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

[somebitch]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

First, what constitutes "limited" exposure? I believe that staff is at a significant risk but I also believe that for patrons going for a drink once a week for three hours...it might not be such a big deal.

BUT, just because something doesn't kill you (gee, why weren't these studies being done 30 years ago??) doesn't mean it isn't harming you. And just because something may not be a hazard doesn't mean that it's not a nuisance. People choking, eyes burning, all those things, they all add up to grievances people will complain about and pols will listen to.

everone should stop eating meat then too because it causes various types of cancer.

[phuturephunk]

Originally posted by bigpoppanils

STOP THAT!!!!

:cuss:

. . . Its soooooo stuck in yer fucking head now!!! . . . Be my lova , won't you bee my lova!!! . . .

. . . la da da dee da da da da!!! . . .

[nycchic24]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

. . . Its soooooo stuck in yer fucking head now!!! . . . Be my lova , won't you bee my lova!!! . . .

. . . la da da dee da da da da!!! . . .

btw.. (re: other post, thanks )

[barvybe]

Originally posted by somebitch

everone should stop eating meat then too because it causes various types of cancer.

OK, too many bad examples

- when you eat meat it doens't cause cancer in me. this law isn't about what you do to yourself. go right ahead (of course the health insurance costs to everyone else is an entirely different topic)

and from other places in this thread:

- if there are etards on the floor the don't cause me damage either unless i'm too drunk to step over / around them.

- strip bars: the bar is for stripping: drinking is the secondary activity. IF you want to open a smoking bar and serve drinks in it go right ahead - that's a different story. but go ask a bar owner if he'd rather serve alcohol or allow people to drink. what do you think the answer will be?

- also, bars are intended for drinking. smoking is a secondary pursuit. if it wasn't, every bar would sell cigarattes and they doesn't

- cigarette studies: there are reputable studies on people who work in bars...keep reading kids

- secondary smoke: if you go hang out in bars 3 times a week for 3 hours, or once a week for 16 hours at a club, of course second hand smoke is bad for you. just like breathing in car exhaust fumes, or spray paint, or wood smoke etc. to argue otherwise is retarded. will it kill you? who knows. will it cause cancer? better chance than not inhalling the same fumes that everyone accepts causes cancer if you breath them directly by smoking them yourself.

personally, i associate bars with smoke so i don't give a rat's ass one way or the other, but lets not make completely retarded arguments.

and what's thrown out in court versus what is accepted as "very likely" in the scientific world are totally different. how long did it take the government to win the cigarette package warning battle?

(btw - nice lyrics mikey and co )

[phuturephunk]

Originally posted by nycchic24

btw.. (re: other post, thanks )

. . . just speaking the truth darlin . . . . .

[somebitch]

Originally posted by barvybe

OK, too many bad examples

- when you eat meat it doens't cause cancer in me. this law isn't about what you do to yourself. go right ahead (of course the health insurance costs to everyone else is an entirely different topic)

yeah but the norm in our society is to eat it. everyone knows it leads to whatever & chooses to eat it & feed it to their children, who do not know the difference. people dont really choose to eat meat, it is seen as normal so in reality they dont make much of a choice nor are they educated of the repercussions of eating it.

i dont eat meat. i go to certain places because i know they have foods i can eat.

people change based on their lifestyle.

if you dont smoke you can choose to go to places where there is no smoking...

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by somebitch

yeah but the norm in our society is to eat it. everyone knows it leads to whatever & chooses to eat it & feed it to their children, who do not know the difference. people dont really choose to eat meat, it is seen as normal so in reality they dont make much of a choice nor are they educated of the repercussions of eating it.

if you dont smoke you can choose to go to places where there is no smoking...

What does eating meat lead to? Aside from the obvious like diseases from eating it raw. Or eating too much red meat. Last time I checked, fish and chicken, when properly prepared, are pretty good for you. ???

So now I can't go hear my favorite DJ because he/she isn't playing at a "non-smoking" establishment? That's not very fair. It's like saying "if you don't like cars driving on sidewalk, go walk on the sidewalks of a different town!"...

[phuturephunk]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

What does eating meat lead to? Aside from the obvious like diseases from eating it raw. Or eating too much red meat. Last time I checked, fish and chicken, when properly prepared, are pretty good for you. ???

So now I can't go hear my favorite DJ because he/she isn't playing at a "non-smoking" establishment? That's not very fair. It's like saying "if you don't like cars driving on sidewalk, go walk on the sidewalks of a different town!"...

. . . The problem we have as a society with red meat and the escalation of afflictions such as heart disease and obesity is due to the fact that the FDA wants you to PILE on the carbohydrates along with said fats and protein . . . The combination of the two wont work because you're in effect tuning your body for one thing, then feeding it another . . and that 'other' thing is completely OPPOSITE what you're body is setup to deal with effectively . . .

. . I did the atkins diet a while back, lost 140 pounds on it . . . In that time I saw my LDL (bad cholesterol) go down and my HDL ( good cholesterol) go up, not to mention my blood pressure went even further down then it already was and my resting heart rate dropped as well . . .

. . Don't blame the meat for what the FDA screwed up on . . .

[somebitch]

this has nothign to do with anything but...

The incidence of high blood pressure is generally greater among meat-eaters than among vegetarians, and cancers of the breast, colon, and prostate are more common among people on a high-meat, high-fat, low-fiber diet.

One 21-year-long study that compared meat-eaters and vegetarians showed that the greater the meat consumption, the greater the death rate from all causes combined.

Up to 90 percent of federally inspected poultry is infected with bacteria like salmonella and campylobacter, which cause sometimes-fatal vomiting and diarrhea.

According to William Castelli, M.D., director of the Framingham Heart Study, the longest running epidemiological study in medical history, "Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rates of coronary disease of any group in the country … they have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 percent of our cancer rate. On the average, they outlive other people by about six years now."

http://www.taxmeat.com/health.html

research for yourself.

i dont eat meat, i am healther because of it and i am penalized everywhere i go. but everyone should adopt a heathler way of life.

[sassa]

Originally posted by Drunk

It won't work. The ban in California was pretty much ignored by most establishments. They're even planning to overturn it there.

this is wrong. you can't smoke ANYWHERE in california.

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by sxyaznchiq

In 1986, two reports were published on the association between ETS exposure and adverse health effects in nonsmokers: one by the U.S. Surgeon General and the other by the Expert Committee on Passive Smoking, National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NAS/NRC). Both of these reports concluded that:

ETS can cause lung cancer in healthy adult nonsmokers;

Children of parents who smoke have more respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function, than do children of nonsmoking parents; and

Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce but does not eliminate a nonsmoker's exposure to ETS.

More recent epidemiologic studies support and reinforce these earlier reports. The firmly established causal relationship between lung cancer and mainstream smoke, coupled with the chemical similarities between ETS and the smoke inhaled by smokers, led researchers to conclude that involuntary smoking is likely to have similar effects on the lung. In light of the widespread presence of ETS in both the home and workplace and its absorption by the body, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report in 1992 in which ETS was classified as a Group A carcinogena category reserved only for the most dangerous cancer-causing agents in humans.

The overall results of 30 epidemiologic studies of lung cancer and involuntary smoking further justify a Group A classification. In these studies, female never-smokers who are married to smokers are compared with female never-smokers who are married to nonsmokers. Higher exposures cause higher risks, and people whose spouses smoke in the home face a higher risk than that of people whose spouses do not smoke at home. In studies of ETS in the workplace, exposures are often even greater than exposure at home from spousal smoking.

While the EPA report focuses only on the respiratory health effects of involuntary smoking, there may be other health effects of concern as well. Recent studies suggest that ETS exposure also may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. In addition, a few studies link ETS exposure to types of cancer other than lung.

That's nice, but you don't address the fact that meta-analyses of many anti-smoking studies consistently show flawed experimental techniques.

FYI http://www.forces.org/evidence/papers/pdf/reprint.pdf

The EPA stats you are pointing to are exactly what was shown to be bunk.

Barvybe, to get into court, evidence has to be consistent with accepted scientific methods, the reason the evidence was thrown out was because it wasn't.

[msoprano]

Originally posted by sutogame

bartender and waiters know that they will work with smoking customers. If they dont like it they should get another job besides speaking from experience as a waiter smokers tip alot more than nonsmokers.

and being in the restaurant business for 12 year i can say that your statement is false with 100% confidence......

i think its a great law....im tired of people harming my lungs with out me getting anything out of it....if i wanna damage my body i can do it myself without coming home smelling like a damn cigarette

[msoprano]

Originally posted by Drunk

It won't work. The ban in California was pretty much ignored by most establishments. They're even planning to overturn it there.

where did this statement come from....owners have reported an increase in revenue since the law not a decrease.....

[digitaldan]

Originally posted by iliana

As far as smoking goes, I'm a social smoker and I like having a cig with my drink sometimes. I have a right to do that, just like I have a right to destroy my liver when i'm getting smashed at the bar. SO what's the difference? At the bar other people will inhale my cigarette smoke and die thirty years from now. Outside, I have the potential to kill someone when i drive home drunk.

Solution: Outlaw everything and we'll only get cancer through tap water and fried foods.

Sounds fucking good to me.

-iliana

that was the dumbest rambling i've ever heard... you're comparing non-smokers inhaling second hand smoke to being killed by a drunk driver? so you have the right to drive drunk? well said:rolleyes:

[brooklynkid]

Originally posted by digitaldan

that was the dumbest rambling i've ever heard... you're comparing non-smokers inhaling second hand smoke to being killed by a drunk driver? so you have the right to drive drunk? well said:rolleyes:

There's an entire day's worth of her ramblings if you read back a bit...

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by brooklynkid

There's an entire day's worth of her ramblings if you read back a bit...

The topic has been beaten to death. Let's agree to disagree.

[barvybe]

Originally posted by somebitch

yeah but the norm in our society is to eat it. everyone knows it leads to whatever & chooses to eat it & feed it to their children, who do not know the difference. people dont really choose to eat meat, it is seen as normal so in reality they dont make much of a choice nor are they educated of the repercussions of eating it.

i dont eat meat. i go to certain places because i know they have foods i can eat.

people change based on their lifestyle.

if you dont smoke you can choose to go to places where there is no smoking...

This is assinine: if restaurants ONLY served meat this would be a valid argument. However, unless you go to a reataurant that specializes in meat (and even then you can usually get something else like a great salad, spinach or potatos - like at steak houses) you are not FORCED to eat meat at any restaurant and you can still go out and get a good meal and hang out with people.

The point is that if you go where there is no smoking you aren't going out to bars anymore.

And about meat eating:

OK - lets talk genetics for a second:

1. humans are omnivorous - we are designed to be. Its our natural diet.

2. humans have meat eating / cutting teeth

don't tell me people aren't supposed to eat meat

3. there are studies that show that too much of anything is bad for you.

4. there is a high propensity to malnutrition and obesity in people who are vegetarians (specifically those that are true vegies and don't eat fish either) as MANY of them eat too much white processed flours, pasta and sugars.

5. the FDA is wrong about the food pyramid: there are good fats and meat within reason is good for you for a number of reasons (protiens, red blood cell production, etc.). Eating too much meat or very high in fat meat (like fast food) is bad for you). A "healthy" diet excludes bad fats and includes good ones (like those found in dairy and fish) and excludes processed flour and simple sugars while including complex sugars and fibers (like whole grains).

and none of this has anything to do with smoking.

[roha3000]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

. . Some things I've been able to cull from this convo . . .

Smoking should be allowed everywhere, even in the neo natal ward of hospitals
Driving on the Sidewalk in Mid and Downtown should be allowed at high speed
We need another tunnel connecting Jersey with Manhattan like I need a superfluous ballsack
Smoking really is that cool
Smoking Rules!
I Rule!
Freeballin is only for Fridaaaayzzz! Yeeaaah Boyee!
Ninjas are totally Sweet!
I Rule! ( I had to say it again)
I like small Fluffy dogs!
Masturbating at work is fun
Not in front of co-workers though . . tsk tsk! . .
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?
I think having a squirell for a housepet would be theraputic
I'm legally Insane!
What?
I dunno
[/list=1]

This is one of the funniest posts I have read in a loooooooooooong time. Thanks for the laugh Mike.

[barvybe]

Originally posted by GrammarPolice

Barvybe, to get into court, evidence has to be consistent with accepted scientific methods, the reason the evidence was thrown out was because it wasn't.

of course...that doesn't mean that its wrong though....it took many years to get cigarette legislation going but its a FACT that smoking has been bad for you all along.

people couldn't PROVE that the world was round or that flies didn't spontaneously generate for a long time either. if you really think that breathing smoke is good for you then you're retarded.

this question is about people feeling that they shouldn't be forced to do something - whether we can legislate personal habits. Its NOT about whether smoking is good or bad for you.

there are few habits that intrude on others as much as smoking in a bar does to non smokers. you can chew gum, drink, snort coke, shoot up, or whatever without causing ME to experience side or secondary effects of your habits. when you smoke i do. end of story.

now again, i don't mind smoke in bars, and i sometimes smoke myself while out. but you all sound like Phillip Morris did when fighting the surgeon general's warnings. get real.

[aljedynak]

I think the smoking ban would be great. I would love to come out of a club/bar and not reek of stale smoke.

[GrammarPolice]

Originally posted by barvybe

this question is about people feeling that they shouldn't be forced to do something - whether we can legislate personal habits. Its NOT about whether smoking is good or bad for you.

Now that's a baseless statement. OF COURSE it's about whether secondhand smoke is bad for you. I guess you haven't watched the news and heard Bloomberg's reason's as to why he wants to institute a ban. If there is no persuasive evidence that secondhand smoke has deleterious consequences, then there would be no need to ban it.

Your comments about the world being round etc. are just foolish. This isn't 100 AD now. We have progressed beyond that. First, in the early days of cigarette smoking, not many studies were done on smoking's effects. Second, experimental techniques were not on par with what we have today.

The fact is, there have been MANY studies done on the effects of second hand smoke, and scientists have failed to make a strong case for the anti-secondhand smoke side.

Who ever said anything about secondhand smoking being GOOD for anyone--I didn't. I'm arguing that based on the evidence, there's no evidence that it's BAD for you. You breathe in Argon gas every time you inhale. Is it good for you? No. Is it BAD for you? NO!

As for snorting coke, shooting up etc., as someone already stated, the costs of such activities aren't readily apparent. Increased health care costs and the costs of illegal drug interdiction affect YOU. Not just in terms of tax dollars, but also in terms of increased crime associated with illegal drugs. So don't give me that bullshit that those activities don't affect you, because they do.

[barvybe]

if you really believe that second hand smoke isn't bad for you just cause they don't have "hard" evidence then you an imbecile. do you think carbon monoxide is good for you? how about tree smoke? how about any smoke? any particals of substantial size are bad for your lungs. don't be an idiot. and even if the particles aren't in large enough QUANTITIES to be definitively linked to cancer (since we do know that in large quantities they are) you can't argue that they aren't irritating to people's eyes, throats etc. much as and air pollution or any smoke is. there is plenty of evidence that its deleterious to people's respiratory systems,causes asthma attacks, etc. the only debatable quesiton is whether it is cancer causing in the quantities found in bars.

do you know why you cough? its to remove irratants - in other words things that shouldn't be in your lungs and throat. non-smokers get this type of cough all the time after going to a bar. guess what? its from inhaling 2nd hand smoke.

as for your statements about the other drugs - as usual you are missing the point. cigarettes also have extremely high insurance costs for everyone. the point is that someone snorting coke 2 seats down doesn't directly affect your health. nor does someone dropping or drinking. you are talking about social costs. we're talking about health risks. try staying on topic. if you wanna open that can then i'm sure you're aware that cigarettes are the largest insurance burden of all substances.

and as for it not being 100 AD, what do you think people are gonna say 200 years from now about this? how about, "duh, its not 2000 anymore."

next....

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by digitaldan

that was the dumbest rambling i've ever heard... you're comparing non-smokers inhaling second hand smoke to being killed by a drunk driver? so you have the right to drive drunk? well said:rolleyes:

Hey asshole, since you failed to get my fucking point, I was pointing out how second hand cigarette smoke should be the LEAST of a person's concerns when they go out. I'd rather be stuck in a cigar bar than in a non-smoking frat house where drunk assholes can get out of hand and REALLY PUT SOMEONE'S LIFE IN DANGER.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!!

-iliana

[barvybe]

iliana - please try and make a relavent point

if you choose to go to frat parties or bars where you're likely to get beat up that's your choice. there are plenty of bars that aren't like that. you can avoid them and still go to 95% of the bars / clubs in the city. (so you have a choice)

however, 0% of the bars and clubs in the city offer a smoke free environment. (no choice)

try and stay on topic honey

you remember the SAT? that had that analogy section hon

[Twilo Beauty]

Originally posted by barvybe

if you really believe that second hand smoke isn't bad for you just cause they don't have "hard" evidence then you an imbecile. do you think carbon monoxide is good for you?

So what? You're going on other people's ASSUMPTIONS? That's real smart. Evidence is a prerequisite to truth, no? Now who's the fucking imbecile?

How about tree smoke? how about any smoke? any particals of substantial size are bad for your lungs. don't be an idiot. and even if the particles aren't in large enough QUANTITIES to be definitively linked to cancer (since we do know that in large quantities they are) you can't argue that they aren't irritating to people's eyes, throats etc. much as and air pollution or any smoke is. there is plenty of evidence that its deleterious to people's respiratory systems,causes asthma attacks, etc. the only debatable quesiton is whether it is cancer causing in the quantities found in bars.

In that case let's outlaw trucks and power plants, because they ALL IRRIATATE MY THROAT AND EYES. And powerplants can cause cancer with their toxic fumes. AS I STATED BEFORE, LET'S OUTLAW EVERYTHING TO ACCOMODATE CRYBABY'S LIKE YOURSELF.

as for your statements about the other drugs - as usual you are missing the point. cigarettes also have extremely high insurance costs for everyone. the point is that someone snorting coke 2 seats down doesn't directly affect your health. nor does someone dropping or drinking. you are talking about social costs. we're talking about health risks. try staying on topic. if you wanna open that can then i'm sure you're aware that cigarettes are the largest insurance burden of all substances.

So which is worse? Social costs or health risks? To put emphasise on one over the other is to provide a disservice to yourself and your overall future. To preach about the ill affects on second hand smoke and then to deny that other people's drug use will affect society as horribly as smoking is VERY SHORTSIGHTED.

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES.

-iliana