The Song Fight Bulletin Board

erik wrote:Go home and don't smoke. It's out of your face there. There's no "right to smoke in public", but there's no "right to be free of stuff that I don't like in public", either.

And where rights don't enter into it (as I don't think they do here), the voters get to decide whatever they want.

I don't really care about all the research and business concerns and whatever. I don't like being around smoke, so I like that bars in Colorado are smoke-free.

That said, by imposing our will like that, voters like me deserve every bit of scorn you want to throw at us.

they should ban cars too. there's plenty of second hand smoke there polluting our air.

and when did they ban lawn darts?

jack wrote:they should ban cars too. there's plenty of second hand smoke there polluting our air.

and when did they ban lawn darts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_dart# ... _countries

jack wrote:they should ban cars too. there's plenty of second hand smoke there polluting our air.

Cars' pollution is outside, which smoking is still legal in most places. You don't drive inside a restaurant, unless you're on a wacky episode of Silver Spoons.

erik wrote:

roymond wrote:As for bars shutting down...someone mentioned it already. IT'S GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

I mentioned it being bad for business.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinks.html

Looking through the first half dozen or so of those links, none of them provide any proof of that the smoking ban -caused- the purported declines in revenue. Some of the articles are based on one or two business owners unsubstantiated claims. One is about a company which provides some concrete sounding statistics but doesn't indicate how/why they decided that the smoking ban -caused- the decline in sales. In one case, the owner of a bar said that all the bars were struggling already, and that the smoking ban was just making it worse, though again his claim is unsubstantiated. In a few others, the bans aren't being applied fairly, as certain businesses get exemptions, or they're not being applied in a widespread enough fashion, so in both cases smokers are choosing to go somewhere where they can smoke, rather than supporting their local businesses. All in all, it mostly sounds like a bunch of smokers and business owners whining but not providing any actual evidence of them having suffered because of the smoking ban.

Personally, I find a host of governmental organizations and scientific research demonstrating that second hand smoke is a considerable carcinogen to be a lot more credible and persuasive than a pile of articles based mostly on hearsay about how business owners and smokers are "suffering" because of smoking bans.

Those of you saying that the threat of second hand smoke is "bullshit" should read this:

<a href="javascript:location.href='http://en.wik'+'ipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke'"><b>w</b>iki<b>p</b>edia article</a>

jack wrote:they should ban cars too.

I would vote for a ban on cars too!

(Again, for purely selfish reasons...I know it is unreasonable to expect that Americans would give up their cars.)

That said, I do OWN a car. (I am nothing if not self-contradictory. ):D I almost never DRIVE the damn thing, but I've got one. There it sits in the driveway, getting shat on by the cherry tree above it.

I'm not really interested in convincing anyone that smoking is gross or that second hand smoke is hazardous or that the sky is blue.

If public drinking made the person next to you smell like vomit I'd vote against that too... and lawd knows I'd hate to give up red wine!

erik wrote:Go home and don't smoke. It's out of your face there. There's no "right to smoke in public", but there's no "right to be free of stuff that I don't like in public", either.

I agree. But now you've taken a single element out of context. Like why should there be a ban on automatic assault weapons when we could argue that one riffle in somebody's atic can't harm anyone.

Ok, that's a stretch, but still. Maybe heroin is a better example. I'm tired. Democracy's exhausting.

Those of you saying that the threat of second hand smoke is "bullshit" should read this:

<a href="javascript:location.href='http://en.wik'+'ipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke'"><b>w</b>iki<b>p</b>edia article</a>

Well, I'm always distrustful of Wikipedia, but doubly so when it says right there at the top that shit be disputed. The cites are usually where the gold is, and I tried like heck to wade through the first four cites on that wikipedia page, but I ran out of steam. If anyone can direct me toward a specific part of a research article (not a summary of said research) that explains how they determined that secondhand smoke causes death, and that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke, I'd appreciate it. Honestly.

roymond wrote:

erik wrote:Go home and don't smoke. It's out of your face there. There's no "right to smoke in public", but there's no "right to be free of stuff that I don't like in public", either.

I agree. But now you've taken a single element out of context. Like why should there be a ban on automatic assault weapons when we could argue that one riffle in somebody's atic can't harm anyone.

Ok, that's a stretch, but still. Maybe heroin is a better example. I'm tired. Democracy's exhausting.

Ohman, don't start me on guns and drugs. I'm from Austin, TX.

WeaselSlayer wrote:The proof that second-hand smoke is hazardous to health is largely fabricated or just doesn't plain fucking exist. No one has died from second-hand smoke. Ever.

Theoretically, exhaled smoke should be like smoke from a hookah. But the burning cig in the hand is going to give off the junk. Fuck it, they're still trying to figure out if cell phones cause tEh brain cancer. That I care about, kind of.

erik wrote:

Those of you saying that the threat of second hand smoke is "bullshit" should read this:

<a href="javascript:location.href='http://en.wik'+'ipedia.org/wiki/Secondhand_smoke'"><b>w</b>iki<b>p</b>edia article</a>

Well, I'm always distrustful of [CENSORED], but doubly so when it says right there at the top that shit be disputed. The cites are usually where the gold is, and I tried like heck to wade through the first four cites on that [CENSORED] page, but I ran out of steam. If anyone can direct me toward a specific part of a research article (not a summary of said research) that explains how they determined that secondhand smoke causes death, and that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke, I'd appreciate it. Honestly.

You might have to contact the WHO, the US DHHS, the CA EPA, the CDC, etc. directly if you want access to their research data, which mau not be freely available on the Web.

For me, it's enough to go by the conclusions/overviews presented by the WHO, US DHHS, CA EPA, CDC, etc. about their research. So far I don't have anyone presenting concrete evidence discrediting those organizations, whereas there's a whole Web site with 7 million tobacco industry documents showing a decades long campaign to deceive the public, possibly motivated by the obvious financial interest they have in downplaying the dangers of smoking.

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
http://repositories.cdlib.org/context/t ... ewcontent/
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/

Also, I tried to wade through almost all the "Talk" section of the page, and frankly I have to say I find MastCell, Nmg20, Yilloslime, and Dessources to be the most credible sounding editors, and they are on the "not disputed" side of things. Their comments are all very illuminating about the processes and standards at Wiki --- pedia and they also demonstrate that at least MastCell seems to have broad knowledge of this particular subject and that they alll at least seem interested in being fair.

Anyway, I'm just going to sign off on this subject for now, not enough time for it sadly.

There's no point in trying to disprove something that's made up. I don't have to disprove that fucking unicorns exist.

erik wrote:

roymond wrote:As for personal rights...go home and smoke. Go for it. But get it out of my face. Common sense laws like smoking bans don't infringe on your rights. Smokers infringe on mine.

Go home and don't smoke. It's out of your face there. There's no "right to smoke in public", but there's no "right to be free of stuff that I don't like in public", either.

You are absolutely right. Roymond has no 'right' to expect the air he breathes to be free of smoke - and he is free to go home and enjoy his clean air at his leisure.

However, what of the barmaids who pour your beer, the waiters who clean the tables, the musicians entertaining you, the cleaners who come in after closing time? You are in their workplace. From where do you derive your 'right' to impinge on the ability of these people to earn their living?

I don't understand this 'rights' stuff. In the legal system under which I live, I have no 'rights' bestowed to me. There is however legislation which imposes obligations on certain parties at certain times. One of these is section 29 of the Workplace Health & Safety Act (Qld) 1995 which imposes on a person conducting a business the obligation of "providing and maintaining a safe and healthy work environment". In Australia anyway - this is why smoking bans have been imposed - to allow busineses to continue to trade without making the proprietors guilty of committing an offence. (and please don't give me the argument that "those people work in pubs/clubs/bars etc. by choice" - not only is that extremely discriminatory, but also incorrect in law in that a worker has an obligation to not wilfully place themselves at risk of a workplace injury).

I am quoting Queensland law here, because obviously it is the law with which I am familiar - but I would be very surprised if most of your states didn't have similar provisions for the protection of workers from workplace injury - and that this is a driving force behind most smoking bans.

Here is a list of cases where damages have been awarded for injuries attributed to passive smoking, including Sharp v Port Kembla Hotel where half a million dollars was awarded by the NSW Supreme Court to the plaitiff who claimed that laryngeal cancer was caused by working in an unfsafe environment.

I have worked as an environmental, health and safety officer in mines, quarries, construction sites etc - where the management is legally obliged to ensure that risk assessments are undertaken to ensure that workers are not placed at risk of developing respiratory illnesses from airborne particulate matter. It seems entirely reasonable that hospitality workers should be afforded the same level of protection in their workplaces.

Again, I may be missing something here, which is usually the case when something seems so obvious to me. But here goes:

The right to protection in the workplace seems to me to be covered by the fact that working in a given place is the worker's choice, and he/she should probably know the nature of the environment he/she is going to work in. I'm not crazy about working in smoky bars, and if I wanted to, I could exclusively work in non-smoking venues. If I were a waitress, I could use the same discretion.
If employers can screen applicants based on their smoking habits, why wouldn't workers simply choose whether they want to work in a smoke-filled room?

WeaselSlayer wrote:There's no point in trying to disprove something that's made up. I don't have to disprove that fucking unicorns exist.

Actually - there is every point in trying to disprove something that's made up. That is just how most science works - especially medical research.

First, you make something up - say "I reckon passive smoking might cause more cases of bronchitis in children" - then you develop an experiment to test that hypothesis. If the data shows no indication of a causal relationship between passive smoking and childhood bronchitis - you can probably say the hypotesis was wrong. If a relationship is observed though - while it is not valid to say that you have proven a direct causal link - the data does go towards forming a body of evidence which gives an indication of the probability that there is a causal link. When enough of this evidence is gathered, bodies like Royal College of Physicians or the AMA or WHO or whoever will then draw conclusions based on probability that passive smoking is probably bad for you.

jimtyrrell wrote:Again, I may be missing something here, which is usually the case when something seems so obvious to me. But here goes:

The right to protection in the workplace seems to me to be covered by the fact that working in a given place is the worker's choice, and he/she should probably know the nature of the environment he/she is going to work in. I'm not crazy about working in smoky bars, and if I wanted to, I could exclusively work in non-smoking venues. If I were a waitress, I could use the same discretion.
If employers can screen applicants based on their smoking habits, why wouldn't workers simply choose whether they want to work in a smoke-filled room?

Again - I don't know your laws - but here, it is not acceptable for a worker to place themselves in an unsafe work environment, nor can an employer avoid his obligation to provide a safe work environment simply because a worker agrees to work in that environment.

Also, conditions must be very, very good for unskilled workers where you are if they have the luxury of being able to pick and choose their workplace so freely. Barmaids, waiters, cleaners etc don't normally have a lot of bargaining power

(BTW - is NH legislation available on-line? Do you know the name of your workplace safety law? It would be interesting to have a look)

roymond wrote:OK. While we're being opinionated...I watched at close range a good friend die from lung cancer. It ain't pretty. 400,000 PEOPLE DIE FROM SMOKING EVERY YEAR!!!!

My grandmother, whom I loved dearly died of throat cancer a couple of years ago after smoking most of her life. (She was a heavy drinker too I might add) It was heart breaking and I don't really talk about it much. I believe I lost my grandmother a clear two years before she actually died.

With that said, she quit smoking about 5 years before the cancer was noticed. Too little too late.

What does this have to do with our conversation? I'm tying this to the 'costs' of cigarette smoking in our society. If you are for socialized health care (I am) or believe any of your taxes are benefiting local health facilities...then you might consider this further. While smoking is linked to cancer and city facilities rarely treat cancer, you have to think that smoking might be related to other symptoms that do in fact get treated by city facilities. Less smoking may lead to less health problems...yadda yadda.

Do you have the right to smoke? Sure you do. Has second hand smoke been linked to health problems? Inconclusive. This is where you have to ask yourself, do you think it's possible? Do you really need to smoke THAT BAD?

Again, I don't care. That is until I develop health issues caused by other people smoking. I suppose I should just do all my drinking at home by myself.

Lunkhead wrote:For me, it's enough to go by the conclusions/overviews presented by the WHO, US DHHS, CA EPA, CDC, etc. about their research. So far I don't have anyone presenting concrete evidence discrediting those organizations, whereas there's a whole Web site with 7 million tobacco industry documents showing a decades long campaign to deceive the public, possibly motivated by the obvious financial interest they have in downplaying the dangers of smoking.

Respectfully, I'm not trying to be all "Neener neener, you can't prove it", I'm trying to learn things, which for me requires at least an understanding of how the people who are claiming these things are able to make their claims.

Caravan Ray wrote:

jimtyrrell wrote:Again, I may be missing something here, which is usually the case when something seems so obvious to me. But here goes:

The right to protection in the workplace seems to me to be covered by the fact that working in a given place is the worker's choice, and he/she should probably know the nature of the environment he/she is going to work in. I'm not crazy about working in smoky bars, and if I wanted to, I could exclusively work in non-smoking venues. If I were a waitress, I could use the same discretion.
If employers can screen applicants based on their smoking habits, why wouldn't workers simply choose whether they want to work in a smoke-filled room?

Again - I don't know your laws - but here, it is not acceptable for a worker to place themselves in an unsafe work environment, nor can an employer avoid his obligation to provide a safe work environment simply because a worker agrees to work in that environment.

Also, conditions must be very, very good for unskilled workers where you are if they have the luxury of being able to pick and choose their workplace so freely. Barmaids, waiters, cleaners etc don't normally have a lot of bargaining power

(BTW - is NH legislation available on-line? Do you know the name of your workplace safety law? It would be interesting to have a look)

OK - found it. It seems to be a federal rather than a state responsibility over there, but in section 5 of the OHS Act 1970

(a) Each employer --
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees
(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.

(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

similar to Queensland, but where Qld requires that the employer provides and maintains a safe and healthy work environment;, the US law only protects against death or serious physical harm. That is pretty hard core.

If it is recognised that passive smoking constitutes a "recognised hazard" - and it seems that pretty much every professional medical body world-wide agrees it does - then it is potentially lawsuits-a-go-go for any bar worker who develops a respiratory illness (depending on what the definition of "serious physical harm" is - it isn't in the Definitions section of the Act)

erik wrote:

Lunkhead wrote:For me, it's enough to go by the conclusions/overviews presented by the WHO, US DHHS, CA EPA, CDC, etc. about their research. So far I don't have anyone presenting concrete evidence discrediting those organizations, whereas there's a whole Web site with 7 million tobacco industry documents showing a decades long campaign to deceive the public, possibly motivated by the obvious financial interest they have in downplaying the dangers of smoking.

Respectfully, I'm not trying to be all "Neener neener, you can't prove it", I'm trying to learn things, which for me requires at least an understanding of how the people who are claiming these things are able to make their claims.

Google is a remarkably useful tool

Caravan Ray wrote:

erik wrote:

Lunkhead wrote:For me, it's enough to go by the conclusions/overviews presented by the WHO, US DHHS, CA EPA, CDC, etc. about their research. So far I don't have anyone presenting concrete evidence discrediting those organizations, whereas there's a whole Web site with 7 million tobacco industry documents showing a decades long campaign to deceive the public, possibly motivated by the obvious financial interest they have in downplaying the dangers of smoking.

Respectfully, I'm not trying to be all "Neener neener, you can't prove it", I'm trying to learn things, which for me requires at least an understanding of how the people who are claiming these things are able to make their claims.

Google is a remarkably useful tool

I've tried, and all I can find are "secondhand smoke factsheets" and reports which are lacking in any sort of included research. I can find all kinds of shit that says "Secondhand smoking is bad", what I can't find is exactly how they were able to make their claims.

Google:

"Passive Smoking" "Clinical Trials" Results

Interestingly, the first result is a JAMA abstract (JAMA = reputable source) indicating that there may be evidence of a bias in the form of publication delay for studies showing insubstantial evidence for the dangers of passive smoking.

But don't get too excited, naysayers. Scroll down. There's a whole hecka studies that seem to indicate that passive smoking is not so hot.

Folks, the fact is, I don't need a clinical trial to tell me passive smoking is bad. I have enough colloquial evidence to convince me that standing all night in a smoky club is bad for me. The same way I have enough colloquial evidence to convince me that drinking six beers in a row is bad for me. I feel like shit afterwards.

Cellphones or laser printers on the other hand -- I have no idea. They have yet to make me feel physically ill.