Bar Wins Smoking Ban Case

• I Wear Pants

  One Study is not > the countless studies that came before it.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote: Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

  To claim that it is a definite cause of cancer without out any proof is asinine.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

  To claim that it is a definite cause of cancer without out any proof is asinine.

  Do you deny that smoking can cause cancer?
• eersandbeers

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

  To claim that it is a definite cause of cancer without out any proof is asinine.

  Do you deny that smoking can cause cancer?

  
  I just posted a link that showed how the WHO found no links between passive smoking and cancer.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

  To claim that it is a definite cause of cancer without out any proof is asinine.

  Do you deny that smoking can cause cancer?

  You said second hand smoke clearly causes cancer and to claim otherwise is asinine. I said if you make this definitive claim without proof it is asinine.
  
  I believe that smoking increases my risk of some forms of cancer. Therefore I choose not to smoke.
• Glory Days

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  Glory Days wrote:
  
  they are private business open to the pubic. when you open yourself to the public, you are not longer completely private and you must follow certain rules/laws. a private business is not the same as a private home.
  
  no you arent forced to drink alcohol, but you can goto a bar and get water or soft drinks etc if you choose.

  Exactly, they are private businesses. Meaning the government has no right to interfere in their operations.
  
  If you go into a bar for water or pop and you don't like smoking then you are an idiot.
  

  dwccrew wrote:
  the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

  I disagree. A group of voters voted on the ban, not the free market.
  
  The free market is the group of consumers who frequent those establishments. A good number of people who voted for the ban probably do not go to bars.
  

  FairwoodKing wrote: I live in Seattle and the State of Washington has the strictest anti-smoking laws in the country. You are not even allowed to smoke within 25 feet of a public building. Trust me, there is no movement to change those laws. Second-hand tobacco smoke causes cancer and other serious ailments, and no one should be subjected to it. Smokers don't have rights. They are nothing but addicts. If you want to kill yourself from smoking, that is your business. But you have no right to kill me in the process.

  Second hand smoking is not harmful and there has never been a known case of cancer from second hand smoke.
  
  But I agree you shouldn't be forced to be around smoke if you don't want to be. Hence, don't go to places that allow smoking if you don't like it.
  
  You don't have the right to tell a private business what they can and can't do because you aren't smart enough to not go there if you don't like smoke.

  once again, a private business is not the same as a private residence or private club.
  
  and call me an idiot, i have gone to bars before and after the ban to eat and watch sporting events. since i dont like to drink beer while i eat, i drink pop.
  
  and what makes you think of the 2.2 million people who voted for the ban, a good number of them dont goto bars? i would say a huge majority of adults have been to a bar in their lifetime. and i know voters arent always the smartest at the polls, but why would a "good number" of people vote for something that has no impact on their life, if like you say, a good number dont goto bars?
  
  and ok, so if second hand smoke doesnt cause cancer, do you also believe smoking doesnt cause cancer? the chemicals are the same for both. how does it only effect one person and not the other?
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  majorspark wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote: Second hand smoke clearly can cause cancer and other health issues. To claim otherwise is asinine.

  To claim that it is a definite cause of cancer without out any proof is asinine.

  Do you deny that smoking can cause cancer?

  You said second hand smoke clearly causes cancer and to claim otherwise is asinine. I said if you make this definitive claim without proof it is asinine.
  
  I believe that smoking increases my risk of some forms of cancer. Therefore I choose not to smoke.

  Yeah but I'm a stupid asshole so...
• Prescott

  and ok, so if second hand smoke doesnt cause cancer, do you also believe smoking doesnt cause cancer? the chemicals are the same for both. how does it only effect one person and not the other?

  It is all about dosage and concentration. Smoking causes cancer, there is proof to support that. As was stated above there are no studies that prove that SHS causes cancer.
  
  Here is some food for thought.
  
  In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.
  
  1998 Federal Judge William Osteen, who had a history of siding with the government on tobacco issues - vacated the study. He declared it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long. Here is an excerpt:
  
  "In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen."
  
  http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm
• dwccrew

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  dwccrew wrote:
  the people(market) did decide...with their vote instead of their wallet.

  I disagree. A group of voters voted on the ban, not the free market.
  
  The free market is the group of consumers who frequent those establishments. A good number of people who voted for the ban probably do not go to bars.
  

  We have similar views as far as the smoking ban is concerned, but I still feel that the people have spoken. For you to assume that "a good number of people that voted for the ban probably do not go to bars" is not a very valid supportive point in your argument. There is no way to know if those people have or have not frequented bars regularly.
  
  I still agree with you that the government should not interfere with how a private business chooses to operate.
  
  If smoking in bars (which usually goes hand in hand for many drinkers) is not allowed, where will it stop? What if someone believes alcohol should be taken out of bars next because they can cause harm to thers by driving under the influence? Where does it stop people? I actually think the alcohol is worse than the smoking. If you want to avoid the smoke, don't frequent a bar that allows smoking. However, if you want to avoid a drunk driver, how do you go about doing that? People can be driving drunk at any time and there is no way to avoid it, there is a way to avoid the smoke however.
  

  Glory Days wrote:
  
  once again, a private business is not the same as a private residence or private club.
  
  and what makes you think of the 2.2 million people who voted for the ban, a good number of them dont goto bars? i would say a huge majority of adults have been to a bar in their lifetime. and i know voters arent always the smartest at the polls, but why would a "good number" of people vote for something that has no impact on their life, if like you say, a good number dont goto bars?

  Why did a good number of people vote against gay marriages in certain states? It doesn't impact their lives, yet they voted against it. So I think your argument is valid, but I think people will vote against something even if it doesn't impact their lives, hence gay marriage being voted against.
• eersandbeers

  Glory Days wrote:
  once again, a private business is not the same as a private residence or private club.
  
  and call me an idiot, i have gone to bars before and after the ban to eat and watch sporting events. since i dont like to drink beer while i eat, i drink pop.
  
  and what makes you think of the 2.2 million people who voted for the ban, a good number of them dont goto bars? i would say a huge majority of adults have been to a bar in their lifetime. and i know voters arent always the smartest at the polls, but why would a "good number" of people vote for something that has no impact on their life, if like you say, a good number dont goto bars?
  
  and ok, so if second hand smoke doesnt cause cancer, do you also believe smoking doesnt cause cancer? the chemicals are the same for both. how does it only effect one person and not the other?

  Is the business privately owned? If yes, then there is no distinction between the two. You are not forced to go into a place that allows smoking.
  
  A tyranny of the majority is not letting the free market make the decision through spending habits. Simply claiming something is right because a majority of people voted for it is faulty logic.
  
  Smoking does cause cancer. Second hand smoke does not.
  

  dwccrew wrote:
  We have similar views as far as the smoking ban is concerned, but I still feel that the people have spoken. For you to assume that "a good number of people that voted for the ban probably do not go to bars" is not a very valid supportive point in your argument. There is no way to know if those people have or have not frequented bars regularly.
  
  I still agree with you that the government should not interfere with how a private business chooses to operate.
  

  
  My argument is that people who go to those bars should make the choice whether the bar allows smoking through their spending habits. Not through a ballot box where a tyranny of the majority can remove rights from another.
• Glory Days

  

  Prescott wrote: It is all about dosage and concentration. Smoking causes cancer, there is proof to support that. As was stated above there are no studies that prove that SHS causes cancer.

  http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/RSNA_Secondhand_smoke.pdf
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091203090059.htm
  
  there are a few more studies out there that talk about how it determined that second hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer, but cant determine if it has any effect on the survival rate of the person.
• Glory Days

  

  eersandbeers wrote: Is the business privately owned? If yes, then there is no distinction between the two. You are not forced to go into a place that allows smoking.

  ok, its privately owned. thats where it ends because the business is open to the public. for example, a cop(the government) can walk into a "private business", he cant do that in your home.
• Glory Days

  

  eersandbeers wrote: A tyranny of the majority is not letting the free market make the decision through spending habits. Simply claiming something is right because a majority of people voted for it is faulty logic.

  no, we are claiming it's what the people want. it is right because it followed the system(petition to vote etc).
• dwccrew

  

  eersandbeers wrote:

  dwccrew wrote:
  We have similar views as far as the smoking ban is concerned, but I still feel that the people have spoken. For you to assume that "a good number of people that voted for the ban probably do not go to bars" is not a very valid supportive point in your argument. There is no way to know if those people have or have not frequented bars regularly.
  
  I still agree with you that the government should not interfere with how a private business chooses to operate.
  

  
  My argument is that people who go to those bars should make the choice whether the bar allows smoking through their spending habits. Not through a ballot box where a tyranny of the majority can remove rights from another.

  I agree with you on this. And I believe that if the ban was repealed, people would want the bars to remain smoke free.
• FairwoodKing

  The air belongs to everyone, not just smokers. Before these bans took place, I could not avoid second-hand smoke. It was everywhere.
  
  You can't say that the majority of voters who voted this way created a tyranny for the simple reason that second-hand smoke can make people sick. I am an example of that. I am not saying that I will ever get cancer from this, but I am saying that second-hand smoke severely affects my asthma and other breathing problems. And I am sure that my mother's smoking during her pregnancy with me caused some of my extreme allergy problems.
  
  I remember a few years ago when I returned to Steubenville to visit my father. The smoking ban had been on in the State of Washington for about a year and I was accustomed to it. I will never forget the first time I went into a restaurant in Steubenville. Half of the people were puffing away like there was no tomorrow. Dad smoked cigars so he was used to all that. But I thought I would die. It didn't matter that I requested the non-smoking section. The smoke from the other section completely filled the room. I couldn't wait to get out of that horrible place.
  
  As I previously posted, the law is working very well in Washington and there is absolutely no movement to repeal it. A lot of bar and restaurant owners are happy with the law because people like me who couldn't previously go to those places can now go.
  
  As I also previously posted, smokers have no rights. They are polluters who destroy the air because of their addiction.
• Swamp Fox

  I'm so glad that there is no absolute defining evidence that SHS causes a shorter life. I think I'm going to recommend that all of my friends go right out and try to find smokers so they can enjoy all of the perks that smoking provides without being absolutely certain you are going to die next week. Is everyone just completely nuts? I think I'll stay on the Liberal. Socialist, Commie side and refrain from sucking in the smoke of those who only care about themselves.
• Prescott

  . Before these bans took place, I could not avoid second-hand smoke. It was everywhere.

  
  
  We must live on different planets. I detest the smell of SHS and I rarely had a problem avoiding it. 22% of Ohio's adult population smokes. It wasn't hard for me to avoid that minority.
  

  As I also previously posted, smokers have no rights.

  I get you.
  
  

  I'm so glad that there is no absolute defining evidence that SHS causes a shorter life.

  I'm glad you finally learned something and I wish others would be as open to the truth.
  
  Below is a link to a SHS study which involved almost 120,00 people and lasted for 40 years.
  
  Conclusion:
  The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (SHS) and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
  
  http://www.data-yard.net/43/1057.pdf
  
  This has to make you wonder, doesn't it?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  People should be able to smoke in bars, if the bar owner(s) allow it.
  
  You're worried about second hand smoke and smelling the smoke?
  
  Really?
  
  In a bar situation, you're surrounded by people who have probably had 1 too many and could kill you with a 2,000lb. object the second you drive onto the street.
  But, people are worried about smoke... umkay.....
  
  Is it not a choice to walk into a bar knowing that people will have the smell of alcohol on them and knowing that any one of them could take your life?
  
  I guess I just don't get the extreme willingness to ignore one fact while pushing another.
  
  Perhaps maybe one of the people who knows what's good and bad can differentiate for us?
• queencitybuckeye

  FairwoodKing wrote: The air belongs to everyone, not just smokers. Before these bans took place, I could not avoid second-hand smoke. It was everywhere.
  

  Everything in my place of business belongs to me, including the air. If you don't like the quality of my air (or anything else), you have the right to choose not to patronize my business. That ends the list of your rights as it pertains to my property.
• Glory Days

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote: People should be able to smoke in bars, if the bar owner(s) allow it.
  
  You're worried about second hand smoke and smelling the smoke?
  
  Really?
  
  In a bar situation, you're surrounded by people who have probably had 1 too many and could kill you with a 2,000lb. object the second you drive onto the street.
  But, people are worried about smoke... umkay.....
  
  Is it not a choice to walk into a bar knowing that people will have the smell of alcohol on them and knowing that any one of them could take your life?
  
  I guess I just don't get the extreme willingness to ignore one fact while pushing another.
  
  Perhaps maybe one of the people who knows what's good and bad can differentiate for us?

  there are also laws in place to prevent that drunk from killing you. DUI, bartenders having to cut you off etc.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Glory Days wrote: there are also laws in place to prevent that drunk from killing you. DUI, bartenders having to cut you off etc.

  
  If that's the reasoning, tell me this:
  
  How much is "one too many" for each and all of us?
  Do you have to be very drunk for the bartender to cut you off?
  Is 2 beers for one the same as for another?
  Some people can carry their "drunkeness" very well as far as motor skills, speech and thought process, but shouldn't drive a car, how does a bartender know?
  And, finally, how reliable are the laws?
  
  Every person who goes to a bar is in essense, playing roulette because of themselves and/or somebody else drinking and driving, are they not?
  
  As far as that goes, there doesn't even have to be any liquor involved for people to get killed in crashes.
  Should we nut-up and start banning vehicles?
  
  The basic question still remains. How far are we willing to pick and choose our "crusades"? How far are we willing to push one fact while ignoring another?
  Drinking is alright to be around, but smoking is not and the truth is people die everyday from one or the other - or both.
  Kinda hypocritical, isn't it?
  
  * I really don't have a problem if people drink or smoke. I'm a former smoker myself and still drink from time to time.
  But, it's very funny to see the holier than thou and hypocritical attitudes.
• BoatShoes

  To me it's a workers rights issue...I don't have to go to bars to drink...but let's say someone without a college degree and who has only an employment history of working as a bartender...technically they don't "have" to work at a bar by force...but they have limited bargaining power in the employment field and they shouldn't have to be subjected to cigarette smoke at their place of employment methinks. Any types of labor laws are regulations against what employers may do on their private property and I think smoking bans could reasonably fit under the logic of many of these labor law regulations.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes wrote: technically they don't "have" to work at a bar by force

  Nothing technical about it. No one has any right whatsoever to work at any particular place of business.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  BoatShoes wrote: technically they don't "have" to work at a bar by force

  Nothing technical about it. No one has any right whatsoever to work at any particular place of business.

  Ok so, do you think it's fair for the government to demand that private property owners cannot create an environment that would expose their employees to asbestos?
  
  Do you think it's wrong that the government creates a law like the 40 hour work week or demands that a person can not determine who works on his private property based on race, sex, color or national origin.
  
  All of these affect the bundle of personal property rights in some way for things that are relatively accepted as social goods and beneficial to the working class.
• Glory Days

  

  BoatShoes wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  BoatShoes wrote: technically they don't "have" to work at a bar by force

  Nothing technical about it. No one has any right whatsoever to work at any particular place of business.

  Ok so, do you think it's fair for the government to demand that private property owners cannot create an environment that would expose their employees to asbestos?
  
  Do you think it's wrong that the government creates a law like the 40 hour work week or demands that a person can not determine who works on his private property based on race, sex, color or national origin.
  
  All of these affect the bundle of personal property rights in some way for things that are relatively accepted as social goods and beneficial to the working class.

  of course its not wrong, people like these laws :rolleyes:
  
  oh and dont forget to add minimum wage to the list of what the govt tells private business owners what they can and cant do.