New version of Toledo Talk


    November 9, 2006

Who's tired of paying for other peoples bad decisions? - So now we cant smoke in public. So tell me if Im getting this straight: Smoking is LEGAL - we just arent allowed to do it.

Then you have your folks that think it's a great idea to regulate what's sold in restaurants and grocerys - Fatty food would still be legal, we just couldnt buy it. Is that what you guys want?

Should we then step into other areas where we pay for the bad decisions of others? What about alcohol rehab centers? We tried prohibition - lets give that another go round, what say??

Then lets look at welfare - Shall we make it illegal to drop out of high school so the tax payers wont have to support your ass later on when you cant?

Same goes for baby momma's - how about we cut funding for them, since they decided to crunch out umpteen kids with umpteen different last names - why do they need to eat??

Or is it just certain pet atrocities that we want the government to ban?

Or is it - that the welfare folk and the baby momma's cast just too many votes to mess with them?

posted by billy to culture at 6:25 A.M. EST     (278 Comments)


Comments ...


Same goes for baby momma's - how about we cut funding for them, since they decided to crunch out umpteen kids with umpteen different last names - why do they need to eat??

Gosh, Billy, are you still angry at the Democratic sweep from Tuesday? Relax, take a walk on this nice day. Get some fresh air in your lungs. You'll also need to keep your blood pressure down if you want to stay healthy.

posted by politics_in_mudville at 09:05 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



You can still smoke all you want.

Your fatty foods hurt you. Your second-hand smoke hurts me.

posted by joshw at 09:28 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Who's tired of paying for other peoples bad decisions?

How about that $2 TRILLION we're wasting in Iraq?

I did call the Whaaaaaaambulance! people for you since you seem to be having a violently hypocritical reaction, but I couldn't speak with a live person (the system told me the hold time was 10 hours), so I used the automatic system to request they send a Whaaaaaaaaambulance! out to your house... you're #3,586,342 in the queue. Gave them your MasterCard number too... got it from Wal-Mart's records... posed as a Fed and when they asked for a warrant, I pointed out that under the PATRIOT and other Acts, Feds don't need no stinkin' warrants. That was okay with you, yes?

posted by anonymouscoward at 09:36 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Sorry Coward, I guess I didnt make it more obvious that this post was really directed to people who pay taxes.
posted by billy at 10:21 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



"Your fatty foods hurt you. Your second-hand smoke hurts me."

Ahh, yes, the lame argument by the misinformed.

Fatty foods also hurt the people who don't eat such foods. In the wallet. Just like a smoker who never smokes in public, we all pay for those who eat too much junk food. Health care costs. So it does hurt you. You just haven't realized it yet.

From a January 2004 posting:

"Taxpayers foot the doctor's bill for more than half of obesity-related medical costs, which reached a total of $75 billion in 2003, according to a new study. The public pays about $39 billion a year - or about $175 per person - for obesity through Medicare and Medicaid programs, which cover sicknesses caused by obesity including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer and gallbladder disease. About 64 percent of adults in the United States are either overweight or obese."

I'm sure it's more than $175 per person now.

From another posting about obesity, which is the next great frontier for lawyers and the nanny police.

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate nearly two-thirds of all Americans are overweight; some 59 million are considered obese, at least 50 or more pounds over desirable weight. More than 15 percent of all children and adolescents are significantly overweight. Annual cost of diseases associated with obesity is $117 billion."

Among preventable deaths, obesity is second to tobacco. So let's have it. We need junk food bans and junk food sin-taxes. Only 20-30% of the public smokes, but a far greater percentage than that consumes junk food at least once week.

We need legislation to protect us from our junk food consumption. Everyone would be healthier, and we'd have more money due to lower health care costs. So how can you be against junk food bans and junk food sin-taxes?

Why not fund public schools with a junk food sin-tax?

Twinkie Tax ideas are out there. The AMA wants a Fat Tax on soda pop. We could learn from the French.

Yet, government seems to be protecting Big Fast Food from tobacco-like lawsuits. Why is that?

March 2004 posting:

"The Republican-held US House of Representatives today passed what is being called "the Cheeseburger Bill" by a 276-139 vote. The bill makes lawsuits that blame fast food chains for obesity illegal. Democrats say the bill is unnecessary."

Well, now that we have a Democrat-controlled Congress, maybe that will open the door for lawsuits against Big Fast Food. We can only hope, right? Think of the money Ohio could spend on whatever if we were part of a giant fast food settlement.

Big Macs should cost $5. I'm tired of my health care costs rising while my options decrease because too many knuckleheads cannot control their junk food consumption.

I'm energized by this week's passage of Issue 5. People, let's not allow this health-freak momentum to die. We need junk food controls, sin-taxes, and massive lawsuits.

January 2005 posting:

"An appeals court Tuesday revived part of a class-action lawsuit blaming McDonald's for making people fat, reinstating claims pertaining to deceptive advertising. The lawsuit alleges that tens of thousands of children have suffered obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and other health problems after being misled about McDonald's products."

Remember, the first several dozen lawsuits over 20 years ago against Big Tobacco were laughed out of court, but the lawyers kept coming, and well, everyone knows the rest of the story. And this story will replay itself in the junk food industry because of the big money involved and because we need protection against ourselves.

posted by jr at 10:33 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Oranges, meet Apples. Wow, I swear I introduced those crazy kids just yesterday.


ANY doctor will tell you they would rather have you be overweight than smoke.

We get it, you smoke, you’re mad. It’s over.

posted by Ampage at 10:41 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



The reflection of the sun off of the chrome on your car is going to give me skin cancer. You should not be allowed to drive a car with chrome on residential streets.
posted by MikeyA at 10:46 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



I would think that peoples' weight would be the next issue. It is a very expensive problem for the public at large - many of the obese people don't have health insurance so the entire cost of the medical care falls on the general public.

Just my thought - the easiest path to get this started would be weigh in's through the public school system for the safety of the children.

posted by katie82640 at 10:47 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Your car gives off more cancer causing agents then all the cigarettes you smoke in a year. But I will allow your car to be legal because I own one as well and no one has a right to limit my freedoms.

Also burning a flag gives off more toxins than a pack of cigarettes but it is healthy for my freedom of speech.

posted by MikeyA at 10:48 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Age and smoking are the two biggest reasons for health insurance to discriminate because they are the easiest to correlate not because of more noticable health effects. Overweight people give more excuses for being overweight than kids do for lieing. That's assuming that they actually admit they are overweight.

The most widely accepted way to determine if you are overweight is the Body Mass Index(BMI) but this is not widely used by insurance companies because the government accepts that this test is not accurate. For example, when Emmitt Smith was at the height of his professional career he was listed as overweight by the BMI despite having less then 10% bodyfat.

posted by MikeyA at 10:54 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



I just think if the people who live in this country don't recover the ability to hold civil discourse and start making decisions together with a desire to leave the world better than we found it - we're going to be at the mercy of the politicians, the special interest groups and lose our voice.

But then again, all we seem capable of doing to do WITH that voice is hurt each other anymore. So maybe it wouldn't be that big of a loss?

posted by katie82640 at 11:10 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



"We get it, you smoke ..."

I addressed your claim in another thread.

Question for you, genius, what makes you think I smoke? Find for me where I said I was a cigarette smoker. What possible flawed reasoning would you use to assume that because I'm opposed to smoking bans that I must be a smoker?

posted by jr at 11:29 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



jr - a person of reasonable intelligence would be able to see that these bans are not a good thing. To legislate freedom is their false sense of safety and importance.
posted by DoknowDocare at 11:40 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



I don't think it will do any good to be angry at them - at this time it IS giving them a sense of having accomplished something - and this legislation appealed to alot of people's sense of right and wrong. Again - I don't like blaming the victim - even if they can't understand the situation.

It won't be until a special interest group targets THEM that many will be able to comprehend what exactly it is that has been lost here.

posted by katie82640 at 11:44 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



So jr, just to get it right, you're against the smoking ban, but for legislation against fatty foods?
posted by billy at 11:45 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



There is a correlation between being overweight and poor health. Let's charge higher health insurance premiums to overweight people. The more overweight one is, the more should be the health care premium.
And perhaps, we should also charge airfares by a person's weight. After all the amount of fuel consumed is also correlated to the weight of the payload.
Also, I say we should pass a law prohibiting the use of perfumes and colognes in public. There are people who are allergic to some of those perfumes and colognes and/or are sensitive to them. Why should some people suffer because other inconsiderate people want to smell things up with scents that may even bring about an asthma attack? If you want to splash your body with smelly crap, do so in the privacy of your home all you want. I should not be forced to breathe your nonhuman aromas in public places.

posted by Beowulf at 12:12 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



So, do you anti-smoking ban folks also think that OSHA is a fascist organization that has no place in a free society? OSHA tells every business in the US how they must operate in order to provide a safe environment for workers. Is that concept antithetical to the American way of life?

I don't think that outright bans are a good proposition in general, but then, we ban murder, speeding, and other "things" that are harmful to others.

posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 12:22 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



OSHA has NEVER come out with any opinion AT ALL on smokers or smoking in any workplace. Which sort of shows you what a big lie it all is, eh? And for the life of me, I don't get why people can't tell when JR is being sarcastic or using dark humor. But he's right, it's coming next. Because they've been enabled.
posted by Darkseid at 12:31 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Actually, the fact that OSHA never banned smoking illustrates nothing. There are any number of reasons they did not do so (e.g. desire to avoid the invevitably unending legal challenges, to avoid stepping on the toes of Congress).
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 12:43 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



billy, I'm guessing JR is giving the reasoning the next wave of freedom suppressors will use to 'save' the American public. Where does it stop?
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 12:51 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



I guess it stops when all the special interest groups have been satisfied.

I don't know why I'm getting keyed up about it today. I guess it astounds me to see a monumental loss like this for personal liberties. In America of all places. I could at least understand it if this was a story out of Russia. Because I'd think - hey those people haven't had freedoms all that long - maybe they don't know you have to work to keep them.

And it's just something I can't believe people can't understand or see the devastating fallout this will ineveitably have on our way of life.

But the door is open, and I don't see how it will be closed - so what's the point in having the dialogue? I think I'll just sit back and wait until everybody who is so ok with this goes 'hey! Wait a minute - now I'm being targeted. Nobody said this could happen.'

But I'll be there to say - oh yeah - you knew. You knew that special interest groups were knocking on the door and saying can we come in?

But the people have spoken. The door is open.

posted by katie82640 at 01:04 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



So jr, just to get it right, you're against the smoking ban, but for legislation against fatty foods?

Billy: he was being sarcastic.

posted by McCaskey at 01:16 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Discussions like these make me disgusted.

Here is the basic foundation of why. If a government wants to ban smoking in public buildings for the sake of protecting the general public who needs to have access to that property that's fine. I'm all for it.

Yet, if a private business owner wants to have smoking which is legal in his business he or she should be allowed to do so. If he or she clearly marks that building as smoking or smoke free it is then up to you as a consumer to decide if you want to use that establishment. If there is a large market for totally non-smoking places? They will be built. If the owner loses money because no one wants to come to his or her smoke filled business? Then it would be up to him or her to either go out of business or change his business to reflect the market demands of the community.

That's the general basics that so many seem to miss...

posted by psyche777 at 01:22 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



katie - I do want to understand your perspective on this although I must admit that I'm a little reluctant to enter into the discussion . . . The government has long intervened on the operations of private business and "our way of life" has not collapsed. Legislation has been enacted about work place safety. There are also laws which prohibit businesses from utilizing child labor. There are also laws which prohibit businesses from discriminating. Why do you see this legislation as more risky than those?
posted by corky at 01:24 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



I never for the life of me never understood how having a smoking section or smoking lounge at work infringed on the health of nonsmokers.
posted by MikeyA at 01:25 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Corky - I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I did. Sadly I think that if you don't understand it on this issue you will surely come to understand it on one of the issues that is sure to follow.
posted by katie82640 at 01:43 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Seriously Katie -- like what? I don't mean to be flip. Where do you think this will lead?
posted by corky at 01:54 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



We tried prohibition - lets give that another go round, what say??

Well, alcohol is a legal substance (if you're over 21), just like tobacco is a legal substance (if you're over 18). However, you can't drink alcohol any old place you feel like it - many communities have open container laws, you can't drink alcohol in a restaurant that doesn't have a liquor license, most work places prohibit consumption of alcohol on company property, you can't drink alcohol in the car (even if you're just a passenger), etc.

posted by mom2 at 02:35 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Everything took a wrong turn when the government stopped allowing brothels. It's just been one ban after another, since then.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 02:39 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



you can't drink alcohol in a restaurant that doesn't have a liquor license

Thats a good idea! Sell a "smoking licence" to those establishments that would like to allow smoking.

posted by tm at 02:45 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Corky, I am concerned that the next issue truly will be weight control. I've been getting information and maybe studies have been published regarding obesity. And not just the physical ailments that come along with morbid obesity, like smoking these are real problems, but the financial burden it puts on the community at large. Morbidly obese people are often unable to work from these health issues and receive public assistance and health care.

In the last two years I've seen a tremendous amount of information in the media regarding childhood obesity. Like the smoking ban - these are true social problems and carry a financial burden as well as an inconvenience.

In my opinion, these well thought out arguments will be the next ones we will see try to legislate a set of controls. In that one segment of the population will define a set of parameters that is acceptable for people to weigh. That's my belief for what's next.

The door is open, it is no more illegal to be obese than it is to smoke cigarettes. Both are bad choices and have consequences for the public.

But you can just as easily talk about the groups that have pushed very hard to curtail religious freedoms, parental and property rights.

Corky - those are my concerns.

posted by katie82640 at 02:51 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



So jr, just to get it right, you're against the smoking ban, but for legislation against fatty foods?

Billy: he was being sarcastic.


I know, I was bringing that out and was going to run with it after I finished some things and had a couple minutes...

posted by billy at 02:57 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Thats a good idea! Sell a "smoking licence" to those establishments that would like to allow smoking.

Honestly, that might make a little more sense than all the bitching and fighting. Alcohol and tobacco are similar in that they are both legal substances within certain age restrictions. Both can have health effects for the person consuming the substance. (I'm sure there are other similarities, but my mind is drawing a blank now.) Why not treat smoking more similarly to alcohol consumption by allowing licenses to be sold? I'm not saying it would be a perfect solution, but again - perhaps a better compromise than what we currently have. Establishments that were convinced that their business would take a nosedive could buy a "smoking license" - if they were right about the preferences of their clientele, then they shouldn't have any trouble recouping the cost of the license.

posted by mom2 at 03:03 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Oranges, meet Apples. Wow, I swear I introduced those crazy kids just yesterday.

Ampage? Do you even know what oranges are?

This smoking ban is not the issue. The issue is people like you who lack the ability to make decisions on your own and expect your hand to be held by legislation to help you through life.

Fortunately, there are those of us out here who appreciate the rights given to us by our forefathers which allow private enterprise to function under Freedom Of Choice with the ability to provide a service towards a LEGAL product.

Unfortunately that right was taken away by 2/3 of Ohio voters.

It's quite ok for you to be comfortable in your "nanny-world" where the Government Intervention provides a safe harbour so you can go anywhere you want in Ohio and not worry about smelly smoke. Poor Ampage, no balls to make the tough decisions where to eat on you own. Cry me a river, fruit loop.

I'm dying to see if you nannies will pick the ball up on Toledoan Poverty.

I doubt it. No money in that, is there?

posted by BrianInFlorida at 05:49 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Thats a good idea! Sell a "smoking licence" to those establishments that would like to allow smoking.

Honestly, that might make a little more sense than all the bitching and fighting. Alcohol and tobacco are similar in that they are both legal substances within certain age restrictions. Both can have health effects for the person consuming the substance. (I'm sure there are other similarities, but my mind is drawing a blank now.) Why not treat smoking more similarly to alcohol consumption by allowing licenses to be sold?


Ah, so it's not about health after all - if a business owner can fork over a few bucks then all the health problems go away.

BS. PooPoo. CaCa

posted by billy at 06:02 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



...and you know what else?? They ALREADY DO have to have a friggin license to sell smokes!!!!
posted by billy at 06:13 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Ah, so it's not about health after all - if a business owner can fork over a few bucks then all the health problems go away.

Of course the health problems would still be there. I made the analogy between alcohol and tobacco (two legal products for individuals of a certain age that are regulated as to where/when they can be consumed in public), and there was some discussion as to whether the two should be treated more similarly. (For some reason, when smokers are griping about tobacco being a legal product and there should be no need for restrictions, they forget that alcohol has restrictions as to where/when it can be consumed too.) Perhaps it would make more sense for there to be licenses sold for smoking clubs vs. the current options. The only way to know what would be the most effective solution/compromise is for people to toss out ideas, have discussion about them...perhaps something viable would come out of the idea, perhaps not...but we might be better off for at least contemplating all options.

But silly me...apparently people on opposite sides of an issue shouldn't have a discussion in the hope that something could come out of it as a compromise. No, its better for everyone to argue and gripe, then when their side loses start name calling.

Well, sorry...I won't be joining the name calling. If the level of discussion on this board is best summed by your "PooPoo CaCa" retort, then that's a damn shame.

posted by mom2 at 06:32 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Perhaps it would make more sense for there to be licenses sold for smoking clubs vs. the current options. The only way to know what would be the most effective solution/compromise is for people to toss out ideas, have discussion about them...perhaps something viable would come out of the idea, perhaps not...but we might be better off for at least contemplating all options.

the bar owners asked for that. Didnt get it. You people didnt wanna discuss or weigh options.

posted by billy at 06:44 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



OSHA DID do a study - that proved that SHS did NOT cause illness or death. Here's the link. Also a link you may find of interest.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518

To whoever it was that asked why OSHA hasn't done a study, etc., it HAS, as jimavolt posted quite some time ago, links are posted below. OSHA tends to err on the side of paranoia, overly protective - for instance, they are attempting to require all Daimler electricians to wear special suits for anything over 50 volts - that is like wearing protective gear for plugging in your toaster or hair dryer. So it's probably safe to say, they are just as cautious on second hand smoke.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

In conclusion, Osha's response and update -
Update: We recently uncovered a secondhand smoke air quality test conducted by the American Cancer Society. It's result shows secondhand smoke concentrations are 25,000 - 532 times SAFER than OSHA standards for secondhand smoke.

Ventilation options do work, government air quality testing proof is here.

Ohio already had a high bankrupsy and foreclosure rate - just wait to see the fall out now. I hope all of you who voted this ban in will be there to shake the hands of the owners who lose everything they invested.

posted by starling02 at 06:57 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



joshw - second hand smoke wouldn't have even been a problem for you if you were smart and adult enough to make a decision to not enter a place that had a smoking section - most restaurants were already non-smoking. That would not have changed ban or not. You're an idiot who needs somebody to protect you. Not the govt job to do that.
posted by starling02 at 07:01 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Ohio already had a high bankrupsy and foreclosure rate - just wait to see the fall out now. I hope all of you who voted this ban in will be there to shake the hands of the owners who lose everything they invested.


yep. Couple that with the moronic minimum wage you geniuses approved, you'll be able to watch em droppin like flies.

posted by billy at 07:27 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Unfortunately that right was taken away by 2/3 of Ohio voters.
---------------------------------------------

ahem . Very slight correction: taken away by 2/3 of the Ohioans who bothered to vote. What was turnout again?

posted by Darkseid at 07:38 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



My apologies, I misstated.

As usual, around 15% of 100% care enough to make the differences 8% care passionately enough about. (That's what my mind saw, so I typed it.)

I was blinded by rage. Won't happen again.

Duly noted and stuff.

posted by BrianInFlorida at 08:26 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



I love when a 2/3 vote against a Republican is an ass whooping. And a 2/3 vote against cancer causing idiots is an infrigement on rights.

Ahhhh - politics.

Can't wait for the ban to take effect.

Puff puff.

And what about the brianiacs who are so worried about jobs being lost because of the ban on smoking in public places who also voted no on 3.....17 THOUSAND jobs lost. Der!

posted by Ampage at 08:35 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



ampage - I don't have the stats, but I'd bet that the people who voted Yes on Issue 4, and No on Issue 5 also voted for Yes on Issue 3. The combination of a raised minimum wage and a complete smoking ban is death to bars, and many restaurants. You can't wait for the ban to take effect? Why was it so freaking necessary to you? You hang out in a lot of bars often? Been stated ad nauseum the huge majority of restaurants already WERE non-smoking - nothing would have changed that part, short of huge financial investments for special enclosed rooms & ventilation systems - which few businesses had the space or funds for.

Again amgage - it is NOT the job of government to tell us what is good for us, or what we can do - as long as it's legal, and tobacco is a legal product. If you really think a bar or restaurant are public places - you're a fool. Pull out Black's Law Dictionary and look it up. These are PRIVATELY owned businesses that invite the public in - but the public does NOT have to go in. Ask jimavolt how HE feels to see his livelyhood go down the toilet - when it was HIS money, sweat, time, reputation on the line. He built this business himself and jerks like YOU decide to change the rules mid-stream because you're so pathetically incapable of making informed, adult decisions about whether to enter an establishment that has a smoking section or not. I took the time and actually called the restaurants in the Yellow Pages months ago in an attempt to find FEW that had smoking sections in Toledo. I could count on one hand how many did that didn't banish you to a dank room on high wobbly tables and stools (Manhattans). So, tell me AGAIN, ampage - How will life REALLY change and improve for you with this ban? Ask jimavolt or any bar/restaurant owner how they feel knowing their likely to go under?

What the hell is wrong with people that they think they need the govt. to tell us what is good for us, what we can do? The smoke nazi's in my book are pathetic pansy asses with no ability to make informed choises on their own - grow the hell UP.

come to think of it, jimavolt is very, very absent and quiet - I feel for him.

posted by starling02 at 11:31 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 09, 2006     #



Like it or not starling, your characterization that the government made this decision could be nothing further from the truth. The voting public made this decision, not the government. The bars will adjust, and the public will adjust. I urge everyone to continue patronizing these bars. I'd hate to see anyone's livelyhood suffer as a result.

That said, starling, even Jim has admitted that his bar is so popular that it will not likely suffer comparatively from this result. And that just shows how good of a business man he is. Jim has not been completely absent and quiet. Look at other threads. There are a few bars in Toledo that are extremely popular, the Distillery is one of them. Good music, good atmosphere. The man knows what he is doing.

Yes, these bars and restaurants are privately owned, but that hasn't stopped the government, or the public in this case, from interfering with the safety of their customers or employees. Apparently, most people believe that second hand smoke is dangerous. They voted as such. Indeed, the courts quite some time ago decided that the government could regulate discrimination and safety in workplaces. In this case, the voting public (the only public that counts) wanted to reduce the effects of second hand smoke to customers and employees. While I think that some of these businesses will suffer at first, unlike the Toledo ban, people will have to travel a lot further to smoke, drink, and/or eat. Everyone will adjust within two years.

posted by junta330 at 12:06 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



ampage - I don't have the stats, but I'd bet that the people who voted Yes on Issue 4, and No on Issue 5 also voted for Yes on Issue 3.

Voting is anonymous. There are no such stats.

posted by junta330 at 12:07 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



junta - yes, I suppose some inner Ohio cities will manage this ban and survive. But my point is that Toledo is dying - it is close to becoming another Flint,Michigan. This ban will bury it. Wait and see. You're so damned smug but the truth is, many of these businesses won't survive for two years. As compensation, I think it's only fair and right that anyplace that spent huge money on special rooms and ventilation systems to accomodate the last ban - that are worthless NOW, should be reimbursed.

Ya know what pisses me off about this whole thing? The hypocracy of it all. Like stated before me, tobacco gets taxed to death to pay for schools,etc. If you don't see hypocrasy in that, you're not looking.

posted by starling02 at 12:40 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



sorry double post - but between the OSHA studies and THIS - I am amazed how easily some people are swayed by propaganda. Do any of the people who voted for this ban actually READ these studys? When Toledo turns into another Flint, Michigan (and it's not a long shot) - it will be by the hands of the smoking nazis who voted this ban in.

http://www.smokingsection.com/issues4.html#rights

In January 1993, the EPA released a report claiming that 3,000 Americans die each year of cancer resulting from exposure to secondhand smoke. The figure in question was based on 30 studies, only 6 of which found any relation between second hand smoke and cancer. The largest and most recent study, partially funded by the National Cancer Institute, found no correlation at all, and neither did the 24 other studies. In an egregious breach of scientific methodology, the EPA discarded those showing no effect and added the rest together. Then they used a risk ratio smaller than that of chlorinated water to define risk. Still not happy, they next performed statistical sleight-of-hand by lowering their customary "confidence interval" in order to inflate the final number to 3,000, which was then published as "fact". This number is currently being challenged in Federal court, where it will likely be repudiated.

The next line in the anti-smoking catechism blames secondhand smoke for the higher mortality among California waiters. Waiters lead stressful lives,spend all day on their feet and are exposed to cooking oils and smoke,themselves carcenogenic. They also belong to an income group with higher mortality rates. It is a forlorn hope that banning smokers will change those numbers at all.

In 1988, the Surgeon General reported that of the 2.1 million Americans who died the previous year, nearly 1.5 million succumbed to diseases associated with diet. "What we eat may affect our risk for several of the leading causes of death for Americans, notably coronary heart disease, stroke,atherosclerosis, diabetes and some types of cancer," the report said. "These disorders together now account for more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States." Surgeon General Everett Koop later stated on national television that diet kills an estimated one million Americans each year.

One million is hundreds of times larger than 3,000. So did everyone scurry to avoid all foods but celery and yogurt? No, they fired up their (cough)mesquite grills, barbecues and fireplaces while erecting "No Smoking" signs.

In addition to the million killed by their diets, 190,000 die from cancer attributable to carcinogens naturally present in food. 120,000 die from alcohol related illnesses. Another 45,000 get wiped out on the roads. Total: 1,355,000. That means that driving to a restaurant and having wine with dinner is over 450 times as dangerous as inhaling any smoke present at the time.

posted by starling02 at 01:02 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



starling said: As compensation, I think it's only fair and right that anyplace that spent huge money on special rooms and ventilation systems to accomodate the last ban - that are worthless NOW, should be reimbursed.

Agreed. Those were huge expenses and they were completely unfair and unreasonable to businesses. The businesses should certainly be reimbursed.

posted by junta330 at 01:18 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



By the way Starling, the smoking ban won't bury toledo. If anything, the loss of manufacturing jobs will, like flint, michigan. We need to create some new economic stronghold so that won't happen. I don't think smoking in bars represents that economic stronghold.
posted by junta330 at 01:22 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



So since these are “private” businesses they should be able to make their own decisions regarding smoking?
Should we also let them serve alcohol as they see fit with no controls?
How about we let them decide on what’s best as far as the health and fire codes too?
Yep, that makes sense.

posted by Ampage at 07:55 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



So since these are “private” businesses they should be able to make their own decisions regarding smoking?

Gee, a business owner making his own decisions - what a concept..

Should we also let them serve alcohol as they see fit with no controls?

But you think they SHOULD be able to serve alcohol - with some controls,correct? But Smoking, not at all.

posted by billy at 08:41 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



You are correct. When Susie drinks a cold one, it stays in her mug. When Susie lights up a stink stick, well........
posted by Ampage at 08:46 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



So tell me if Im getting this straight: Smoking is LEGAL - we just arent allowed to do it.

Shitting your pants is LEGAL -we just aren't allowed to do it in public.

posted by politics_in_mudville at 09:30 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



LMAO! I have used that as an example before, but people just don’t get it.
posted by Ampage at 09:39 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



here's an interesting old quote from alexander tytler, a scottish mind from the late 1700's, early 1800's. he was commenting on the difficulties of democracies......

These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

which stage do you think we are in now?

**there's some debate as to this quote's origin. some say this was a recent fabrication; others attribute this to a 1801 work he did.....whatever.

posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:43 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Shitting your pants is LEGAL -we just aren't allowed to do it in public

Well technically if your not exposing yourself, its not really aganst the law, even if it is really disgusting. 8-)

So since these are “private” businesses they should be able to make their own decisions regarding smoking?

Gee, a business owner making his own decisions - what a concept..

Should we also let them serve alcohol as they see fit with no controls?

But you think they SHOULD be able to serve alcohol - with some controls,correct? But Smoking, not at all.


Billy, i know we dont always agree on things but i agree 100% with you on this one!

posted by tm at 09:44 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



we just aren't allowed to do it in public.

is there a law against it? if so, how do the authorities handle that? is there a big evidence bag?

posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:47 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



I've been trying to find the section in the ORC that says defecating in your pants is illegal, but can't seem to locate it. Could you please quote???
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:51 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



A) No person shall shit, crap, defecate and/or drop the Browns off at the pool in public section 3734.904 [3734.90.4] of the Revised Code, or fill or cause to be filled any trouser, pant, short and/or jumper with said waste. Nor aid or abet another in the filling of any of these garments.
posted by Ampage at 10:01 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



There isn't any law that would make having an accident in your pants illegal. The above ORC cited is this: Filing of returns; remittance; late charge; interest; discount for timely payment.

There is a law against exposing yourself in public - which if you deliberately did take a dump out on the street you would need to pull down your trousers.

But once again the proponents of big brother government would have you believe that an elderly or sick person who had an accident was subject to arrest.

Cute :-) Things haven't gone that far - yet.

posted by katie82640 at 10:10 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Psssttt....Starling-speaking of hypocrisy...




CLEVELAND - Voters in Cleveland and its Cuyahoga County suburbs voted Tuesday to approve a 30-cent tax increase on a pack of cigarettes to help arts and culture.

The campaign pitted patrons of the arts, including the well-heeled Cleveland Orchestra and Cleveland Museum of Art, against smokers, big tobacco and cigarette outlets.

Backers said the tax would raise about $20 million annually for 10 years and raise the state and local taxes on cigarettes sold in the county to $1.59 1/2 a pack. A portion of the current tax has been used to help finance Cleveland sports venues.

The new portion of the tax would be split among museums and performing arts companies and, backers said, would protect the city's cultural heritage. Opponents said the tax unfairly targeted a segment of the community and would drive cigarette sales out of the county.


.

posted by Darkseid at 11:05 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Ampage - were you just being funny about the ORC reference???
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:19 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



LOL wow.. there are a lot of criminal babies out there :p
posted by OhioKat at 11:39 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



This topic began with this sentence:

So now we cant smoke in public. So tell me if Im getting this straight: Smoking is LEGAL - we just arent allowed to do it..

Absolutely. It is perfectly legal to sell, buy and consume tobacco products. With that in mind, why do we have any restrictions whatsoever in regards to said product? Furthermore, as Starling (especially) has pointed out above, the effects of second-hand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Numerous links have been provided to underscore that point.

So, I would assume it's safe to say that nobody on this board would have any problems whatsoever with teachers smoking in classrooms, doctors and nurses firing up in hospitals and nursing homes, spectators at enclosed (or outside) sporting events puffing away to their heart's content, movie-goers blazing through half a pack during the show. It's legal to sell, buy and consume and the effects of second-hand smoke have been embellished. I'm sure everyone agrees on this, right? The all-knowing, big-brother government is wrong to restrict its usage anywhere, in any situation, at any time.

The business owners. It is their business, their establishment. They should have the right to run said establishment as they see fit. They are the ones at risk, it is their money and their livelihood thats on the line. I agree.

So, when one of them, or maybe a dozen of them, put up signs on their doors that says "Whites only", "No women allowed", "Jews (or Mormons, Catholics, Methodists, Pentacostals, whatever) not welcome", "Gays: keep the fuck out!", no problem. Hey, its a free market. If they can restrict access to anyone they see fit and still turn a profit why should they be expected to do otherwise? The people they don't want in? There are other places that will take them. Let the free market work it's magic.

Come to think of it, there was a time in this country when business owners could, and did, put up such signs on their doors. And, dammitt, there went the frigging government again, spoiling all the fun of the individualists and their right to do everything they see fit to do. "Hey, we were making a profit, leave us alone, it's our business."

Please, let's return to the good 'ol days, right???

But on Tuesday, it wasn't the goverment that restricted public smoking. It was the voters in this state. And, time will tell if the majority made the right choice or not. But I know this much: they are many people on Toledo Talk who, so that their arguments in this matter can be validated, are reduced to wishing, wanting and hoping that bar/restuarant businesses do in fact close by the dozens, so that you can all say, "see, we told you so."

That's a sad place to be.

posted by McCaskey at 11:48 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Opponents said the tax unfairly targeted a segment of the community and would drive cigarette sales out of the county.


Ya THINK??

posted by billy at 11:48 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



**there's some debate as to this quote's origin. some say this was a recent fabrication; others attribute this to a 1801 work he did.....whatever.

Some debate? That’s a bit understated. It kinds of reminds me of the standard disclaimer that should be added to more than few of the posts I’ve been reading. Perhaps something like:
Standard Disclaimer: Author is believed to have sustained some brain damage from a short fall at an early age.

Starling02: Thanks for the links to the smoking studies. I appreciate your efforts.

Although I don’t like copious amounts of tobacco smoke and I want restaurants to cater to my particular tastes, I abhor the idea of more government regulations. I’m tired of special interest groups removing my personal freedoms with their despotic concepts and knee-jerk reactions to problems that don’t exist. For instance, it’s against the law for me to drive without wearing my seatbelt. If I have small children riding in my car, the children must be confined to a government approved car seat. I can’t switch off the air bag system in my car, nor can I disable the various bells, lights and buzzers that remind me to buckle my seat belt, remove my keys from the ignition switch and close all my doors. My car has a standard transmission, since I have the crazy idea that I don’t need some butterfly boy in Tokyo to tell me when to shift, but it took me forever to find a car equipped with a five speed stick. Most salesmen that I asked about this feature developed a question mark over their pointy heads that didn’t leave until I did. Go figure.

Unreasonable laws dictating the way in which I must transport and store my firearms. Self-defense laws in Ohio making it illegal to defend my home and person against some misguided honor student in search of funding for recreational drug research. And let us not forget that it’s illegal for anyone to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home. Heaven forbid I become addicted to the killer weed. Naturally enough these restrictions apply to chemo-therapy patients who are so sick that the very last thing they are worried about is drug addiction.

I can’t modify my home without a building permit and an entire series of inspectors. I’m forbidden to hang my wash on a clothes line to dry, and I must keep my lawn mown to satisfy my neighbor’s fastidious sense of aesthetics. I won’t get into the specifics of various homeowner associations except to say that such institutions violate my God given constitutional rights to the point that the association officers should be incarcerated for the rest of their natural lives as a service to humanity.

Certainly there will be many, many more laws to come. We elect State legislators to write and enact more laws. Eliminating laws should be a part of their job, and it isn’t. What is worse is that this behavior is lauded as good and beneficial for everyone by the strident minority (and you know who you are), while the reality is the most often the opposite. We are sentenced to enact more and better laws until we are safe, safe, and safe.

posted by madjack at 12:28 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Some debate? That’s a bit understated.

how so? folks on the left seem to think it was fabricated in the late 90's. some historians believe he used this in lectures from 1801.

regardless, who really cares who said it? i think his point is dead on.

posted by wholesaler1972 at 12:39 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



God given constitutional rights

God didn't give you those, man did. God didn't write the Constitution nor is He/She/It/whatever mentioned in there.

posted by anonymouscoward at 01:54 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Just for McCaskey:


These comments come from another board/blog.
---------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you a comunist, socialist bastard or what? Never in my life would I ever have thought one American would get his rocks off by screwing with other American's rights! Try telling your lies to some Iriqi Veteran! Tell him or her that they served their country so you could dictate to them where they can smoke! You are a piss poor excuse of an American.


People like this don't give a damn about the people who died fighting for freedom and rights. They would likely spit in the faces of our veterans in support of their self serving, anti American, anti freedom ideas. In effect they already have, as the freedom and rights that so many died fighting for are being stripped away rather quickly.




Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guys like him put their lives on the line, so these spineless antis can whine and moan.


Location: Eastern Shore, VA
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The smoker ban went into effect in Delaware in November 2002. Dover Air Force Base has the distinction of not only been home to the most C-5s in the service, but also the largest mortuary on the east coast (it may be the country now, I'm not quite sure).

When the remains of our fallen heros of the WOT began arriving at the base every legislator who voted for the ban, and the Governor who pushed and pushed for it, were asked a simple question:

Are you willing to be the one to inform a member of the Armed Forces, who has just accompanied the body of his fallen brother home in a casket that he can't smoke a cigarette while having a well deserved drink at a local tavern in Dover?

This question was asked of them by many people, including bar owners who dared them to fine them for not telling the Vet to take it outside.

More than 3 years after that question was repeatedly asked, the crickets continue to chirp.

There was one snide retort to the question, not from an elected official, but from a paid anti "The American Legion is a mile or so from the Base gates, they can go there until we shut them down as well."

posted by Darkseid at 02:23 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Pull out any vertebrae with that s-t-r-e-t-c-h?
posted by Ampage at 02:41 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Great post darkseid - and your last line does bring up a point:

Look for a HUGE increase in memberships in local Moose, Elk, VFW, Eagles, AmVets, Legion...

posted by billy at 02:48 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



billy - why?

If they have any employees they will also be smokefree.

Issue 5's title was the Smokefree Workplace Act.

Any by the way, haven't all veterans suffered enough without be killed or injured as home by "friendly fire"?

p.s. I served too

posted by stukerr at 02:57 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



starling02 - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

You will never find the truth posted at those websites.

Of course, maybe you are not interested in the truth.

posted by stukerr at 03:00 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Any by the way, haven't all veterans suffered enough without be killed or injured as home by "friendly fire"?

Havent they suffered enough fighting for our freedom to be allowed to do something they want to do, something that's LEGAL, in a building that THEY OWN???

p.s. I served too

Gee, Im impressed. Walk into the VFW on the East side and start spewing your pap and see what your 'Band of Brothers' has to say.

posted by billy at 03:36 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #




Look for a HUGE increase in memberships in local Moose, Elk, VFW, Eagles, AmVets, Legion...
Ouch!!! posted by billy


Billy, you dumbass, those will all be smoke-free if they are not a non-profit and have employees.

exempt from the ban are:

(G) Private clubs as defined in section 4301.01(B)(13) of the Revised Code, provided all of the following apply: the club has no employees; the club is organized as a not for profit entity; only members of the club are present in the club's building; no persons under the age of eighteen are present in the club's building; the club is located in a freestanding structure occupied solely by the club; smoke from the club does not migrate into an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter; and, if the club serves alcohol, it holds a valid D4 liquor permit.

So I take it that any of those who don't own or lease 100% of the building they're in are screwed... I'm told by someone who works at one of those organizations that they won't be able to rent the hall out for any events, because the structure would not be solely occupied by the club.

posted by anonymouscoward at 03:43 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



p.s. I served too

Gee, Im impressed. Walk into the VFW on the East side and start spewing your pap and see what your 'Band of Brothers' has to say.


Ill take front row seats to that one!!!!!!!!

posted by tm at 03:46 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Well Coward, they are all non- profit, and the Legion that I belong to is staffed 100% Volunteer.

I'd invite you for a butt, but we police our own trash.

posted by billy at 03:52 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Good One, Billy! 8^D
posted by Darkseid at 03:58 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



IANAL, but it seems like getting through the private club loophole would be pretty easy. Just split the bar into two companies. A non profit organization that holds the liquor license and leases the building, and a for profit business that the "club" contracts to provide employees. Of course, it means every bar would now be a members-only club, but that's been the case in Utah for decades. There'd be no real change other than in the paperwork.

I think the smoking ban that passed really won't have much of an effect other than adding a layer of bureaucracy to bar owners. Actually, if a bar becomes a club, they can allow patrons to smoke at any time of the day, not just after 9PM. Here's to hoping the Bronze Boar becomes a private club, otherwise I will hunt down Stu Kerr and sodomize him with a ten foot pole*.


*I won't actually sodomize him with a ten foot pole. That would be a bit unwieldy, so I'd stick to a pole less than five feet in length.

posted by thenick at 04:25 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



You made an excellent post/point McCaskey.
posted by OhioKat at 04:31 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



I'd invite you for a butt, but we police our own trash.

That's nice, but I'm not interested in sharing a butt with other men, or role-playing police... I thought Bretz was the place to find that sort of action, anyhow, not the Legion, and wouldn't that be a violation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy?

IANAL, but it seems like getting through the private club loophole would be pretty easy. Just split the bar into two companies. A non profit organization that holds the liquor license and leases the building, and a for profit business that the "club" contracts to provide employees.

Wouldn't work, because employees under contract are still employees. The club employes the services of the business and at the very least the employees of *that* business are covered under the smoke-free workplace law.

posted by anonymouscoward at 05:12 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



By the way, it's really entertaining to hear certain ex-military claim they should be able to smoke wherever they like... yet I don't see a single one of you trying to get the drinking age changed so your brothers-in-arms who are under 21 can have a BEER with you, or even complaining about that.

19 or 20-year-old can come back from Iraq after dodging bullets and IEDs and at least buy smokes and smoke 'em in their own house legally, but they can't buy or have a cold one in their own place without breaking the law.

posted by anonymouscoward at 05:42 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



stukker those were actual OSHA studys - not made up junk science like the smoke nazis put out. My guess is most people who voted this ban in did NOT do their own research - they blindly believed whatever propaganda smokefree put out. Why not come down as hard on alcohol? How many people are killed by drunk drivers? If society pays for the health care of smokers - it goes to say they also pay for obese people and alcoholics.

To quote (off the link I posted) " Furthermore, if we accept the general notion that "smoking kills", then the property rights logic works like this: an employer has the right to discriminate and also to maximize his profits - thus he does not hire smokers or overweight people - or he fires them if they don’t quit or lean out because they represent a “cost” to him. By embracing the property rights argument without tackling the real crux of the matter – the antismokers’ allegations about active and passive smoking, and the bogus social costs of smoking - the paradox is that smokers’ rights groups end up supporting discrimination against those whose rights they are supposedly defending. It’s inevitable – and it’s what we are witnessing now. And since – thanks to the overwhelming propaganda of “public health” - everybody will eventually believe that "smoking kills" and that overweight people are a “cost to society”, it is perfectly logical and very Libertarian that those target groups are left without jobs and refused rental apartments by general consensus - and in the name of freedom and property rights!". I have an alcoholic brother, hit by a car because he was drunk - he now has medicade paying his bills, and will be on disability the rest of his life - he did not smoke (or work). Tell me again why it's ok to single out tobacco.

Here are stats of the money made in tobacco taxes ( they increase constantly - I copied and pasted it from the former link)-
SMOKERS BE PROUD!
Since 01/01/2000
smokers have contributed

BILLION US DOLLARS
to the world economy.

Of this amount,
over 2 trillion US DOLLARS went to governments in direct tobacco taxes alone in exchange for persecution!

Seems to me, smokers are expected to pay the way for schools, the arts, etc. and I'm sick of it. I won't ever vote for another school levy - I figure I already gave huge amounts. Let them raise the cash some other way. What do they tax instead of cigs to this degree?

I fail to see why a total ban was needed. Most restaurants were already non-smoking. Why wouldn't it have been possible to simply require a separate section or room in all places like this - bowling alleys are big enough I'd think - then arrogant whiney mom2 could bowl and not have to mingle with the masses. But I still believe a privately owned bar or restaurant where there's such a huge choise to pick from - it should be up to the owner. Cafe Marie has always been smoke free - I never had a problem about that - I simply chose to not enter. But I knew up-front it was smoke free, I'd respect that. NOBODY forces any smoke hater to enter a bar or restaurant. You want to eat Italian? Lots to pick from - so why force the lone Italian restaurant to banish it's smoking section? If the surgeon general thinks tobacco is this evil - ban it entirely. Prohibition does not work as history has shown. (and they make too much money on tobacco taxes - wont ever ban it for that reason - more hypocracy). There's already talk of speakeasys being formed, and people ready to roll their own, with boycotts on all Ohio restaurants and bars. Not fair maybe to them - but that's the only way to prove a point. Dont think for a minute that people will be rushing to move to Toledo with this ban (wasnt there something about some conventions not coming here since the last ban?). My guess, is more people will be moving out of Toledo. My five bucks is on the table - prove me wrong.

In the mail today I got a request from the cancer society - laughed my ass off. Normally, I"d have put a $20 check in the mail to them - never, ever again. I heard that they expect people to call 911 to report smokers - so therefore, I will never vote for another 911 levy again - that is a waste of manpower, and seriously ties up the 911 lines, it was not the function of 911 (an EMERGENCY LINE) to police smoking. I won't ever support a levy to the zoo, cosi - I am done (they are privately owned as well - hypocrytical). It's easy enough for us to just go to Michigan to eat, drink -hell, I"d be willing to pay more for cigs in Michigan just so I dont contribute more in sin tax here.

posted by starling02 at 06:34 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



I really can't believe that Stu Kerr is still on a forum gloating about this shit.

A fine example of a "model citizen" representing all these "upright" SmokeFREE Ohio people "concerned for Ohio's health"

Maybe they'll kick your ass to the curb, too if they knew about it.
Don't see soccer mama Tracy Sabetta on these things.

Gloating about the private service clubs having to ban smoking on top of it.

The only thing you have ever served is yourself.

I dare you to walk into an American Legion this weekend.

posted by Musician at 06:36 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



I see this has already been addressed.

Have fun at the club this weekend, Stew.

posted by Musician at 06:40 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



3794.07 Duties of the Department of Health.

This chapter shall be enforced by the department of health and its designees. The director of health shall within six months of the effective date of this section:

[...]

(D) Establish a system for receiving reports of violations of the provisions of this chapter from any member of the public, including, but not limited to, by mail and one or more e-mail addresses and toll free telephone numbers exclusively for such purpose. A person shall not be required to disclose his or her identity in order to report a violation;

(E) Inform proprietors of public places and places of employment of the requirements of this chapter and how to comply with its provisions, including, but not limited to, by providing printed and other materials and a toll free telephone number and e-mail address exclusively for such purposes; and

(F) Design and implement a program to educate the public regarding the provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, through the establishment of an internet website and how a violation may be reported.


Congrats on joining the moron masses, starling... I hate Issue 5 but anyone who calls 911 to report a violation is a moron, because, hey, there'll be a toll-free number promoted all over the place for it, and probably a website to boot... so anyone calling 911 will be a stupid whiny knee-jerk reactionary like you.

People frigging call 911 if their order's messed up at a fast food joint, is that a good reason to shaft the 911 levy?

Fucking sheesh already, give a pass to the government listening in on your phone calls, spying on your shopping and banking transactions, and revoking habeas corpus, but get all kinds of pissed off because THE PEOPLE (directly, instead of some politican claiming to represent them) put a law on the ballot and a majority voted YES on it. You all fucking disgust me and your priorities are totally fucked up. While you get pissed off about "little rights" like smoking being messed with, they're busy revoking the BIG CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I have a new alternative energy plan. We exhume the Founding Fathers and connect driveshafts to their remains, which will spin generators to produce clean electricity.

posted by anonymouscoward at 06:56 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Junta,

Thanks for the kind words on the Dstlry and my acumen. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to whether the upcoming storm because we've been blessed with a great customer base. Sadly, many places will not stand a chance.

Thenick, even though your idea seems practical, I'm afraid AC is right. If any employee is present, thou shalt not puff.

Here's something funny . . .Even though the text of Issue 5 gives authorities 6 months to write the law and the state advises that the process is likely to take a minimum of 60-90 days, the Blade quotes SFO folks as saying the law will start being enforced on 12/7. While it's foolish to suggest yet-to-be-named agents will start enforcing an unwritten law, I'll bet SFO devotees start calling 911 and reporting violations on 12/7. We've already had a "smoke spotter" come in, order nothing but water and storm out after she saw a person light-up. (no tip). It should be exciting.

posted by jimavolt at 06:57 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



While it's foolish to suggest yet-to-be-named agents will start enforcing an unwritten law

The law is written, it is located here:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/oh/state/issue/5/

Section 3794 of the O.R.C.

The six month thing results from the following bit of the law:

This chapter shall be enforced by the department of health and its designees. The director of health shall within six months of the effective date of this section:

(A) Promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code to implement and enforce all provisions of this chapter;

(B) Promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code to prescribe a schedule of fines for violations of this chapter designed to foster compliance with the provisions of this chapter. The amount of a fine for a violation of 3794.02 (A) and (B) shall not be less than one hundred dollars and the maximum for a violation shall be twenty five hundred dollars. The amount of a fine for a violation of 3794.02 (D) shall be up to a maximum of one hundred dollars per violation. Each day of a violation shall constitute a separate violation. The schedule of fines that apply to a proprietor shall be progressive based on the number of prior violations by the proprietor. Violations which occurred more than two years prior to a subsequent violation shall not be considered if there has been no finding of a violation in the intervening time period. The fine schedule shall set forth specific factors that may be considered to decrease or waive the amount of a fine that otherwise would apply. Fines shall be doubled for intentional violations;

(C) Promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code to prescribe a procedure for providing a proprietor or individual written notice of a report of a violation and the opportunity to present in writing any statement or evidence to contest the report, and prescribing procedures for making findings whether a proprietor or individual violated a provision of this chapter and for imposing fines for violations;

(D) Establish a system for receiving reports of violations of the provisions of this chapter from any member of the public, including, but not limited to, by mail and one or more e-mail addresses and toll free telephone numbers exclusively for such purpose. A person shall not be required to disclose his or her identity in order to report a violation;

(E) Inform proprietors of public places and places of employment of the requirements of this chapter and how to comply with its provisions, including, but not limited to, by providing printed and other materials and a toll free telephone number and e-mail address exclusively for such purposes; and

(F) Design and implement a program to educate the public regarding the provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, through the establishment of an internet website and how a violation may be reported.


Got that? In the 6 month period starting 12/7, the Director of Health has to come up with rules for investigation and enforcement and reporting violations and telling people like jimavolt how to run their establishments within the letter of the law.

Are we all up on the legalities here now?

I hate this fucking law, particularly now because the people on both sides of the issue are driving me nuts 'cause ain't none of them really sat down and tried to go through the entire thing and the process of law that led us here themselves.

Let's get a few things straight here:

This was a law proposed by initiative petition. Someone or a group of people wrote the law up. They went and got the petition forms from the Board of Elections and somehow convinced a bunch of people to sign the petition. It requires something like a number of valid signatures greater than or equal to 3% of the total votes cast for governor in the last election for that position for the initiative to get on the ballot, in this case it was something like 98,000 signatures. So at least 98,000 people signed off on this being a good idea. Now, I don't know how many of those 98,000 were complete morons and didn't bother to read the law, or if they were handed a line of BS from the SmokeFree people, or what. It's probably likely that the vast majority never saw the proposed law, never read it, and just signed the petition based off of SmokeFree's biased bulletin/talking points. But that's what we get when the people are bloody ignorant and stupid and can't be bothered to ask intelligent, investigative questions.

But hey, that's democracy at work, take it or leave it.

So November 7th, Election Day came and went, and as it turns out 2,185,659 morons who probably never read the law voted for it, probably on the basis of the talking points and the ballot language.

This is a direct result of the people, not of some partisan representatives with an agenda in Columbus or D.C., so if you really want to blame someone, blame yourself for not bothering to be a truly informed person and for not getting others up off their asses to really see what they were voting for. I bet there's a good portion of those 2,185,659 morons who, when they see what this bill really does, will slap their foreheads or get all pissed off about how they were misled. Unfortunately, they're probably the same morons who are busy watching reruns of CSI or some other drivel on TV or only use their computers for looking at porn, MySpace, and online shopping rather than paying attention to what's really going on.

posted by anonymouscoward at 08:04 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Or there are 2,185,659 people that prefer to control what kills them. Doesn't really matter anymore now does it? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love how deep you think you are though, makes for tons of laughter - thanks again.

posted by Ampage at 09:07 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Or there are 2,185,659 people that prefer to control what kills them.

Merely the illusion of control. If you knew the kinds of chemicals contained in "new car smell" for example, given off by the plastics and vinyl, you'd probably wear a gas mask while driving. You probably eat grilled meat too, which is a hell of a lot worse for you than smoked meat.

Even water and carbon cause cancer. Take a look at deuterium dioxide and carbon-14.

posted by anonymouscoward at 09:36 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



We've already had a "smoke spotter" come in, order nothing but water and storm out after she saw a person light-up. (no tip). It should be exciting.

Good God, Jim. Already.

If I knew what made these people tick, I would be set for life.

For the SFO ILK:

Tonight, I went to my favorite neighborhood smoke-easy for a belt of bourbon with a relaxing smoke to go with it.

They aren't going to change a thing about their place.

(now I can just see Columbus SFO plants scurrying about...where is it?? where?? where?? MUST SAVE WAITSTAFF!!! MUST FINE ROGUE BAR!!)

You can arrest me when I am there next time. You will only have 19 minutes to do it though. Good luck with that.

Remember in 20 minutes time, your cardiac arrest sets in according to your scriptures.

posted by Musician at 11:03 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Merely the illusion of control. If you knew the kinds of chemicals contained in "new car smell" for example, given off by the plastics and vinyl, you'd probably wear a gas mask while driving. You probably eat grilled meat too, which is a hell of a lot worse for you than smoked meat.

I had my one car interior cleaned early this summer and had them put some of that strawberry air freshener in it. It still smells like this after all this time.

I had one HELL of a headache driving that thing for the first two days even with al the windows down.

posted by Musician at 11:08 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Guys this is good news. The law can be changed and overturned. I see class action lawsuits on this law by bar owners.

The law is not enforceable after 10PM so if bars want to let people smoke after 10pm they can. Second its not tied to the liquor license so if a bar does get busted, they just pay the fine and move on.

posted by hgomez03 at 11:45 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



Ampage said: “So since these are "private" businesses they should be able to make their own decisions regarding smoking? Should we also let them serve alcohol as they see fit with no controls? How about we let them decide on what’s best as far as the health and fire codes too? Yep, that makes sense.”

There's a vast difference between controls and regulation (which allow you to legally act after conforming to certain standards), and bans (which don't allow you to legally act). Issue 5 makes it impossible to have a business which serves smoking (which we must again note is a completely legal act). The other things you mentioned don't deny your ability to form a business serving alcohol, housing people, in a structure, etc.

A 4-yr-old could have poked a hole in your argument, Ampage. So ... that must mean that you read it from one of Stu Kerr's writings. Good job! -- ah, oops, there! {stoops} Ampage, you dropped your binky.

posted by GuestZero at 11:56 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 10, 2006     #



I am sitting in the bar smoking my cigar which I purchased online to avoid sales taxes. I am being asked by the smoking police for I.D. because I am sitting in an unauthorized smoking area. "Damn, I left my wallet and I.D. at home!" "Really", I plead!

"Assume the Position" I am told.

Oh crap I thougt as I realized I had stuffed the bottle of Sudafed in my pocket before leaving. Surely they will find it. "My damn hayfever was acting up and I needed relief". "Really," I plead.!

"Do you have a reciept for that cigar?". "Yes I do. But it's a stored file on my computer. You see, I bought this from some vendor online." "Really," I plead!

"Unit 69 to Headquarters...We have a real hot one we are bringing in.This guy is a major threat to our health, cannot prove who he is, a drug addict, a tax evader, and quite possibly a terrorist."

I wonder if they allow smoking in prision?



I wonder how long it will be before a concealed weapons holder peels his loaded 9mm out from under his jacket while sitting at Bob Evens and shoots an unfortunate law-breaking cigarette smoker who happen to light up in a moment of lapse in jusgement. Then the shooter claims self defense because the law breaker was indangering his life with second-hand smoke.

posted by KraZyKat at 12:35 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



The law is not enforceable after 10PM so if bars want to let people smoke after 10pm they can.

I didn't see anything in the proposal saying the law isn't enforceable after 10 PM. Maybe I missed something. Can somebody clarify this statement?

posted by junta330 at 01:16 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



I like this 10 p.m. thing.

Some of my gigs don't start until that time.

posted by Musician at 03:47 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



There is nothing in the language of the smokefree law that says the law isn't enforceable after 10PM, at least none that I saw. It's possible I overlooked it. Take a look yourself.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/ElectionsVoter/results2006.aspx?Section=1874

posted by OhioKat at 07:51 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



I'm thinking that the 10 PM comment is a bit of misinformation. But I could only HOPE that it were true.

My understanding of this new law is no way, no time, no how, no place, never. If I'm wrong, please provide me a reference and I'll reconsider.

posted by DoknowDocare at 08:13 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



AC, if we flash forward 30 days, there still likely won't be any rules or processes set in stone. You think violations will be called in to the "department of health and it's designees"? Which department is that - - county, or city or state? How will they be handled? will there be an inspection? Who will inspect? Where will the cases be tried? What will the penalty be and who will have discretion?

These are some of the fine print of the regulation that need to be written. I don't see that the law can be enforced until the package is complete.

Will smoke spotters call 911? I'll bet on it. The only other option is to call the "department of health and it's designees" and right now, nobody knows who the hell that is nor do the health departments at various levels know what to do with those calls.

The first Toledo smoking ban got pitched to Judge McConnel in environmental court. He didn't have the time to deal with it. It's likely that situation hasn't changed in 2 years. Will new smoke courts be created ? ?

I think the legislators might also dictate distances allowed between outdoor smoking areas and access doors. Without that complaints can be filed about "migrating smoke" from patios. Such distances need to be quantified.

posted by jimavolt at 08:52 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



So, in essence, we should anticipate an even slower response to police calls starting 12/7?

Wow - do I see some heavy litigation coming out of that.

Example:

Call for help - domestic violence
Time: 2150 hours
Dispatched: 2240 hours
Disposition: One taken to hospital, no offender in area
Reason call was held: Crew was on previous assignment. Responded to call of persons smoking in a bar.

posted by DoknowDocare at 09:13 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



wonder how long it will be before a concealed weapons holder peels his loaded 9mm out from under his jacket

I wouldn't hold my breath on this one. Gun owners tend to be a live and let live sort, preferring to mind their own business and let their neighbor mind his.

I could see someone with a police scanner, a few friends and a sense of humor running the TPD ragged with rolling smoking violations.

posted by madjack at 10:40 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



Will smoke spotters call 911? I'll bet on it. The only other option is to call the "department of health and it's designees" and right now, nobody knows who the hell that is nor do the health departments at various levels know what to do with those calls.

Here's a thought: why don't you and the other business owners affected make a big push for the people who call 911 to be prosecuted for making nuisance calls or false reports of an emergency or something like that? 911 keeps a record of what numbers have called it, but I don't know the details of how public 911 records are. But if it's possible, I'd dive into the records and see if there's, say, a particular number reporting dozens of ban violations, and then get on TV or radio or something and complain loudly that Mr. Smoking Narc's busy tying up 911 and police resources to report non-emergency smoking ban violations.

I'd say that until they have written the rules for implementing and enforcing the ban, the schedule of fines, fired up the toll-free reporting number, and the rest of that, that the cops shouldn't even bother responding, because if they try to do any enforcing without guidelines, and it goes to court, it can be tossed for lack of consistency in enforcement. Here's the key point:

(C) Promulgate rules in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Revised Code to prescribe a procedure for providing a proprietor or individual written notice of a report of a violation and the opportunity to present in writing any statement or evidence to contest the report, and prescribing procedures for making findings whether a proprietor or individual violated a provision of this chapter and for imposing fines for violations;

Until they have a procedure for providing that written report of a violation (which will probably require some special form, no doubt), and procedures which allow you or the individual to DEFEND yourself, you can go up to a judge and go "well, Your Honor, they have no consistent procedure, they're enforcing it selectively, and I've been denied my right to self-defense because there's no permitted and approved method for me to counter the charges" and probably get an injunction against enforcement until the rules are written and approved. Hell, if there's some sort of group of you business owners with a lawyer, get him/her to file the injunction ASAP, so the 911 dispatch tells the cig-narc "we're sorry but there's an injunction against enforcing the ban until the rules are approved". If the dumb cig-narc pisses off 911 enough, they'll charge him/her with some kind of crime for tying up 911.

Now, if you want to be the world's biggest prick, what you do is get the police report number for each time the cops show up at your business, and go get copies of those reports, and post the info to the Internet... build a nice database of who is doing the narcing... what are they going to do, sue you for harassment? Public records, man! Long as you're not saying anything slanderous/libelous/untrue about them on the website or calling them up with death threats, you should be okay.

posted by anonymouscoward at 12:00 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



Being as I spent so many years in the body shop at the old Jeep plant it really makes little difference to me. I figure the crap I breathed in there had to be as bad or worse than cigarrette smoke.

I must admit though, to being a touch amused about one thing.

The majority,(it seems), are thrilled by the big Democratic win. At least on the surface, it would seem, that the same people that voted for the Dems, voted foor the smoke ban.

That goes hand in hand with the folks that screamed about the new voting systems being able to be manipulated as to allow voting fraud.....but it's ok since their side won. :-)

posted by JeepMaker at 12:40 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



At least on the surface, it would seem, that the same people that voted for the Dems, voted foor the smoke ban.

Not I.

That goes hand in hand with the folks that screamed about the new voting systems being able to be manipulated as to allow voting fraud.....but it's ok since their side won.

And it's really funny, but the figures I've seen and heard about have the results and the exit polls matching this time, instead of being wildly different like 2000 and 2004... HMMMMMMMMmmmm. On the other hand, I'd like to get an initiative on the ballot to require that all Ohioans have an option to vote on a paper ballot, to require all electronic machines to print a paper trail, and to require that the final certified count be done by hand from the paper ballots and trail. I'd also like to remove the disparity that exists between the requirements of partisan candidates to get on the ballot and independent candidates to get on the ballot, and the other BS that keeps us from having anything other than two official parties. But I doubt it'd go through because the two major parties would hate it.

posted by anonymouscoward at 12:52 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



Jeep Maker, not entirely true.

I voted Yes on 4, No on 5....if there is any question about that;-)

I voted for Teddy as I think (and hope) he is a moderate.

If not, you can have free reign with me and stamp me into the ground, but I think I would beat you to it myself with sackcloth and a whip if I made a mistake in doing this.

I really wanted Peirce, but wanted Blackwell even less.

I could not fathom the idea of Rod Parlsey being the house chaplain (or worse) under a Blackwell administration.

I know the Parsley nut type firsthand. They have lots of parallels in their "reasoning" with the antismokers.

Like I have said before, I have never dealt with people like the antismokers before.....with the exception of religious fanatics of a Parsley mindset and similar snake oil and snake handling organizations.

posted by Musician at 02:17 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



I read that as of Thursday there were 144,000 absentee ballots yet to be counted and that did not include the overseas ballots still coming in. How can they confirm the counts and say anything won without these missing ballot counts included?

Also, this caught my eye - what is they will USE that fine money FOR?

3794.08 Smoke Free Indoor Air Fund.

There is hereby created in the state treasury the smoke free indoor
air fund. All fines collected pursuant to this chapter and any
grant, contribution, or other moneys received by the department of
health for the purposes of this chapter shall be credited to the
smoke free indoor air fund and used solely for the purposes of this
chapter.

Yes, I understand it would be moronic to call 911 to report smokers - but there will be those who do. One thing disturbs me is that according to the law, people can report a smoking violation and do it annomously - does that mean that anybody who has a gripe with a particular bar owner can just file fake complaints out of spite? And, once a smoking violation is reported (whatever way - website, phone call, etc.) - who exactly will be appointed to go to that place of business and catch the smoker in the ACT? Or, do they not need to catch the smoker in the ACT? Can these fines be handed out on hearsay? Does the business owner get hit with the fine alone? Or does the smoker get hit as well? What if they appeal and it goes to court (what a mess to tie up court time, the lawyers are going to do well) - what if the 'accused' can produce witnesses that insist there was no smoking violation? Will that even matter? Or will the fine stand just because somebody filed a complaint online? How do you enforce something like this???

posted by starling02 at 07:53 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



Scott (lawn product company) will fire any employee if they hear they smoke at home - they justify this because they are trying to minimize their health care costs. Given that obesity kills more people than tobacco,and causes more health problems - is it safe to say that companies may now start to fire fat people so they can save on health care?

In January 1993, the EPA released a report claiming that 3,000 Americans die each year of cancer resulting from exposure to secondhand smoke. The figure in question was based on 30 studies, only 6 of which found any relation between second hand smoke and cancer. The largest and most recent study, partially funded by the National Cancer Institute, found no correlation at all, and neither did the 24 other studies. In an egregious breach ofscientific methodology, the EPA discarded those showing no effect and added the rest together. Then they used a risk ratio smaller than that of chlorinated water to define risk. Still not happy, they next performed statistical sleight-of-hand by lowering their customary "confidence interval" in order to inflate the final number to 3,000, which was then published as "fact". This number is currently being challenged in Federal court, where it will likely be repudiated.

The next line in the anti-smoking catechism blames secondhand smoke for the higher mortality among California waiters. Waiters lead stressful lives,spend all day on their feet and are exposed to cooking oils and smoke,themselves carcenogenic. They also belong to an income group with higher mortality rates. It is a forlorn hope that banning smokers will change those numbers at all.

In 1988, the Surgeon General reported that of the 2.1 million Americans who died the previous year, nearly 1.5 million succumbed to diseases associated with diet. "What we eat may affect our risk for several of the leading causes of death for Americans, notably coronary heart disease, stroke,atherosclerosis, diabetes and some types of cancer," the report said."These disorders together now account for more than two-thirds of all deaths in the United States." Surgeon General Everett Koop later stated on national television that diet kills an estimated one million Americans each year.

One million is hundreds of times larger than 3,000. So did everyone scurry to avoid all foods but celery and yogurt? No, they fired up their (cough)mesquite grills, barbecues and fireplaces while erecting "No Smoking" signs.

In addition to the million killed by their diets, 190,000 die from cancer attributable to carcinogens naturally present in food. 120,000 die from alcohol related illnesses. Another 45,000 get wiped out on the roads. Total: 1,355,000. That means that driving to a restaurant and having wine with dinner is over 450 times as dangerous as inhaling any smoke present at the time.

posted by starling02 at 08:10 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



Guys...lets get the facts straight. First of all callin 911 will do nothing. The police does not have the authority to enforce this ban or ticket. Only the heal department does.

Second, the health inspectors (in Franklin County atleast) quit at 10pm.

Third, even if a bar gets busted, they pay a fine. first 100 then it can go up to 2500 depending on how many times they get busted. There are ways around this law if a bar wants to use them.

As long as there are no ashtrays they should be ok.

Plain simply people need to fight back. There should be a way for those that want to smoke to be able to. This law does not give options..its only one sided.

posted by hgomez03 at 09:18 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 11, 2006     #



hgomez03,

Do you honestly beleive they won't find a way to enforce this? Take, for instance, the Ohio Department of Public Safety, who has a full 24 hour staff of liquor agents, perhaps they could enforce it. Indeed, it states in their job description that they monitor all alcohol, tobacco, and firearms state laws (which are also backed up by local PD, because local PD are obligated to enforce state wide law). Furthermore, you're suggesting that people intentionally violate the law in protest. I doubt any bar would be so unwise to do that, and that's an easy way to go to jail if you ask me. If people do this without a bar's permission, those people will be arrested, charged, and convicted (as it will be the bars that call the police so as to avoid fines). If people do it with the bar's permission, the bar will face fines for every incident recorded (could be 100s in a night). Those bars will be targeted and those fines will add up. 2/3ds of the population voted and disagrees with you. If you want to engage in civil disobediance, good luck to you, for you will be spending plenty of time in jail.

posted by junta330 at 12:35 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



juanta, the percentage of voter turnout does not add up to a majority.

Issue 5 results do not confirm that "the overwhelming majority" of Ohio residents feel this way.

Of course, the ones who did not vote complaining about this now is disgusting to me on the other hand.

From what I have seen with some Columbus police officers who would not sign the Issue 5 petition, I am sure many do not want to be bothered with this petty mess even though they will have to... sigh...and then and follow up on the nannies with nothing better to do making those 911 calls when they see someone light up in a club.

I just hope that their time is not wasted when someone really needs their help on something IMPORTANT.

posted by Musician at 08:27 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



If HALF the time and energy that is spent here bitching about 5 passing was spent getting the word out about 4 before the election - maybe it wouldn't have passed. But.It.Did.
posted by Ampage at 08:47 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



These issues (4 AND 5) should never have been put on the ballot. Anti-smoking zealotry knows no bounds, Junta. Remember that, before something you do is banned and/or outlawed.

If I hear "majority rules" one more time, I'm gonna hurl. Rights aren't up to the majority.

posted by GuestZero at 11:24 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



I did my part.
I agree with you on that part of it, Ampage.

Those who didn't vote that are whining about it now are part of the problem.

posted by Musician at 02:01 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



How does everyone feel about banning hand held cell phones while driving?

That is my next plan.

Gotta talk and drive? Invest in a hands free system.

posted by Ampage at 04:39 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



No, Ampage. Gotta talk? Pull over, turn off the friggin' engine and talk! The majority of drivers that I see out on the road driving too slow, too fast, making illegal turns, etc. use those hands-free systems (like the Bluetooth headsets that makes one look like a member of the Borg *Trekkie fans, you KNOW what I'm talking about!).

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

posted by MrsPhoenix at 06:25 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



The only problem I have ever had on the roads (almost daily) is with people using hand helds. Why would someone with hands free be effected? It's like talking to someone in the car I would imagine unless they are a total idiot.

But I am with you - pull over, losers. I can't tell you how many times someone has come into my lane and when I look over its some Dillhole having a convo about something I am sure is life shattering. Completely oblivious.

posted by Ampage at 06:40 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



PEOPLE, THE POLICE WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING ON SMOKING. NONE. PERIOD. ONLY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL.

I agree, some bars maybe targeted by the Health Inspectors.

Here in Columbus, many bars allow smoking inside despite the ban. They use beer bottles as ashtrays. Some wont let you light up until after 10pm to be safe. So despite our ban, there are many bars than plain simply do not give a shit.

They pay the fine and move one. They have fine collector jars and they ask for donations. I usally donate 20 bucks a month to the ones I go to. So does everyone else.

I feel bad for Cleveland folk that are paying a tax on cigarettes to pay for Art. That to me is truly unfair taxing of a group of folk.

I feel bad for you folk up in Toledo with your brutal weather.

Down here the bars without patios..are SOL. Many bars here have installed heated patios for smokers.

The law can be changed..we just need enough bars(sorry folk) hurting to get it changed. Thats what happened in Florida. Here in Columbus many nightclubs have closed. For a city with almost 3 million people there are only 2 maybe 3 nightclubs. Everything is dead now usually Sunday-Friday. Saturdays however are pretty good.

Also I have noticed that people now go out really late like 11:30-12:30pm. The bars get packed and then they empty. Its kinda of a new behaviour as a result. I think people stay at home and drink/smoke/(or whatever) then they go out for an hour and party then leave. Weird.

This law is an experiment on social re engineering and behaviour modification in an effort to eradicate tobacco by the Antis. Once they do this they will move on and focus on another group.

posted by hgomez03 at 07:41 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



Why would someone with hands free be effected? It's like talking to someone in the car I would imagine unless they are a total idiot.

Because they're being distracted by someone and something other than a person next to them in the car... and that person next to them is a hell of a lot more aware of what's going on in the vehicle than the person on the other end of the phone.

Something is wrong with this country when people think they need a 24/7 social life that includes talking about $LOCAL_SPORTS_TEAM or $DRAMA or $GREAT_DEAL_AT_MALL even when they're in the car or at the store... and as for employers, if you're not on a "field" or "delivery" job, the time you spend on a phone with them off the clock doing real work ought to be on the clock.

I just love seeing people leave or arrive at their homes with a cell clamped to their heads... why can't the call wait until you are at your destination? SHEESH!

posted by anonymouscoward at 08:12 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



When I saw those clamped on cell phones at first I thought, wow.... all these people got hearing aids all of sudden.

Might be a good thing if they were. People don't listen very well based on how this Issue 5 thing turned out.

posted by Musician at 08:53 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



I feel bad for Cleveland folk that are paying a tax on cigarettes to pay for Art. That to me is truly unfair taxing of a group of folk.

Double whammy for Cleveland smokers. I say they should all light up in the lobby of Severence Hall.

Nice, too when TOBACCO money funded Jacobs Field and you would still see those ridiculous STAND ads up there on the Billboards last year.

The Indians brought the Muni curse back on themselves with this betrayal.

posted by Musician at 08:58 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



I wonder how long it will be before a concealed weapons holder peels his loaded 9mm out from under his jacket while sitting at Bob Evens and shoots an unfortunate law-breaking cigarette smoker who happen to light up in a moment of lapse in jusgement. Then the shooter claims self defense because the law breaker was indangering his life with second-hand smoke.
Ouch!!! posted by KraZyKat at 12:35 A.M. EDT on Sat Nov 11, 2006 #
---------------------------------------------

Ummmm.....this already happened. A rabid smoker-hater pulled a gun and shot a pregnant woman who, I believe, was standing at a bus stop and lit up a cigarette. He then ran off, and I don't think they ever caught the piece of human feces. The woman lived, though. This was several years ago, I'll try to get the entire article from a lady friend who keeps all info on violence directed at smokers.

posted by Darkseid at 09:45 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



Hgomez said: PEOPLE, THE POLICE WILL NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING ON SMOKING. NONE. PERIOD. ONLY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL.

This is not true. Maybe the Columbus law had such an arrangement, but the fact is that local PDs have a duty to enforce state law. Murder, for instance, is a state law. Local PD handles murders within each respective jurisdiction. Furthermore, state law outlines liquor law. The state even has its own department to enforce liquor laws. But local PDs also enforce those laws. Your point is moot and extremely wrong. Even furthermore, violators of the ban will face trial in local municipal courts. Local PD will be able to enforce the smoking ban, if you think otherwise, you are sorely mistaken.

posted by junta330 at 10:48 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



Comparing smoking a cigarette to murder.
Oh boy......
Ever tried reading some besides anti-smoking propaganda?

How bout Grimm's Fairy Tales for something more factual?
Or watching Bugs Bunny?

posted by Musician at 11:20 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



I was not comparing smoking to murder, I was merely demonstrating how state law is enforced, musician. But hey, if you wanna go there, we can.
posted by junta330 at 11:35 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 12, 2006     #



Ok, let's.



http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20041207023121427C208742


.

posted by Darkseid at 04:30 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



This is what I heard/read - do not know if it's accurate.
"I don't think you have a grasp on how this ban will be enforced. Let
me clarify if I can.

Enforcement will be on a "complaint" based agenda. This means when
the Health Department recieves a complaint about non-complience, it
will dispatch a inspector to the offending establishment. They will
look for signs of non complience i.e. butts in the garbage, ashtrays
in the area etc.. If these (or other) signs are found, the
establishment will be given a warning. From that point on, it will
be based on a (as of now to my knowledge not yet formulated)
escalating scale of fines, up to $2500.00.

This program of inspections by complaint is problematic for many
reasons. Who is to say that complaints will not be recieved due to
someones private agenda with a bar or bar owner? What evidence will
be considered enough to warrent a citation, and who will decide
this? Most important of all, this will pit bar owners against one
another, for who would want to be in the position of following the
law when they know someone down the street isn't?

Also, as it stands now, the Health Department has the right, after
numerous violations to sanction the bar. For those who are unaware,
the Health Department can close any establishment at any time, for
almost anything. Yes, you get a hearing, but in this PC world we now
live in I don't hold out much hope for actual justice."

Also this from a Toledo tavern owner -
I am a tavern owner in Toledo, This is the third time I have been
involved in fighting these bans. The last time killed me and I never
recovered even after we got the ban amended. I decided to do a total
remodel and took all I had and seven months to do it. When I reopened
in March I had my inspection by liquor control. He flat out said then,
"Take my advice and sell this now because if the smoking ban passes,
the whole state is going down." He was right.
Our group has been meeting for 3 years, the week before the election,
to get our instructions to man the polling places only 10 people
showed up. what's up with that? During election day, when customers
came into my establishment, I asked them if they voted. If they said
no, I made them leave. You want to smoke, you got to vote. Bottom line.
I now have my bar up for auction next month. I have had it for 10
years and it is a beautiful place. I refuse to deal with it again.
Maybe this is my way of boycotting. Goodby to another Ohio small
business.
I say, don't by any cigs in this state and then see what happens.
Power to the people?!
Joyce
Fitzpatrick's Tavern
Toledo Ohio

posted by starling02 at 06:47 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



Is this true?
I read that as of Thursday there were 144,000 absentee ballots yet to
> be counted and that did not include the overseas ballots still coming
> in.
> How can they confirm the counts and say anything won without these
> ballot missing ballot counts included?

I think people voted blindly for this ban without actually reading how overbroad the ban will be. How many of these non-smokers actually sit their asses in bars? And it won't stop with smokers - it's just more politically correct to start with smokers. If companies can fire (or not hire) employees if they smoke at home (claim they are trying to keep insurance premiums down), then given that the disease and mortality numbers are much, much higher for overweight people than for smokers (Proven fact), then isn't it only fair to say that companies can also fire (or not hire) people because they are fat? Weigh in weekly to keep your job? Where do they draw the line? Diabetes? HIV? Cancer? Oh - it's not politically correct to do THAT? Even when the mortality and disease statitics confirm obesity costs more? Even when there's about 65 percent of this population that is considered to be overweight? Even though 20 percent of teens who had autopsies done (regardless of cause of death) had hardening of the arteries? And by age 30, it jumps to 40 percent? Not related to smoking - it's related to diet, lack of exercise and FAT. And how do they prove that insurance costs increased due to smokers? Greece has the highest smoker per capita in the country - and yet has one of the lowest lung cancer rates. Hmmmmm. My guess is if insurance companies trimmed the fat, the paperwork, perks for executives, they'd save lots of money. I am sick to death of the hypocrasy. The majority should not be allowed to decide the fate of a minority - a minority is an individual. (Ayn Rand has a great quote about that but it escapes me right now).

And it won't stop with smokers.

posted by starling02 at 07:00 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



So does your Spell Check.

No smoking baby, no smoking on the ANYWHERE!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

I cannot wait not to stink!

posted by Ampage at 08:42 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



lol...people's responses to Junta describing the duty of local police officers to enforce state laws is hilarious...

God you people are dumb.

posted by UTStudentFUJR at 10:11 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



By the way - JR is a anti-free speech nazi
posted by UTStudentFUJR at 10:11 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



an*
posted by UTStudentFUJR at 10:12 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



Wow. UTURDStudent once again demonstrates his extreme trolliness. Methinks him and darkseid should get a room and debate gay marriage.
posted by junta330 at 11:19 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 13, 2006     #



Ampage - have you considered taking a shower? With soap? It helps with the stink. People who work in kitchens come home smelling like fried food. Other people come home smelling like tar, oil, etc. depending on their job. Amazing what soap & water will do. Grow up.

Utstudent - Don't know if ya know this, but this IS jr's board - he owns it. I'd be hard pressed to think of one thing that jr has ever said on this board that I disagreed with too much. He's pretty smart, and can wipe you out of here in a heartbeat.

posted by starling02 at 01:17 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



This smoking ban is a perfect exmple of the government infringing on individual rights. Not because it prevents someone from smoking or not smoking in a given restaurant, but because of what it actually MEANS, in principle, to pass a law like this.

What is frightening is that we have become so philosophically lost as a people, so ignorant of how to think in principles, so ignorant of FREEDOM, that there were enough people out there to actually vote this monstrous law into effect. And it’s happening all over the country.

I can't think of the Ayn Rand quote I heard, but a good one from Leonard Peikoff (Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir), on a government enforcing what it feels is “good” for people (and “protecting” them from what it thinks is bad) on its citizens:

“The right to think and act as one chooses necessarily includes the right to choose incorrectly, whether through ignorance or evasion (and then to suffer the consequences). An individual free to choose only what the government authorizes as correct (or “safe”) has no freedom.”

In the Objectivist view, the ONLY role of government is to protect men from the initiation of physical force. Period. The military protects us from the initiation of force from other countries. The police and courts protect us from the initiation of force from criminals. And the civil courts protect us from the initiation of force (or its related aspect of infringement of contracts and copyrights and patents and so forth) from individuals. But that’s IT.

Anything else comes down to the government initiating force against its own citizens – essentially violating the rights of SOME citizens in the name of some other citizens, or subgroup of citizens, or the “common good” or anything like that.

The smoking ban is mob rule, pure and simple. It’s the violation of one group’s individual rights (the owners of the restaurants and bars and businesses), enforced at the point of a gun: the government’s gun.

In Ayn Rand’s view, the ONLY vote you as an individual get with regard to another man’s business is the right to either spend your money there or not spend your money there. You can boycott it, you can write scathing editorials about it, you can picket it on public streets, you can do anything of the sort, so long as you do no actual violence. But the primary, fundamental thing you can do if you don’t like the owner or the place of business is: DO NOT GO THERE. That’s it. That’s your vote.

To create a LAW banning individual business owners from running their businesses the way they choose, is to allow the mob to empower the government to FORCE the business owners into running their own businesses (their personal property) the way the MOB wants it run – enforced at the point of the government’s guns.

If you don’t like that a restaurant permits smoking, THEN DON’T GO THERE. That is the only vote you get. And the only vote you should get.

A restaurant is not public property. It is OWNED. It is PRIVATE PROPERTY. If a restaurant owner chooses a particular décor, a particular menu, a particular kind of entertainment, a particular anything – that is his choice. Your only vote in the matter comes down to whether you decide to frequent the establishment and give them your money.

The critical point people don’t see (the point they seem unable to get, being unable to think in principles) is that by giving the government the right to force individual businessmen to stop allowing smoking in their businesses is to sacrifice, in principle, the very idea of individual rights and freedom.

As soon as you place the government ABOVE individual rights, or put the mob ABOVE individual rights, we are no longer living in a free country.

That kind of political system has a name, in fact. It’s called Communism.

And what is frightening is that here in the Land of the Free and the Brave, our own populace is voting to give the government more power and control over our lives. For the sake of wanting smoking gone from a few restaurants and bars, they are trading away their individual rights and moving us further and further toward a slave state.

posted by starling02 at 01:21 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



I am convinced that people blindly voted for this ban without reading the studies and the law. Like lemmings, they just believed whatever junk science the pharmacutical company put out there (to sell millions of dollars in smoking cessation aids that dont work, are expensive, insurance won't cover it, and can even cause a stroke. Have they actually READ the OSHA studies? Overweight, diet and obesity causes more disease, and kills more people than smokers. They have NEVER been able to prove a connection to SHS and cancer, etc. So it's ok to stroll your fat ass into a restaurant, and order a huge steak & fries (never mind the carcinigens the fry cook ingests while cooking your dinner), put down a couple of martinis, and drive home after drinking - but you're too fragile to enter a restaurant that has an ENCLOSED smoking section with it's own ventilation system. Grow the hell up.

I'm also convinced that too many people assumed this ban would not pass, and didn't get off their lazy asses to get out and vote. It can be turned around - but unfortunately - not until many businesses go under. You smoke nazi's want a non-smoking bar and bowling alley? Put your money where your mouth is - OPEN one, with YOUR money and sweat.

posted by starling02 at 01:29 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Starling - I believe the quote you're looking for is this:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” - Ayn Rand

posted by MaggieThurber at 06:32 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



"By the way - JR is a anti-free speech nazi"

UTStudent, calling a newly-elected local official cross-eyed and whatever else like you did amplifies your inability of having a coherent conversation. In other words, you're an imbecile.

I realize this next thought is beyond your comprehension, but you have the freedom to spew your stupidity on your own site. You don't have the freedom to do it here. Try reading the posting guidelines.

So far, government has not passed legislation nor have the voters passed a law that tells me how to manage the site I pay for.

UTStudent, I'll let other Toledo Talk users explain how it works.

photodan said in April 2005:

"jr has every right to make this site as closed or even as censored as he wants it to be. If he decided that the word, "it" was not allowed to be posted then that is his right. This is not free speech. We are only allowed to post here at jr's whim since he's the one paying for it. He owns the space we are scrawling upon."

psyche777 said in June 2005:

"There is no such thing as free speech on message boards -- they are controlled by those who own them. So unless you own your own? pretty much have to play by whatever rules exist."

Toledo Talk is not a free speech zone.

UTStudent, the fact that you can't grasp the concept of free speech and no free speech on message boards, and the fact that you are or were a UT student, tells me that UT needs to stiffen its admission policies, since the university is obviously letting in unqualified candidates.

posted by jr at 08:47 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



I was not comparing smoking to murder, I was merely demonstrating how state law is enforced, musician. But hey, if you wanna go there, we can.

I already know how your side thinks about this.
"Second hand smoke" is a murder weapon and the usual fallacies.

posted by Musician at 09:06 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Beowulf wrote:"Also, I say we should pass a law prohibiting the use of perfumes and colognes in public. There are people who are allergic to some of those perfumes and colognes and/or are sensitive to them. Why should some people suffer because other inconsiderate people want to smell things up with scents that may even bring about an asthma attack? If you want to splash your body with smelly crap, do so in the privacy of your home all you want. I should not be forced to breathe your nonhuman aromas in public places."


They started working on this in May up in Ottawa.

Let's see, hmm...just a few days before the Ontario provincial ban went in, but reported a few days after.... Such synchronicity...

Oh no, certainly not.....just a weird coincidence....but of course, that's all it could EVER be.

Certainly not the climate of nanny enablement..no never. Not in a million years.....

Now I wonder if they use this sign for propoganda ads. Might be a good one for the cause for them.

"Ban...BAN"

(Ah yes...a multi-purpose campaign slogan that could have many fine interpretations)

posted by Musician at 09:16 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Also, I say we should pass a law prohibiting the use of perfumes and colognes in public.

Don't tempt me. That's one restriction I could vote for in a heartbeat.

posted by madjack at 10:13 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



starling02 - Here is the quote you really need: "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Issue 5 was only about people saying loud and clear, we have learned the hazards of being exposed to tobacco smoke, we don’t want our kids to think smoking is normal adult behavior and we have learned how we ultimately also pick up the tab. Despite years of advertising propaganda, we are now educated and we will take reasonable action.

It was an act of true freedom, it was all about equal rights and equal access; not the philosophical gibberish so often spouted in defense of personal addiction and the tobacco industry’s bottom line. There are now a lot of smokefree pubs doing just fine in a number of countries, we can do it too either with or without the current owners.

posted by stukerr at 10:32 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Stukerr, you're fulla shit.

we are now educated and we will take reasonable action.

No, we became educated about lead based paint and asbestos and took reasonable action. We did not fine people who's homes and businesses had the poison's in them, we made them illegal to produce and went after the manufacturers of them.

It was an act of true freedom, it was all about equal rights and equal access

Pure Bullshit - it IS too what you call philosophical gibberish.

If you dont want smoking go after the producers, not people who are trying to make a buck by allowing it on THEIR PROPERTY. But you chose to target them because they were such a less formidable opponent, AND a much less producer of tax dollars.

posted by billy at 11:57 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Thanks so much maggie! That is exactly the quote I couldn't find. stukker -you're full of shit. You and ampage make a fine pair. Uptight, anal prissy asses presuming to tell the masses what freedoms they may have or not. Both of you remind me of some prissy spinster aunt who blushes if you say "gosh". Grow up.

According to a book I"ve been reading "Nasty Bits" about the restaurant industry - almost all restaurant workers (chefs, bartenders, waitstaff, etc.) end up in dive bars after work (they seem to prefer dive bars - even the big name, Gourmet Magazine & Food Network chefs) to be able to kick back and let it all hang out - smelling of garlic, fried foods and salmon - to drink & smoke into the wee hours, to unwind after being on their feet for 10 or more hours a day. That is the case in New York (even still), Ca. and even in (gasp) Toledo, Ohio. These are people who have ingested more carcinegens daily than you do in years - cooking YOUR steaks,fries, etc. Where do you suggest they go to unwind? These are NOT bars either stukker or ampage would ever even go into - so why did you care if they smoked in these bars or not? There will be a day when you won't be able to cook on your Webber grill in the backyard.

You think all smoking be banned in all businesses so your kids will learn that smoking is not an acceptable behaviour??? Are you for banning basic tv shows lest they learn bad language or behaviours? How about banning movies? I know! Lets ban all alcohol products entirely - MADD would love it. Lets ban (while we're at it) all fried foods, sugar, butter because this country is full of fat assed kids, and obesity kills more people than smoking ever did. Open a magazine and see half naked women in ads - oh, gosh, better ban magazines. Ban billboards because I'm tired of seeing strip clubs advertised.

What part of 'there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke causes any disease or health problems' do you not understand?? THAT was the conclusion of OSHA and 29 (or so) other extensive studies on second hand smoke. YOU don't like the smell of smoke on your clothes? Then exercise your freedom of choise and don't go there. Or, here's an idea - take a freaking shower like the garlic smelling chefs and waitresses do when ya get home.

posted by starling02 at 02:35 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Nah, I will stick with the ban. Thanks though.
posted by Ampage at 03:04 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Starling makes good points and stukerr counters with the words his superiors give him to use. Hell, he even threw in a little "think of the children" argument on his recent post.

Stu writes "There are now a lot of smokefree pubs doing just fine in a number of countries". I've learned to question everything Stu says. I did a google search on the words "Ireland pubs closing smoking ban". One of the hits was this article on statements made by the ASH group as they attempt to get smoking banned through Europe.

http://www.sadireland.com/another_ash_lie.htm

A more correct statement from Stu would have been "Almost 90% of smokefree pubs are still open in a number of countries". Not that you care anyway.

As for Ampage, your User Profile admits to a history of making enemies on boards like this. You write as though it's your goal.

posted by jimavolt at 04:07 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Isn't it funny that people went after the manufacturers of asbestos and lead based paints? What a novel idea....

I think it's just strange that rather than making these manufacturers stop manufacturing products that were dangerous and pay to fix the damage they had 'knowingly' created and profited from....they didn't just make it illegal for small children to digest lead based paint chips?

Or maybe the truth of the situation is that the smokefree types of initiatives don't do their HUGE fund raising by promising to hold the tobacco companies accountable because it's just too big of a hill to climb?

posted by katie82640 at 04:42 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Here's another factual perspective from Ireland. Note the references to the idiot Repace and the impact of the NY smoking ban on businesses.

http://www.ulsterpubs.com/download/1/SUbmission-Oct%2005.doc

posted by jimavolt at 04:58 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Stukerr, you're fulla shit.

Well, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

Good one Billy. I'm still laughing.

I ate breakfast at the Sylvania Diner the other day. Chef Torch was off work, but the general word among the service staff is that the diner will close. Most of the patrons who smoke have found an alternate place across the State line, and since one-third or so of the patrons smoke, I think the business will close.

posted by madjack at 05:12 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



And it's only a 'law' until it's overturned in a courtroom y'know. :-)

Gee I wonder how the first complaint will be worded?????? Wonder how long the first filing will take, for that matter.

posted by katie82640 at 05:20 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



I ate breakfast at the Sylvania Diner the other day. Chef Torch was off work, but the general word among the service staff is that the diner will close.

Son of a BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!! I LOVE that place!!! And Im a NON smoker!!

Thanks voters!! You sure protected all the employees there right into the unemployment line...

posted by billy at 06:03 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Your WRONG. Tracy Sabetta who pushed issue 5 clearly stated that the Health Department is the only agency capable of enforcing the ban. It is IDENTICAL to what we have in Columbus.

Don't yield or give police the power they don't have. Here if you call the police cause someone is smoking...they tell you on the phone that is a civil matter and to take it up with the health department.

We've had this ban here for 2 years now. Don't say I don't know what I'm talking about. Your getting ready to get a big dose of what Columbus Folk have been experiencing.

posted by hgomez03 at 07:34 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



I ate breakfast at the Sylvania Diner the other day. Chef Torch was off work, but the general word among the service staff is that the diner will close. Most of the patrons who smoke have found an alternate place across the State line, and since one-third or so of the patrons smoke, I think the business will close.

So the regulars are running because they can't smoke there anymore? Real die hards they are. You would think they would try to support the place and show solidarity by continuing to support their beloved establishment. But, since they can no longer smoke there - they run? Who are the cowards now? Not much conviction there if you ask me. So smoking is more important to them than the employees who supposedly will lose their jobs? Interesting. It works both ways people - both ways. That is what is so hard for me to grasp in this whole thing. Just because you have to go outside now to smoke, why do you have to stop going out all together? Seems like you will be the cause of any place closing, not the ban.

posted by Ampage at 07:43 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Ampage, unfortunately, has a point here.

I'm not getting into secondhand smoke being bad, but hey, is anyone going to dispute that smoking is bad for the person who does it?

People aren't going to be allowed to smoke it up, so suddenly they're going to give the finger to their establishments of choice because they lack the willpower to quit or because they'll have to nip outside for a puff?

Maybe if they quit the pack-or-two-a-day habit, they'd have more "expendable cash" and could actually go out more.

posted by anonymouscoward at 07:51 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Given my husband's and friends work hours, 7 days a week - it's one of our small pleasures to go to dinner and breakfast once a week. When I go out with my friends - we hang in the restaurant about 3 hours (we tip very, very well). I could survive an hour if I had to, but why should I have to? I will NOT step outside to smoke when we are at a restaurant - and this is why. 1) on principal, I will not spend my dining dollar on a place that treats me like a second class citizen,especially when my tobacco taxes are part of the billions they earn. 2) I will not leave the people I went to have dinner with to go stand in the dark, rain, cold alone to smoke. 3) If it is just me and my husband eating out - that means I'd have to leave him sitting alone, while I stepped outside - how incredibly rude. 4) In case you haven't done your research - crime is rampant since smoking bans. They slip date rape drugs in the drinks (you can't take them outside. I went to a bar with my daughter & her friends one night and had to use the bathroom, they swore they watch the drinks. When I returned to the table, they were all off gabbing, laughing, hanging out - drinks forgotten (they were looped). People (mostly women) are getting raped, assaulted, robbed when they step outside for to smoke (usually in the dark). 5) We don't have a lot of dining dollars - and I intend to fully enjoy my dinners out. That includes the cig before the meal if the service is very slow (I get edgy, it calms me, it is my xanax) and the cig after dinner, which is the best. Sometimes, if we get dessert, I'll snub it out a third of the way down, then we leave. But if I can choose to dine in a restaurant where I can have a cig if I want one, or one that treats me like I"m trash - guess which one I go to? 6) I can only speak for me - but smoking is as much a hand/nervous habit than anything. Patches,etc. do not address that, and can give you an instant stroke if you do weaken and take a puff. 7) I am over 45, am 5'2", 105 pounds - and I am probably healthier than a huge number of non-smokers I see who are overweight, obese. I don't drink much - but see some non-smokers put the booze and red meat away at a fast rate. I was in an antique mall recently and saw three very heavy women who were talking about how they hate smoking. I will probably outlive THEM. 8) We wouldn't even be discussing this IF the smoke nazis could have compromised with smoking rooms. You already HAD that in restaurants. My daughter said that Kip Diacou's clubs had separate smoking areas anyway - so what's the gripe? It's like it has to be all your way. I don't presume to suggest that smoking is good for you. Of course not. But you cannot prove that second hand smoke causes any damage - over 29 extensive studys didn't prove that. 9) It's called 'free will', and 'freedom of choise' - I will vote with my dollar.
posted by starling02 at 08:54 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



So you dont want to go outside to smoke because you might get raped?

Makes perfect sense.

Damn 5!!!!!

posted by Ampage at 08:58 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



And if anybody bitches about their fave place closing (mine is Beirut) you have nobody to blame butt (he he) yourself.

That list was truly lame. I am sorry, but if you can't go a few hours without being so "humiliated" to go choke a smoke outside you have serious issues. Speaking of issues - 5 passed - WOOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

posted by Ampage at 09:04 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Getting raped is the least of my worries. You missed my main point. When we go out to eat, either with my husband, friends, etc. - it is to have dinner together. Telling smokers they have to 'step outside' is telling them "leave the group you came with, and go stand outside alone, even if it means you have left one person to sit alone". Of course I can go an hour or so - but why should I have to do that? Why could YOU just have chosen to eat in the NON smoking sections or restaurants? There were more of them, than smoking allowed. I enjoy a cig with my meal - so why should I have to enjoy my evening out less, to please you? Also, if you hadn't noticed, this is freaking Ohio we live in, where the skys are gray, and the weather is often horrible. Why should I have to step outside in the rain, dark, snow? When an enclosed smoking section solved the problems for both smokers and non-smokers?

You don't like the smell of smoke - ok, I don't like the smell of some perfumes, and colognes. They often give me a headache, and sometimes, guys colognes reek to high heaven and linger on you. Some cities are trying to ban perfume & cologne for that reason (allergies). What will be next? IF this ban was about real science - real proven facts about second hand smoke - it'd be different. But it's not- it's all junk science, if you doubt it, read the posted studies. But I have a feeling you won't read them, or won't care that you're being led like a lemming. I bet you're just a bunch of fun when you go out. I have two sons (24 & 35) who hate smoking with a vengence. But they are intelligent enough to know that a banning what we don't like, stripping personal freedoms away, bit by bit - is not what this country is supposed to be about - it's leaning towards facism. They choose to eat in non-smoking sections. Or, if they are with friends (or me) who do smoke - they always manage to sit where the smoke isn't blowing at them. They dont seem bothered.

posted by starling02 at 09:22 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



You would think they would try to support the place and show solidarity by continuing to support their beloved establishment. But, since they can no longer smoke there - they run? Who are the cowards now? Not much conviction there if you ask me.

Ampage, you dumbass. People who like to smoke patronize places that allow smoking. You panzies made that all illegal, so now places where YOU DIDN'T PATRONIZE ANYWAY are now suffering because you won your way.

Smokers are still smoking. You won nothing. You just hurt small business....

As if you care...

posted by billy at 09:30 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Easy for you to say so you can runaway. Buck up and support your "must haves".
posted by Ampage at 09:33 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



Ampage, it's about CHOICE. When some Toledo or Sylvania residents are only a mile or so away from a Michigan business that permits smoking, it's an easy CHOICE for them. Those customers have the freedom to choose where to hang out. They don't have to be loyal to anyone.

The free market will dictate which businesses survive and which ones fail due to Ohio's strict smoking ban when Ohio is surrounded by states that do not have such a ban. So far, no legislation has been passed that forces people to patronize certain businesses, but give the mob-rule process a couple of years.

Ampage, do you support the banning of alcohol sales in bars and restaurants, since drunk drivers kill 17,000 people every year in the U.S., and you know a certain percentage of those killers of innocent people are getting tanked in bars and restaurants? Surely, the public can enjoy a good time at a bar without drinking alcohol. Water, soda pop, sports drinks, and fruit juices are valid options to be served at bars. The public can drink alcohol in the privacy of their own home.

If this ban on alcohol sales in public places like the Mud Hens stadium, bars, bowling alleys, etc, gets on the ballot for the mob to vote on, you know the Big Alcohol companies will be "pouring" millions of dollars into defeating the issue. But think how much healthier and safer the public would be without consuming alcohol in public places. Banning alcohol in public places could reduce the health care costs caused by too much alcohol consumption, which would mean more money for all of us.

posted by jr at 09:35 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



You are the one hurting small business.

Not going because you cannot smoke?

Hysterical!

posted by Ampage at 09:36 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



jr - no response since you are pitting apples and grapefruits.
posted by Ampage at 09:40 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



And Billy - shows alot of respect when people wont patronize a place because now they cant smoke. Dont blame that on the vote/people blame that on the smokers too weak to support the place they just loved when they could smoke there. Lame.
posted by Ampage at 09:44 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



"jr - no response since you are pitting apples and grapefruits."

How, if an innocent family gets wiped out by a drunk driver that got loaded in a bar or a restaurant? If alcohol had been banned in that bar or restaurant, maybe that family would still be alive.

You are only exposed to smoke when you CHOOSE to enter a smoking establishment. You could protect yourself from smoke by CHOOSING to not enter a smoking establishment. But someone minding her own business on the roadway has no such choice of protection from a drunk driver who goes left of center at the wrong moment.

So in reality when it comes to personal safety, banning alcohol in bars, restaurants, sports stadiums, and so on, (for starters) makes more sense than banning smoking in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys.

To protect myself from drunk drivers, I guess I could not drive anywhere, especially after 3:00 p.m. Or maybe I could build my own personal highway system to protect me and my family.

posted by jr at 10:09 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



shows alot of respect when people wont patronize a place because now they cant smoke. Dont blame that on the vote/people blame that on the smokers too weak to support the place they just loved when they could smoke there.

You're an idiot!! If you morons banned bowling balls because you could drop them on your foot, I wouldnt patronize a bowling alley any more either, if you decide to bring back prohibition, I wont patronize a bar.

Use your brain jackass.

posted by billy at 10:30 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



humor me ampage - exactly what problem did you have with enclosed smoking rooms in these places? Did you not go to them if they had such a room? IF you have a choise of sitting in a restaurant that has an enclosed smoking section, then how on earth did that bother you? I am done wasting time with you. You did not own the right to decide the fate of private businesses. You and stukker - what a pair. You two should hook up. And while we're banning alcohol, lets ban all fried foods because obesity accounts for more illness & death & medical expenses than smoking and alcohol put together. Dont't believe me? Look it up. At least 65 percent of this country is overweight. You can sit your fat obese ass in a restaurant and scarf down a 12 oz steak, and 5 margaritas or beers, and kill people with drunk driving on the way home - and that's ok but a whif of second hand smoke is somehow worse? You're a moron.
posted by starling02 at 10:51 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 14, 2006     #



As I said on another thread....the big lie about SHS must be maintained-so people will still believe it and thus support the government when they come to take smoker's children away. Look for that within about 5-6 years, maybe sooner. But, really, Star, you know that Ampass didn't vote for this because of the SHS nonsense-he just doesn't like the smell. If you read his posts carefully, that's all he mentions is the 'stinky' smokers. I'd be willing to wager that's why 75% of the people who voted for it did so exclusively for that reason (though they'd lie and claim "health issue" if you asked them).
posted by Darkseid at 05:23 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Darkseid, they are already taking smoker's children away. There was a case in Columbiana County where this happened.

John Banzhaf of ash.org commented about his approval of this in the Columbus Dispatch.

So ash.org already is looking at Ohio.

These kinds of statements such as Kerr's here have nothing to do with "saving the children" and other things these litigation lawyers (Banzhaf) and lobbyists say about health.

It is about ambulance chasing of the worst kind.
http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1517

Kerr's statements about hiding smoking from kids about wraps up his true mentality, if there was ever any question about it.

The demonization of smokers is what these people want simply due to their preference and nothing more.
It is Jim Crow revisited, plain and simple.

Those of you who WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THESE BANS BUT STILL CHOOSE TO VOTE IN THE WAY YOU DID...... should just show your true colors and put on that white hood you're hiding in the closet...... in public....... and burn a few crosses while you're at it.

You eventually will be discovered. We'll smoke you out of your caves. Hopefullly a little quicker than it is taking Bush to find Bin Laden.

Those of you that did not understand exactly what Issue 5 stood for, were duped by SmokeFREE Ohio media presentations and "studies" to justify their existence......... there will other chances if you are now regretting how you cast your vote last Tuesday.

These things are cyclic and what happened last Tuesday won't be the last word on it.

However, it is too bad many businesses will be the sacrificial lambs for the SmokeFREE Ohio crusade.

It is just too damn bad. I would say, "How can you sleep at night?".
Obviously, they can....easily.
They didn't give a damn about the hardships in Toledo and Columbus then....and they won't now. It just isn't in them to be able to see the entire picture.

posted by Musician at 08:05 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



You missed my main point.

People like that will ALWAYS miss the point. They don't have the mental ability to make choices for themselves therefor they need laws to do it for them.

posted by tm at 08:17 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Says it all here. Frankly, I am shocked that they printed it in our tidy little Columbus Dispatch.

--------

http://www.dispatch.com/editorials-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/11/15/20061115-A8-07.html

Dec. 7 memorable date for smokers, veterans
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The Ohio Department of Health has eagerly announced Dec. 7 as the effective date for a law prohibiting tobacco use ("Smoking goes poof on Dec. 7," Dispatch article, Thursday).

For the benefit of the two-thirds of Ohio voters who favored Issue 5, Dec. 7 also is Pearl Harbor Day. Remember? Interestingly, the Allied leaders of World War II — President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill — were prolific smokers, while Axis leaders Adolf Hitler (who is credited with the first anti-smoking propaganda in history) and Benito Mussolini were both frightened by tobacco.

Choosing this national day of remembrance to sacrifice yet another freedom on the altar of political correctness gives real Americans (an apparent minority in Ohio) a second reason to remember Dec. 7 as a day of infamy.

BARTON A. LOOMIS III

Columbus

posted by Musician at 08:22 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



New Study Provides Road Map To Preventive Services With Greatest Health Impact, Best Cost Value

More than Half of Americans Who Need Valuable Preventive Services Continue to Go Without Them

Washington, DC — A new study released by Partnership for Prevention identifies the most beneficial and cost-effective preventive health services, giving Americans a unique tool to make decisions about their health care. The report, "Priorities for America's Health: Capitalizing on Life-Saving, Cost-Effective Preventive Services," sheds light on the startling fact that more than 50 percent of Americans who need these valuable preventive services continue to go without them.

To read the full text of the studies and related commentary go to Partnership for Prevention's website at www.prevent.org/ncpp.

Partnership for Prevention is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to building evidence for strong disease prevention and health promotion policies and practices and advocating for their adoption in the public and the private sectors. Partnership's members include the nation's leading corporations, nonprofit organizations, professional and trade associations, voluntary health organizations, health plans, and state health departments.

posted by stukerr at 09:49 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Oops - Here is the link:
http://www.prevent.org/content/view/46/96/

posted by stukerr at 10:03 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Musician, with all due respect, the linkage of the smoking ban to Pearl Harbor and which world leader smoked or not at the time is about as laughably lame as you can get.

Yes, all the Allied leaders smoked, as I'm sure 60-70% if not more of all the earth's inhabitants did back then. Thankfully, people have gotten smarter about smoking since then.

I'm sure FDR, Churchill and Stalin made all the right calls in WWII over the smokeless Axis powers because they were fueled by their addiction to nicotine. We owe the tobacco companies big-time for the freedon we so cherish today!

What's next, Stalin murdered millions of his countrymen because he was on a jag from trying to quit the cigs???

Thanks for the laugh of the day.

posted by McCaskey at 10:58 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



And I see you did not get the point.

I have to agree with the writer of that letter that the fascists mentioned were instrumental on the ground floor level of smoking bans (the SS for certain) and had many of the same attitudes we are seeing today concerning your body belonging to "the state". Check your history on that.

He left Franco off that list. Probably an oversight.

And he could have left Stalin off the list on the Allies, but he was involved with the Allies.

I am glad he had no sins of omisions in his letter, quite unlike the SmokeFREEs who like to continually paint these nice little pictures that do not exist by leaving many facts out of anything they put in front of the public through the media.

posted by Musician at 04:12 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Ampage can't wait for this ban to take effect so he won't smell anymore - gosh, what if he STILL smells?
posted by starling02 at 06:04 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Smoking Ban Begins December Seventh

"Ohio's new statewide smoking ban takes effect December Seventh, but it may be several more months before the law is formally enforced."

"First-time violators will get a warning. After that, smokers will be fined up to 100 dollars and businesses could have to pay as much as 25-hundred dollars if there are frequent complaints."

"But a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Health says there won't be any fines for at least six months while enforcement rules are crafted. Then, it will most likely fall to local health departments to make sure the law is carried out."

posted by jr at 07:04 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Ok, here's how jaded I am. The ban takes effect on 12/7. But it'll be June before anyone has to worry about getting fined. And then the weather will be nice, so Ohio smokers won't complain as much about having to go outside.

And then, come December, all of the antis who are in the midst of the next mission to make some other state smoke free, can tell everyone, "But Ohio has had a ban in place for a year and it hasn't hurt business."

posted by valbee at 07:44 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Exactly, Valbee, they're smart bastards and very good at what they do-namely having learned using the media for propaganda like hitler, Goebells, and Mao & The Communists.

Musician-yeah, I thought quite a while ago about it coinciding with Pearl Harbor Day. But don't bother trying to talk about it to McCaskey, since he's as big an asshole as Ampass, and I can tell you right now neither of them ever served in the military.


And-Starling & Musician , Guest Zero, and others who get it-....

-----------------------------------------------


smokinglobby.com Forum Index -> Smokers Rights
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
gilster
Site Supporter



Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Posts: 209

Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: Belmont Ca - Ban Smoking Everywhere - citydrafting ordinance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.paloaltodailynews.com/article/2006-11-15-bm-smoking

Belmont may ban almost all smoking

By Will Oremus

Citing mounting evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful, Belmont is pursuing a citywide smoking ban that appears to be unprecedented nationally.

At a meeting late Tuesday night, the City Council told staff to draft an ordinance making it illegal to smoke anywhere except in detached single-family homes. That includes parks, sidewalks, and even inside cars.

The city would enforce the ban mainly by following up on complaints from residents, rather than actively patrolling to look for violators.

Belmont began considering an anti-smoking ordinance several weeks ago at the behest of Ray Goodrich, 81, who lives in an apartment complex for senior citizens where he says residents are plagued by smoke wafting into their rooms from neighboring units. The movement picked up momentum when dozens of other city residents appeared at council meetings asking for relief from their own neighbors' second-hand smoke.

At first Belmont eyed ordinances similar to those passed in cities such as Dublin, which recently declared smoking a nuisance, and Calabasas, which outlawed smoking in all public spaces. But after consideration, council members including Coralin Feierbach and Dave Warden decided that those laws didn't go far enough.

The ordinance likely won't come back to the city for a vote until at least January, City Clerk Terri Cook said Wednesday.

When it does, many other cities will be watching with interest. Anti-smoking laws are a fast-growing trend, especially in Western cities, according to Serena Chen, policy director for the Greater Bay Area office of the American Lung Association.

posted by Darkseid at 09:09 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



Wow -issues much? Military = smoker? That's brill!
posted by Ampage at 09:41 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



No, actually, Ampass,I was talking about fucking FREEDOM, and how an entire generation layed it on the line-just some further proof you don't have a goddamned clue about anything but your own greed and selfishness, you moronic c(&^%^&$%r.
posted by Darkseid at 11:33 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 15, 2006     #



But don't bother trying to talk about it to McCaskey, since he's as big an asshole as Ampass

That's o.k., Dark, I still love ya. Post another picture for me will, ya? The guy with the missing vowels was great...

and I can tell you right now neither of them ever served in the military

'Tis true for me but I did manage to pass the Army physical in the fall of '72. New Cumberland (Pa.) Army Depot. Draft number 41 guaranteed you to at least get that far. Man, did those guys have some fun with the college longhairs. Tricky Dick and Henry K ended all the excitement three months later.

posted by McCaskey at 01:21 A.M. EST on Thu Nov 16, 2006     #



Like I said.....
Here is your future Ohio....

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=66988

posted by Musician at 08:07 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



France to Go Smokefree
Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs given until January 2008

France, 11/16/06-- It's official. Today, France published details of its new smokefree workplace decree. Beginning February 1, 2007, workplaces other than restaurants, bars and nightclubs, must be smokefree. Beginning January 1, 2008, restaurants, bars, and nightclubs have to be smokefree. The law also requires the outdoor areas of educational institutions other than universities to be smokefree.

"Congratulations to the French government for recognizing that workers deserve protection from cancer-causing substances in the workplace," says Joe Cherner, president of SmokeFree Educational Services, Inc. "We only wish that restaurant, bar, and nightclub workers were covered sooner."

France joins Ireland, Italy, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales, Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Bermuda, Uganda, Malta, Uruguay, Hong Kong, and Bhutan in enacting comprehensive smokefree workplace legislation, including smokefree restaurants and bars.

posted by stukerr at 11:19 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



I would be very interested in hearing Stu Kerr's thoughts on what Belmont is proposing. I'd also like to know if Stu thinks tobacco should be outlawed.
posted by valbee at 11:45 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



True protection from "cancer-causing substances" would place a great many of our civilization's common materials and practices in the landfill.
posted by GuestZero at 12:00 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



Yes, France is more advanced than the U.S. We could learn a lot from the French. Take energy for example.

"Many polls have been taken of French public opinion and most find that about two-thirds of the population are strongly in favor of nuclear power. [S]cientists and engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many high ranking civil servants and government officials [are] trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite."

"[W]hile French citizens cannot control nuclear technology anymore than Americans, the fact that they trust the technocrats that do control it makes them feel more secure. Then there is need. Most French people know that life would be very difficult without nuclear energy. Because they need nuclear power more than us, they fear it less. Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American technology."


If we can copy from the French when it comes to something as mundane as smoking bans, then surely we can copy from the French on a far more important issue like increasing our dependency on nuclear power, instead of investing in asinine solutions like wind power.

"France already produces more of its electricity in nuclear plants than any other country in the world - nearly 80%."

From a September 2005 Blade story: "Wind is the fastest-growing energy source, but accounts for less than 1 percent of the U.S. energy generation. By 2020, its market share is expected to be 6 percent." What a joke. In the southern and western states where the population is increasing, dozens of new coal-fired power plants are set to be built to meet the energy demands.

Now if we can harness the energy generated by the hot air from the pro-smoking ban crowd, then we would have a real alternative energy solution.

Some info from the Nuclear Energy Institute:

"Nuclear power plants generate about 20 percent of U.S. electricity."

That 80% number for France was from 2003.

"[Nuclear power plants] do not burn anything, so they do not produce any combustion byproducts. By substituting for other fuels in electricity production, nuclear energy has significantly reduced U.S. emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy accounts for 73 percent of the nation’s clean-air electricity generation. The amount of nitrogen oxide emissions that nuclear plants prevent annually is the equivalent of taking nearly 55 million passenger cars off the road."

Comparing Electricity-Sector Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Generating 1 million kilowatt-hours of electricity produces:

* 996 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a coal-fired plant
* 809 metric tons of carbon dioxide from an oil-fired plant
* 476 metric tons of carbon dioxide from a natural gas-fired plant
* none from a nuclear power plant.

"If nuclear power were not used, 131 million of the nation’s 136 million passenger cars would have to be eliminated to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from increasing."


And here's one more thing we can learn from the French. August 2004 posting:

"Starting in September 2005, vending machines will not be allowed in French schools. The French parliament took action on July 30 after reviewing the alarming statistics on youth obesity. Not only have they banned vending machines, but the new law also adds a tax on sugary alcoholic drinks and requires soft drink and junk food producers to choose between including a health warning on their televised advertisements and paying a tax equal to 1.5% of their advertising budget."

France is more progressive than the U.S. on smoking bans, junk food bans, junk food taxes, junk food warning labels, and nuclear energy. So yes, let's look to the French.

posted by jr at 12:15 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



These Euro bans are not enforced.
Ireland's especially.
Know lots of folks in the UK.

These Euro bans are window dressing.

Don't even bother to use them to try to prove a point.

Ohio's ban is a little more "Singapore".

Let me send you a candy "cane" for the December holiday.

(I would say Christmas, but that might not be very PC to do concerning you and your ilk, Herr Kerr)

posted by Musician at 04:59 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



The French will fight that thing like nothing you have ever seen before...and if they lose the first go round, don't count on it being enforced there either.

Mark my words.

posted by Musician at 05:01 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



First of all dont bring up the bullshit study on SHS. Many doctors already have stated that the report is over hyped in conjuction to get these smoking bans passed and untruthfull.

Second..don't bring up Europe. Those smoking bans over there are not enforced. Just came back from both Ireland and London and many people smoking in the bars despite the bans and noone cared.

Third..Currently in Florida. Guess what ..the bars here are pretty full Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursdays. Unlike Columbus which is a Ghostown until Saturdays.

People down here cannot believe how easily folks upnorth want to ban everything. You start with the smoking ban then you pass other bans. I was talking with a few bar owners down here. When the Florida Ban passed, they got mad as hell and collectively got together and sued. Then the law was changed to allow bars to spoke. Thats what is needed up in Ohio.

But wait...what other bans are now going to be put up to vote. People up there have become intollerant assholes that do not want to compromise and use the law in an unfair way. You think the Tax in Cleveland is fair? No way... I hope those folk order smokes from the Indian Reservation. Here in Florida..you can buy a Carton for 20 bucks....WOW.

People have to sue the government to get these unfair and unjust laws overturned. Thats how you fight..sue and keep on suing. If you get a ticket from the health department...dont give them your information...there is no law that says a health department worker can ask for your ID. Fight back folks...Be Free..... (although Florida seems so free to me, I may just move here and screw over Ohio).

posted by hgomez03 at 05:34 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



hgomez03, in the interest of fairness... Florida is a tourist attraction. You will always, ALWAYS have more people out and about in the bars and restaurants during the week than you will in central Ohio. Always.

That's been my beef with the antis comparing smoking bans in California and NY to a ban in Ohio from the start. It's very easy to say that a ban has little effect in an area that millions of people flock to every year.

That being said, when my boyfriend and I were recently in NYC, after a certain hour, the bartender let us smoke in the bar. Go figure. He smoked, too.

The main concern I have is which direction this is heading. The city council in Belmont has unanimously approved banning smoking everywhere, including your own car, except for detached single housing. If you live in an apartment or condo, you can't smoke legally. A blogger who lives in the area left a comment on my blog that said this leaves out pretty much everyone but the wealthy, since most people can't afford to live in single, detached homes.

Also... a couple in Colorado who own their townhouse were banned from smoking in it by their homeowners association and when they challenged it, a judge ruled against them.

Our ban hasn't even started yet, and there is evidence of what's coming next. People who voted for issue 5 effectively gave government permission to start looking at other ways to restrict our rights. Which is what those opposed to the ban have been saying all along...

posted by valbee at 06:11 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



5 STARS for NYC smoke-easies.

Once they get that idiot Bloomberg out of there, you will see great change in the Big Apple.

posted by Musician at 07:14 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



On the Cleveland cig tax.

I wonder if the arts organizations in Columbus will consider this one, too.

Gotta say Rob Crane being silent until the 11th hour still smells of something...shall I say....

"interesting"

RIP Ray Hanley, director of the Ohio Arts Council who fell from the ledge of Rob Crane's mother's apartment in May.

posted by Musician at 07:21 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



Valbee, you just don't know the Chicken Little jabs I have suffered concerning this very thing.

I can easily say "I told you so" but that is a hollow victory because the lemmings are trying to take us with them.

They have, but I will not join this collective mindset that originates from the lowest depths of hell itself.

posted by Musician at 07:31 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 17, 2006     #



junta - the tobacco companies are selling legal products, no different than Budwiser beer. They are legally allowed to sell their products. But you don't see cities & states slapping high taxes on beer, pepsi,household cleansers (which can be toxic) doritoes - just to finance something like the arts, or to 'help out' when money is tight. It is always cigs they keep raising taxes on.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/11/cuyahoga-county-approves-cigarette-tax.html

Friday, November 10, 2006
Cuyahoga County Approves Cigarette Tax Increase to Fund the Arts
Voters in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland and its suburbs, approved Issue 18, which increases the tax on cigarettes by 30 cents per pack in order to fund arts programs, including the performing arts in the county. The measure is expected to raise $20 million a year, all of which will be used to support the arts.

Two years ago, Cuyahoga County voters rejected a proposed property tax increase that would have provided funding for the arts. According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a decision was made to tax smokers because other types of taxes were deemed to be politically risky: "Issue 18 was the county cultural industry's second attempt in recent years to win voter support for public funding. In March 2004, voters defeated a proposed property-tax increase to benefit economic development including arts and culture. Arts and elected leaders decided to pursue public support this year through a cigarette-tax increase after other types of taxes, including property, real-estate conveyances, food-and-beverage and general sales, were rejected as inadequate or too politically risky."

In explaining their decision to propose a tax on cigarettes, Issue 18 supporters wrote: "Northeast Ohioans have clearly shown that they do not want new additions to their property taxes."

The advertisements for Issue 18 boasted: "If you don't smoke, you won't pay anything for Issue 18."

The Rest of the Story

This is very bad public policy. I think it is a great example of a truly regressive tax.

The costs of the policy are borne entirely by smokers, who represent a disproportionately lower-income and lower-education group. The benefits of the policy, however, accrue primarily to upper-income and higher-education groups.

This is a classic example of tax the poor to benefit the rich. And I think it's inappropriate.

If higher income people want more arts in their communities, then that's great. But the costs of those programs should be borne by those higher income folks. Raising property taxes to support such programs makes perfect sense. The wealthiest citizens will bear a proportionately higher share of the costs and will accrue a corresponding proportionately higher share of the benefits. That's fair.

But asking the poor to pay for programs so that people who are more well-off can enjoy the arts is unfair.

What's interesting is that supporters of Issue 18 readily admit that they are funding the arts on the backs of smokers. And they readily admit that the reason they are picking on smokers is because they don't have the courage to take on any political risk.

What it amounts to is: I'm not willing to risk losing any votes from the wealthy, so I'm going to help my political career by putting a higher tax burden on those who can least afford it, but who have the least political power.

According to the Plain Dealer article, the only groups which opposed Issue 18 were Philip Morris and Citizens Against New Taxes. Well you can add my name to that list. I'll stand alongside Philip Morris on this one. And I think it's unfortunate that apparently no anti-smoking or public health groups in Ohio opposed this initiative.

If you are going to tax cigarettes in order to raise revenues that will be used for programs whose benefits will accrue largely to smokers, then that's one thing. But to use smokers to raise funds for programs that the government should be funding anyway is wrong. To do so in order to avoid having to take on political risk by taxing wealthy people is disgusting.

A 30 cent per pack tax increase is not going to be enough to get smokers to quit. Perhaps some will cut down slightly. But the overall health benefits of the proposal will be minimal. The costs, however, could be quite high. There are many smokers, especially those who are poor, who pay a significant proportion of their income for cigarettes, sometimes at the expense of healthier food. Because of the addictive power of cigarettes, most of these smokers will not quit, despite the tax increase. They will just pay a higher proportion of their income for the cigarettes. They will be hurt by the tax increase.

But supporters of Issue 18 are OK with hurting the poorest and most addicted smokers. Because the richest citizens of the greater Cleveland area will benefit by being able to enjoy their operas, ballets, and concerts.

How many inner-city Cleveland residents or poorer residents of other cities and towns do you think will be able to take advantage of the increased support for the arts? Well take a look at next Friday's Cleveland Symphony concert, which features Mitsuko Uchida performing Mozart's piano concertos (K. 450 and K. 537), as well as a performance of Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony Number 1 (to be honest, I could live without the Schoenberg piece).

If you want to sit in the orchestra or lower balcony seats, you're talking $61 a pop. Mid-balcony seats are $50 each. Upper balcony (nose-bleed) seats are a bargain at $34 per head. There's sure going to be a lot of socioeconomic diversity at that concert.

And suppose you are not too well off economically and you want to send your kid to the Karamu Performing Arts Theater for their youth performing arts program this year. For your kid to get to go to one class every two months, you pay $225. For a mere one class per month, you pay $360. Youth dance ensemble and youth performance theater classes are $300 a head.

In my view, anti-smoking groups should have been on the front lines opposing this regressive tax proposal. Taxing the poor to benefit the rich is not consistent with the social justice paradigm that is supposed to be the basis for all public health action.

posted by starling02 at 02:46 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 18, 2006     #



http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/11/anti-smoking-groups-cant-handle-truth.html

(Posted on another site by -
Name:
Michael Siegel
Location:
Boston, Massachusetts
I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions.

**************************************

Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Anti-Smoking Groups Can't Handle the Truth; Personal Attacks Erupting After Expressing My Opinions about Misleading Scientific Claims
Apparently, the truth can be painful. Rather than either accepting it or demonstrating why my arguments are wrong, anti-smoking groups are resorting to abusive personal attacks.

Today's example comes from a long-time friend and colleague with whom I worked closely for a number of years on issues related to federal tobacco legislation. This colleague heads up a statewide anti-smoking group. In an email to me yesterday, this anti-smoking group wrote:

"You are the one misrepresenting public health, and doing great damage for all that you and the rest of us have worked for so many years. Take me off your mailing list ASAP. I have better things to do than read items from your tobacco industry support group."

The Rest of the Story

This is actually the first time in a long while that I am realizing that my efforts to restore some scientific integrity to the movement are having an effect. Because this is type of reaction that one would expect only if the anti-smoking group in question realized that there was some truth to my argument. If what I were arguing were mere hogwash, my claims would simply be dismissed as nonsense, and would garner no such response.

The fact that groups are apparently very angry with me suggests that at least subconsciously, they are afraid that they are indeed in trouble because they are misleading people. Coming from someone who is a respected scientist in the field and who has published more than 60 articles, many of them regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke, I can see why my commentary is threatening to these groups.

Still, they wouldn't respond so abusively if they didn't, deep down, realize that there were some serious problems.

Nevertheless, while I understand the reason behind this derogatory personal attack, I think it would be nice if anti-smoking groups actually made an effort to defend their statements and to show me why I am wrong. I think they owe nothing less to the public.

At least I had the decency to provide a detailed, scientific, evidence-based explanation of the reasons why I think the claims of a number of anti-smoking groups about the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke are misleading. In response, I just get this personal attack from the organization with not even a single argument for why my reasoning is wrong.

Incidentally, this individual is not a physician or a scientist, so they are probably not in a position to debate me on this issue. So I guess all that is left is to issue a derogatory and abusive personal attack on their colleague.

Seriously - with colleagues like this, do I really need enemies?

You dedicate 21 years of your life to working with a group of colleagues for a common cause and this is what you get?

Now let's get a few things straight.

First, it is not me who is doing the damage. I'm just documenting it. If there is damage being done, it's being done by the anti-smoking groups which are making the misleading and inaccurate health claims in the first place. They are the ones who are threatening the credibility, integrity, and effectiveness of the movement and doing great damage to the cause that I and they have worked for years to promote.

It was not me who claimed that just 30 seconds of secondhand smoke exposure caused coronary artery function among nonsmokers to be just as bad as among lifetime smokers.

It was not me who claimed that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes as much heart damage as a lifetime of chronic active smoking.

It was not me who went against the Surgeon General's report and told the public that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that secondhand smoke causes debilitating, irreversible chronic lung disease - pulmonary emphysema - in nonsmokers.

Let's get the facts straight here.

Second, the group seems to be accusing me of being a tobacco industry-supported group. This is the most common tactic that I've experienced. When advocates don't like the arguments I'm making, they accuse me of working for the tobacco industry. But the group offers no evidence to support such a contention. I look forward to seeing their documentation of the links between my blog and the tobacco industry. (Hopefully they haven't found out about the donations I have accepted to support this web site - but the burden is on them to document their accusations, not on me).

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the response is the statement that anti-smoking groups have better things to do then to ensure that the claims they are making to the public are accurate. Apparently, the science is just something that is getting in the way of the agenda. We don't have time to worry about the science.

I'll rest my case with my readers: you tell me who is doing the misrepresenting of the science - is it me by suggesting that there is no evidence that 30 seconds of secondhand smoke exposure can cause severe coronary artery damage similar to that seen in a smoker and that it is absurd to claim that simply walking through a smoky room causes heart attacks, or is it those making these claims who are misleading the public?

posted by starling02 at 02:54 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 18, 2006     #



http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/10/smokefreeohio-misrepresenting.html
(From the same doctor above, who spent 20 years in SHS research.)

Tuesday, October 31, 2006
SmokeFreeOhio Misrepresenting Scientific Research in Backing Up Unsubstantiated Health Claim
In support of its efforts to promote Issue 5, which would ban smoking in all Ohio workplaces, bars, and restaurants, SmokeFreeOhio is publicly claiming that secondhand smoke causes pulmonary emphysema.

According to its secondhand smoke fact sheet: "Secondhand smoke can cause the debilitating disease pulmonary emphysema, causing severe damage to the walls of the air sacs, with the lungs eventually losing their capacity to expand and contract."

To back up this claim, which is unsupported (and actually contradicted) by the U.S. Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking and by the California EPA report, SmokeFreeOhio cites a single study: reference 14 on its fact sheet.

Citing this scientific reference - a study published in the American Journal of Physiology - makes it appear to the public as though the claim made by SmokeFreeOhio is documented in the scientific literature.

Curious to see the research that SmokeFreeOhio was using to substantiate its claim that secondhand smoke causes pulmonary emphysema, I examined the article.

It is also worth noting that when I corresponded with a representative of SmokeFreeOhio and expressed my concerns that the documentation to support a causal link between secondhand smoke and emphysema was inadequate, the representative responded by suggesting that if I had a problem, I should take it up with the authors of that paper.

So here's what the authors of that paper had to say in the article's abstract:

"Cigarette smoke is a mixture of chemicals having direct and/or indirect toxic effects on different lung cells. We investigated the effect of cigarette smoke on human lung fibroblasts (HFL-1) oxidation and apoptosis. Cells were exposed to various concentrations (1, 5, and 10%) of cigarette smoke extract (CSE) for 3 h, and oxidative stress and apoptosis were assessed by fluorescenceactivated cell sorting and confocal laser fluorescence microscopy. Both oxidative stress and apoptosis exhibited a doseresponse relationship with CSE concentrations. Lung fibroblasts also showed marked DNA fragmentation at the Comet assay after exposure to 10% CSE. Coincubation of HLF-1 cells with N-acetylcysteine (1 mM) during CSE exposure significantly reduced oxidative stress, apoptosis, and DNA fragmentation, whereas preincubation (3 h) with the glutathione- depleting agent buthionine sulfoximine (125 uM) produced a significant increase of oxidative stress. Cigarette smoke is a potent source of oxidative stress, DNA damage, and apoptosis for HFL-1 cells, and we speculate that this could contribute to the development of pulmonary emphysema in the lungs of smokers."

(Carnevali, S., Petruzzeli, S., Longoni, B., Vanacore, R., Barale, R., Cipollini, M., Scatena, F., Paggiaro, P., Celi, A., Giuntini, C. (2003, June). Cigarette smoke extract induces oxidative stress and apoptosis in human lung fibroblasts. American Journal of Physiology, 284, 955-964)


http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/10/in-my-view-glaring-scientific.html

Tuesday, October 31, 2006
IN MY VIEW: Glaring Scientific Inconsistency in SmokeFreeOhio's Campaign and More Misleading Campaign Statements
SmokeFreeOhio is defending its public contention that breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time increases heart attack risk by insisting that since the Surgeon General made this statement, it must be correct.

At the same time, however, SmokeFreeOhio is ignoring the Surgeon General's conclusion that there is not adequate evidence to link secondhand smoke with emphysema, and telling the public nonetheless that: "Secondhand smoke can cause the debilitating disease pulmonary emphysema, causing severe damage to the walls of the air sacs, with the lungs eventually losing their capacity to expand and contract."

This certainly has the appearance of what might be called cherry-picking. When you like what the Surgeon General says, then repeat it. When you don't like what the Surgeon General says, then defy it.

If SmokeFreeOhio were presenting any scientific arguments of their own to back up their claims, then this wouldn't necessarily be a problem. One is entitled to agree selectively with elements of a scientific report. However, SmokeFreeOhio is not backing up its claims, and instead has relied on the shallow argument that it can claim that brief secondhand smoke exposure causes heart attacks because the Surgeon General said so.

This is perhaps not an unreasonable justification, except for the fact that the group is ignoring the Surgeon General's conclusions about the relationship between secondhand smoke and emphysema.

But I think SmokeFreeOhio has an obligation to go beyond this in backing up its claims. I think when you make a statement that the Surgeon General's report has concluded that a brief secondhand smoke exposure causes heart attacks, you need to at least verify that the report draws such a conclusion. In other words, you have to actually read the report.

Apparently, SmokeFreeOhio has not read the report, because if it had, it would have noted that nowhere in the report does it conclude that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart attacks.

This might be excusable because the organization just assumed that the report contained this conclusion. However, I informed them that the report did not contain such a conclusion, and by now they have had the time to realize this and correct their fact sheet, something they have not done.

One would think that with just 1 week until the election, when voters will be relying on their campaign statements in the voting booth, SmokeFreeOhio would want to be as accurate as possible with their campaign claims. This does not appear to be the case.

The Rest of the Story

To make matters worse, I am today revealing that SmokeFreeOhio is making yet another misleading public claim. The group is telling the public that the effects of a brief (minutes to hours) exposure to secondhand smoke on atherosclerosis among nonsmokers are nearly the same as those of chronic active smoking on smokers.

In its secondhand smoke "fact sheet," the group claims: "Evidence is rapidly accumulating that the cardiovascular system - —platelet and endothelial function, arterial stiffness, atherosclerosis, oxidative stress, inflammation, heart rate variability, energy metabolism and increased infarct size - —is exquisitely sensitive to toxins in secondhand smoke. The effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking."

Clearly, one of the effects SmokeFreeOhio is referring to is atherosclerosis, since that is listed in the preceding sentence.

Is it true, then, that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke (minutes to hours) has nearly as large an effect on atherosclerosis as chronic active smoking?

The answer is a resounding NO. In fact, a brief exposure to secondhand smoke has NO effect on atherosclerosis among nonsmokers. You simply cannot develop atherosclerosis from a several-hour exposure. It's medically impossible.

In contrast, chronic active smoking can cause severe atherosclerosis. I have seen patients with greater than 95% stenosis (narrowing) of their coronary arteries due to chronic active smoking.

Is 0% nearly as large as 95%? I don't think so.

In my opinion, SmokeFreeOhio is misleading the public into thinking that the effects of a brief exposure to secondhand smoke on atherosclerosis are nearly the same as those of chronic active smoking. I don't think I'm stretching here since that's exactly what the "fact sheet" states. Yet this claim is untruthful. It's fallacious. The statement, then, is very misleading.

I should also point out that even if one were to accept that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke could cause a heart attack, this increased risk would only apply to persons with severe existing coronary artery disease. SmokeFreeOhio does not even take pains to clarify that its statement refers only to such individuals. Thus, it misleads the public into thinking that anyone exposed to secondhand smoke briefly could drop dead from a heart attack. I find that to be irresponsible.

I think it is really a shame that with just one week left before the election, SmokeFreeOhio continues to rely upon a campaign of deception, rather than on one of scientific accuracy.

I know that SmokeFreeOhio has made some attempt to correct their statements. They did delete several of the statements that I reported many months ago were misleading. But they are well aware that several misleading statements remain. It looks, however, like the misleading of voters is going to continue right up until the time they enter the polling booths.

This political season has been very disturbing to me. I've observed lots of national and regional campaigns that appear to me to be based more on deception than on sticking to the documented facts. All kinds of misleading insinuations have been made about particular candidates. It is very disappointing to me that we as anti-smoking groups are part of these tactics of misleading people to try to obtain their votes.

To me, the election is kind of tainted if people's votes are based on having been misled about the facts, rather than on educating people about the actual facts and letting them make a decision based on the whole truth.

In Ohio, both sides have been misleading the public. I don't know which side is worse, but from my perspective, I simply cannot imagine, with any integrity, telling people that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke has effects on atherosclerosis that are nearly the same as the effects of chronic active smoking.

That's just absurd.

In some ways, I think SmokeFreeOhio is probably misleading more people than Smoke Less Ohio. Because there has been a fair amount of publicity about the misleading tactics of the Smoke Less group. But there has not been much publicity about how SmokeFreeOhio is telling people that they can develop narrowing of their coronary arteries from a mere minutes to hours-long exposure to secondhand smoke, something that in reality takes about 15-20 years, at a minimum, to occur.

I could have written this off to just scientific sloppiness, if it weren't for the fact that SmokeFreeOhio has shown zero interest in considering my arguments and engaging in a dialogue that might actually result in correcting their so-called fact sheets so that they do not mislead the public. SmokeFreeOhio apparently has enough confidence in my scientific ability to rely upon my research and arguments to support a number of their public claims. But they don't want to listen when what I'm arguing runs against what they want to be able to claim.

It's one thing when you see politicians mislead the public in order to gain votes. But to see my fellow anti-smoking groups doing this is not something I'm used to. And it is very sad and disappointing to me.

I thought we were better than this
The Rest of the Story

There's just one minor problem with the use of this article to back up SmokeFreeOhio's claim: this article concludes that damage to fibroblasts can contribute to the development of pulmonary emphysema in the lungs of smokers, not nonsmokers. A minor technicality? Hardly.

The rest of the story is that SmokeFreeOhio is completely misrepresenting this scientific research to the public. They are presenting this research as supporting the conclusion that secondhand smoke causes pulmonary emphysema in nonsmokers. But what the article actually concludes is that tobacco smoke induces oxidative stress and apoptosis in fibroblasts in the lung, providing a potential mechanism by which active smoking contributes to the development of pulmonary emphysema.

In fact, nowhere in the paper does it even suggest that secondhand smoke can cause emphysema in nonsmokers.

This doesn't look good. Because it makes it appear that SmokeFreeOhio is intentionally misrepresenting the science in order to support its apparently untenable position.

I suppose one could argue that this was simply a mistake. But it seems hard to misread the clear conclusion of the paper. It concludes that the observed damage to lung fibroblasts could contribute to the development of pulmonary emphysema in the lungs of smokers. Even if one didn't read the rest of the article, one would still see that the article is referring to emphysema among smokers, not nonsmokers. It seems as clear as day to me. I don't think you even need to be a scientist to read the conclusion and understand that it is talking about smokers. After all, it says: smokers.

You can see why it is difficult for me to conclude anything other than that SmokeFreeOhio is intentionally misrepresenting this scientific research.

By the way, even if this article did postulate that tobacco smoke could contribute to the development of emphysema among nonsmokers, it is a far cry from being adequate documentation to support a conclusion that secondhand smoke causes emphysema. This is a study of the effect of tobacco smoke extract on human lung cells. The study does not involve actual people. It does not involve the identification of any actual cases of emphysema among nonsmokers. So it in no way provides support for a conclusion that secondhand smoke causes emphysema among nonsmokers.

To make matters worse, this is not the only misrepresentation of the science in SmokeFreeOhio's campaign. The group also claims that: "Secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of developing pancreatic cancer." To back up this claim - which is unsupported by both the U.S. Surgeon General's report and the California EPA report - SmokeFreeOhio relies upon a single study: reference 15 on its fact sheet.

Curious about the evidence that would support SmokeFreeOhio making a claim, based on a single study, that is unsupported by the Surgeon General and the California EPA, I examined this study.

The basic conclusion of the study was as follows: "Among never smokers, those who were exposed to ETS both as a child and as an adult had an odds ratio of 1.21 (95% CI=0.60-2.44) relative to those with no exposure." (Villeneuve, P., Johnson, K., Mao, Y., Hanley, A. [2004, Jan.-Feb.] Environmental tobacco smoke and the risk of pancreatic cancer: Findings from a Canadian population-based case-control study. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(1), 32-7).

In other words, the study found no significant increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer among passive smokers.

For those unfamiliar with epidemiology, if the odds ratio for pancreatic cancer associated with passive smoking was 1.0, it would indicate no increased risk. If the 95% confidence interval around the study's estimate for the odds ratio includes 1.0, then the study is unable to conclude that there was a significant increase in pancreatic cancer risk among nonsmokers. In this study, the lower end of the confidence interval is 0.60. In other words, it is quite possible that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke were only 0.6 times as likely to get pancreatic cancer. From this study, one cannot even conclude that secondhand smoke doesn't have a protective effect against pancreatic cancer.

Obviously, secondhand smoke doesn't have a protective effect. But the point is simply that the study found no significant elevation of risk among nonsmokers, and the results weren't even close to being statistically significant.

Does this mean that secondhand smoke does not cause a slight increase in pancreatic cancer risk? No. But it does mean that this single study cannot be used to back up the claim that secondhand smoke causes pancreatic cancer. In my opinion, SmokeFreeOhio is again misrepresenting the scientific research in order to create the appearance of their being scientific support for the claim that it is making.

This truly is deception. There's just no way around it any more. You can't put together this combination of misrepresented scientific findings to create the appearance for the support of claims which are not consistent with the conclusions of the Surgeon General and California EPA and convince me that these are just innocent mistakes. It has the clear appearance that SmokeFreeOhio is trying to mislead the public into thinking that there is strong scientific support for its claims when in fact, the science cited does not actually support these claims.

SmokeFreeOhio is running a campaign of deception, clear and simple. In my mind, this campaign of deception is irresponsible and unethical. I think that we in public health have a responsibility - an ethical responsibility - to accurately report the science to the public. SmokeFreeOhio is not only failing to do that, but they are misrepresenting the science in ways that are misleading the public.

As far as I'm concerned, the campaign battle over Issues 4 and 5 in Ohio is being fought with major deception on both sides.

If you want to see a battle in Ohio fought with any integrity, I'm afraid you'll have to wait until November 18, when the Wolverines head down to Columbus to take on Ohio State in a contest that will have national championship implications. And don't expect any trickery in that battle. Just in the trenches, hard-nosed, head-to-head football

posted by starling02 at 03:02 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 18, 2006     #



Siegel is a bright light in the darkness of antismoking.

God Bless Him.

He has been through hell because he TELLS THE TRUTH, wants REASONABLE DISCUSSION, does not want the movement to rely on JUNK SCIENCE and SCARE TACTICS that have no foundation WHATSOEVER.

Unlike the Stu Kerr clones placed strategically around the United States of America

(Or I should say now, the United Soviet States of Amerikkka.)

posted by Musician at 05:27 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 18, 2006     #



The MSA that socked the tobacco companies megabillions WAS originally supposed to be used for the treatment of smokers, to ease medicaid for treatment to anyone who suffered from a smoking-related illness. NOTHING ELSE!! Unfortunately-guess what-THEY LIED AGAIN. The Kerrs of the world had it put in the language that the evil 'big tobacco' would/could have NO SAY in how the money was spent. That's why I never want to hear that tired-ass argument that 'it costs everybody through health care payments' AGAIN.
posted by Darkseid at 05:45 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 18, 2006     #



starling02 -

"Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries in life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation."

Adam Smith
1776

posted by stukerr at 11:10 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 20, 2006     #



Darkseid - It was H.R. 351 (01/19/99) and S. 346 (02/03/99) that insured there would be "no restrictions on how states use their tobacco settlement funds".

All tobacco control advocates find those acts shameful.

posted by stukerr at 11:57 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 20, 2006     #



The Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A state senator wants to force Missouri stores to sell warm beer. Under a bill by Sen. Bill Alter, grocery and convenience stores would risk losing their liquor licenses if they sold beer colder than 60 degrees. The intent is to cut down on drunken driving by making it less tempting to pop open a beer after leaving the store.

"The only reason why beer would need to be cold is so that it can be consumed right away," Alter, who has been a police offer for more than 20 years, said Thursday.

He said the idea came from a fifth-grade student in Jefferson County who was participating in a program to teach elementary students about state government. He sought their suggestions for new laws and chose the cold beer ban from a list of the top three ideas.

posted by Darkseid at 07:04 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 20, 2006     #



Great.
More power to the neo-Hitler youth.

This is just to be expected.

What the hell is wrong with this country?
The terrorists have won. They made this country nothing more than a bunch of damn ninnies in a few short years.

Cops taking suggestions from 5th graders.

The old adage needs to be changed to "Out of the mouth of babes usualy comes sass."

Thing is these youth won't take care of us in our old age. We'll be kicked to the curb if lucky or euthanized if we get to be "too much of a burden".

Oh well.....!

posted by Musician at 08:25 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 20, 2006     #



Yo Stu? Adam Smith 1776

Helllllllooooooooooooo??????

Dude, it's like 2006?

(looks around for confirmation)

posted by katie82640 at 11:49 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 20, 2006     #



smoke nazi's
smoking nazis
smoke nazis
x 2 more said by starling

JR is a anti-free speech nazi -- UTstudentFUJR

Adolf Hitler
More power to the neo-Hitler youth. -- Musician

hitler, Goebells, and Mao & The Communists. -- DarkCodger

THIS THREAD NEEDS DELETION DUE TO EXCESSIVE GODWINNING.

posted by anonymouscoward at 04:05 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 21, 2006     #



Godwinning.....

LOL.

In some internet debate that applies, but not this one if you've ever read the history of the antismoking movement in Germany during the......can I say it?.....reign of AH?

There. I didn't quite say it. Only used the initials.

posted by Musician at 09:48 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 21, 2006     #



Oh and if I might add....AH was voted into office by the people and the title of this thread is:

"Who's Tired of Paying for People's Bad Decisions"

GOD didn't WIN on Election Day on this issue.
Some other entity comes to mind even though this one is thought to love smokey places..........according to legend.

The old cover of the book adage and the wolf in sheeps clothing applies.

But over 40% of us already knew this. There is still so much work to be done.

posted by Musician at 09:59 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 21, 2006     #



Good catch, Musician. I was hoping someone would notice a kid came up with the idea. The schools are doing their job well.
posted by Darkseid at 07:21 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 21, 2006     #



Sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries in life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation."

WHAT the hell does that have to do with anything?? Nobody said these things were necessary to life, or denys the taxation end of it. I object that tobacco seems to be the only thing that is taxed heavily, and repeated as needed whenever they need cash, for the arts, etc. If you use THAT arguement, then anything outside of food, air and water is NOT a right - watch out, they're coming for YOU next.

posted by starling02 at 12:35 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 22, 2006     #



Stu is taxing himself.
Nannies are so tiresome.

posted by Musician at 08:19 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 22, 2006     #



So are those folks who keep posting "They are coming to take you away, ha-ha . . ."
posted by stukerr at 12:00 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 22, 2006     #



But Stu, those individuals at least post on a variety of topics. Whereas, with one exception that I can recall, you are only here to offer your comments on one thing. We've heard you say it. Obviously, we don't agree with you. So, why are you still here, exactly?
posted by valbee at 12:53 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 22, 2006     #



Turn that record over and play the backwards track of it.
You'll find the HIDDEN MESSAGE.

Taft shut down most of the funny farms, otherwise YOU would be posting from one.

posted by Musician at 04:14 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 22, 2006     #



Hey, ya all!

Merry Christamas.

This season let's find some secular decorations of Santa smoking a pipe or a snowman doing the same, buy them in good quantity and make out like bandits selling them on Ebay.

posted by Musician at 08:24 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 24, 2006     #



(Just wanted to make sure that the verboten word of this season made it through any PC word filters Stu might have suggested.)

Merry Christ(a)mas!!!

posted by Musician at 08:29 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 24, 2006     #



Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
posted by Musician at 08:36 A.M. EST on Fri Nov 24, 2006     #



Gee whiz...I'm grinning here. I'm a history buff. Stu - my dear - if history holds true - you LOSE.

We'll see.......we shall see.

posted by katie82640 at 11:14 P.M. EST on Fri Nov 24, 2006     #



Earlier, I asked stukker & ampage a question and never got an answer. I'll ask it again -
What are the names of the bars you both hang out in, that you 'can't' unless there's a smoking ban that prohibits smoking (gee, that word "prohibits" sounds almost just like "PROHIBITION")? Name them. My guess is, neither of you hang out in bars anyway. Stukker - you made a comment on another thread that there wasn't anything that was called a 'bar' or something..... I"m still waiting to hear what the hell you meant by that. Most of the world knows what a 'bar' is, so therefore, they must exist. I just want to know where it is you plan to 'party down' at.

My other question for stukker & ampage was -
Name three Toledo restaurants that you could not eat in because they had a smoking section that was NOT in a separate enclosed room with it's own ventilation system - could not eat in because the smoke bothered you. Name them. I'm really curious because over 98 percent of all Toledo restaurants were already non-smoking - with NO separate smoking section since the last ban. We've had to eat out in Michigan, Maumee, etc. because there weren't any in Toledo, except for a couple we didnt like the food. My point is, I have trouble feeling sorry for you on this one.

Last question for stukker & ampage - I want to know exactly how you were discomforted, put out, etc. by being in a restaurant that had a separate, enclosed smoking section with it's own ventilation system. I mean, discomforted enough to push for a total smoking ban (prohibit - prohibition). Enough to push for a law that will cause financial damage to private businesses. Be specific, cite examples.

posted by starling02 at 12:21 A.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



I hope that they will answer your questions.
However if not, I can easily say this is the reason.

They couldn't stand to SEE smoking going on in these restaurants you speak of even though their little delicate constitutions didn't come into contact with the SMELL of it except through imagination.
These are the same kinds of folks who think if someone is smoking in the car ahead of them they will be "compromised" in some way.
Or that somehow they will get a whiff of "SHS" if they see a movie with an actor smoking in it.

Mr. Rogers: "Can you spell neurotic? I knew you could."

People like this don't give a damn concerning the local Ma and Pa businesses, starling02, but it still it a good question ask even though you will never get a satisfactory answer from these nannies.

posted by Musician at 02:18 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



1.) I hate to admit it, but I have been in probably 90% of the bars in the area. But you are right, I don't "hang out" in bars. Not really a goal of mine.

2.) Did I ever say I was only bothered by smoke in Toledo? If so, please tell me where. Most recently I wanted to barf in Casa Barons in Perrysburg, The Seafood in Sylvania and and The River Cafe in Toledo/Erie Mi. Some of the smoking areas worked (TGIF's) some didn't (Fritz and Alfredos). But, believe it or not I am not voting just for me. I voted for those non-smokers forced to work in a fishbowl. And don't play the "They don;t have to work there" BS - you can't say they can pick and choose employemnt and then on another board complain about unemployment. It's not that simple.

3.) I am personally discomforted by the smell of smoke and the fact that SHS does kill whether you want to believe it or not. But the thing that really discomfots me now - the fact that YOU will be causing the Ma and Pas to lose money by not going and you don't even realize it. It's not their fault YOU can't smoke there, but YOU go elsewhere anyway. YOU are the one that already goes to Maumee and Michigan to spend your money because YOU cannot go a few hours without smoking. If any place closes due to lack of patrons it will be because of YOU, not me.

Not sure how many times you need to be hit over the head with soemthing.

The End

posted by Ampage at 03:25 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Nice way to avoid her question, Ampage. She asked you to specifically name three TOLEDO restaurants that you've been in, because Toledo restaurants that allowed smoking are (were) required to have enclosed, separately ventilated areas for smoking sections.

So, try again to answer the question instead of dodging it. Name three Toledo restaurants that you've been in since Toledo's smoking ban began, where smoking bothered you.

posted by valbee at 05:07 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



I see you did list one in Toledo that bothered you - Fritz & Alfredo's. Now I'm curious... did you ever complain to the management?
posted by valbee at 05:12 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



ampage - Fritz & Alfredos I believe the smoking section is in the BAR, not the other SIDE of the restaurant (divided by a WALL). Ok, I haven't been to F & A's since the ban, so I'm not sure if they had an enclosed room, or not (if not, then you couldn't smoke there at all anyway). Please cite examples of TOLEDO restaurants SINCE the ban went into effect, not 5 years ago.

Bars -hm, no, I don't judge you for not hanging out in bars, I dont either, except for once-in-a-while occasions. However, it was not ME, that decided to tell private business owners what they allow in their businesses - it was YOU. We can quibble till the cows come home on some issues - but one thing is a GIVEN. You walk into a bar, it will probably have smokers. You don't have to like that it does, but that's how it's been since there have been bars, clubs, pubs, taverns, right on down to that little 2 foot counter in a rain forest I saw in Jamaica - people go to bars to drink, smoke & let off steam - it's the nature of the beast. IF you don't care for that envirnment - then don't GO THERE, you always had the freedom of choise to NOT ENTER. But forcing a ban on bars was the supreme act of arrogance. The smoke haters don't like that bars have smokers, so rather than just not entering, they decide to say "Let's just pass a ban and we'll make the bars what WE think they should be, never mind the fact that we don't really hang out in bars(not what we aspire to do), but just 'because' it makes us feel superiour". Of all the self serving, smug mindsets - that grabs it.

I have heard your arguements about the poor restaurant & bar employees who have to work in places with second hand smoke - how they have no choise in employment, etc. That is so much bullshit. The jobs in bars & restaurants are more plentiful than most other jobs. They are some of the most transient employees of any (ask jimavolt or any employer of same). I have worked as a waitress, cocktail waitress, bartender in many places over the years, and I can tell you that most of these fragile employees smoke themselves (even now). Or, they live or play with smokers. If you're a non-smoking 16 - 25 yr old employee of this type of job, you can pretty much pick & choose where to work - in the sense that if you're that sensitive to SHS, then you can always find a new employer and demand to be put in the no-smoking section. I suggest you read the book "Kitchen Confidential", by Anthony Bourdain (also, "Nasty Bits' by same just published). He is a famous chef, on tv & off, who writes for Gourmet Magazine, and these books talk the down & dirty behind the scenes of restaurant & bar life through the eyes of the employees. Are you aware, ampage, that most bar & restaurant workers (or a huge number who are single or 'allowed to') go to dive bars after work (they seem to prefer dive bars, even the haughtiest chefs, etc.) where they drink & smoke & blow off steam till the wee hours? I have already posted the links that PROVE this (go back & re-read, I"m not repeating it again) - Nicotine is a "Class A Carcinigen" -BUT, so is sunlight, grilled meat, popcorn, and about 10,000 other chemicals naturally found in food & drink. My point here, is that those restaurant employees ingest MORE carcinigens cooking your damned MEAL than you ingest in SHS. More in a day than smoking a cigarette. Alcohol fumes in bars - DITTO. Every waitress I knew preferred to work in the smoking sections because they were more fun, and people tipped better. The busboys have to clear YOUR dirty dishes, that YOU touched when you're carrying a cold or the flu; or downwind when YOU sneeze. Bartenders & cocktail waitresses have to worry about bar fights from drunks & getting caught in the crossfire. I hate to break it to ya ampage, but there is no utopian, aneceptic carcinagen free world. You are exposed to carcinagens every day that have nothing to do with SHS, like it or not. Also, some people are more genetically prone to cancers than others - like it or not. Explains why so many NON smokers who did not live or work around SHS get cancer. NOBODY gets out of here alive ampage. As for your (or stukkers) comment about SHS causing repiratory problems, ear infections, etc. - they have not proven that SHS has anything at all to do with that - HOW do you PROVE that is the cause of a chest cold or an earache??????? Document and cite examples please.

posted by starling02 at 05:54 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Okay you are right - a cold and cancer are one and the same. I change my mind - I wish I could change my vote. Please forgive me.

It's over and I am done with this topic (I think for the thrid time - lol).

Use all these keystrokes to try and overturn it - nothing you say here helps you "fight the good fight".

We agree to disagree and Ohio will soon be smoke free. I am a poet and didn't know it.

I am sorry you have to get up and go outside and look like a spectacle to go smoke. Poor you.

The only thing that is fact is that YOU will cause places to close - not me. I will be spending more money at these establishments. I can only hope that it balances with the money YOU won't be spending. Seriously, if YOU cannot go two hours without a smoke YOU have a problem. What the heck does your house look/smell like? Yuckalicious!

The End - for real yo.

posted by Ampage at 06:22 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Starling, when are you going to realize this arrogant prick only cares about himself and his wants? It's all about the smell. And he's also a liar, since he will NOT go out any more often than he did before. Smokers can't carry every hospitality business in the state,and non-smokers won't be going out any more than they did before, so it's all up to the rabid smoker-haters. Will they go out more to save them? The answer is no. But he wanted to make sure that a business in Cincinatti that he'll never go in didn't have the right to decide who its customers could be. And he says he's done with the topic (again), but he'll be back. He's too much of a gloating swine not to be, trust me. Probably within several posts.
posted by Darkseid at 06:47 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



actually ampage, my house smells fine, even with me and a daughter who smokes (she's not a minor). I have a purifier and a burner (gasp) so when anybody walks in they say it smells like candy or cinnamon (or jasmine, gardenia, whatever floats my boat).

And no, cancer & colds are not the same - no proof that shs causes either. Virus causes colds, that's well known (or bacteria). Not shs. Ditto ear infections. If antibitotics get rid of it, it sure as hell wasn't caused by shs.

posted by starling02 at 07:24 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Also-in case you'd forgotten, he really DOESN'T CARE how many places go under, since he posted the comment in one of these threads that it DIDN'T MATTER how many JOBS , RETIREMENTS, or PENSIONS were lost as a result of this, as long as smokers were thrown outside. He doesn't read any of the info at any of the links you put up. All he cares about is himself-NO ONE ELSE. THIS is the type of baby boomer I was referring to in my 'bring back the draft' thread. No suffering-no sacrifice-no caring about anyone or anything other than their own wants or desires. You simply have to stay as filled with hatred for them as they feel for you, since you'll never live up to their standards unless you come around to their way of thinking, since they regard you as sub-human scum, just as the 'filthy jews' were once upon a time.
posted by Darkseid at 07:30 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



I have no hate - just sympathy and sorrow.

Clueless wonders. Case in point.

If antibitotics get rid of it, it sure as hell wasn't caused by shs.

posted by Ampage at 08:04 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Google that Dr. McDumbass. Viral is not affected by anti's not bacterial - which your house is full of. Goodness. I mean, really.
posted by Ampage at 08:07 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



I have no hate - just sympathy and sorrow.
-------------------------------------------

Yep, which is why you're BACK (remember I'd said within a few posts, folks) gloating and attacking smokers (jews)again. Sympathy/sorrow, my ass.

posted by Darkseid at 09:26 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

posted by Darkseid at 09:39 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Yep, which is why you're BACK (remember I'd said within a few posts, folks) gloating and attacking smokers (jews)again.

Oh. My. God.

posted by thenick at 09:59 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



starling - the smoking section at Fritz & Alfredos is in the bar section that is to the right of the entry hall and is seperated by a door that is closed at all times. The room holds just a few tables and approx 30 seats total. There is no way that you could be bothered by the smoke in there unless you opened the door and went in.
posted by DoknowDocare at 11:14 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Thanks, doknow -been a long time since I've been there, I remembered they were separate somehow, but that was pre-ban.

Ampage, semantics aside, my point remains the same. Nobody can prove a cold, cough, ear infection was caused by second hand smoke. Still waiting for your answer ampage & stukker - how exactly were you harmed by entering a restaurant that had a separate, enclosed smoking section with it's own ventilation system? Cite examples. Since the ban we simply dont eat in Toledo - for reasons I've already stated. No, it's not fair to the businesses - but we don't have a lot of dining out dollars, and I intend to enjoy the ones I spend. My dollar is my vote. As for your comment about 'step outside' - that too, has been addressed often, the reasons why I won't do that. Your comment that I can't go two hours without a cig is baseless - yes, I can, and have often for longer witout breaking into a cold sweat and shakes (sarcasm in case it went over your head). But I won't leave one person to sit alone while I do so - I won't leave my group of friends when we go out, it's usually for 3 hours, but I won't - it's rude. I also won't step outside to stand in the dark, cold, snow, rain - why should I when I can go to Michigan and enjoy my dinner in a welcoming atmostphere and remain warm & dry?

posted by starling02 at 11:47 P.M. EST on Sat Nov 25, 2006     #



Starling - I agree with you 100%. And since we are only a mile from the state line it will be just as convenient to cross over.

I suffer from a chronic pain illness/disorder and am allergic to all the common pain meds that won't impair me so terribly that I can't function. When my pain levels are high I smoke like a chimney and this helps alleviate some of the pain. Even my physician understands this, and agrees that there is merit to it.

I would rather smoke a cigarette than be a narcotic junkie that can't think or function.

posted by DoknowDocare at 12:40 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



And before someone jumps up and says that's BS - here ya go. Just one of many studies...

http://www.pasteur.fr/actu/presse/com/communiques/nicoE.html

posted by DoknowDocare at 12:45 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



I understand about the narcotics. I know of people who have refused to become legal junkies also.

Brought this to mind......
The pharma companies would rather have smokers put Wellbutrin into their systems.

I find that an antidepressant being used for smoking cessation to be quite sinister and have many layers.

People that I have known who quit smoking for good walked away from it one day without any of the soma cushions (including the gum.).

(No, I am not a Scientologist. However, the overuse of antidepressants in this country as a "cure for every ill" is simply over the the top.)

posted by Musician at 08:43 A.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



I think most of the smoking cessation products ARE anti depressants. Wellbutrin is one, there's a few out there. My sister's doc wanted to put her on this new pill (starts with a "C"?) . She said it'd cost her minimum $120 a month, insurance won't pay for it, no gurantees, it hasn't been tested long term (or even short term), and it is also an anti depressant. I don't tolerate this type of drug well at all, I hate anything messing with my head, and they all seem to do that to me - or make me want to sleep all the time. I don't know one person who quit by using them, or the patches - for a month or so at best, on and off. I also read somewhere, that the phamacutical companies are now offering oral nicatine drinks, etc. So basically, they're pushing the drug they say is so dangerous.
posted by starling02 at 04:59 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



I find it hysterical that you find someone doing something wrong with every aspect of your life. You can't quit smoking so you rag on the companies that offer an aide. Sure they are out to make a profit - if you are so against it - quit on your own. Seems that would help alot of other aspects as well (no dining out money - an extra 3 bucks a day sure would help) You are truly a speed bump of life.

1-2-3

Google "why I shouldnt quit.com"

posted by Ampage at 08:03 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



This from the New York Times. It's an editorial, but it's based in fact.
posted by junta330 at 11:03 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



ampage, I do not find something wrong with every aspect of my life. This is not about whether I can, or do quit smoking or not. It is about losing freedoms - private business owners being told how they may run their businesses; that there is a gross conflict of interest when the pharmacutical companies merge with govt. to make a profit by pushing inefficient, dangerous, expensive products as a replacement for smoking; that smokers are being expected to take antidepresents which alter their mood & minds just because some people can't comprehend the concept of 'freedom of choise to not enter a business with a smoking section'; etc. we've been through all of this, I won't belabor it again (go back and re-read). You clearly did not read the link/article that showed nicatine replacement therapy is more dangerous than smoking - more hazardous to the heart than smoking. In case you're too lazy to go back to find the original post/link, here is is one last time.

Saturday, November 18, 2006
Will Johnson & Johnson / ALZA Company, the manufacturers of Nicoderm CQ, be the new targets of nicotine lawsuits?

The irony, if true, is that Johnson & Johnson, which owns ALZA......will have brought this potential new liabilty upon itself, while attempting to eliminate its competitor.....Big Tobacco. The manner in which Johnson & Johnson Co. hastened their potential liability was to fund smoking ban efforts through its political wing the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).....efforts which were designed to increase sales of their potentially hazardous NRT's -Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ.

The heart risk of Nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] is much higher than the risk of ETS even in the most extreme of exaggerations. The heart risk the risk to those with breathing disorders as well as Cancer risk of ETS is predicated primarily on those with substantial pre-existing risk already known. NRT causes heart and Internal organ damage in many with no pre-existing condition.

We have to wonder where advocates get the confidence in suggesting NRT is a viable alternative to smoking. Knowing the sales of these products are only justified in the companies own research which is known to be controlled and manipulated. Consistent studies show the products are largely ineffective in the purpose they claim to be designed for. As many as 40% of nicorette current users, are addicted to the cure. What would common sense tell you the most effective use of NRT actually is.

We hear about the primary fear of smoking based in statistical timeline effect, 30 years down the road, yet no one knows what the effects of NRT will be 30 years from today.

Where is the proof we are not replacing smoking with something much more deadly having genetic repercussions producing much larger issues? In the mean time popularity of “legal nicotine” use is on the upswing.

As it stands children have not been able to purchase cigarettes over the counter legally since the 60s yet any 10 year old child can buy Nicorette gum in exciting new flavors over the counter. Without complaint, in many cases with praise from adults who have no idea if that child is making that purchase to satisfying an addiction apparently or do they care.

What NRT represents is a moral choice, in deciding what addictive products are within social norms. Many with similar Carl like mentalities support such folly to the point they realize their own children started smoking to satisfy a need for nicotine created by their own advocacy. The Carl mentality is what smokers view as a typical TC campaign member, despite the fact there are much more dangerous characters leeching off the TC crusade as well

posted by starling02 at 11:43 P.M. EST on Sun Nov 26, 2006     #



The crazy thing is that I've never been bothered by tobacco smoke in any restaurant in Toledo. Well, I guess that negligible chance just became infinitesimal. Good job, Ohio! After a few more issues like this we might work our way up the scales of importance to fixing "too much bird shit on my car".
posted by GuestZero at 12:00 A.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006     #



I've been reading the book "Nasty Bits", by internationally famous chef Anthony Bourdain - a behind the scenes restaurant, food, bar book by somebody who's worked in the business for 27 years, writes for Gourmet Magazine & is on the Food Network & Travel channel a lot. Just for the fun of it, I am going to quote an excerpt here, his description of an actual bar in New Orleans (off the tourist track) - famous in it's own right, among restaurant & bar workers as a hang-out of choise. Try to imagine stukker or ampage at this bar.

"Three O'Clock in the morning and I'm sitting (or am I standing?) with the kitchen crew from Lee Circle Restaurant at Snake and Jake's Christmas Club Lounge, a favorite afterwork haunt of the New Orleans chef/cook demi-monde. It's a dark, crumbling, and septic shack where the decor is always Christmas. Colored lights wink through cigarette smoke behind the bar as a very large bottle-blond in a tight latex bustier pours what must be my sixth or seventh Jagermeister shot and pushes it toward me. This is not my chosen beverage, but Snake and Jake's owner, Tony "Mr.Hospitality" Tocco - who looks like a Fun-House-era Stooge - is insistent, eyeballing me through lank, greasy hair, a scowl on his face. It's all about "hospitality at Snake and Jake's, he assures me for the fifth time. Proof? Naked people drink for free. A few weeks earlier, more than forty of New Orleans' finest culinarians and their enables had shown up at the front door and stripped buck naked. I'm glad I missed that".

My point in posting that excerpt is simply to point out, that while most bars are not necessarily like Snake and Jake's, most are not, I'm sure - but can you imagine passing a smoking ban in a place like that? This country has such a huge variety of bars, clubs, etc. I fail to see why anti-smokers need to make them all generically the same white-bread, 'health bars'. Just think of how many great, old colorful bars will have their very essence destroyed by these bans. Now, imagine stukker & ampage walking in, demanding they all snuff out their cigs. They'd never in a million years go into a bar like this - but they felt they had the right to tell the owner what will fly at his bar, what's allowed. That, is just wrong, and un-American as all get out.

One other small exerpt this author makes pertains to diners who decide to go to the bar or outside to have a cigarette - and the havoc it plays on the kitchen staff (maybe not so much at Big Boy, we're talking nice 3 to 5 star restaurants here). In the name of saving space, this is in the Chapter "View From The Fridge" - but in brief "I know the electric shock that travels through the restaurant's spine and into the brainstem of the kitchen.....(many details about why here).....It's a tiny, inconsequential move for the customer - a cigarette at the bar - but for the kitchen, particularly at a good restaurant, it can cause mad panic and much misery." -------------so, stukker & ampage, your thoughts about why smokers don't just step outside to smoke affect more than just the rest of the smoker's party left sitting alone at the table, or the discomfort & inconvenience to the smoker to have to step outside. This comes from a chef who's seen it all, worked in dives & 5 stars, and owns "Les Halles" restaurant in New York.

posted by starling02 at 04:46 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006     #



I laugh at the thought of Kerr or this Amp character going into that bar.

"I'd like some Wild Turkey in my fruitee smoothie...cough, cough,....oh I'd like it to go....the smoke.....cough cough"

I would pay to see Tony's reaction to this.

Might be as dicey as Stu walking into an American Legion locally.
Never heard if he has since the Smoke FreeDUMB vote.

I would pay to see that one too.

posted by Musician at 06:57 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006     #



I am still waiting for stukker to answer my questions about what bars he wants to go to that smoking prevented him from hanging out in - with names of bars. Also, three Toledo restaurants that he was NOT able to enjoy a meal because the separate, enclosed with separate ventilation systems smoking rooms weren't sufficient for his fragile health. And name them (since the ban). Honestly, it seems the only two arguements I hear from smoke haters is that 1) it smells (which it would not if it's done in an enclosed, separate room) and 2) they all seem to have a burning urge to go bowling - seems to me, bowling alleys tend to be much larger than a lot of bars & restaurants, so why couldn't they have just pursued a separate, enclosed smoking section in bowling alleys - rather than a total ban, that will destroy the wonderful variety of colorful bars, clubs & restaurants - and turn them all into lukewarm, generic, establishments that attract the same kind of lukewarm, generic crowd.
posted by starling02 at 09:13 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006     #



I don't think any crowds are attracted to these lukewarm little high school prom ice cream socials.
Not here in Columbus for the last two years.

Crowds? No. Far from it. Scant handfuls are more like it.
The bars feel like wakes now and it hasn't changed here in close to two years.

posted by Musician at 10:10 P.M. EST on Mon Nov 27, 2006     #



This is interesting. Looks like the smoking ban folks aren't much smarter than they were centuries ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Living_Movements

posted by starling02 at 01:04 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Starling, do you actually read about the ‘facts’ you put out there? I was going to drop the whole smoking thing, but am pretty darn incensed by the pack of half-truths and propaganda you are floating out there. You are using nit-picking arguments to discount the larger contextual whole, that THERE ARE VERY SERIOUS AND DANGEROUS EFFECTS OF secondhand smoke. And that is backed up by the majority of serious scientific literature out in the field. To say anything else is either conspiracy-driven, self-serving, or downright irresponsible.

It’s taken me a few days to poke through and digest what you put out there. Lots of resources. Here are some responses.

Some comments on your evidence:
1) Enstrom & Kabat – their study is shown to have serious methodological problems, including funding from, oh, the tobacco industries (Phillip Morris). Using YOUR OWN LOGIC of follow the money, then that as the cornerstone of your case is inherently faulty. The study that Enstrom and Kabat did was based on earlier work done by researchers at the ACS, and the lead author of those studies points out how flawed the continuation approach by Enstrom and Kabat was.
2) Evidence from the Department of Energy that contradicts the EPA report? Oh, the research in question done at DOE was done in conjunction with BIG Tobacco (can’t remember if it was Phillip Morris or Reynolds, though).
3) In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm
Among the studies written by people who had taken funding from tobacco industry sources, 94 percent found secondhand smoke harmless. Of the studies written by researchers without tobacco industry connections, 87 percent concluded that secondhand smoke was harmful. The evidence "suggests that the tobacco industry may be attempting to influence scientific opinion by flooding the scientific literature with large numbers of review articles supporting its position." Deborah E. Barnes and Lisa Bero, Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions, JAMA, Vol. 279, No. 19 (May 20, 1998) at 1566.
4) That World Health Organization study you tout from 1998 that doesn’t show a link between secondhand smoke and cancer? Check out http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html. This is a 1998 press release by the WHO/IARC itself talking about how their findings are DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTED BY THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. Their stance, based on their research that you support in your arguments, is “The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers.” And they have updated their results with more studies in a monograph published in 2002. Check out their monographs page: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/index.php.
5) Here is a press release by the IARC. "The use of consultants, who fail to declare their associations with the tobacco industry, to publish purchased critiques of scientific research appears to remain one of the key strategic approaches of the Tobacco Industry" said Dr Peter Boyle, Director of the IARC. "Strategically coordinated attacks by hired guns, hiding behind undisclosed paid associations with industry, on the personal research of independent scientists by such means is at best unethical and at worst cowardly."
6) Go read through the OSHA report from the ‘90’s, not excerpts from a special interest group. It is pretty telling in its documentation of cardiovascular, pulmonary, carcinogenic, etc.. implications of secondhand smoke.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=13369
7) I am glad you bring up Osteen’s 1998 ruling regarding Big Tobacco vs. the EPA. Osteen (anti-tobacco judge, yes, and former LOBBYIST FOR TOBACCO FARMERS!) was pretty much hand-picked as a friendly court for the tobacco industry in the heart of North Carolina to preside over this case. FOLLOW THE MONEY, STARLING! All of Osteen’s blustering about bad science, some legit and much not. “Cherry-picking the studies” – loaded phrase. Gosh, the EPA didn’t use 5 meta-studies funded directly by the Tobacco companies. Go figure. Changing the confidence interval is not unheard of in public health studies, especially when navigating from one type of causal relationship to another as they were in this study (ala from carcinogenic effects to respiratory effects). Judge Osteen’s ruling, BTW, does not strike from the report research about secondhand smoke’s effects of acute respiratory illnesses in children, acute and chronic middle ear disease, cough/phlegm/wheezing (there’s some proof that you requested from others in a previous posting, regarding frequent resp. illness and secondary smoke), respiratory symptoms in adults – it only addresses the classification as a class A carcinogen. And BTW, HIS RULING WAS THROWN OUT IN 2002 BY THE 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
8) FOLLOW THE MONEY, STARLING “The tobacco industry paid thousands of dollars to scientists to write letters to influential publications criticizing a major 1993 government report (the EPA report) that said secondhand smoke caused lung cancer, according to once-secret legal documents. In all, 13 scientists were paid more than $156,000 for their letters and some manuscripts, the records show. It appears they were paid whether the material was published or not.” http://www.junkscience.com/news3/pioneer.htm
9) The Surgeon General’s report was NOT DEBUNKED at all. Mike Siegel pointed out very legitimate holes in some of the pieces contained within the study. He does not contradict most of the findings in the report at all, mostly just exaggerated reports about short exposures to smoke and some of the purported effects, such as instantaneous heart attacks. And Dr. Siegel rightfully points out those holes and tactics used in smoking ban ads around the state – they DO NOT contradict, however, the rest of the documented effects of SHS in the literature.
10) As a matter of fact, Dr. Siegel, who you glowingly quote in a few postings, has an interesting article :
Siegel M, Barbeau EM, Osinubi OY The impact of tobacco use and secondhand smoke on hospitality workers Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine 31-42
An excerpt: Tobacco use has a substantial impact on hospitality industry employees because of the disproportionate prevalence of smoking among these workers and because of the high levels of secondhand smoke to which they are exposed. The severity of this impact is evidenced by the high mortality rates observed among hospitality industry workers from diseases related to tobacco smoke exposure.
11) From NIOSH’s resources, “NIOSH has determined that the collective weight of evidence (i.e., that from the Surgeon General's reports, the similarities in composition of MS and ETS, and the recent epidemiologic studies) is sufficient to conclude that ETS poses an increased risk of lung cancer and possibly heart disease to occupationally exposed workers. The epidemiologic data are not sufficient to draw conclusions about other health effects such as cervical cancer, ischemic stroke, spontaneous abortion, and low birthweight.”
12) You mock Junta for using Wikipedia and other sources, and make fun of HeyHey’s medical expertise, yet you go and cite sources such as smokersclub? Cleanairquality blog? Forces.org? C.L.A.S.H. (not the band – darn)? Places with self-avowed bias pro-smoking? Seriously? Great for conspiracy theory, ranting, and unsubstantiated claims, but GO INTO THE PRIMARY LITERATURE to find what the majority of publications say about secondhand smoke. Although this is a smoke-free workplace site, it has a pretty comprehensive list of PEER-REVIEWED PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS with many excellent scientific papers on smoking and secondhand smoke:
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=19
13) By the way, most of the pieces you list (a) are newspaper articles that go back to a couple of publications, including the misquoted WHO piece and (b) deal with lung cancer. If you pull lung cancer off the table (not saying you should), many other ailments stemming from exposure to secondhand smoke are still strongly supported by the available literature.

Look, I didn’t even vote yes for either 4 OR 5. I don’t think I should tell businesses whether or not they should allow smoking or not. Although I do admit liking not having to sit in smoke at the bars when I listen to band or grab a drink after work. But I do staunchly support our people’s right to make a decision like this as a community, even if it is a bad one (which many people point out is our right as a society to make). My main point of this posting is not to rehash this argument for/against the ban – I’m just sick to death of seeing all this bogus talk of what the real research says about secondhand smoke not to challenge it. The spread of half-truths and misinformation is one of BIG Tobacco’s largest weapons, and for all of your talk about anti-smoking nazi’s, and what should be classified as juvenile attacks on folks like StuKerr or Junta who are trying to make valid points, the tools you use are largely directly from Big Tobacco's playbook of how to cast doubt on the broader health effects of their product.

Rant concluded. Put that in a pipe and smoke it (oh, but only not in a Toledo bar – doh!). Disclaimer: last comment for comedic value only.

posted by wombat at 04:24 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Sorry, but the WHO doesn't work for the evil 'big tobacco' (Christ, am I sick of hearing that term-Thanks, Billary & Gore), and neither does the cancer society. Both orgs had lengthy studies /reports that said there was no detrimental effect from being around tobacco smoke. They have since been buried, as they didn't get the results they wanted. And none of those websites you quoted are backed by, nor affiliated with, any tobacco company. They're ran by and supported by, ordinary citizens like Starling. C.L.A.S.H. originated in New York City, started by a female cop (since retired from the force).
posted by Darkseid at 05:50 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



In reading that wikipedia link you provided, Starling....

Looks like only 4 more years of this total nonsense.

Hell, I thought I would have to be 90 years young before I could light up in a bar in Ohio....openly.......

posted by Musician at 07:20 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Quote:
According to the American Lung Association - "slow burning, scented, paraffin candles cause lead poisoning and using slow burning paraffin candles cause poor indoor air quality, and a serious health concern."

It is also stated that the carcinogens produced by paraffin candles is equal to the damage cause by second hand smoke from tobacco smokers.

posted by Darkseid at 08:44 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Well how about this one. From WUPW: Pot Proposal Potentially on 2008 Michigan Ballot

http://www.foxtoledo.com/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=66522&RequestTimeout=500

posted by tm at 10:13 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Here's more fodder for you all...in case you didn't have enough already.
Does this thread set the record for longest on TT?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-11-27-smoking-bans_x.htm

posted by McCaskey at 11:11 A.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



stukker said "regarding frequent resp. illness and secondary smoke), respiratory symptoms in adults – it only addresses the classification as a class A carcinogen. And BTW, HIS RULING WAS THROWN OUT IN 2002 BY THE 4TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
8) FOLLOW THE MONEY, STARLING “The tobacco industry paid thousands of dollars to scientists to write letters to influential publications criticizing a major 1993 government report (the EPA report) that said secondhand smoke caused lung cancer....."

stukker, SUNLIGHT is also a "Class A Carcinigen", so is cooking bacon, grilling a hamburger, hair dye, candles burning, fumes in paneling, car exhaust (the gas pumps have a notice that breathing fumes can cause cancer), I could go on, and on - but that term frightens hell out of people and that determined how they voted. In reality, if they are that afraid of SHS then they should be equally afraid of candles burning, walking out the door, new car smell -hell,its proven that there are about 10,000 known carcinigens found naturally in food.

Yes, I read everything I posted, sometimes twice. For every study you claim supports your viewpoint, I can find some that dispute yours, or prove they were poorly done, tweaked (the epa study involved 3,000 people, partly by SURVEY (do you recall how many cigs your husband smoked, madam?) - and it WAS proven in court to hold no water. That post was not a newspaper article, and I could drag up the study & court documents. In the interest of space (who would have read or understood most of it) - I tried to be brief (and got chastised for putting too much text out here). If it's true you didn't vote for either issues 4 or 5 stukker, then you can't expect anybody here to believe what you say about how you think it should be left up to the businesses - you took the spineless, wormlike way out by not voting at all on it. If you really believed that, then you'd have voted for issue 4, or at least, against issue 5. I'm not spending my life trying to convince you of a thing because you won't believe anything we say anyway - wasting my time on you. Just like ampage, it's futile. Yes, I could go through each of the "points" you tried to disprove my links with - and put out the links & studys, in tedious detail. I honestly dont' know if it's worth my time to do so with you (and it would take a lot of time to sift through it all again). I simply dont have the time or patience right now - maybe in a bit when I have some free time. Suffice it to say though - you can't really whine about studys funded by the tobacco companies, when there is evidence connecting the money dots between the tobacco companies & the Heart & Lung associations, the EPA, and Attorney General (I did post an article that showed the connection, of how the tobacco companies 'conceded' for reasons that benefited them on certain things). There's no more wrong with tobacco companies funding studys than there is pharmacutical companies, so your point is lost there.

I'll have to read back more on Dr. Siegle - and find the date of that article - it is pertinent. He posted two letters, explaining his viewpoints - then, and now - and how anybody in the medical field is ostracized (sp) by their peers by speaking against the 'politically correct, anti smoking' train of thought. Those should be easy to find again - I'll post both of them.

Meanwhile, I challenge you to name ONE person that they proved their theory of ear infections, repiratory problems were due to second hand smoke - or cancer or heart problems. PROVE it, name a damned name, and include the photocopy as 'cause of death'. It is all speculation. I just watched a documentary on the History Channel on the history of tobacco - very interesting, until the end when it turned into a propaganda piece by the pharmacutical companies. One interesting point made was that it is more dangerous to the heart to take these smoking cessation products, than it is to SMOKE. I've also found a few articles talking about upcoming lawsuits against the pharmacutical companies for selling & promoting dangerous products to be used in place of the banned products. Lawyers are looking to have a field day.

posted by starling02 at 02:22 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Here you go Starling:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/personal-insults-and-attac_114965365049823423.html

posted by Musician at 03:44 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



I apologise if this is repetitive -
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3917

Biased Science in Tobacco Control: A Re-Evaluation of a 1997 Study on Secondhand Smoke and Heart Disease

November 22, 2006
By Michael Siegel
I recently re-examined an article that is widely cited by tobacco control groups as supporting the contention that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease -- a claim that, right off the bat, I acknowledge I think is scientifically sound. However, in re-evaluating the article, I noticed something disturbing. The study showed evidence of a severe investigator bias -- one that raises serious questions about the scientific objectivity of the tobacco control movement.

The paper, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), is entitled "Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: An evaluation of the evidence" (see Law MR, Morris RK, Wald NJ. BMJ 1997; 315:973-980).

The article presents a meta-analysis of 19 "acceptable" published studies of the risk of heart disease among nonsmokers living with smokers versus nonsmokers, and reports a pooled relative risk of 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.38).

The Rest of the Story -
I was curious as to what represented an "acceptable" study. It turns...(click link to read)

posted by starling02 at 06:21 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



JAMA Article Brings Surgeon General's Misrepresentation of Secondhand Smoke Science to the Forefront
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/08/jama-article-brings-surgeon-generals.html

APHA Terribly Misrepresents Secondhand Smoke Health Risks to Thousands of Public Health Practitioners; Surgeon General’s Propaganda to Blame
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/08/apha-terribly-misrepresents-secondhand.html

IN MY VIEW: Surgeon General and Anti-Smoking Groups Irresponsible for Not Calling for Ban on Smoking http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-my-view-surgeon-general-and-anti.html
IN MY VIEW: If Surgeon General's Statement is Correct, Why Should Smokers Quit?
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-my-view-if-surgeon-generals.html

Heart Attack on a Plate: Top 10 List of Foods that Can Cause an Immediate, Fatal Heart Attack
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/heart-attack-on-plate-top-10-list-of.html

Documents Suggest that Attorneys General are Scheming with Big Tobacco to Protect Financial Health of Major Tobacco Companies
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/03/documents-suggest-that-attorneys.html

I could do this for hours, but who has the time? Here's the link to the Site Map - it's loaded with facinating stuff.
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/

posted by starling02 at 06:22 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



I found this interesting email - a request for donations, and the response given.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/millionaires-pan-handling.html
Millionaires pan-handling

My good friends at American Non-Smoker's Rights sent me an email seeking donations so they could continue funding smoking bans:

We have great news!

****************************************
A link on studies
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=13

Thanks to ANR members and advocates like you all across America, residents of three more states will soon be enjoying their right to breathe smokefree air. Voters approved smokefree ballot measures in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio.

In Arizona, Prop 201 passed by 54.2% making all workplaces and public places 100% smokefree.

In Ohio, Issue #5 passed by 58.3%, guaranteeing a strong statewide smokefree law in Ohio.
In Nevada, the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act (Question 5) passed by 53.9%, making most workplaces smokefree (excludes stand-alone bars and casinos). The Nevada law also restores local control to allow cities and towns to strengthen the state law at the local level.

The fight is not over. Please consider making a donation today, to help us fight back against Big Tobacco attacks, and defend your right to breathe smokefree air!

My reply:

Cynthia,

I received the preceeding email from your group requesting donations so you could pass more smoking bans. However, since you already receive millions of dollars from Nicoderm interests at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF is a division of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical nicotine company) (hyperlink)). I question the need for donations from the general public whose property rights you seek to violate by passing additional smoking bans, simply to increase profits for the pharmaceutical nicotine interests who provided funding to you. Afterall, several professional organizations have conducted air quality testing which proves all secondhand smoke levels are 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke, thus ensuring that the protection of workers' health is already safeguarded even without smoking bans.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/repaces-new-study-uses-same-old-tricks.html

So, you can rest assured donations from me will not be forthcoming.

Good luck in your efforts to continue lying to lawmakers and the general public......while I, for my part, will continue to expose the marketing scam you and RWJF perpetuate in the name of public health.

Mark Wernimont
Minneapolis, MN.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

posted by starling02 at 06:36 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



stukker - I believe that OSHA did one of the best studies (and nobody got rich on it). They tend to err on the side of being paranoid anyway (as in wanting electricians at Daimler wear special suits when working with 50 volts or higher - like a toaster or hair dryer.) In case anybody missed the OSHA study put here by jimavolt earlier -
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html

Pharmacutical companies financed these bans to sell cessation products - and they can be more dangerous than smoking. And expensive (insurance rarely pays for it). My sister's doctor gave her a prescription for Chantix (sp) - $117. for one pack a month - keep smoking the first month. Then, go to 2 packs a month (double the money), and cut back on cigs, and stay on 2 packs of this med for as long as you try to stop. That is what her doctor told her. It has had not been tested long term, and it's no more successful so far than other products. Many products are anti-depressants,many people can't take them (me), or don't want them messing with their heads (me). Lawsuits are brewing as we speak about the patches, etc. overdoses, kids buying them, etc.

Speaking of kids - everybody throws the damned kids in our faces, but kids can't go to bars anyway, so why the ban on bars?

And stukker, you still have not answered my original questions - name 3 Toledo restaurants, since the smoking-ban, that you were unable to deal with the smoke inside the enclosed, separate rooms. Still waiting.

I've wasted entirely too much time on this - you wont believe any of it anyway, it conflicts with your brainwashing. I will leave it at this - everybody always had the freedom of choise to NOT enter a place that had a smoking section. Businesses always had the freedom of choise to run smoke-free establishments. I fail to see why person of reasonable mental facilities had a problem making the distinction, the choise on his own.

posted by starling02 at 06:49 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



"... carcinogens produced by paraffin candles ..."

That's why people should buy 100% soy-based candles. Check out the products by the Swan Creek Candle Co. if you want to buy local.

"If you are concerned about indoor air pollution from paraffin candles try our Clean Burning, Lead Free, Intensely Fragrant American Soybean Wax Candles! We have changed our candle manufacturing from traditional paraffin to a pure, clean burning, lead free alternative."


We also like Beanpod Candles made by Soy Basics in Iowa.

Make sure the candle says 100% soy. Just because it says "Soy Candle" that doesn't mean it's 100% soy.

"Our Beanpod Candles™ are made right here in America's Heartland from 100% stabilized soy wax, which provides a long and clean-burning candle that will retain its vibrant fragrance and brilliant color. Most soy candles are actually a blend of soy wax and paraffin (sometimes as much as 75% paraffin), which can discolor and lose fragrance over time. You will notice the difference of Beanpod Candles™ from the moment you light one."

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

posted by jr at 07:16 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Thanks musician - that's what I was looking for. Macasky (sp) - Maybe people should put as much energy into shielding the children from tv porn, foul language, bad attitudes, and parents who don't teach respect, or manners. I am so freaking weary this smoking ban has revolved around the damned children.

The children - hm. The children of this generation are the most advantaged, educated, ever in our country. And yet, we have witnessed serious rises in drug & alcohol abuse, pregnancies, STD's, ADHD & learning problems, more kids on medications than ever in the history of this country; we have kids killing kids - school shootings, suicides. We have a generation of kids growing up on video games & soft porn on tv; with foul language & graphic sex in music & videos. We have kids dressing like sluts and parents who think it's 'cute'. We have parents who think it's so funny when their kid smacks them in the face (they keep on videotaping) that they send the videos into "America'a Funniest Home Videos" - that play to the masses that also think it's funny (I can usually count at least 2-3 per segment). We have a generation of kids who get their laughs by throwing out cruel insults at other kids on myspace - so the whole world can laugh at them too. We have a generation where the majority of kids are overweight or obese. We have parents who make excuses when the cops are called on their kids (hiding or lying for them - my neighbor did it). We have kids who get their kicks out of smashing car windows - they're bored I guess. We are a generation that apparently has enough bratty kids with parents without a clue that tv shows like "Nanny" get more seasons. Never in my life have I seen kids like that - until this generation. And I see them up close in personal, not just on tv.
The anti smoking clan used kids - it's freaking for the kids, ya know. Meanwhile, tobacco taxes keep getting raised to pay for schools 'for the kids'. I am sick to death of hearing about the damned kids.
I am not suggesting that all kids and parents are like this - I know plenty who are not; there's a lot of great kids & parents out there. I am simply suggesting that maybe if smokefree really gives a damned for the kids, they'd focus on real ways to help them. I'm waiting for the fallout from dentists over bottled water (no floride, teeth are rotting out).
My point is that for hundreds of years, kids have grown up drinking foul well water, eating food grown in dangerous pesticides, heating with coal, using lead paint, discipline was expected and respected, and they lived to ripe old ages. My mom used to keep her terpentine (she paints oils) in a jar on her easel with the messy paint pallette - ya ever smell oil paint & terp fumes? I never realized how toxic paints are, until I started to paint. But we all lived to tell. Our butts would be kicked outside to play, and we'd damned well better be back when the street lights came on - no cell phones.

What I see now, is a generation terrified of tap water, dirt, common germs, kids with cell phones to check in all the time (or text their friends, obesity, and shitty behavior. We have teachers who aren't allowed (or are afraid) to discipline - for fear of a lawsuit. We have parents who blame the teachers for not raising 'their' kids right. They say that 30 percent of smokers stopped smoking in the last decade - but the health issues of kids dont reflect that at all.

Ok, I have ranted.

posted by starling02 at 07:34 P.M. EST on Tue Nov 28, 2006     #



Starling, I went bowling at a nanny joint here in Cowtown with family at Thanksgiving and they were running MTV type sexual videos with all those kids in there, but I couldn't have a smoke.

????

Yeah, you heard that right. Who needs a sex manual to explain the birds and bees to your kids....just take them bowling......and you'll never have to deal with it.

If that wasn't bad enough......

What took the cake was a Disney type video of "99 bottles of POP on the wall".

I shuddered (well actually, I could have chundered on that one, but tried not to think about it at the time). What will be the next?

The ROOT Beer Barrel Polka? One Mint PARFAIT? A Tear in My OJ?

Welcome to HELL. You will have to listen to these Hilter youth clean living videos for the rest of eternity. I would rather hear the fat lady sing "New York, New York" in her best Ethel Merman imitation accompanied with a Karaoke machine. At least that tune is a TUNE.

I think I will write write and direct a children's music video, and dedicate it to Stu and his ilk.

The title will be "John Jacob Jackass Jingleheimer Shit"

posted by Musician at 02:58 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



Starling: In the USA Today story I listed above, there was this cutline beneath the photo:

The restaurant's owners found a loophole to Georgia's smoking ban and have prohibited children instead of cigarettes.

Did you find that interesting?

posted by McCaskey at 10:43 A.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



Apparently the General Manager of WTOL did an editorial on Smokefree Ohio (either yesterday or today) and at the end of it he asked for input. I'm thinking he will be taking that part of his message off soon. This is the letter that I sent him.

Mr. Chirdon,

Your editorial raises some very important questions. Questions that I'm sure many people did not ask, or consider, prior to casting their vote on November 7th.

While no reasonable person would try to say that smoking or second-hand smoke is good for you, the panic and fear mongering that took place prior to the vote was incredible. All this ban has done is put small INDEPENDENT businesses in a financial bind that will prove to be the end for many.

This ban removes the most basic rights pertaining to personal property rights. If a business chose to allow smoking and it bothered you, then would it not have made more sense to just avoid that business? If I chose to work in a smoking environment, and made my living that way, who is to say that I am no longer allowed to do that? If I have purchased a property, invested my life savings into opening a bar/restaurant/club, been lawful in obtaining all permits and licenses to operate said business - who has the right to BAN me from running it in a manner that is consistent with a successful endeavor that my particular customer base demands and appreciates?

While I will never advocate smoking to anyone, I do feel that it is a personal choice. Choice - and freedom to make those choices - has been taken away from all of us. Today it is the choice to operate a business that allows smoking. Tomorrow it is a business that sells alcohol, blue shirts, orange socks, etc. One is just as ludicrous as the other. We are on a downhill slide in the area of personal choice, and the price we all pay will be extraordinary.

And, despite what some of the anti smoking groups would have you believe, this issue is NOT about protecting the children. This isn't about rising healthcare costs. It's about controlling the population and an attempt to create a falsely sterile world. I am glad that my parents, grandparents and great grandparents are not here to see this travesty being perpetrated among the citizens of Ohio.

Political correctness has turned our society into a bunch of lemmings that are brainwashed into believing that they are unable to think for themselves, make rational decisions, informed choices, or any other activity that requires independent thought processes. A very disappointing and disconcerting turn of events for such a forward thinking state and country. Scary.

Thank you.

posted by DoknowDocare at 03:59 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



DoknowDocare - On target and very well composed.

Please let me know if you get a reply.

posted by jimavolt at 05:24 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



GREAT letter! And I personally would like to see children banned from all restaurants rather than smokers. Once they started lettin' 'em in, that's when the problems started. LOL 8^D
posted by Darkseid at 06:07 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



Why the Ban passed...

Simple, the marketing for issue 4 sucked. Instead of discussing the surgeon generals report, instead of talking about the pharmaceutical strive for the nicotine delivery systems they are pushing and donating millions to get the bans passed, instead of talking about busines owner rights, instead of talking about a compromise, instead of discussing the criminal issue of being jumped, offered drugs, slipping and falling, harrased, raped, while outside smoking, instead of discussing the Unamerican way of a ban...they did those stupid commercials. But better, instead of discussing drunk parents in non smoking bars with kids now, instead of discussing that now children get to see mobs of people outside smoking that may actually encourage smoking(they dint think of that one)Thats why it passed.

posted by hgomez03 at 08:10 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



You are 1000% right on that. I told everybody those were the lamest commercials I ever saw. Had I ran the campaign-I would have searched out a world war II or Korean war veteran, who had lost an arm or been a POW for a time, to give a lecture on why they fought for freedom, even freedom of the antis. I would have ran it day and night until it was burned into the minds of everyone in Ohio. You think this is pandering to base emotion, you say? YES-of COURSE it is-and that's what the other side does all the time! Remember the guy who talked through the hole in his throat, and claimed he had that happen due to other people smoking? Back when the toledo ban was up for amendment? Found by the ACS after searching hard-he didn't even live in toledo. Think about all those viscious kirk cartoons and editorials (editorials not just in the blade, but almost every paper in the state). Nothing but rage and emotion, to get their side fired up. And appealing to emotion (negative ads, if you will)ALWAYS works. The supporters of issue 4 should have pulled out ALL the stops, and fought fire with fire.
posted by Darkseid at 10:19 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



GREAT letter! And I personally would like to see children banned from all restaurants rather than smokers. Once they started lettin' 'em in, that's when the problems started. LOL 8^D

I heard that.
I am from the era whose parents believed in contributing to the income of a BABYSITTER.

posted by Musician at 11:36 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



Issue 4 had such steam and then let it die.
Oh well, you live and learn and Issue 5 is not the last word on the matter.

Arizona has better commericials for their similar issue.

posted by Musician at 11:40 P.M. EST on Wed Nov 29, 2006     #



I apologise to wombat - I addressed my email to stukker rather than to you (but ya both resemble each other in so many ways - the email stands).

macaskey - the link wouldnt open at first - but yes, I did enjoy the article. However Ohio's ban has no such loopholes, not even for private clubs.

doknow- your letter is very good, however - I think any letters written to protest this ban be less emotion based, and should point out that the voters were misled by faulty studys, propaganda, etc. Include links.

The Blade (even if ya hate it) has done some great investigative reporting of late (Noe, prostitution). I read that there is at least one well known journalist & news channel that is planning to do a huge expose on how smoking bans get passed, the money trail,lawsuits brewing to pharmacutical companies among others. I would think that the Blade, even though it was a huge smoking ban advocate - would be interested in getting in on that action. There's a wealth of documented, proven information out there - there's a HUGE story waiting to be written. And it will be written - someday, when somebody has the balls to take on the big guns. Even an article on ban damage around the country, the world. I hear the smoking ban people preach that there IS no ban damage - but I have looked and looked for something, anything, to suggest that is true, and come up empty handed. Mary Alice Powell wrote an article about how Ireland's pubs seem to be doing well - but no, they are not. Bans have destroyed the pubs Ireland is famous for - closing at a fast rate, they can't sell them, nobody wants them because they cant make them work with the ban in place. New York allowed for amendments of their ban for owners who lost enough business. One city had 81 businesses close in the first year. In South Africa they are killing each other over a pack of cigs - so there IS a story there. Any Blade writer only needs to browse this forum for links, info, etc. to get a great, investigative story.

posted by starling02 at 02:43 P.M. EST on Thu Nov 30, 2006     #



These antis met their match by screwing with Ohio.
Could bring down the entire country.

posted by Musician at 01:38 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006     #



I'd say thanks for the apology, but it appears you're just saying sorry for mislabeling it with the wrong name. Apparently the rest of the venom you laid out still applies...

My consistently made points have been:
1) That our citizenry has the right to be able to enact this smoking ban as they did. Smart or not, different issue. I didn't vote yes for either 4 or 5, don't think I wanted to make that decision for bar owners, but I support the hell out of the people's right to make that decision. So does that make me spineless and worm-like. Please.
2) The science is that SECONDHAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS TO EVERYONE. There is no doubt about that in the scientific community as a whole. None. Whatsoever. There are plenty of questions as to dosage f/x(the devil's in the exposure), pathology, etc. - lots of questions to be answered still. But the most comprehensive reports, studies, research, etc. are pretty about the dangers.
3) Hmmmm, studies funded by the tobacco companies show an insanely different view of secondhand smoke than the rest of the science world. When a private industries internally-funded research is so out-of-step with the rest of the research world's results, then it is important to cast a critical eye on it. When so much of the evidence came out regarding Big Tobacco's direct and subversive attempts to squelch data regarding their own studies indicating toxicity of their own product, they lost credibility big time. And yes, pharm. companies are going through the same thing to some degree. There are legal channels being pushed right now that are trying to make sure that all studies done by these companies are available for scrutiny - help prevent some fiascos like VIOXX from happening again, or at least not as likely. Where the funding for research comes from is very important to keep in mind.
4) Your reliable sources are few and far-between. You quoted Mike Siegel ad nauseum, and he is so right about many ways that smoking ban advocates perhaps overstated the case of danger of secondhand smoke, but preetty much only in the immediate effects of exposure. Most of his arguments stem around only a few points - he even indicates in his blog that it's unfortunate that ban advocates keep religiously pushing these points - the real dangers of secondhand smoke are dangerous enough! So keep quoting him, really, please.
5) And do you have more researchers from the primary literature, besides eighteen million posts from Dr. Siegel? Perhaps even from the primary literature? Your sources seem to follow the logic train of picking apart some small points about the science and saying that it proves the BIG picture has to be wrong, too.
5) Name a name? Again, seriously? OK - Bob? Ralph? That's a patently offensive question to name someone who died directly from secondhand smoke. Are you insinuating that secondhand smoke isn't dangerous at all? OK - how is obesity a danger? People don't die of obesity, do they? No, it's of complications that arise out of it - heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetic complications, etc.

posted by wombat at 04:38 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006     #



The point about Siegel is he is an open minded individual in a very close minded movement.
posted by Musician at 08:33 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006     #



As many of the posts here prove. :(
posted by Darkseid at 01:09 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 01, 2006     #



wambat said - "Name a name? Again, seriously? OK - Bob? Ralph? That's a patently offensive question to name someone who died directly from secondhand smoke. Are you insinuating that secondhand smoke isn't dangerous at all? OK - how is obesity a danger? People don't die of obesity, do they? No, it's of complications that arise out of it - heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetic complications"
******************************************
Yes, seriously, name a name - you can't. I won't ever say that smoking is healthy, it's not. However, I am not only insinuating that shs is not dangerous at all, I have read & seen enough of both sides to believe it is not. I did not just cite Seigel - if you go back and dig a bit, I cited many others besides him. I cited proof that the courts ruled that the EPA, Attorney General, etc. studys were proven to be faulty, wrong. I cited proof that showed that shs is no more dangerous than the air you breath when you walk out your door, or the household products you use - it is less dangerous in fact, than cleaning your tub with the chemicals in household cleansers. Less dangerous than what you ingest grilling a hamburger or bacon. It seems you are expecting a perfect world with no hazards, and you seem to think that passing this ban will achieve that. I won't waste space or time here repeating myself - go back and read the links yourself, on just how many carcinagens you're exposed to daily that have nothing to do with tobacco or shs. You're deluded.

You didn't vote for either issue 4 or 5? Then you have no voice here as far as I'm concerned.

posted by starling02 at 07:15 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 03, 2006     #



<< Older VOTER TURNOUT %    |    231 years ago tomorrow the government ga... Newer >>


This is an old topic and is no longer allowing comments.



home | about | archives | customize | contact | forums | post | search

© 2003-2007 ToledoTalk.com
All posts are © their original authors.

.