SHOW US this accusation, shouldn't be tolerated.

We're introducing the 21st Century to a new form of prohibition.

-iliana

[barvybe]

- "To CREATE laws, however, is another ball game. You don't creat a law "because you want to". You have to support your basis for creating a law."

actually you don't. a legislator can simply propose a law and call a vote. whether his / her request will be accepted or denied is another case.

- "A judge can be bought, jurors can be bought....

It has nothing to do with creating laws."

why even bother with this? lawmakers are notoriously crooked - more so than judges (especially at the higher levels) who are typically appointed for life - unlike lawmakers who have to think about relection and lobbyists.

- of course you can question the person in the law suit...we do have tons of frivolous ones just like we have tons of bad laws. but perhaps they also have lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke - unless you can PROVE that they don't you can't PROVE that its a frivolous case (and like most things this will not be 100% provable ever, just whether or not its a statistical probability)

- "with that in mind, then You shouldn't judge second hand smoke as a "hazard" just as much as I shouldn't deny its harm to the person next to me. Yet, what fairness is there in taking away my smoking right in bars/clubs without PROOF of it's deadly affects???"

2nd hand smoke contains the same substances as "1st hand" smoke. people don't debate that. nor do they debate that 1st hand smoke is a hazard to the smoker. the question of proof simply is related to whether or not 2nd hand smoke is concentrated enough to cause the same problems. and, its not just deadly effects, but also things like asthma and reduced lung capacity that are at issue.

- " "law makers don't need any evidence to pass laws. they pass what they want" Make syou sound like a bigger schmuck than you already are. Plus it proves that YOU don't know how our government works!"

think as you wish, but my statement is true. they don't need to provide evidence at all, only persuade others to vote it into law. that persuasion could be "your constituents will want it" or "i'll vote yes on your bill". bills are proposed, debated and voted on. that debate can be scientific evidence, emotional please, or non existent. if i don't know, why don't you explain the process better?

- "Laws change when new problems surface surroudning the topic.

As far as abortion, there was a question as to how late a woman can abort and for what particular reason... so on and so forth. "

exactly - now that long term non-smoking bar employees are showing statistically higher occurances of asthma, respiratory problems and cancers there are new problems on the table.

- "To say, "it's against the law to smoke in this pub do to the health hazard it casuses other patrons' without one justifiable medical research that CAN SHOW US this accusation, shouldn't be tolerated."

actually, if the majority decides that this is what they want that's what democracy is all about. they can always change their minds later, but that's how our system works for right or wrong. as to whether the research is justifiable or not is a question of opinion. again, these same arguments were used by cigarette companies for years and years about whether cigarette smoke was bad for you at all.

if you don't want to tolerate it then you don't have to go places that won't allow you to smoke - its your choice remember?

[Twilo Beauty]

/

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

"To CREATE laws, however, is another ball game. You don't creat a law "because you want to". You have to support your basis for creating a law."

actually you don't. a legislator can simply propose a law and call a vote. whether his / her request will be accepted or denied is another case.

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.

- of course you can question the person in the law suit...we do have tons of frivolous ones just like we have tons of bad laws. but perhaps they also have lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke - unless you can PROVE that they don't you can't PROVE that its a frivolous case (and like most things this will not be 100% provable ever, just whether or not its a statistical probability)

"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.

- "with that in mind, then You shouldn't judge second hand smoke as a "hazard" just as much as I shouldn't deny its harm to the person next to me. Yet, what fairness is there in taking away my smoking right in bars/clubs without PROOF of it's deadly affects???"

2nd hand smoke contains the same substances as "1st hand" smoke. people don't debate that. nor do they debate that 1st hand smoke is a hazard to the smoker. the question of proof simply is related to whether or not 2nd hand smoke is concentrated enough to cause the same problems. and, its not just deadly effects, but also things like asthma and reduced lung capacity that are at issue.

It's still a question isn't it? Have you ever met anyone that was so severely sick form frequenting bars because of other smokers?

- " "law makers don't need any evidence to pass laws. they pass what they want" Make syou sound like a bigger schmuck than you already are. Plus it proves that YOU don't know how our government works!"

think as you wish, but my statement is true. they don't need to provide evidence at all, only persuade others to vote it into law. that persuasion could be "your constituents will want it" or "i'll vote yes on your bill". bills are proposed, debated and voted on. that debate can be scientific evidence, emotional please, or non existent. if i don't know, why don't you explain the process better?

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!

- "Laws change when new problems surface surroudning the topic.

As far as abortion, there was a question as to how late a woman can abort and for what particular reason... so on and so forth. "

exactly - now that long term non-smoking bar employees are showing statistically higher occurances of asthma, respiratory problems and cancers there are new problems on the table.

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

- "To say, "it's against the law to smoke in this pub do to the health hazard it casuses other patrons' without one justifiable medical research that CAN SHOW US this accusation, shouldn't be tolerated."

actually, if the majority decides that this is what they want that's what democracy is all about. they can always change their minds later, but that's how our system works for right or wrong. as to whether the research is justifiable or not is a question of opinion. again, these same arguments were used by cigarette companies for years and years about whether cigarette smoke was bad for you at all.

if you don't want to tolerate it then you don't have to go places that won't allow you to smoke - its your choice remember? /QUOTE]

Of course the majority always wins. Tell me somehting new if you're so smart! 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!

-iliana

[Twilo Beauty]

Call to Disconnect

Councilman: Keep phones out of subways

Should Cell Phones Be Banned On Mass Transit?

Do you think cell phones should be banned on public transit?

yes

no

By Bobby Cuza

STAFF WRITER

October 17, 2002

Using a cell phone on the subway has always been a dream tantalizingly out of reach. City Councilman Philip Reed would like to keep it that way - and bar the practice on buses to boot.

Reed has introduced a resolution asking the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which has for years entertained the possibility of wiring its tunnels, to instead banish mobile phones from the entire city's mass transit system.

"We can't tell them what to do. But they have rules about a lot of things - eating, drinking, playing the radio," Reed (D-East Harlem) said yesterday. "Most people have said to me they think this is a terrific idea."

Reed, who in August introduced a bill to ban the use of cell phones at plays, concerts and movies, believes cell phone yappers are one of the city's foremost quality-of-life nuisances.

For now, the practice extends only to buses and above-ground segments of the subway system, such as the No. 7 line in Queens. In recent years the MTA has met with several wireless companies interested in bringing their cell-phone signals below ground.

Transit advocate Gene Russianoff noted his group, the Straphangers Campaign, conducted an Internet poll that found 54 percent opposed wiring the subways. He called Reed's measure a reasonable one that asks the MTA, in essence, to simply mull it over.

"Before the MTA moves ahead and wires the subways for cell phone use, they should ask the riding public what they think," he said.

Not surprisingly, the MTA's response to Reed's measure was lukewarm. Spokesman Tom Kelly said the agency does not receive many complaints about cell phone talkers. "We'll look at the legislation when it passes," he offered.

It remains to be seen whether the bill, which is awaiting consideration by the council's transportation committee, has enough support. "It's really hard to legislate against people who are rude," said Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing), who chairs the committee.

Reed introduced a similar resolution in 1999 that died without ever reaching committee. But now, he believes, the climate is right, adding that he expects his bill banning cell phones at public performances to become law by year's end.

"People are trying to find some space where there's some quiet," Reed said.

From Newsday.com

-----Ok folks...Now we want to ban cell phones on mass transit

------then we'll decide to ban ALCOHOL from bars!

-iliana

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

-----Ok folks...Now we want to ban cell phones on mass transit

I don't think that cell phones should be banned on mass transit but there is a huge difference between that and a smoking ban.

Cell phone talkers are merely an annoyance. Their rude chatting isn't going to cause you any physical harm. The same can't be said for second hand smoke (not even talking about "unproven" long term effects...i'm talking about the irritated eyes and lungs right there on the spot). Once he/she stops talking on the phone, the annoyance is over.

[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...

[Twilo Beauty]

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...

:laugh:

-iliana

And brookln kid, once a smoker puts out a cig, the "annoyance" is over and if you move to a side of the bar where there's less smoking then you won't SUFFER "irritaed eyed and lungs"

-iliana

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

And brookln kid, once a smoker puts out a cig, the "annoyance" is over and if you move to a side of the bar where there's less smoking then you won't SUFFER "irritaed eyed and lungs"

No, it's not over at all. Smoke fills the entire room and stays in the air for hours. Do you honestly believe that there's a place you can go to in a bar where you can get some fresher air? I know you like to antagonize people on here but I know you can't be that naive.

Surely you can come up with something better than "just move away" or "stay home"...

and the twilight zone episode continues...

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

No, it's not over at all. Smoke fills the entire room and stays in the air for hours. Do you honestly believe that there's a place you can go to in a bar where you can get some fresher air? I know you like to antagonize people on here but I know you can't be that naive.

Surely you can come up with something better than "just move away" or "stay home"...

and the twilight zone episode continues...

No..I won't come up with something better because for the past decade or so you and everyone else has been partying hard and now all of a sudden you want smokers out?

Not gonna happen!

-iliana

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

No..I won't come up with something better because for the past decade or so you and everyone else has been partying hard and now all of a sudden you want smokers out?

No one wants smokers out, just the smoke;)

Like I've said earlier, personally, while I think a smoking ban would make for a more pleasant environment for everyone, it's not really an issue for me (yeah I guess that means I am debating for the sake of debate). If I don't want to be subjected to it, I don't go. Might be unfortunate for the bar owner, but I'm more than willing to spend my money elsewhere. Fine, but if every non-smoker was like me, then bars would be making much less money.

True people have been partying hard for this long and tolerating it, but there was no one around to listen to the complaints of non-smokers. Now you've got three factors involved which favor their plight:

1. We have a popular mayor who is more than willing to implement this law in a city where the voting population is 80% non-smoking. And he knows no one is going to stop drinking, just like no one stopped dining out after the restaurant ban in '95 (which also resulted in higher revenues for restaurants).

2. Other states are doing it. Snowball effect. I imagine it will all happen the way it did when drinking ages started going up to 21 in the early 80s. Also, NYC, especially in these times, is looked upon as one of the "leaders" or "big brothers" of US cities. Our local news is news all over the world.

3. In this increasingly-PC world, smoking is increasingly un-PC. Many people personally couldn't care less about this statement, but it's just the truth.

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

True people have been partying hard for this long and tolerating it, but there was no one around to listen to the complaints of non-smokers. Now you've got three factors involved which favor their plight:

1. We have a popular mayor who is more than willing to implement this law in a city where the voting population is 80% non-smoking. And he knows no one is going to stop drinking, just like no one stopped dining out after the restaurant ban in '95 (which also resulted in higher revenues for restaurants).

"Popular"- are you making that up or are YOU a fan of Bloomberg? We're talking about a mayor who wants to cut back on dog shelters and recycling. Don't sound too popular to me.

As far as restaurant ban, there are plenty of restaurants that allow smoking in desiganted areas or in the bar. So I have the option to go in that area.

3. In this increasingly-PC world, smoking is increasingly un-PC. Many people personally couldn't care less about this statement, but it's just the truth.

Nice statement, but it adds nothing to this discussion. "Politically correct" is conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.

My racist jokes are un-PC, not my smoking.

-iliana

[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).

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.

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.

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.

4. "It's still a question isn't it? Have you ever met anyone that was so severely sick form frequenting bars because of other smokers?"

What question? That 2nd hand smoke is harmful? Its considered a class A carcinogen...that's pretty definitive. And no, I haven't cause those people probably aren't hanging out in bars anymore and i do

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.

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.

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

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by iliana

"Popular"- are you making that up or are YOU a fan of Bloomberg? We're talking about a mayor who wants to cut back on dog shelters and recycling. Don't sound too popular to me.

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.

My racist jokes are un-PC, not my smoking.

Unfortunately that erases most of your credibilty