4 those of u who support the smoking ban, please read

[Felix_Leiter]

taking from www.houseofdiabolique.com

Join us as we thrust into house music..

I keep getting email about Iraq. Please know that I am bored of your protests. There is no anti-war argument that I haven't considered and there is nothing I cannot refute. I have become convinced that for many of you, logic simply does not exist. So let me move onto another controversial topic that I've spoken about: the smoking ban (1, 2).

Some of you misunderstood my position. The smoking ban is certainly convenient; it is nice to leave a bar or club and not smell of smoke. But the point of my invective was that whether smoking is allowed or not should be up to business owners. The anti-smoking lobby should have pointed their efforts in that direction. When the government makes up lies about false "cancer-causing" effects of second hand smoke in order to pass laws governing the private behavior of consenting adults on private property, it sets a dangerous precedent, it is wrong, and it is fascist.

Furthermore, the smoking ban, unlike any other law, is written so that property owners are punished when people on their property break the law. This unfairly forces property owners to enforce the law, putting the lives of property owners and their employees, all private citizens, at risk.

Evidence? Just last week, a group of agitated smokers at Guernica murdered a bouncer who had asked them to smoke outside.

The argument that the job of a bouncer is dangerous anyway because they're there to stop fights and eject rowdy patrons, smoking or not, is irrelevant. For one thing, it is always in a bar's interest to eject rowdy patrons; after all, they could potentially harm other customers or damage property. A cigarette smoker does neither of those things. Secondly, if a bar fight gets too severe a bar can call the police to intervene. A bar cannot call the police to simply eject a smoker because then the bar itself could get punished! (As if the police don't have better things to do anyway in post 9/11 New York than eject smokers from bars and clubs.)

The job of a bouncer is dangerous enough. Does it need to be made even more dangerous? Enforcing law is the job of the police. When private citizens with no real authority have to do it, trouble follows.

As the NY Times reported:

" 'Of course the smoking ban has the potential for violence,' said Blake Webster, a manager at Tortilla Flats, a Mexican restaurant at Washington and West 12th Streets in the West Village. 'It's another thing you have to tell extremely inebriated people to do.'

More problematic, he added, was babysitting sidewalk smokers outside so that they do not become a neighborhood nuisance."

When someone parks illegally in front of a church, does the church get shut down? Does the church pay a fine? Is it the church's responsibility to have the car towed away? Of course not. So why is it a club's responsibility to eject smokers? Why are bars and clubs punished when people smoke? Why do so many of you support this anti-nightlife nonsense?

"To put it bluntly, the owner of the property should be able to determine - for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all - whether to admit smokers, nonsmokers, neither, or both. Customers or employees who object may go elsewhere. They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed. By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government violates his rights."

- Robert Levy, the Cato Institute

In my initial smoking ban update, I warned of one of the dangerous precedents the smoking ban - and its punishment of property owners - would set:

"If someone does E in my apartment without me knowing and OD’s, do I then become culpable? Is this on the horizon?"

I had no idea that this would happen so soon, but it has. The newly passed Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (colloquially known as the "Rave Act") makes it so.

If someone does drugs without you knowing at a gathering in your apartment, the Rave Act makes you responsible for it. Even if you frisk everyone entering your apartment and post up big signs asking people not to use drugs in your home, it doesn't matter. If someone takes drugs and ODs in your bathroom, the Rave Act makes you responsible for their death. Even if someone is caught toking off their own joint in your home you could face up to 20 years in prison and $500,000 in fines.

The Rave Act also makes it a crime to house medical marijuana users, thereby putting landlords in danger if any of their tenants are AIDS or cancer patients who use marijuana to ease their suffering.

The government can't even keep drugs out of prisons, and yet clubowners, party promoters, landlords and now even you are responsible for making sure that no one on your premises has or uses any drugs.

In my original smoking ban update I also made the connection between the smoking ban and sodomy laws in reference to the private property issue:

"Gay sex is illegal in Texas, even on private property. This is not a dormant law. In 1998 two men were arrested in Texas for doing just that...

It is all connected. You're either for personal liberty or you're not.."

Many saw that connection as a stretch. But is it? The Supreme Court just heard that case and here are the scariest moments from the hearing:

Paul Smith, lawyer for the defendants: "It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples cannot be regulated in their private sexual decisions..."

Justice Antonin Scalia: "They may have conceded it. But I haven't."

In another exchange, District Attorney Charles A. Rosenthal Jr. said that Texas “has a right to set moral standards.. for its people.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer responded with: "Could they say, for example, it is against the law at the dinner table to tell really serious lies to your family?"

District Attorney Rosenthal: "Yes, they can make that a law."

This, in the United States Supreme Court. It's an outrage.

These issues are connected. Smoking bans set the legal precedent that helped lead to the Rave Act's passage in two ways. First, by giving the government control over private consensual behavior on private property, and next by giving the government the power to punish property owners for transgressions committed by persons other than themselves on their property.

Smoking bans also sent the message to conservative lawmakers that nightlife denizens were generally so ignorant and apolitical that virtually anything could be slipped by them.

Finally, both the smoking ban and the Rave Act lend credence to those defending sodomy law, i.e. government's "right" to regulate private (in this case, sexual) behavior on, you guessed it, private property.

"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire."

- Senator Rick Santorum, frightening the hell out of anyone who believes in freedom.

These laws are about the government telling us what to do, how to behave ourselves and how to have fun, even when we are not harming anyone in the privacy of our own homes.

Those of you who support the smoking ban tacitly lend support to even more dangerous laws. If you don't see this then you must also dispute that 1+1=2.

Let me rephrase something Benjamin Franklin once said: Those who sacrifice freedom for convenience deserve neither.

"A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

- Alexander Hamilton

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected, [and therefore] no man is safe in his opinions."

- James Madison

"No other rights are safe where property is not safe."

- John Adams

I am not real. My skin is silicone and the eyes, pure plastic. Hair of wire and a body of foam; a paper snowflake where my heart would be. My consciousness exists only to explain acts that I have already taken.

What of you? Where is the free will you claim to have? Have you given it away?

If I shout at a wall, does it bend? Are you just as inanimate? If I grow old and die screaming in an empty room, will anything have changed?

Let me put it simply: if you value your freedom to go clubbing, and yet still support the smoking ban, then you're a shortsighted, stupid fool.

'Prohibition Groove' by Prohibition

If I were Southern, I'd be ornery. If I were old, I'd be a curmudgeon. But as it stands now, I am simply a bitch.

Better that than stupid.

until next week, remember..

when you dance, we are a part of what you feel.

[Felix_Leiter]

some more

Join us as we thrust into house music..

I am not a smoker but I am virulently opposed to New York City's smoking ban. People are no longer allowed to smoke in restaurants, bars or clubs. This is yet another example of the government intruding into our personal lives. It is a disgrace.

Granted, I have radical views on drugs, of which tobacco is one. I believe that all drugs should not only be legal but free (for me at least). Yet the smoking ban is an issue that should rile even the most conservative of thinkers. Why doesn't it?

Normally intelligent people actually support the smoking ban. They believe that second hand smoke is dangerous. They believe this because the anti-smoking lobby and the media perpetuate this myth.

Many people watch news stories and believe whatever propaganda is thrown at them. I, however, have an advanced sense of humor, beauty and skepticism, a skepticism that I apply to everything. The internet is essential in this regard because critical research can be done at will. To be skeptical about everything, even things you believe in (perhaps especially), is wise.

Information is at once easier to get than ever - because of the internet - and harder, because mass media and news outlets are increasingly censored by the conglomerates that own them. One must actively seek out the truth.

Bloomberg loves to talk about the thousands of waiters, waitresses, and bartenders' lives the new law will save, but the danger of second hand smoke is infinitesimally small, if it exists at all.

Quite simply, there is no valid statistic that shows a link between second hand smoke and cancer, illness or death. The one most often quoted comes from a 1992 EPA report which reported 50000 deaths a year due to second-hand smoke. This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, yet the raw data of this study was never released or independently verified.

An activist named Gian Turci made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details on the study and all he got back were blank, crossed out and censored pages. In Mr. Turci's words: "If the mountain of evidence is so real, why are the scientific community and the public denied the possibility of verification?"

Indeed. In 1998 the American Cancer Society finally retracted this statistic, stating in a press release: "The American Cancer Society will no longer use.. the statistic because we too have been unable to acquire the documentation to support this citation."

In other words, it was a lie.

If you repeat something often enough, especially in this anti-scientific world, people will believe it.

RSP or "Respirable suspended particulate matter" is the crap, or amount of pollutants, in the air. Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules state that a workplace must have a RSP rating of 5000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours in order to be considered officially dangerous to workers.

A Department of Energy study in 1999 found that the average RSP level in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking to be only 67 or 135 micrograms, respectively. In 2000, the Oak Ridge national laboratory, a part of the Dept of Energy, found RSP ratings of just 9.41 and 14.9. In 1993 the American Medical Association found 117 or 348 micrograms, the highest of the bunch and yet still far below the OSHA minimum danger rating of 5000.

I'm not selectively giving you statistics that suit my position. When I first heard Bloomberg speak on the issue, he seemed to make sense. If second hand smoke is harmful to workers, then indeed it ought to be banned. But it isn't.

My position is based on the facts; facts are not bent to the will of my position. In 1998, the World Health Organization concluded flatly there there is no link between second hand smoke and cancer, and that in fact, second hand smoke could actually have a protective effect against cancer.

There are plenty of other independent sources out there about the true effects of second hand smoke:

Regulation - The Cato Institute

The British Medical Journal

International Journal of Cancer

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Independent Public & Health Policy Research Group

UK News

The Cato Institute

On the other hand, anti-smoking webpages, like anti-drug webpages, are often quite simplistic and lacking in any kind of scientific basis. This one suggests the anti-drug parody I once posted!

The other day I argued with a friend who insisted that second hand smoke was dangerous and that I was wrong, even while acknowledging that she had never known me to be wrong before.

"How do you know its dangerous?" I asked.

"It was on the news. Its everywhere!" my friend said.

The news should not be mistaken for fact. Again, every scientific study has reached the same conclusion: that there is no statistically significant increased health risk for non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke, at home or in the workplace.

Some quotes:

"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."

World Health Organization, March 1998

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."

London Telegraph, 1999

"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."

- Brownson et. al.

American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11

"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."

- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990

"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."

- Kalandidi et al.

Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990

"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."

Steenland et al.

Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996

"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."

- Stockwell et al.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992

"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."

Zaridze et al., 1998

International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338

How is it that the media can be so wrong about the dangers of second hand smoke? They're wrong about many things and perpetuate many myths. Remember the story about razors hidden in Halloween candy? It never happened. Do you think school shootings increased during the 90s? They decreased.

The media, especially the television media, is out to get ratings, and ratings come from spreading fear and hysteria regardless of the truth. None of the dry, scientific reports I quoted above would make for thrilling television. Heaven forbid anyone do actual research or reporting.

The media's continued rejection of scientific findings is nothing more than political correctness gone awry as they deliberately suppress data which fails to support their own "politically correct" beliefs.

What is the media wrong about that we don't know of? How much of their reporting is from reporting, and how much of it is hand-fed by propagandist lobbying machines? These are the questions everyone should ask.

The anti-smoking hysteria is as pervasive and seemingly unassailable as the anti-pot hysteria; bogus scientific claims and unsubstantiated rumors are spread by radically conservative organizations whose goal is to control our behavior.

Ironically, my aforementioned friend is an avid pot smoker and a regular visitor to Amsterdam's pot cafes.

"So I suppose then that you'd be supportive of a law banning pot smoking in Amsterdam's cafes because the pot smoke might bother some people there?"

"But that's different. Marijuana smoke doesn't cause cancer," my former friend said.

Arrgh!

It is impossible to argue logically with people who are flatly incapable of logical thought. Scientific studies show that second-hand smoke has no cancer-causing effects. There is not a single scientific study to support that it does. I say this as someone who does not smoke and has had cancer. Do we live in a world entirely devoid of reason? Not yet anyway.. the House of Diabolique is still here.

Lets say you believe the conclusions of science; you understand that second-hand smoke is not harmful enough to merit a ban, and yet you still want it banned because second hand smoke simply bothers you. You don't like the smell.

I say to you this:

It is fine for a community to ban smoking in public spaces for that reason, but what right does the government have to tell people how to behave on their private property? If I own a bar or a club, isn't it my prerogative to smoke there if I want to, just like I can at home? Furthermore, I should have the right to determine if others can smoke there or not. Its MY property; and if I want to risk the social stigma attached to owning a smoke-filled bar or club, it is my right to do so.

Do you find smoking annoying? Then don't go to crowded, overly smoky bars. Find a bar with better ventilation than the others. Go to a health-conscious cafe. Or, go to a cavernous venue like Sound Factory or Roxy, where ambient smoke can hardly even be smelled let alone considered harmful. I don't like rock music and no one is forcing me to go to CBGBs. I don't particularly like lesbians, either, but when I go to a lesbian bar I grin and bear it. (That's a joke in case you're humor challenged.)

So what about the workplace? The workplace is normally private property, and so it should be up to your employer whether smoking is allowed or not. In a free world, most employers would probably not allow smoking in deference to those who are bothered by the smell. This is their right. Those who did allow smoking would probably choose to have smoking areas; and besides that, the smokers I know are actually very mindful of the needs of their co-workers and wouldn't be blowing it in their face. Leaving the office for a cigarette break is often a delight for these people.

The anti-smoking lobby is right to bring the past misdeeds of the tobacco industry to light. I am certainly no fan of big tobacco. Their crimes are the main reason smokers are in such a weak position. Smokers have no liberal defenders because liberals can't fathom the idea of siding with tobacco, despite the fact that smokers should have the right to smoke on private property regardless of the tobacco industry's misdeeds.

The tobacco industry itself can offer no help; it has been bitchslapped into a coma by the government. Indeed, they ought to be so regulated that we know what color underwear the CEO is wearing.

The anti-smoking lobby is right to point out the ill-effects of smoking cigarettes. Smoking cigarettes greatly increases your chances of dying a long, slow, painful death. But they are VERY wrong to exaggerate and lie about the dangers of second hand smoke and to harass those adults who choose to smoke anyway.

They lie to move government control of our lives forward. Inch by inch they grab what they can so that the next step doesn't seem so harsh. Will surveillance cameras be forced into clubs and other private properties next? Will the bars be forced to close at 2am? How will the drug laws ever be relaxed if people can't even smoke cigarettes? We're not even allowed to dance in some establishments!

Anti-smoking advocates are less interested in public health and more interested in social control. This is fascism and they are health Nazis.

Interestingly, it is the Nazis who first attacked a person's choice to smoke. In the fascinating book Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis , Robert N. Proctor notes that Gerhard Wagner, head of the Nazi medical plan, constantly complained about smokers and cigarette advertising. Nazi health officials believed that personal health was essential to German nationalism, and that according to Nazi philosophy, "the good of the whole comes before the good of the individual."

Hitler desired "a secure and sanitary utopia...a smoke-free Germany" and ordered cigarettes airbrushed out of photos that appeared in Third Reich publications. The Nazis instituted draconian rules against smoking in many places and began to ration cigarettes, close tobacco shops and force people to quit. (Interestingly, smoking among Germans increased 50% during this time while remaining steady in bordering France, who had no such rules and respected its citizens right to choose to smoke.)

Does that sound familiar? Ridiculously high taxes, warning labels, smoking bans on private property, attacks on advertising. All familiar.

Is our government going to start arresting parents who smoke at home in front of their children? How much longer until emboldened anti-smoking propagandists falsely label this child abuse? Save the children!

Again, scientific studies give us the truth. The International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 1998 that there is "no association between childhood exposure to environmental smoke and lung cancer risk."

If an offensive smell is the only justification to ban smoking, then why not ban cologne? I know the guys in Jersey love to wear it, but I hate the smell. Can we ban that from their nightclubs? I hate the smell of farting. Should we ban beans?

Many people find gay sex offensive. I would guess that two men kissing in a bar would bother many straight people all across the south. Should gay kissing, then, be banned? Gay sex is illegal in Texas, even on private property. This is not a dormant law. In 1998 two men were arrested in Texas for doing just that.

It is all connected. You're either for personal liberty or you're not. I am, and I take a stand whenever personal liberties are threatened whether they involve me or not.

Personally, I find smoking filthy. I'm also appalled by some forms of abortion. But I support the right of pregnant women to decide what's right for them, and likewise for smokers.

The government should not be allowed to spread lies in order to control our behavior. It is a sovereign right for adults in a free society to think for themselves about what actions they will or will not take when the course of such actions can harm no one but themselves. Think. Freedom .

The pseudoscience behind the smoking ban is an insult to my intelligence, the ban itself is a disgrace to all who love liberty, and those who support it are either ignorant, selfish or just plain stupid.

The House of Diabolique.

Better fierceness through rationality.

[sexxyh]

wow!.........

[dirtyepic18]

damn good articles... i just wish the people we elected to government positions were this rational.

[crobra]

Interesting perspective, but the logic is a bit flawed.

The reference to the bouncer getting killed, first and foremost, if you want to blame the ban, then you are stating that nicotine addiction is so strong that it creates the situation that someone will murder to smoke. Therefore, smoking should be made illegal all together, because the drug addiction is strong people will kill for it.

Then the whole statement about private businesses should not be enforcing laws or telling people not to smoke. That logic can be applied to any law, like drug use or assualt or whatever. Saying that private businesses should not have to enforce one law, states that they dont have to enforce any law.

I also notice quotes from a medical journal where the word "passive smoking" is used to describe the effect it has on people. What exactly is meant by passive or what are the parameters of the testing. The quotes are just random and there are no links to the overall study.

To state that everything stated by one organization or group is propaganda can be said for the other. There are random quotes to the article and no empirical data refuting any claims, the writer just statest its a lie and the compares it to facism.

That sounds like a facist move itself, claim the opposition is lying and then point to something that generally scares most people (i.e. hilter or nazism). They have done this smoking ban in CA without invading Poland, so the basis of wide spread nazism is a bit misleading.

Truth be told, smoking does effect the people around you. Does it cause cancer or any thing else? That can be debated. But the fact is that everytime you light up in a closed space, you are effecting the people around.

I know when I used to leave a club my throat was always scratchy and had some congetsion from the smoke. What does that mean medically? I dont know, but I am sure it's not good for you.

[dgmodel]

well written articles...

[barslut]

no way in hell im reading all that shit.

[Felix_Leiter]

Originally posted by crobra

Interesting perspective, but the logic is a bit flawed.

The reference to the bouncer getting killed, first and foremost, if you want to blame the ban, then you are stating that nicotine addiction is so strong that it creates the situation that someone will murder to smoke. Therefore, smoking should be made illegal all together, because the drug addiction is strong people will kill for it.

Then the whole statement about private businesses should not be enforcing laws or telling people not to smoke. That logic can be applied to any law, like drug use or assualt or whatever. Saying that private businesses should not have to enforce one law, states that they dont have to enforce any law.

I also notice quotes from a medical journal where the word "passive smoking" is used to describe the effect it has on people. What exactly is meant by passive or what are the parameters of the testing. The quotes are just random and there are no links to the overall study.

To state that everything stated by one organization or group is propaganda can be said for the other. There are random quotes to the article and no empirical data refuting any claims, the writer just statest its a lie and the compares it to facism.

That sounds like a facist move itself, claim the opposition is lying and then point to something that generally scares most people (i.e. hilter or nazism). They have done this smoking ban in CA without invading Poland, so the basis of wide spread nazism is a bit misleading.

Truth be told, smoking does effect the people around you. Does it cause cancer or any thing else? That can be debated. But the fact is that everytime you light up in a closed space, you are effecting the people around.

I know when I used to leave a club my throat was always scratchy and had some congetsion from the smoke. What does that mean medically? I dont know, but I am sure it's not good for you.

links??

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3c.html

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7232/417

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/ijc1.htm

http://193.78.190.200/2/11/jnci.htm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/passmok2.htm

http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html

[barvybe]

Those articles are very poorly written and make pretty specious arguments. The quotes are completely out of context and meaningless except to say that:

1. Judge Scalia is now, and has always been, an asshole. And yeah, sure they could pass a law saying anything they want. Whether it would in turn hold up in court is the issue. Plenty of laws have been thrown out.

2. The reports you or your sources decided to quote say that ETS smoke isn't harmful....there are plenty of studies, particularly recently that say otherwise (there was a long thread about this back in the early spring) and no one has said that increased particulate matter (like smoke) is good for anyone's lungs. The internation medical community now gererally agrees that ETS smoke is not good for you and is a class A carcinogen, and actually has a higher percentage of cancer causing agents then the smoke that smokers breath (because ETS is largely the idle smoke emenating from lit cigarettes sitting in the ash tray and burns at a lower temperature.)

3. The ban is a workplace ban, not a nightlife ban. Its the same as the ban in your office building (which is also private property btw).

4. common sense tells us that breathing in smoke, the same smoke that does cause cancer in smokers, has to be bad for you - don't try and fall back on scientific proof etc. cause people really sound idiotic when they say "you can't PROVE that smoke is bad for you".

5. This quote: "The news should not be mistaken for fact. Again, every scientific study has reached the same conclusion: that there is no statistically significant increased health risk for non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke, at home or in the workplace." is a lie. go find the thread from when the ban was first being discussed and do some more research.

-- i should point out that it wasn't "proven" that smoking caused cancer for years also - however we all knew it wasn't good for you. Do you need to have a study telling you things to have common sense? If the answers yes, your lucky then cause the outdated studies you cited are being replaced by more current studies with longer track records of ETS, respiratory distress, etc. Go read them.

6. The Guernica incident - you should be embarrassed to quote it since its unclear what happened and clearly anyone who is going to kill someone because they are asked to put out a cigarette is deranged - blaming that on smoking bans is silly.

7. The RAVE act and the smoking ban are very different. In fact, I believe that the RAVE act in its current form requires the owner to have knowledge of the illegal use of the facility and even, perhaps, knowledge that the activity is part of the expressed usage of the group of people attending the event...in other words, they are NOT held responsible for the type of activity you mention.

8. the church parking thing is laughable too - the church doesn't own the street in front of the church. If on the other hand they fail to shovel the sidewalk in front of the church and someone falls and gets hurt, then YES the church is responsible.

9. Given the fact that we all subsidize the health care system, it is absolutely within the rights of the public at large to impose laws that protect the health of most people due to 2nd hand smoke or any other avoidable hazard. In fact, if you want to talk about fair - smokers should pay 5 (random) times the health care premiums as non smokers since they make up such a large percentage of the heart disearch and cancer patients in our system. Maybe health care would be affordable for non-smokers if smokers paid their fair share - particularly since they are voluntarily partaking in a destructive activity that is destructive not because there is a greater chance of having an accident, but because the activity itself is directly responsible for downgrading your health...

just a thought of course

[dgmodel]

Originally posted by barvybe

3. The ban is a workplace ban, not a nightlife ban. Its the same as the ban in your office building (which is also private property btw).

however in myold office (not sure if others are like this as well) we had a smoking room... its a glass room, fish tanks, vents/smokeeaters...

[Felix_Leiter]

Originally posted by barvybe

2. The reports you or your sources decided to quote say that ETS smoke isn't harmful....there are plenty of studies, particularly recently that say otherwise (there was a long thread about this back in the early spring) and no one has said that increased particulate matter (like smoke) is good for anyone's lungs. The internation medical community now gererally agrees that ETS smoke is not good for you and is a class A carcinogen, and actually has a higher percentage of cancer causing agents then the smoke that smokers breath (because ETS is largely the idle smoke emenating from lit cigarettes sitting in the ash tray and burns at a lower temperature.)

links please.

and in regards to it being a workplace ban....thats just an excuse to make it a nightlife ban

[stacychase]

Well put Pete.

We could debate this to death, however who has the time.

Steph

[crobra]

For many many many years the Tobacco industry has claimed and pointed to studies stating that smoking doesn’t cause cancer and is not addictive. Then, in the 90's that report came that they themselves did research in the early sixties and knew of the ill effects of smoking. They covered it for 30 years with bogus studies which they funded and now they are doing the same with second hand smoke.

I have more faith in the anit-smoking lobby than I do in the Tobacco lobby. We are talking about companies that drag their feet for decades to admit things like:

Women should not smoke when pregnant.

Nicotine is addictive.

Smoking causes cancer.

I have read these articles in the late 80's and early 90's claiming that the link to smoking and cancer is bogus, attacking the anit-smoking lobby the same way.

But what do they say now?

They will it say again about second hand smoke in 20years or so!!

[acura]

Smoke outside and poison yourself.

[dgmodel]

drink inside and poison yourself...

[tonyc]

wow. i actually didn't smell like shit after clubbin last nite. and my my eyes weren't burning. hallelujah! maybe NYC CAN be as cool as LA.

go bloomberg!

[dgmodel]

for LA to be as "Cool" as NYC, we'd all have to move there...

[barvybe]

Originally posted by smokesum

links please.

Just do a search on ETS, smoking legislation, and 2nd hand smoking lawsuits and look for articles and cases since 2001. Yes there are also once that say its not harmful, etc., but Crobra is right on. I'm sure Phillip Morris has already induced cancer in hundreds of rats and is just sitting on the results...

What is NOT debatable at all is that ETS has higher carcinogen levels than smoke caused by fully burned tobacco...the only question is whether the amount of smoke in the air is harmful - or rather if its measurably harmful for short term exposure.

But to me that's like saying tanning beds or the sun aren't bad for your skin so long as you don't spend *too much* time under them.

Oh, and...

HI STEPH!

MUAAAH!

[acura]

Originally posted by dgmodel

drink inside and poison yourself...

[Felix_Leiter]

Originally posted by barvybe

the only question is whether the amount of smoke in the air is harmful - or rather if its measurably harmful for short term exposure.

!

exactly..theres no valid proof out there

[barvybe]

there's plenty - specifically about how it causes respratory distress in people exposed to it on a regular basis. look up studies about children and ETS from mothers who smoke for example.

What there isn't LOTS of "proof" for yet is whether bar workers are more likely to get cancer or not. This is because of a number of reasons including:

1. bar workers are largely transitory - meaning that they don't hold jobs for long enough to make it easy for them to be kept track of in a multi-year study.

2. they just didn't start running studies on it until recently.

HOWEVER, once again, you have to be dumb to think that any amount of carcinogen isn't bad for you....

if you need *proof* then i'd say give me *proof* that third trimester abortions are killing "humans" or "causing pain" or let's go back to the 80's an lets "prove" that AID's isnt' a gay's only disease. Just cause the studies are in and concluded yet doesn't mean you should blind yourself to common sense reasoning.