Last weekend I spent the weekend in Polk County, WI and had the opportunity to sample the bar food cuisine in three different bars in three different towns over the course of an evening. While my original intent was to talk about the food, being that is what I generally do, I came across a much more interesting story: one bar owner’s fight against what she feels is a law which is the ultimate intrusion into her choice as a business owner–the right to allow smoking in her own establishment.
A statewide ban on smoking went into effect in all of Wisconsin on July 5th, 2010 and according to this article while the vast majority of establishments have complied with the law, there have been complaints filed against a few for alleged violations of the smoking ban.
From the article:
“I’m critically affected by smoke,” said Tyler, who has asthma. “I could immediately start feeling it in my eyes and my head.”
What the Greenfield woman didn’t know was that enforcement of the ban would turn out to be even hazier than the smoke wafting through the bar that night.
Tyler’s unsuccessful attempts to complain about the smoking violations highlight how the law is being enforced differently not only from one community to another, but even from one Milwaukee city agency to another.
After living in a state where smoking has been banned for more than three years, as we walked into the Harvest Moon Saloon in Centuria, WI (Facebook page) just before 6:30 PM on Saturday night it was hard not to notice the reappearance of something which has not been a part of the Minnesota bar scene for what seems like forever. One of my friends said he believed there was a smoking ban in Wisconsin but wondered if this particular establishment was somehow exempt. A quick Google search found that no exemptions existed for a bar of this type and thus they were clearly in violation of the law. The owner, Mary Jo, eventually came over to talk to us and we asked about the patrons smoking and if she was somehow exempt from the law and she stated, in her quiet and confident voice, that Wisconsin has indeed banned smoking but she does not abide by the law.
The bar charges those who smoke $1 which goes then is placed into a “kitty” to be used to pay any future citations for their defiance of the law. Many of the usual arguments were raised by the owner including loss of business and the simple fact that she does not believe that it’s the government’s business if she chooses to allow smoking in her bar. If the market demanded a smoke-free bar, one man sitting at the bar mentioned later, they would pop up all over the place yet it took state laws to move for a ban to make those a reality.
There were two bars in desolate Centuria, WI, a city ravaged by high unemployment and discontent over the fact that some unnamed source claimed the county was holding more jobs than the private sector. A recent StarTribune article notes Polk County will lose many more jobs after Polaris leaves the county to ship its jobs off to Mexico. Harvest Moon’s owner said due to the high unemployment it’s hard for her to keep her doors open and the smoking ban would just make it that much harder. She hasn’t been able to increase the cost of her unbelievably inexpensive $1 drafts because people wouldn’t come out and would probably just stay at home. As it is they’re spending less time out and less money when they do. While there was definitely no shortage of very intoxicated individuals at Harvest Moon during our visit, I cannot say it was any more crowded than the bar right next door where people were huddled outside smoking legally. It was almost as if the bar’s owner was the one more interested in smoking inside and potential customers were only doing it because it was “permitted”.
But even with this strong defiance for the law doesn’t mean that Harvest Moon hasn’t received a warning. One patron, who the owner claims was retaliating against her for not serving his ID-less girlfriend, reported the bar to the police for the smoking but no fine was ever levied. When I asked why she cared about the possibility of serving an underage woman but not the smoking the owner replied, “oh! They could take away my license if I served a minor.”
What do you think about Harvest Moon Saloon’s choice to allow patrons to smoke while charging the a small fee to cover any future legal costs? Do you think that it should be up to the owner of an establishment to make the decision regarding smoking or not? If you walked into a bar and found the patrons openly smoking in front of the owner with their consent would you report them? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 11th, 2011 at 7:59 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:37 am
That sounds like a fun place Chad. Let me know when it’s open.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:42 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by garciasn. garciasn said: WI was crazy in every single way. RT @SouthMetroNews One Wisconsin Bar’s Fight Against the Smoking Ban: http://ow.ly/3ByaP [...]
January 11th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Big fan of smoke free bars. Not a big fan of people blatantly flouting laws they don’t like. She should be fined continually until the practice stops.
It is highly unlikely that the bar will go under if people stop smoking. The people of rural Wisconsin love their drink. As a young child, it blew my mind how many people were in my grandparents northern Wisconsin bar every afternoon, especially on weekdays. They would often stay until close.
Maybe if a few were persuaded to stop smoking by the ban they would have more money to buy those $1 drafts.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Bully for her!
On a personal level, I can’t stand cigarette smoke. (I was once sick for 3 days after spending an evening with people who light one Marlboro after another while we were all sitting at a bar.) But it’s none of my business to tell a bar owner that she can’t let people who want to smoke on her property do so–and none of yours, either.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:05 am
J, that is the slippery slope. At some point she will likely accept Medicare/Medicade, which will mean that we as taxpayers pay for her health care. Which means it is my business.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Chad, take a look at the root of the problem you mention. That kind of logic got us into this mess.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Wisconsin has some interesting ideas about alchohol and smoking. They are the only state left where you don’t get charged with felony DUI until your fifth arrest, minors can drink in a bar with consent and the legislature won’t pass tougher DUI laws because “you’re going to wind up penalizing a guy who just wants to stop at a bar and have a couple to relax on his way home”.
Matter of fact I think I read somewhere, that up to 20% of the law makers there have DUI’s.
Smoking same thing. I’m mixed on smoking in bar bans. Personally I love the effect, I hated smokey bars. While true the market should dictate in this case, it doesn’t. Drinkers are more likey to smoke, and non-smokers are highly likey NOT to confront a smoker.
If all of us non-smoker types would get together and refuse to go into bars that allow smoking a lot more bars would fold. i don’t buy that bannign smoking has long term effects on bar business. This was a complaint in San Francisco and really, people like to drink, they can learn to smoke outside.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Banning smoking only really has an effect on business when it’s a localized ban. If a city bans smoking but the townships around it don’t, of course business is impacted. But when it’s a statewide ban the issue starts to dissipate, and when all border states also ban smoking, it’s a non-issue.
Fundamentally I don’t like the idea of the government legislating whether or not people smoke in a private business. It seems to be an intrusion to me. Having said that, I really, really love the fact that smoking only happens outside in Minnesota…
January 11th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Her employees, who, considering the economy/availability of jobs in that locale, may not have many choices with regard to where to work. Wonder if the customers will be passing around the kitty jar to raise enough money for their friendly, non-smoking waitress who needs chemo for her lung cancer. I highly doubt that this place has an employee health plan. Guess who ends up picking up that tab.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:21 am
I have a life insurance policy. That policy stipulates that if I were to start smoking, the policy would be null and void unless I inform the insurance company of this. At that point my yearly payment would effectively double.
Why don’t smokers have to pay more for medical insurance along the same lines? It makes little sense to me.
If we could even the playing field so that we were more personally responsible for things like that, then I have no problem with smoking in bars provided the people who work in them are fine with the health risks associated with them. I suspect there would still be plenty of places to have a drink that bans smoking.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Whenever I go into any establishment that has smoking, I leave. But after I tell the establishment that the reason for my exit is the smoke.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:29 am
California allows employers to hire only non-smokers to bring their health care costs down. I’m not sure how many other states allow discrimination like that and of course, there are people who just lie on their employment application and say they aren’t smokers. Still, it’s an interesting precedent and goes along with lefty’s comments about personal responsibility.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:37 am
#5, following your own slippery slope, are you ready to have a government agency tell you what you can and cannot eat? Mandating that you eat 3 servings of veggies a day? Come to your office or home and measure your BMI? Require automakers to develop some sort of means to measure the width of your behind and then lock you out of the ignition if you’re too fat?
The remedy for more government intrusion is less, not more.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:42 am
J,
I’m against most government regulation but smoking has a direct and immediate effect (not just a later financial one) on the health of those around the smokers. People who eat unhealthily are not directly impacting my health.
Yes, there are many slippery slope arguments which can be applied to your suggestion that the government tells you how to eat but honestly I have never seen anyone have an asthma attack because they walked into a McDonald’s and sat next to one of that chain’s one-percenters (those who eat three meals a day there).
January 11th, 2011 at 9:51 am
I’m sure this is happening all over Wisconsin, as the new governor has even stated his preference for repealing the smoking ban. So even if it’s not repealed, I doubt they’re going to make enforcement much of a priority.
I recall some outstate/rural bars in Minnesota finding loopholes like the performance exemption and they said that everybody was a “performer”, though I think once word got out on that, it got closed.
I’m an ex-smoker that’s all for the bans. They helped me to quit by being able to go out with friends and not having to be subjected directly to people smoking in my face.
But to each their own.
January 11th, 2011 at 9:51 am
Apparently J has missed the memo. There are all sorts of regulations that govern the proper storage of ingredients and, yes, banning certain foods. For example, all sushi fish served uncooked has very strict guidelines for the temperatures of storage and documentation of handling all the way from the boat to the plate.
The whole argument about “government shouldn’t tell a private business owner what can/can’t happen in their establishment” is nonsense. The business owner has chosen to go into a business that is subject to regulations — safety, food handling, employment regulations, etc. As Bill highlighted right here in St. Paul, the government can very well shut a restaurant down for continued violations of codes that safeguard the health of patrons.
Personally, I hope they continue to flaunt the law and get shut down. If your business model relies solely on patrons being able to smoke, you deserve to have your business fail. Bar owners with half a brain would do something else to make their establishment appealing (e.g. Kings Inn/House of Coates).
January 11th, 2011 at 10:22 am
At my company, smokers do have to pay more for medical insurance. When we sign up every year, we declare whether we smoke or not which then changes our premium.
January 11th, 2011 at 11:57 am
MSPD, The food regulations you mention are unnecessary. How long would a sushi restaurant last when customers regularly start getting sick? It’s also illogical to have the government sit there and say pork and beef are okay but horse and foie gras are not. The existence of a regulation doesn’t mean it is correct, moral, necessary, or anything else.
Bill, If you were to walk into a building and the environment would cause an asthma attack, why on earth would you walk in to that building? Shouldn’t people be responsible for their own health, etc.?
January 11th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
jf, in the case of the restaurant which sickened people in St. Paul, the idea of relaxed regulation created a situation where the place sickened numerous individuals over several years before it was shut down. So to answer your question, it’s possible for a restaurant to last three+ years (even after numerous governmental intrusions) before it will be closed. Word of mouth doesn’t spread as fast as you seem to believe it will.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Who really walks into a restaurant and asks, “Can I inspect your operations before deciding to eat here?” Um, no. Even if you’re a local, word of mouth doesn’t spread, much less for people from out of town.
We pay inspectors to do that for us with our tax dollars because we’d rather go that route than independently (and unprofessionally) inspecting them on our own. This just seems like a matter of common sense to me, not an issue of individual liberty.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Bill, thanks for proving how worthless the current system is. Which restaurant? Word of mouth spreads way faster in 2011 than it ever has.
Joey, if there was a need for independent inspection of restaurants it would exist. The current system doesn’t allow for that. If the current system went “poof” I think there would be very effective independent restaurant inspection. People like you (and me) would be very happy and it wouldn’t need to be done with other people’s money.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
jf,
http://www.lazylightning.org/most-unsanitary-restaurant-ever-in-st-paul-remains-open
January 11th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Sorry jf, I don’t buy it. And the “word of mouth” holds no water. That assumes that everyone eating at a restaurant is local, in tune with restaurant chat, and/or has done research prior to entering a restaurant.
Restaurants have proven that they will often do the bare minimum to maintain compliance with basic food safety practices WITH steep penalties involved. I don’t believe for a second that if you remove regulation, they will suddenly become accountable.
January 11th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
I know, it’s the hyper-free market/capitalist argument. We all want to agree with you jf and in principle we do. We also live in the real world where that just doesn’t happen.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
My wife smells like a cigarette when some comes back from the Indian casinos. They never stopped allowing smoking.
While I figure there are bigger things to worry about, I’m disappointed that any legislators feel it is just fine to write a law that you have no intention of enforcing. Penalize the lawful while benefiting the lawless, yeah, that’s what made our country great. I don’t fault the bar for taking advantage of the situation that the government put in place.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
When I was in the restaurant game, the local inspector showed up and declared me the right to open. He showed up about 18 months later for the first inspection, which we passed. Over the next 3 years, we called asking for an inspection to ensure we were keeping up our end of the bargain, but were informed that our original inspection made us a low priority for them.
Don’t assume your tax dollars are doing what you would think they are doing.
January 11th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I understand Joey, I’m a realist too. :)
And lefty, I agree completely. I don’t trust the state inspections at all. I’ve gotten food borne illnesses. It sucks, but I know there is no chance the government is going to save me from that.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
jf said: “MSPD, The food regulations you mention are unnecessary”
Tell that to the parents of Michael Nole, who was one of several children who died after eating tainted hamburgers from Jack in the Box in 1993. He was 2 years old. Their son would be 20 years old this year. I’m sure they’ll appreciate hearing from you.
His is not an isolated case either: Sizzler, Jack in Box, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, Peanut Corporation of America, the list goes on and on. All of these deaths were preventable. Word of mouth doesn’t do it – by then it’s too late.
January 11th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
MSPD nails this question completely for me, in a rational manner.
Smoking is a direct health hazard to the smoker and the secondary smoke. This isnt theory it is fact. Moreover fires start with cigarettes in hotels and apartment buildings. We are seeing alot of apartment buildings and hotels go 100% smoke free, and this isnt just because of consumer demand but i suspect liability insurance companies are starting to offer lower rates for this policy.
i am a nonsmoker, but i understand the smoking jones, i used to smoke. Alcohol and cigs are a big draw. no question. in this case the tavern should be fined but i suspect the local constable is looking the other way.
Wisconsin also allows 18 to 21 year olds to drink if they are accompanied in the bar/restaurant by their parent or legal guardian. And as someone mentioned, i spent alot of time in my 17-22 year old stage frequenting rural Wisconsin bars, and they do love their drink.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
“I’m an ex-smoker that’s all for the bans. They helped me to quit by being able to go out with friends and not having to be subjected directly to people smoking in my face.
But to each their own.”
Actually, if you support using laws to impose your ideas on someone else, it ISN’T “to each their own.”
OK, I understand you’re talking about holding different opinions about making cigarette smoking in restaurants illegal, rather than the underlying question. But I wonder if the sensitivity police will come after me sometime: “Aren’t you saying that people should die of cancer?”
January 11th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
The fact of the matter is that smoking would already be illegal in the entire country if it was not such an incredible source of revenue for the state and federal govts. Its far more harmful than many things that are currently illegal.
This very fact is probably the ultimate reason that we will see other stronger drugs be legalized over the coming years. Its all about the dollars.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:36 am
I really didn’t have a problem with smoking in restuarants and bars prior to the smoking ban in Minnesota. It was my experience that you could tell whether it would be a problem within the first 15 seconds when walking into a place. If it was a problem, you just walked back to the car & found someplace different (capitalism at its finest).
One of my problems now, is that I thought there was a ban on smoking in Minnesota, but apparently it doesn’t apply to the patio area of the establishment. I also thought that part of the argument for having the ban was for employee health. Yet, employees are still expected to serve customers in the patio… I found that a unwelcome surprise a couple of times this past summer whilst drinking and dining on their brand new patio areas… I believe I settled my tab and left within 15 min the couple of times it happened and haven’t returned.
My problem now that patio areas are closed is not smoking, but the overuse of perfume (both male & female). Nothing worse than having just placed your order when the table next to you gets seated and the ‘wave’ hits you. Then you realize that you won’t be tasting your meal because your nose just swelled up or your companion is on the borderline of having an asthma attack (been there, done that, got the tshirt).
So I guess the short of it is, if I saw there was smoking going on in the bar, and I was feeling that I didn’t want to deal with it, I would probably move on to the next bar. Not like there aren’t plenty of bars in Wisc…
January 12th, 2011 at 8:40 am
J, you extrapolated a lot out of a statement that was only intended to show that I understand and have empathized with both sides of this argument at various points in my life.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:01 am
From Bill’s e-mail to harleyrider1978:
I can see your quite the advocate for smoking bans,keeping the other sides argument from reaching the people in a public debate. I guess I dont blame you as the junk science of second hand smoke is so easily DESTROYED!
What I see is that your professional name is on the line when this anti-smoking prohibition movement is finally over as it will be repealed as it was before.
Those progressives that pushed the last round of anti-cigarette anti-alcohol prohibition were left pleading and begging the general public to forgive them after REPEAL came about……Their names and professional careers ruined and their financial futures bleak…..
Heres a timeline from 70 years ago………
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1933 alcohol prohibition repealed………where will you be when its all over!
harleyrider1978
This comment has been edited by Bill to blockquote the e-mail sent to harleyrider1978 which prompted the comment’s opening content.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Just a FYI. The first paragraph harleyrider1978 quotes is from one of the several e-mails I sent him denying his prior attempts at posting comments due to their lack of original content. While this comment is just as pointless as the rest of what he attempted at least this one was hilarious enough to publish.
Oh and for the record, I’m neither for nor against the smoking ban. If I was for it I wouldn’t have sat at the bar discussed in the post for several hours drinking beer and eating food. But hey, that wouldn’t do much for your pointless argument now would it?
January 12th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Harleyrider1978 wrote: “You have one last chance to write a post which contains a single original thought in a coherent structure and not just a bunch of links to a single source of a one-sided site.”
…
Which of course, begs the question: If Bill decides not to use that “one last chance”, what will happen?
I just want to know what all the consequences are before the LL Editorial Board (a/k/a Bill) makes a decision one way or another.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Whit, as I stated above, I wrote that portion of his comment. He just doesn’t know how to blockquote. I have edited his comment to blockquote it.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:17 am
oh. Just saw #36 now. Nevermind.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:18 am
I was gonna mock *cough* I mean respond to harleyrider1978, but then suddenly felt sorry for him/her/it. I knew it would be pointless and result in more pain for your readers.
But, thanks for leaving his/her/its comments here; I’m always up for appreciating when stupid reinvents itself in new and fascinating ways. =:-D
And now, for another one of my almost-famous off-topic pictures!
January 12th, 2011 at 9:20 am
I can also see your quite. Please cover it up; think of the children.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:30 am
I am surprised that harleyrider1978 had a chance to try to post a bunch of times what with all the smoking he has to keep up with. Too bad he’ll be dead from lung cancer within a few months probably, he would have made for an enjoyable little court jester here otherwise.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:39 am
Id make a soup sandwich out of everyone of you if I had a chance to post openly.
But around here its not gonna happen!
January 12th, 2011 at 10:23 am
I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you Harleyrider 1978.
You feel that you have some sort of scientific evidence that smoking and/or secondhand smoke do NOT cause massive health problems, on both a personal and societal level?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Chad (1275 comments) Says:
January 12th, 2011 at 10:23 am
I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you Harleyrider 1978.
You feel that you have some sort of scientific evidence that smoking and/or secondhand smoke do NOT cause massive health problems, on both a personal and societal level?
You bet your sweet @@@ I do!
January 12th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Please provide a direct link to the peer reviewed scientific journal. Thanks.
January 12th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Wow
January 12th, 2011 at 11:25 am
i’ve got it, http://www.rj-reynolds.com or http://www.phillip-morris.com.
bb
January 12th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
BMJ 2003; 326 : 1057 doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057 (Published 15 May 2003)
Paper
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher (jenstrom@ucla.edu)1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2, Davey Smith, Editorial
+ Author Affiliations
1 School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA,
2 Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA
Correspondence to: J E Enstrom
Accepted 7 March 2003
Next Section
Abstract
Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.
Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.
Setting Adult population of California, United States.
Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.
Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.
Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Radon Gas No. 1 cause of lung cancer in non-smokers
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/home/No-1-Cause-Of-Lung-Cancer-In-Non-Smokers-Many-Unaware-105130059.html
Lung cancer in smokers may be different from lung cancer in nonsmokers: Vancouver study
By PAMELA FAYERMAN, Vancouver Sun
Although doctors and scientists have suspected for some time that there were different biological mechanisms underlying lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers, the B.C. study is said to be the first to find whole regions of mutations.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Lung+cancer+smokers+different+from+lung+cancer+nonsmokers
January 12th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Regarding the author of the peer reviewed research linked above: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom
Please also note Dr. Enstrom’s response to the claims that he has a bias due to tobacco industry funding: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_in_his_own_words
January 12th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
From a Public Library of Science study.
Facts are rather funny-looking when you ignore them though.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Michael J. Thun
He authored the study you just posted, is the head researcher/propaganda minister for the ACS,which was created when the last round of tobacco and alcohol prohibition ended by (Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework)he is funded thru the robert woods johnson foundation aka johnson and johnson big pharma makers of NRT’s. You will find his name associated to more than half of the second hand smoke studies done in the world or his associates in tobacco control!
January 12th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
If You follow the link above,you will find non-smokers cancer is a completely diferent disease from supposed smokers cancer of which only 6 to maybe 10% of smokers may ever develop.Its a gigantic misbelief that all smokers develop any cancers or respiratory problems.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Epidemiologist Fired for Reporting Unhelpful Results
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/19/epidemiologist-fired-for-faili
James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who has worked at the UCLA School of Public Health for 34 years, was recently fired, supposedly because his research “is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department [of Environmental Health Sciences].” As Michael Siegel notes, this rationale is patently false. The department’s official mission is to “explore the fundamental relationship between human health and the environment,” and that is exactly what Enstrom has done. The problem is not that he tackled the wrong questions; it’s that he came up with the “wrong” answers. Specifically, he has failed to find a connection between exposure to fine particulate matter and disease. Worse, he is a prominent critic of the view that such a connection is established well enough to justify new regulations by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). He has not only criticized the evidence underlying the proposed regulations but has made trouble by pointing out that a key CARB staffer, Hien Tran, had falsified his academic credentials and that a UCLA colleague who supports regulation of fine particulate matter, John Froines, had served on a scientific panel that advises CARB for 25 years without being reappointed every three years, as required by law. Froines, who has publicly ridiculed Enstrom, participated in the faculty vote recommending his dismissal. Enstrom’s popularity among his colleagues was not enhanced by his work on secondhand smoke, which also failed to generate politically correct results.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Let’s not make crazy distortions as to the intelligence and understanding of the audience here ok? It just makes you look like an ass.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Sorry bill,but what I stated is fact!
January 12th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“‘Only 10% of smokers get lung cancer’”
Actually, that number is way TOO high.
In the USA, in any given year, 99.93% of the current adult smokers will NOT die from lung cancer.
Here:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm
Table 2
We see that current smokers account for 20.9% of the lung cancers.
There are 157,000(USA) lung cancer deaths per year.
Current smokers are 32,813 of those lung cancer deaths.
There are about 46 million current adult smokers.
That gives us a current smoker lung cancer death rate of about 7/10,000 current smokers per year.
So; in any given year, 9,993 out 10,000 current smokers will NOT die from lung cancer.
That is 99.93%.
In any given year, only 7/100ths of 1% of the current smoker adults will die from lung cancer.
They average age of lung cancer death is 72 and there are NO lung cancer deaths below the age of 35. So, current smokers have, on average, 37 years of that 7/10,000 death rate.
37 x 7 = a 259/10,000 current smoker lifetime lung cancer death rate.
Over the course of a lifetime of smoking, 9,741 out of 10,000 current smokers will NOT die from lung cancer and that is 97.41%.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Even entertaining the absurd notion that there is no correlation between second hand smoke and danger to non smokers, the part where he references the repeal of prohibition as some sort of future reality for him is quite stupid.
harlyrider1978, nobody like you dirty smokers except for other dirty smokers. You are increasingly the minority as you have no chance to win this argument. Again, even if you were 100% accurate, it does not matter. You literally stink.
Nothing personal.
January 12th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Even entertaining the absurd notion that there is no correlation between second hand smoke and danger to non smokers, the part where he references the repeal of prohibition as some sort of future reality for him is quite stupid.
harlyrider1978, nobody likes you dirty smokers except for other dirty smokers. You are increasingly the minority as you have no chance to win this argument. Again, even if you were 100% accurate, it does not matter. You literally stink.
Nothing personal.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Its not a matter of the science as we can see,its more a matter of personal dislike by a few trying to capitalize on a minority using emotional dislike as a rational justification for criminal law.This we havent seen as a nation since the supreme court struck down”JIMCROWE LAWS”. However those laws were claimed to be because of skin color but even then people had a choise as the signs said whites only or colored only and in todays world of anti-smoking laws it was non-smoking or smoking until the final solution was instituted bannishment from even the sections……..Free choise has always been the american ideal until now!
January 12th, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Thanks for the time Bill……you are an american
January 12th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
harley,
Trying to compare not being able to smoke in a bar to the discrimination created by Jim Crow laws is, to be perfectly honest, a slap in the face to racial minorities and almost hilarious.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Harleyrider, your math is horribly flawed and you clearly have an inablity to look at scientific facts.
The smoking companies themselves have, through their own studies, proven that smoking is extremely harmful to your health and those around you. For several decades they spent millions of dollars trying to hide their own studies.
The simplest flaw in your argument is that they would have never agreed to a 206 BILLION dollar settlement if there was any sort of scientific evidence that smoking was not harmful to your help.
The next big flaw, using your own agrument, is that in a given year 32,813 (your number) people died from a type of lung cancer that is specific to cigarette smoke (again your argument). So, per your argument, in a given year 32,813 people will die DIRECTLY FROM A SPECIAL TYPE OF CANCER CAUSED ONLY FROM SMOKING.
While I dont agree with your numbers or your argument, there is no reason to dig farther. You stated for us that 30,000 plus people die each year directly from smoking, because smoking causes its own special kind of cancer (Your words).
Its also 100% false that there are NO lung cancer deaths below the age of 35.
The facts are that lung cancer has a very low survival rate (less than 20%) and somewhere between 80 and 90% of lung cancer cases have smoking as a contributing factor.
In all this, we have only addressed lung cancer, and not touched on the host of other diseases that are caused by the roughly 200 different poisons in cigarette smoke.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
It seems these days that many, if not most, “scientific studies” are financially biased. Let’s look at common sense: It is clearly bad for your lungs to inhale particles. Cigarette smoke contains particles. These particles are known to cause cancer. The more of these particles that you breathe and the more times that you breathe them, the more likely you are to develop lung cancer or other respiratory illnesses or weaknesses. I am particularly concerned for babies and small children who are forced by their parents to breathe smoke while their little lungs are still trying to grow and develop.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I didnt say smoking causes lung cancer,in fact its never been proven smoking causes cancer unless you accept epidemiology as fact! Toxicology wise the end points have never been proven or shown. What they have shown is genetic breakdowns of what they deem as smokers cancer yet they cant prove smoking caused it. In fact,most studies cant even produce any effect unless another source is added into the mix,say asbestos,radon and a myriad of other proven carcinogens and even then it took 5 decades or longer to produce an effect! Synergism is whats to blame for so called smoking related cancer.Dont even bring up the specially bred rats and mice that developed cancer on their own with or without tobacco smoke being introduced into their environment,all they discovered was the rats that were hit with smoking lived longer than the rats that werent……in the real world they call that a protective effect!
January 12th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
While asking one of the many anti-smoking ban activists to provide fair and balanced peer reviewed sources to back up their wild claims instead of links to their activist websites (I am not going to contribute to their page rank) I received the following response:
I’m guessing this is going to go to the ever-so-famous pos-billroehl site. This is hilarious.
January 12th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Gosh, faced with all the “facts” Harleyrider1978 is posting, I’m beginning to realize that NOT smoking is actually unhealthy and I plan to stop at the nearest convenience store on my way home from work tonight to pick up my first pack. I only hope I’m not too late. How much should I start with? Is a pack a day enough?
January 12th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I also never said smoking was healthy…….but like anything else like pollen its an aggravating factor to some folks but to 99.9% of the human race its not a factor at all. The real losers in all this prohibition going on is the loss of public faith inpublic health becuase of junk science and claims so outrageous even tobacco control has to laugh!
Third hand smoke anyone!
January 12th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
While trying to avoid Harley’s vehemence, I figure I’ll do my own thing:
As has already been stated by others, we should be careful with statements above. Medical research has shown that smoking “can” be a direct hazard to the most smokers as well as second hand smoke “can” be a hazard for most non-smokers. There is no evidence that smoking is conclusively hazardous to everyone’s health. Only that it is hazardous to most peoples health.
One of the challenges with statistics related to smoking is that things like lung cancer, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are not caused only by smoking, or second hand smoke.
At best we have determined that smoking is a behavior that carries significant health risk for most people. If second hand smoke is a carcinogen, as the CDC current classifies it then it too provides a health risk for most people, just as any carcinogen does.
For me, the most irritating part of smoking is how government treats smokers. Taxing smokers at outrageous rates is terrible. Trying to help the general fund on the back of smokers belies the attempts by government to claim that there are dangers of smoking. If smoking is truly that bad, make it illegal to smoke. Outlaw cigarettes in total, and save us all. Otherwise, leave the smokers alone.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I’m just going to gloss over most of harleyrider’s ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy.
But, to claim with certainty that second-hand smoke has NO documented negative effects on a person’s immediate and/or long-term health is asinine and completely ignorant. You need only look at a cross-section of a smoker’s lung (or person in a constant smoky environment) vs. a cross-section of a non-smoker’s lung to see the real effects that inhaling cigarette smoke (first-hand, second-hand, whatever) are. I’ve seen this first-hand.
People like harleyrider come along all the time with their tired, extreme viewpoints. He/she will buttress the argument against a correlation between smoking/second-hand smoke with a very small handful of narrow and selected studies from researchers with questionable motives, while at the same time ignoring the thousands of studies from organizations around the world that have no immediate financial incentive to skew the results in any direction.
He/she will obfuscate the argument by throwing in side-issues like radon gas, which is a naturally occurring substance, but has no correlation to an argument dealing with involuntary exposure to someone else’s act of introducing toxic chemicals to your body.
And he/she will further try and deflect the smoking ban argument by clouding it and narrowing it down to the single issue of smoking-cancer link, when there are multitudes of other conditions which are clearly exacerbated by even short-term exposure to someone else’s smoke (asthma, bronchitis, COPD).
I’m OK with the threshold not meeting harleyrider’s standard of absolutes. Can you ever achieve 100% evidence that smoke is harmful? No. Is there enough evidence to support the hypothesis? I would guess over 90% of the populace thinks so and and thinks so very confidently.
I also think in post #64 Chad raises some pretty good points, although I suspect harleyrider will selectively ignore those while copying and pasting a few carefully chosen medical studies from his/her collection.
Then, when we’re done beating our head against this wall, Bill can borrow from an episode of Jesse Ventura’s TV show and see what other nonsensical conspiratorial arguments harleyrider can come up with.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Corrupt science has two salient characteristics. First, instead of starting with a hypothesis and data and deriving from that a conclusion, it does just the opposite: starting with a desired conclusion, it then selects data in order to support the hypothesis. Second, it stifles dissent by excluding dissenters from the process of review and by using ad hominem arguments to question their character and motives. The EPA is guilty on both counts.
Of the 30 studies on spousal smoking referred to in the EPA report, only 6 found any statistically significant association between ETS and cancer in nonsmokers married to smokers, and none found a strong relative risk. The studies actually used by the EPA were limited to 11 studies done in the United States. Using the EPA’s own Guidelines for Carcenogenic Risk Assessment, none of these showed a statistically significant risk. These guidelines call for a 95% Confidence Interval. By lowering it to 90%, only one of the 11 studies showed a statistically significant risk. More importantly, the two largest and most recent studies, one of which was partially funded by the National Cancer Institute, were omitted from consideration altogether. Had these two been included, no statistically significant risk would have been found even after lowering the Confidence Interval to 90%. Even after violating its own guidelines, in other words, the EPA could still show no statistically significant risk without selecting data to fit its hypothesis. This cooked data is the EPA’s only basis for declaring ETS to be a “Group A” carcinogen. (“Group A”, incidentally, does not mean “extra deadly”. It simply means “human”.)
The EPA’s studies on ETS operate under a “zero threshold” hypothesis, or the assumption that if huge quantities of something are dangerous, then microscopic quantities are dangerous also. The data they used, however, fails to bear this out: virtually all of the studies used either found no risk at all or a risk so weak that it would not be considered significant if applied to other subjects.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Basically put, DOSE MAKES THE POISON and femtograms and nanograms arent going to harm you or even a child much less a rat as was attempted in trying to prove causation. It led OSHA to make the following statement……
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA
January 12th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
This is akin to the we didn’t land on the moon debate, though I think my use of the word debate here legitimizes either argument more than it probably should.
Are not most deaths related to AIDS the result of pneumonia? I think this discussion is about as valid as if someone were to postulate that nobody has ever died of AIDS, and that the pneumonia was the clear cause and AIDS just a coincidence. You can’t really “prove” the argument as invalid, but it is just the same, and everyone including harlyrider1978 knows it.
Makes for good fun though.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Mrs. Marcos, as ridiculous as you think you’re being, I’ve read articles in which physicians approached that as a real argument, positioning it as “I’m much more concerned about the health affects of stress and anxiety that smoking can help take the edge off of. Not to mention the travails of those trying to quit a habit that may not actually be harmful (insert harley’s research reference here).”
January 12th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
On OSHA’s web site they tell folks who want further info on shs/ets to go to the debunked epa report that was tossed as junk science by a federal court and 2 congressional comittees……The court of appeals overturned the federal court ruling but not its findings,EPA never challenged a single finding brought out by the judge. Only turned over because EPA said they werent going to use it as a study to back up a regulation,but thats exactly what they were going to do and it was stopped dead in its tracks.However it still didnt stop other federal depts to use it to call ETS/SHS A CLASS A CARCINOGEN and thats where the claim originates and is still used to this day!
January 12th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Yawn.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
MSPD! Its a gigantic untruth that all glue sniffers develop any sort of euphoria from the ingredients in glue. You need to read http://gluefiends-against-public-health-stupidity.blogspot.com for the REAL facts.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
One word that was inserted into the study quoted by harleyrider skews all of the statistics upon which he relies in post #58, and that is the word “current” preceding several key phrases, including, for example: “current adult smokers” and “current smoker lung cancer death rate”.
Inserting the word “current” removes from the lung cancer death rate all people who smoked in the past, but who were not smokers at the time of their deaths (they could have, for example, quit a week before they died of lung cancer) and as a result would not have been included in the death statistics.
Anyone can skew statistics in their favor by changing the questions that are asked.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Whit, or they lied about being smokers when in fact they were.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines.
January 12th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
I’m OK with the threshold not meeting harleyrider’s standard of absolutes. Can you ever achieve 100% evidence that smoke is harmful? No. Is there enough evidence to support the hypothesis? I would guess over 90% of the populace thinks so and and thinks so very confidently.
If I had a billion dollars a year as tobacco control gets to pursue smoking bans and junk science studies,I could get people to believe obamas a republican too!
BTW the relative risk for ets/shs and disease is a 1.19 epa report 90% ci
For smoking and disease the rr is anywhere from 8.0 to 20.0
anything under a 1.0 is considered as having a protective effect ie keeps you from getting disease. Yet these are all epidemiological outcomes and is why shs/ets has never been a threat to anyone as in its an insignificant threat to anyone even children.
Unless a study is over 2.0 and all of the other studies confirm that same conclusion no court will accept it as evidence.In other words second hand smoke cannot be shown to be statistically significant the results even when repeated prove its insignificant and those who claim it is should be questioned deeply for an agenda driven purpose!
January 12th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
And if I had a billion dollars a year, I bet I could get you to realize you’re well beyond the point at which anyone cares about your distortions and your own brand of “junk science”.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Whit I drew no conclusions only what was put out on the site named in the listing.
Now if you want a few studies that show most lung cancers occurr within 18 months of quitting smoking Ive got a few!
January 12th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
(crickets chirping)
January 12th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
ok, honest question for Harleyrider1978. How many people over the age of 75 do you know who smoke?
January 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Besides my mom and dad and grand parents………and at bingo probably 125 folks.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
You know more people over the age of 75 than I know total. Incredible.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Aside from cancer and lung disease, what do these people cough up every morning? What do they smell like? Do their grandchildren wrinkle their noses at how they smell? How is their skin tone (yellow, grey) and wrinkle count? Do their voices sound like they ate steel wool for breakfast? Do they look 20 years older than their calendar age? Are the whites of their eyes actually yellow? Do their homes and cars stink? How much does a pack cost these days? Does the urge to light up interfere with their work/social live(s)? Are their fingernails yellowed? Have they ever fallen asleep with a lit ciggy? Etc., etc., etc.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I like bingo and go with my folks all the time,weve got one lady whose 96 and still smokes…….I asked her once whats your secret for long life, she exhaled some smoke and said why bingo of course!
January 12th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Yo sandy,I almost think your psychotic with that mantra……….how long you been like this?
January 12th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
You’re, not your.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Sorry, I dont buy it. But, you are of course welcome to your delusions. When your family members and bingo friends start dieing of COPD, Emphesyma, Lung Cancer, etc please remember that its NOT because of the smoking.
B I N G O!
January 12th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
You had us all right up to the part where you admit you like bingo. so close.
January 12th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Rather than blaming smoking you really should look at the true culprits of copd
You might even search cancers caused by viruses such as human pappiloma virus,surprising but its also blamed for lung cancer!
Search ResultsAdenoviruses Cause COPDMeanwhile, the central investigator in many studies of adenoviruses and COPD, James C. Hogg, MD, of St. Paul’s Hospital and professor of pathology at the …
http://www.smokershistory.com/adencopd.htm – Cached – SimilarAcute and latent
adenovirus in COPD – Elsevierby TE McManus – 2007 – Cited by 2 – Related articles
Nucleic acid extraction was performed on sputum specimens from patients with COPD. Copy numbers for GAPDH, and adenovirus 5 E1A DNA and mRNA were determined …
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0954611107002272[PDF] * Latent Adenovirus Infection in COPDFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
by S Hayashi – 2002 – Cited by 23 – Related articles
Key words: adenovirus; COPD; latent infection; viral DNA. Abbreviations: …. from patients with COPD carries more group C adenoviral …
chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/121/5_suppl/183S.full.pdfLatent Adenovirus Infection in
January 12th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Jesus just ban this guy already. I was enjoying reading this thread until now.
What an incredibly complex issue that is fun to think about. As a “libertarian” my knee jerk response is no ban or regulation at all, and bars can choose to be smoking or non-smoking, and employees can choose to work where they want. But of course the problem is there has never been such a thing as a non-smoking bar pre-ban anywhere – if there was a market for it, we would have seen it before the ban. If the ban was reversed today in Minnesota, I would guess 80%+ of bars would put ashtrays on the tables again and in small towns 100%.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Not a problem coz,Im outta here anyway,gotta go cut some firewood!
enjoy all and thanks again Bill
January 12th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
7 hours later and harleyrider is still blathering.
I’m absolutely shocked he hasn’t bemoaned the fact that the Minnesota smoking ban also included bingo halls (the Native American casinos notwithstanding) and copied/pasted some obscure research study that concludes that the combination of bingo and chain smoking is, believe it or not, really the secret of a long life.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
And whiskey for breakfast. Don’t forget that.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
There’s a fringe out there for everything. For harleyrider1978 it’s pro-smoking. For others it’s anti-vaccine. For others it’s 9/11 conspiracy.
They never cease to amaze me in their veracity though.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Amen Joey.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
There is nothing stated on this board that takes away the right of a restuarant bar owner to forfeit his rights to that of a none-smoker operating with taxable and legal products. Therefore the right to operate and proceed as he deems necesssary, and supplying patrons signage of his house rules should prevail. Parents of minors should understand a proprieter may choose to favour adult rules and refuse minors unless of age. Take note that these proprieters are well aware of the fact that children are widely serviced by a mutitude of friendly food chains that allow no smoking or spirits where responsible none smokers can take advantage. Resturant Bar Owners take pride in their work and clientale and do not object to non- smokers becoming competitors as well as smokers. So in reallity what is the none smokers whinning problem?
January 12th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
The fringe is tobacco control…….thirdhand smoke anyone! lmao ta
January 12th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I’d like to stop and bask in this moment as we’ve made this the first Lazy Lightning post of 2011 to hit 100 comments.
I have to thank harleyrider1978. We couldn’t have done it without you.
Also, MSPD and Chad, you guys really came through, lobbing potshots as I sat back and waited for someone to hit 99 comments.
And sandy, I mean, as the 99th comment, you really took one for the team. You could have waited to be the 100th but no, you went ahead and posted anyway. The 3 minutes between MSPD’s 98th comment and your 99th were torture as we all sat with our fingers on the mouse ready to click “Submit Comment” (you all did that too, right?).
This has been really entertaining. Thanks everyone.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
They did exist, but sadly were extremely rare. The Contented Cow in Northfield was (and still is) a great place to get a pint without smoke.
Honestly, that was probably the only place in the state though.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
What is the record for fastest to 100? I am still pretty new here.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I’m too lazy to write the SQL to figure it out (it would be a bastard) so here are the posts over 100 comments. Someone can do it manually however my money is on this one:
http://www.lazylightning.org/ramys-pizzeria-apple-valley-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/casa-nostra-pizzeria-ristorante-italiano-lakeville-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/galaxie-diner-apple-valley-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/molly-cools-seafood-tavern-lakeville-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/goodfellas-pizza-bar-grill-lakeville-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/rack-shack-bbq-burnsville-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/wild-bills-sports-saloon-apple-valley-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/applewood-rustic-grille-burnsville-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/ansaris-mediterranean-grill-and-lounge-eagan-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/burger-time-apple-valley-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/porter-creek-hardwood-grill-burnsville-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/kami-japanese-restaurant-apple-valley-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/one-wisconsin-bars-fight-against-the-smoking-ban
http://www.lazylightning.org/raising-canes-chicken-fingers-apple-valley-mn
http://www.lazylightning.org/thisweek-ignores-creative-commons-licensing
January 12th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
“Concerns” about health expressed by anti-smoking officials are certifiably bogus.
- Officials refuse to demand labeling of what’s in typical cigarettes, and they refuse to, on their own, humanely inform and warn the public about even the deadliest non-tobacco cigarette adulterants. [Can’t reveal “trade secrets” http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_lor/92347626-7628.html ]
- They do nothing to prohibit or even, again, warn about toxic and cancer-causing residues of any of about 450 pesticides registered for tobacco use. http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/tobacco.dv.html
- They ignore the dioxins in smoke that come from chlorine pesticide residues and the Still Legal chlorine-bleached cigarette paper. [Top pharmaceutical firms---"health" care businesses---make many tobacco pesticides. Pharm CEOs are never brought to "smoking" hearings to testify and explain.)
Dioxins: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dioxins-Cigarette-Smoke.htm
Pharms: http://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/436/436-048/PDF_69-82EPA.pdf
- They ignore that the USA classifies dioxin as a Known Human Carcinogen, that the USA signed a global treaty to phase out dioxin and 11 other worst-of-the-worst industrial pollutants, AND that dioxins are especially harmful to children, pregnant women, and fetuses. They forget Agent Orange and Love Canal and other notable dioxin disasters.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2001/niehs-19.htm
http://www.chem.unep.ch/Pops/POPs_Inc/press_releases/pressrel-99/unepnr99-69.htm
- They ignore that the combo of chlorine with the added ammonia is especially toxic....as anyone reading cleanser warning labels knows.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_when_you_mix_ammonia_with_chlorine
- They ignore that there are cancer-causing levels of radiation (PO-210) in typical cigarettes due to the Still Legal (!) use of certain phosphate fertilizers.
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/ddradioactivecigs.html
- They do or say nothing about the hosts of added sweets, flavorings, aromas, and soothing substances that make typical cigarettes so appealing to young people.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/
- They express no concern, and offer no warning, that, of the well-over-1000 non-tobacco cigarette additives (not all in one cig, of course), NONE have been tested for safety in this use. They do not care that their constituents are being treated as Guinea Pigs...experimented upon without Informed Consent.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/
- Officials, for generations, have ignored and failed to warn about added Burn Accelerants despite numerous fires, injuries, and deaths.
http://www.burnsurgery.org/Modules/prevention/firesafecigarette/sec1.htm
- They often use EPA material about “environmental tobacco smoke” to justify smoke bans despite the fact that that EPA material was thrown out of a Federal Court years ago as fraudulent. The EPA has not yet corrected its errors.
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/osteensummary.html
- Further, they persist in using the cigarette industry’s “tobacco” language despite another fact---that any number of low-end brands may contain no tobacco at all, but, instead, fake tobacco made in Patented ways to resemble tobacco…with measured shot of nicotine added, of course. One cannot get Tobacco Smoke from such products.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3978866.html
- And, they probably play golf with, and accept campaign money from, the industries responsible for the pesticides, chlorine, paper, fertilizers, pharmaceutical additives, etc, etc.,...and their insurers and investors. [Top health insurers are multi-Billion dollar investors in top Cigarette Manufacturers.] http://www.pnhp.org/news/2000/march/insurers_are_major_i.php
Those officials and those industries, naturally, prefer to blame the deadly effects of typical Pesticide Pegs (or Dioxin Dowels?) on the victims, and on the tobacco plant…which, in unadulterated form, does not seem to have been studied yet for actual or probable harms. How something can be banned that has not been tested is a question. That is…they “test” Pesticide Pegs and then conclude that “tobacco did it”. Any researchers who do that should have their licenses revoked, with prejudice. If they tested plain tobacco they might find the risks acceptable—no need for bans—but that would not serve the interests of those who wish to remove natural, unpatented, public-domain tobacco from competition with many patented synthesized pharmaceutical products.
To blame “smoking” (without clarity about WHAT is being smoked) is to blame the behavior of duped, secretly-poisoned, insufficiently-warned, unprotected, and uncompensated victims for the crimes of others. The cold cruelty of that is astonishing.
Blaming, and prosecuting, those who adulterated typical products with all that stuff, and who in government allowed it, is the proper path….that is, if there is to be any trace of legitimate science, medicine, and law.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Yeah! Except my best shot (where I said harleyrider could spare the firewood death by axe and just bore it to death by talking to it) stayed in the chamber.
Oh well, I’m sure some other nut job will come along soon enough.
January 12th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Added JPEG image…I hope…
January 12th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Ha! No sooner did I hit “Submit”…..
Let’s go for 200!
January 12th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Yeah, this post is the fastest.
January 31st, 2009 to June 19th, 2009
November 29th, 2008 to September 29th, 2009
September 16th, 2010 to December 15th, 2010
January 13th, 2010 to February 9th, 2010
January 24th, 2010 to February 16th, 2010
October 12th, 2009 to January 11th, 2010
March 30th, 2007 to September 21st, 2010
October 22nd, 2009 to November 5th, 2009
January 11th, 2011 to January 12th, 2011
July 9th, 2010 to November 27th, 2010
April 2nd, 2010 to May 7th, 2010
November 9th, 2006 to April 13th, 2008
May 20th, 2009 to June 18th, 2009
June 29th, 2009 to December 4th, 2009
December 21st, 2009 to January 7th, 2010
January 12th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
My grandparents on my fathers side never smoked a day in their lives. Their in their high 80′s right now. My grandparents on my mothers side are gone. Neither due to cancer. My father smoked cigarettes when he was young and pipes when he was older. He had prostate cancer. He’s in his early 60′s and otherwise doing o.k. My mom never smoked, and has numerous health issues including neurological, 63 years old.
My father in law and mother in law smoke like smoke stacks and have since their teens. My mother in law has had two heart attacks. My father in law has had prostate cancer.
What conclusion can I draw from this? Some people get sick, some don’t. Fucking gentics.
January 12th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Bill at 4,225 comments is proof of a long winded non smoker and proof that most of his rhetoric is just 4 sheets to the wind, that should be banned in public, must be the chemical mouthwash he is using for his sponsor trials.
January 12th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Well, your Honor, we’ve plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are KINDS of evidence.
January 12th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
It seems that many have forgotten history. Remember Reefer Madness that prohibited another natural, public-domain, medicinal, un-patented, smokable natural plant?
Who pushed for that but pretty much the SAME corporate interests now pushing Reefer Madness II…tobacco prohibition.
Those interests include—pesticides, chlorine, pharmaceuticals, paper-pulp, petrochemicals and others.
This anti-smoking campaign is NOT, by miles, a grassroots matter coming from people. It’s entirely corporate. I mean…since when did the Corporatocracy (incl. it’s PR arm in the mainstream media) care about Clean Air, children’s health, and workers? That is pure packaging.
We do not want or need yet another prison-filling, distracting, socially-fracturing, scientifically-unsound Prohibition.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Dudes, I LOVE BINGO.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Baja is here to make Harley look normal.
January 12th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“Normal” seems to be, unfortunately, believing just about anything from the mainstream media and sold-out public officials.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Ok then, how would you define “normal?” Clearly you don’t think something the vast majority of the population agrees on is normal, so what is?
January 12th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
dm!
You’re not paying attention! BINGO playing causes cancer.
Geez!
January 12th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Ok, it has not happened often, but I am now confused. Baja are you for or against smoking bans in restaraunts?
At first I thought you were saying that smoking is horrible, possibly because its not really tobacco but a bunch of chemicals and crap that is being smoked and that our elected officials are paid hypocrites. Mostly this was stuff I can agree with.
Then you seemed to throw a big curve and indicate that these same special interests who all profit from selling cigarettes somehow profit from anti smoking campaigns and or the push to get people to not smoke. Sorry, totally lost me there.
Great initial post though. Hopefully Harley will spend the next month or two reading through the various articles you linked.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Man, one of mine went to the filter as well.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Sorry about that Chad, all fixed.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Filtered, unfiltered…I don’t think it matters, all equally healthy. Oh, you weren’t talking about cigarettes anymore? Sorry.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
From: http://www.lazylightning.org/one-wisconsin-bars-fight-against-the-smoking-ban#comment-84335
“Need a Light”, you are so far off base that I don’t even know where to begin.
January 12th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Banning free speech?! WOOHOO
January 12th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
You don’t know where to start? Oh, I do! I do!
January 12th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Quote :“Need a Light”, you are so far off base that I don’t even know where to begin.
Bill you might make an attempt after your high count posts what are you trying to prove ??
January 12th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
I’m oppose Smoking bans…except inside gasoline refineries or the like.
I oppose Contamination of so-called “tobacco products” with some of the most deadly industrial substance on the planet. And I sure as Hell oppose govt officials who are allowed to accept money from all parts of the cigarette industry.
I oppose judges and jurors in “smoking” cases who may have links to the hidden parts of Big Cig—those who hope to remain off-the-radar…such as Pesticides, Fertilizers, Chlorine, Pharms, Paper, Ag biz, Insurers, Investors, etc. This is a Constitutional Due Process matter. Not trivial.
I oppose demonization and criminalization of smokers, bar owners, bingo parlor managers, bowling alley proprietors etc etc for the effects of contaminated products they TOO May be victimized by.
Tobacco has been used for about 10 thousand years for medicinal, social, agricultural, religious and economic purposes. I say..let’s go for the next 10 thousand….BUT—get the damn untested and known-deadly non-tobacco stuff OUT of the products. And, of course, sue and prosecute those who put that stuff there for only about the last 80 or 90 years.
And Hugely Important…I oppose and condemn Medical Professionals who, due to links to Pharms and Insurance and so forth, refuse to properly diagnose patients for exposures to industrial chemicals…be they in typical Pesticide Peg cigarettes or elsewhere.
Do we all accept the Company Doctors?
And I condemn the corporate-funded scientific community for not so much as examining the cigarettes and smoke they “research” to know what the cigs and smoke are made of.
That said….apparently there isn’t even any real evidence that even the most contaminated cigarette smoke can cause the harms the establishment says they cause. Smoke from plain tobacco on the other hand, would probably not even register on a Harm Meter.
This is purely a scam…part of the Corporate War on, and theft of, all things that are in the public domain. It’s about corporate privatization of everything owned, in common, by we the people. I mean everything…from public lands, public schools and libraries, public highways, public waterways, water itself, public owned minerals and gas etc, natural vitamins and nutrients etc, hemp-cannabis, forest resources, …and public domain tobacco.
And, of course, it’s also hugely about Corporate Evasion of Penalties and Liabilities for what they did to cigarettes, and to smokers, for so long. The War On Smoking is about saving those homicidal businesses WELL into the Trillions of Dollars in potential liabilities and penalties…not to MENTION profit losses.
Hence… WE…victimized peope…get hit with “smoking bans”. A big distraction. A bigger injustice.
The smell of THIS level of Corporate-Government crime is a thousand times worse than all the beer-soaked ashtrays ever to exist. Too bad so many think the smoke smell is The Big Bad Thing.
Too bad so many otherwise wholesome anti-smokers don’t realize that, by leaving out the matter of non-tobacco cig adulterants, they SERVE the interests of the cigarette cartel they THINK they are against.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
What? Do you not understand that this is MY website?
January 12th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Re/ Smoking bans in restaurants—
- Tobacco has been used for ten thousand years as both an appetite suppressant (like other natural plant drugs around the world), and is also known as a digestive relief substance.
You can see why McDonalds would not want an Appetite Suppressant in their “restaurants”.
IF cigarettes were not, as most are, virtual Industrial Waste Incinerators, perhaps others around the restaurant would not notice or mind….IF it was just tobacco. Notice how few hate incense or candles or cooking smoke or campfires? THEY aren’t, like typical cigs, up to here in pesticide residues and dioxin producing chlorine and turpentine and shellac and adhesives and god knows what all else.
January 12th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Baja K, you need to try English.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:47 am
Sandy said, “Baja K, you need to try English”. Please explain.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:59 am
This thread apparently really heated up some emotions on the subject of indoor smoking, 134 comments!
I wonder what the fine is for non-compliance? If she is only charging each smoking customer $1.00 the fine must be pretty small. My guess is the Minnesota fine for violations must be much bigger because, I haven’t seen any bars that allow smoking after the law went into effect.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:47 am
I’ll be really impressed if Baja K or harleyrider1978 actually sticks around and post comments on other posts. What you two may or may not know is the rest of us are pretty regular readers around here. Sure, this issue is fun to kick around, but we really care more about the libertarian view on this more than anything. The theories of corporatism and whatnot aren’t exactly relevant to the post or to our normal conversation. Of course, you’ve never made a comment here before, but then, I don’t think Bill’s ever had a post related to smoking, so maybe you wouldn’t have had a reason to say anything.
Either way, I recommend lightening up a bit on this. If you want to smoke, go for it. Nobody here is stopping you. Nobody here really cares. You can even believe all of those things you want to believe if you want. You’re on the fringe and you know you’re on the fringe, but you have every right to be on the fringe. Let’s just agree to disagree and move on. Nobody’s minds are going to be changed at this rate.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:38 am
This “thread” is precisely about a smoking ban.
Any smoke ban that’s based on “harms of tobacco smoke” is patently illegitimate because, believe it or not, no one’s yet shown a piece of evidence about Tobacco Smoke….meaning tobacco itself, qualified as such, w/out killer industrial contaminants.
If this is about discussing what one personally likes or not (yucky things, smelly things, or the like) then…that’s unfortunate.
Nothing Libertarian about this. Libertarians might think that cigarette makers can freely do what they want…like dump untested and deadly stuff into what some call “tobacco products”.
This is about that NO ONE, not even a big business, can secretly risk or damage the health of anyone, and that the so-called “tobacco” industry has probably harmed and killed more people than most other industries BECAUSE it is part and parcel of the the other homicidal industries—pesticides, chlorine and dioxin, radioactive fertilizers, pharms that make pesticides and cig additives, and more.
Bottom line as per this subject being about smoke bans in bars… Bar Owners must NOT be penalized or inconvenienced or shut-down or condemned as a “solution” for health problems they did not cause or even know about.
Some day—signs in bars etc saying “NO Pesticide-Contaminated, Chlorine-Contaminated Smoking Products Allowed”.
Tobacco, on the other hand…no problem. Why not?
That would really shake the anti-smoking corporatocracy to its boots.
Why our sold-out govt officials don’t put up the same sign, so to speak, with some serious laws about adulterating cigarettes, is a question.
Another bottom line is…it is a sorry waste of time and effort to talk about “tobacco” if the “tobacco” being discussed isn’t even tobacco….as made clear in some of the references in earlier posts.
Anti-smoking isn’t a religion…yet….is it? So, it’s ok to question the Tenets of Faith here. Question also who’s writing the anti-smoking “Bible”. Hint—it’s some of the most dangerous parts of the cigarette industry.
It’s not nice to trick and lie to people and prey on their emotions and even prejudices. If one doesn’t care to admit to being hoodwinked…well…that’s another thing.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:41 am
Oh I can guarantee you Im not baja k…………….
January 13th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Mrs M! NOOOOOOO! I played bingo at 5-8 on Monday! MONDAY! I’ll start writing my will.
Who here is willing to take care of my dog? Husband? I have a brand new car up for grabs as well.
OH MY GOD I’M GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 13th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Baja K, once I sort through all your thoughts, it seems that you are saying that tobacco smoke is fairly safe, however the other things added to either the tobacco in growing or afterwards and/or part of the cigarette manufacturing process are what make cigarettes dangerous.
While I would agree that there is a distinction in the two, you are sort of missing the point. I dont think science, or the general public is ignoring that fact either. Its pretty well published that there are hundreds of identifiable carcinogens and toxins in a cigarette. What you are saying is esentially what the pro hemp/marijuana crowd has been saying for years.
It does not change the fact that the things found in cigarettes TODAY are toxic, and even if you can ignore the toxins because they are low levels on some test (that really does not take into account 40 to 60 cigarettes a day for 20 or 30 years) you cant ignore the tar. As MSPD noted, looking at the lung of a smoker is not something you need to be medically trained to understand.
I would guess that under all the BS, Harley realizes what you clearly understand. The cigarettes sold in stores today KILL people, generally in long slow painful ways.
Harley, the next time you wake up in the morning hacking up your lungs, or notice that your having a hard time catching your breath after climbing a flight of stairs, or have a hard time getting little Harley “up” for a round with Mrs Harley, please stop and realize that its not that you are getting old. Its the cigarettes that you are ADDICTED to.
Having lived with a smoker for 17 years, and listened each morning to the wall shaking hacking that accompanies it, I cant tell you how heart warming it is to have my father come visit and not hear the morning cough. It took years of not smoking to totally clear up, but its 90% gone.
January 13th, 2011 at 9:49 am
this is kind of cool:)
http://www.chinanews.net/story/728690/ht/Smoking-fatalities-set-to-triple-in-China
waaaaay too many people there anyway.
bb
January 13th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” The National Cancer Institute states “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states “An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable.” Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:41 am
There should be a rule against copy/pasting here. harleyrider 1928 should be required to actually type in his worthless banter like I have to.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Im linking important information in this conversation.You can choose to read it or not,thats entirely up to each of us.
Heres a bit more info on smoking and lung cancer:
Smoking Does Not
Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*
By: James P. Siepmann, MD
Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying “smoking causes lung cancer”1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)
The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics4,5,6, asbestos exposure7, sex8, HIV status9, vitamin deficiency10, diet11,12,13, pollution14 , shipbuilding15 and even just plain old being lazy.16 When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect17, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for “causing” lung cancer!
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm
January 13th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Here harleyrider…I fixed that for you.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Harleyrider wrote: “Im linking important information in this conversation.”
“Conversation” being the operative word.
I understand that you are posting links from scientific literature to support your point of view. From the looks of things, other posters have read what you have to say, and commented/asked questions accordingly, in essence, trying to see/understand where you are coming from. The question is: have you done the same? Be honest now, other than cutting and pasting, have you really turned a critical eye to the information you are putting on here to understand the issues of semantics, bias, funding, human nature in responding to surveys, etc, that others have raised here?
Because if you haven’t, this isn’t truly a conversation on your part. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Joey at comment #136.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Harley, the thing is you dont even understand what you are typing. The first line of your last post clearly states that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer. Do you even know what that means?
So, how long have you been smoking? How long do you hack each morning to get your lungs clear? I am sure its not due to the smoking.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:42 am
Oh! I ve read the pro-ban peoples studies and for the most part they are meta studies and or questionaires.They are peer reviewed by their own people not the actual BMJ itself although they do excercise the right to deny papers or accept them.
Its gotton so bad for tobacco control,theyve set up their own BMJ style study banks with their own folks running them. Theyve even come out and said they will not accept any studies financed by big tobacco or tobacco anything connected studies.
In other words they only want their side heard and have gone out of their way to silence the opposition to their bogus science.
If you really want to understand how bogus tobacco controls studies are of late,simply read the 3rd hand smoke study………
BS Alert: The ‘third-hand smoke’ hoax
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-hand-smoke-hoax?render=print
The thirdhand smoke scam
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html
Now a word on META-ANALYSIS STUDIES
The SG report. After all on page 21 they admit using questionable methodology simply because they deemed it useful … from page 21
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh…
January 13th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Listen up all of you fucking wackjobs posting endless threads of bullshit that makes no sense and answers nothing:
If you’re going to post a long diatribe of copy/pasted content it better be 90% your own words and 10% viable, peer reviewed research to back it up. If you continue on the current trend of just making it take longer to scroll to the bottom I’m going to ban your asses faster than you can say, “cigarettes don’t cause cancer because I like to smoke and I want to be in deluded denial.”
I hope I’ve made myself VERY fucking clear.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Yes, let’s just keep latching on to that one tiny little aspect of the greater issue, harleyrider.
I would love for you to have asthma or have an asthmatic family member and bring him or her into a smoke-filled room, then try and tell us that second-hand smoke poses no hazard to an individual’s health.
Clueless.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Harley wrote (copied actually, but whatever):
“smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer.”
That is from your post. DIRECTLY from your post. Again, I will ask, do you even know what Risk Factor means?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Maybe you should just tell Harley and Baja the location of the bar in Wisconsin so they can go smoke there (after contributing their dollar towards the defense fund, of course)?
January 13th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Someone wrote about “ETS”, Environmental Tobacco Smoke. As far as can be found, none of the research on that has yet qualified the terms.
1) Did they study plain tobacco?
2) Did they study highly contaminated tobacco…with all the dioxin-creating chlorine, pesticides, untested additives, radiation contamination from fertilizers, and non-tobacco “tobacco helper” (waste cellulose)?
3) Or did they study the “tobacco products” that contain No Tobacco At All?
If they studied No. 2 or 3, it is, of course, preposterous to come to any conclusions about Tobacco or Tobacco Smoke.
We do not know what they studied, and they don’t care to tell us because, of course, it would indict industrial substances for contributing to, or being major causes of, any “smoking related” illnesses. The tobacco plant has to take the hit or Big Pesticides and Big Chlorine, and their insurers and investors will. They are “too big to fail” in this arena.
Ah, but virtually all current Smoke Ban laws are based on this “science”. If Bar Owners and the like, and their attorneys fail to challenge the laws on this basic ground, chances of winning are slim to zero.
All a lawyer has to do is ask, in court, “How do you know it’s tobacco smoke?” And, “may we see the evidence?” Then let’s see what happens.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Here’s a solution, if your smoke gets in my face, I’ll stand up and fart in yours!
January 13th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
sui generis, nice.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Baja, you DO realize that the guy quoting the ETS stuff was on YOUR side of the argument?
Heck, lets just get out of the way, so that you two can attack each other.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Someone, Chad, I believe, thought I was saying that tobacco is fairly safe. I don’t say such things. Even the purest organic tobacco presents risks, as does everything on earth. As ever, except for a few No Safe Dose things like dioxin and plutonium and some of those chemical weapons, and things like anthrax, it’s The Dose That Matters.
But when it comes to typical cigarettes (as Quite Distinct from Tobacco), the risks are pushed through the roof. The idea of contaminating a plant that produces a craving for more with some of the world’s worst industrial substances is beyond human understanding. Tobacco is the LAST place such stuff ought be tolerated because of the inevitability of repeated over-dosing AND because inhalation is the most efficient (i,e.) worst way to get that stuff into ones body.
Cigarettes are DESIGNED to promote over-dose. The ammonia speeds up the nicotine action. Special paper speeds up the burning. Artificially low nicotine levels leaves one unsatisfied thus prompting more and sooner smoking. Other addictive things are added, like sugars and chocolate. AND the fact that there are so many additives and adulterants creates an incredible withdrawal from ALL of that…as one gets accustomed to even toxic things one is repeatedly exposed to. Cigs contain soothing additives to eliminate natural roughness that would otherwise help curtail smoking. And cigs contain spearmint and peppermint which, like menthol, numbs ones senses to the irritation. You can smoke all day, irritating yourself, but you just won’t feel it. All of that is LEGAL…which don’t make it right.
Plain tobacco, on the other hand, is high in nicotine. You don’t need or want it every ten minutes. Plain tobacco smoke is rough…so you don’t want it so much….and kids would be less inclined to use it. Plain tobacco, especially if fresh and nicely packed, burns slowly…and you may even have to re-light a few times, like a good pipe. You’re not done a cig in just a few minutes.
But, if a cig maker (like American Spirit) SAID that plain tobacco was safer, which is certifiably true, the feds would shut them down in a minute…not that American Spirit can make negative comments about RJR (it’s parent company) products.
The likely reason there are no studies of plain tobacco to compare to the contaminated concoctions in that such research would indict the cig makers and their ingredient suppliers of mass murder and mass public endangerment and experimenting on subjects without Informed Consent. The liabilities would be astronomical. The penalties would be astronomical too.
So, to prevent THAT from happening to the poor dears, WE are scapegoated, bar owners etc are scapegoated, and the natural public-domain tobacco plant may end up prohibited.
January 13th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Sui Generis wins. Everyone else loses.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
151 Chad (1287 comments) Says:
January 13th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Harley wrote (copied actually, but whatever):
“smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer.”
That is from your post. DIRECTLY from your post. Again, I will ask, do you even know what Risk Factor means
Risk factor,that name given to define a level of risk to a particular substance or behaviors that may lead to harm……….
Its where you can spin numbers in washington on the SAMMAC system and come up with death figures where no bodys or names ever exist……
Such is the case with shs/ets………no names no bodies and they discover non-smokers cancer is a completely diferent disease than purported smokers cancer.Yet unproven that direct smoking causes cancer,but can be called a risk factor towards that end! As I mentioned before SYNERGISM of other KNOWN carcinogens in great quantities have to be added into smoking to even get the high relative risk factors they attain in studies……..But dont let toxicological facts get in the way of anti-smoking propaganda……if we did it all falls flat on its foundation of sand its built on!
January 13th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
How long do you spend hacking each morning to clear your lungs? For the third time…………..
January 13th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
While I am at it, it seems that you like to pull up various papers and studies, but then ascribe your own meaning to words they have used.
Your article, from your post, called smoking a risk factor for lung cancer.
Risk Factor means: “Something that increases a person’s chances of developing a disease.”
So, your article, from your post, said Smoking is something that increases a persons chances of developing a disease. In this case, smoking is a risk factor for literally dozens of chronic diseases that involve long, slow, expensive, very uncomfortable, deaths, often preceeded by a very low quality of life for months or years.
January 13th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
hey harley, tonight when you’re hunkered down with a long neck and camel straight watching easy rider, be sure you field strip those butts pal. i don’t want to read about you getting torched in your barka lounger and see how smoking can REALLY be hazardous to your health:)
bb
January 13th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I dont field strip butts,I let nature do it for me………
January 13th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
You smoke unfiltered cigarettes then? Because nature doesn’t degrade filters.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Nature degrades everything back to its natural composites………plastics may take 10,000 years to degrade,but they do degrade.Cigarette filters are made of cellulose acetate too, NOT COTTON, and they can take decades to degrade.But they do degrade!
January 13th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
So you are a litterer? Wow that’s really lame.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Epic…..
January 13th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Litter I call it RECYCLING!
January 13th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
It is clear that harley is only here to say things and try to rile up the people who read it without any clear indication that he believes any of it.
By this time tomorrow there will be 280 posts, the last 100 of them an argument about the benefits or lack thereof to littering.
January 13th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
AHH! MSPD you shouldnt have………….
Here I got some love for you too:
Comment edited by Bill
January 13th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Ah the lengths a moron will go to protect their ability to enjoy their–at best–filthy habit.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Invoking Hitler is never cool. Ever. For any reason.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Even Einstein smoked
January 13th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
!
January 13th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Einstein was also a Jew. I’m not converting to Judaism.
January 13th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I have edited a comment above which referenced Hitler following three complaints. I suggest others not bring it up again.
January 13th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Harley, tonight when you cant get it up for Mrs Harley, have another smoke, that will help. In the morning when you are coughing up a lung for the first 15 minutes of your day, hurry up and have another smoke, that will help.
In a few years, sadly, when you have to help one of your parents pick out a little trolley for their oxygen machine, have another smoke.
Say what you want, quote what you want. From the way you avoid answering the question I have asked over and over, I already know you wake up each morning coughing. In the back of your mind, you know whats causing it, and contrary to all your posts, you know it cant be a good thing.
Go ahead, say it out loud. My name is Harleyrider and I have an addiction that controls my life.
Best of luck with life.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Well…. At least we have proof that smoking severly damages the brain…
January 13th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Not much going on here about the theme…protecting that bar (and many other establishments) from (totally unjustified) smoking bans.
Signing off.
Check http://fauxbacco.blogspot. com for info to use to fight bans, and to fight corruption of medical science, and regulatory govt agencies, and corporate media. Plus some cartoons on the topic…suitable for coloring.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I can just see my second Christmas with my twins and my first with my newborn this coming December:
Son: “Dada, what’s ‘dis?”
Me: “It’s a coloring book!”
Daughter: “Did I get a colowing book too?”
Me: “Yes! Here, let me show you how to do it. You’ll want to use a gray crayon for the smoke coming out of his mouth. Don’t use pink on his skin, you should use a yellow crayon!!”
Son: “What’s da man doing?”
Me: “He’s smoking a cigarette! Isn’t it fun? Maybe you can grow up to be a big smoker some day too! Yaayyy! [claps hands]”
Newborn: “Babababababababa”
(Sorry, had to work the future newborn in there somehow…)
January 13th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
The “filthy habit” of putting carcinogenic, toxic, fire starting, addiction-enhancing, kid-attracting, and fake tobacco stuff into what they call “tobacco products”, and then blaming the victims for the resultant illnesses and deaths, is not to be an issue…right?
January 14th, 2011 at 8:39 am
lefty, “worthless banter”?? finally the truth comes out:)
bb
January 14th, 2011 at 9:18 am
bb,
Except for the post where I pretended to be the patch guy (which was genius) and the posts where I am single handedly going to help Andiamo become successful in spite of themselves, pretty much most of my posts are mindless drivel.
lefty
January 16th, 2011 at 8:26 am
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12193602
January 24th, 2011 at 4:44 am
Bill you really should lay off the Kool Aid. That is what was quoted by the latest Surgeon General BS. Problem is that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were not added to the cigarette. It is a byproduct of burning an organic.
http://tinyurl.com/5tzb24b
It actually exists in cooking fumes. So unless you can survive without breathing they are totally unavoidable. That is the trouble with the junk science behind the smoking bans. they try to pretend that tobacco smoke is this unique dangerous magic smoke and it is no different then any other.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
From: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2011/01/is_the_smoking_ban_next.shtml
(This is in MN)
January 25th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
It would be interesting to get the numbers to see if the “the smoking ban is going to cost us business” argument posed by bar owners played out in the time that has elapsed since the ban was enacted, OR, if there was in fact an uptick in business (possibly due to non-smokers going out to the bar more often?). Of course, other factors could play a role in any number of ways (the economy, people stepping outside to smoke thereby drinking less, etc.)
How many businesses are going to be able to afford the type of ventilation system/separation contemplated by this proposed change.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I was in PA recently and they have a rule where bars can allow smoking if they are sealed off from the rest of the establishment. Unfortunately waitstaff members are still moving between the bar and the restaurant and thus the smoke can still come into the restaurant.
Unless they have some sort of airlock between the two which then allows for the suction of the smoke out or they only allow exists from the bar to the outside rather than internal transfer, I don’t see this working as intended.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Bill the airlocks are unnecessary. The whole second hand smoke issue is based on the 1992 EPA study that was thrown out in court and rejected by the Congressional Research Service, even the 2006 Surgeon generals report admitted using the same junk science because they deemed it useful, from page 21.
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/fullreport.pdf
January 25th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
MK,
My issue isn’t with public health, it’s with the stink that comes with smoking that then impacts my enjoyment of the food.
January 25th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Bill, Then obviously you are against the ban. We do not pass laws denying the owner the right to use a legal product on their own property based on smell. That is the problem. No one is forced into a business however a ban demands that the business cater to the anti-smoker when that may not be the majority of the businesses clientele. The free market works. If the majority demands a smoke free environment the market will adapt accordingly.
January 25th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
MK,
Thanks for thinking for me. I wouldn’t know how to move forward in my life without your input.
January 25th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Not to beat a dead horse – but our state DOES have laws on the books denying land owners rights based on smell.
The MPCA enforces feedlot rules, regulating (among other things), odor. (Minn. Stat. 116.0713). The use (farming, i,.e., generation/use of beef, chicken, pork, etc. products and their associated byproducts) is legal, and the law can deny the owner the continued use based on (ahem) smell.
I’m just sayin’.
I know that this has nothing to do with smoking, but felt the need to take a sentence out of context to support a random point. I guess I could have posted a link and citations from scientific journals about odor, but I thought that was going a bit far. (But I did think about it.)
January 25th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Marshal, do you know why they use observational analysis instead of clinical trials? Because people are not willing to submit themselves to cancer to prove a point to the few dimwits left in the world who dont think smoking and/or second hand smoke are dangerous.
My thought is that Mashal is Harleyrider, as they both seem quite intent on picking one or two lines out of studies to skew them to prove their own point, while ignoring all the other aspects of each study.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I heard we never landed on the moon, it was all a big hoax.
You can make up about anything and find some zealots on the internet to spread the myth. I may try one out just so see how it goes. Hoax suggestions are welcome, but here are a few I am considering.
Taco Bell meat consists of discarded lips and assholes (wait, that’s true, not that).
Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana are in reality two different people but they play one person on TV. (Totally believable).
Global Warming is not bad or good, it is in the middle. (I, lefty believe that to be true, but there is very little money in that cause).
Joey has a mohawk (this one would be tough to propagate).
Second Hand smoke is not bad for you (played, but there are plenty of other suckers there that need to get on board.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Whit o’ wit
This is Wisconsin so citing a MN law does not mean much. But since you bring it up, those laws go far beyond smell. Those laws are more based on the bio-waste and the diseases they carry. If it were simply smell I am sure that those that live in So. St. Paul would have the stockyards shut down based on the smell from the stockyards. I would also like the fact that those farm animals draw insects that carry disease where as nicotine acts as an insect repellent.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Lefty, I suggest you read Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science published in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/13
January 25th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Thank you for the advice Marshall. It will be some good field research in:
“How to make gullible people believe anything you say by using the internet as the vehicle”.
As you may have heard, I am going to perpetuate some harmless hoaxes this way, unlike the potentially harmful one that you subscribe to.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Lefty did you read page 21 of the 2006 Surgeon Generals report. They admit using junk science. Of course it is no big surprise since it is mostly the same activist that got caught faking the EPA study, You also could read the blog of a former member of Tobacco control who was drummed out for exposing some of the Junk science.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/01/anti-smoking-researchers-in-california.html
January 25th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
MK,
This is your final warning about linking to blogs as your source material. Use direct links to peer-reviewed science journals only or your comments will cease to appear here.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Bill,
Changing the rules midstream? No problem. You clipped a link to my blog and I have no problem with that. However Dr Michael Siegel is Peer reviewed and was a renowned member of tobacco control and published in many peer reviewed sources including the Oxford journal.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2/reply#eurpub_el_127
But fine no links to blogs.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
I made it perfectly clear that I will not become a repository for links to blogs on either side of this discussion. Hope this clears up your apparent confusion.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
I will never link to a blog, but I will soon have some irrefutable peer-reviewed website research to support the Hannah Montana/Miley Cyryus OMG shocker.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Chad, I doubt it’s him.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
No My name is Marshall Keith my name links to my blog. I do not pretend to be anyone but who I am. I am a member of the Libertarian party in Wisconsin and am against all of the nanny state laws.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
From Chad: “Marshal, do you know why they use observational analysis instead of clinical trials? Because people are not willing to submit themselves to cancer to prove a point to the few dimwits left in the world who dont think smoking and/or second hand smoke are dangerous.”
Exactly. Consider also that observational analysis is what actually happens to real people in real life, rather than short-term, unrealistic, mental masturbation from scientists vying for bigger research dollars from questionable sources.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Chad,
It is not as simple as that. The reason that Meta-analysis is not considered legitimate for observational studies is two pronged. One observational studies are based on questionnaires, can you remember what you had for dinner a year ago today? But the biggest problem is that there is no standard as to how much weight to give to each study, that is left up to the author. There is also no way to eliminate publication bias. Both the EPA report and the Surgeon generals report were based on cherry picked studies which in itself is a form of publication bias.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Chad,
There are a growing number of scientist that are aganst the use of Meta Analysis period including professor John C. Bailar, III out of Chicago.
http://www.jerrydallal.com/LHSP/meta.htm
January 25th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Marshall, you are correct. That black tar substance that can be found in the lungs of smokers AND people exposed to second hand smoke is natural and healthy.
That 30 minutes of hacking up black loogies each morning to “clear” the lungs is natural and healthy.
Seriously, the only reason smoking is legal is because its a cash cow. So, regardless of your political view, your stance on this subject is purley big business and crooked govt.
January 25th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Chad, those aren’t first-hand accounts, those are junk science. Haven’t you been listening?
January 25th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
Chad,
While Marshall (who is no longer with us) wasn’t the same as Harley, they are Facebook friends and I was told by him that he was in broadcasting and used to live in Minnesota and he’s now going to tell everyone what a biased site I have.
As you can see I’m very concerned.
January 25th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Any publicity is good publicity……………………
Sorry, I could not resist.
January 25th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Love it!
January 25th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Truer words have not been spoken. Nice call Chad, welcome aboard Big Joe.
January 25th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Marshall has a great post up about this discussion and how I’m a “dishonest blogger”: http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/you-cant-handle-the-truth/
Best part:
ROFL.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Ohmigod! Dive under the desks…batton down the hatches. None other than MARSHALL KEITH, the great leader of the Madison, Wisconsin branch of the Turnip Truck Faller Offers has completed his “further investigation” and had declared jihad on the Dark Underworld of Those Who Dare to (Gasp) Have a Personal Slant on their Personal Blog!
BEWARE! The thousands and thousands of Twin Cities “friends” of the Great and Almighty Ruler of Rubes MARSHALL KEITH are coming to take down our beloved clubhouse–Lazy Lightning–by exposing Bill’s lies and distortions that have led us to believe he is actually a REAL-LIVE food critic! That this is REAL-LIVE formal journalism replete with degrees and staff and access passes!
Everyone…quick…Google “make your own impressive looking diploma” and print off something, ANYTHING, that will throw the Wonderous and All-Mighty King of Pretense MARSHALL KEITH’s flock of sheeple off the scent. Me? I’m just now hanging my Master’s in Credibility to Do Official Blog Commenting next to my PhD in The Complex Science of Having the Formal Ability to Taste Food and Type Out an Opinion.
Credentials!!! We need credentials on the flanks!! MARSHALL KEITH has summoned his Twin Cities friends! Red alert! Red alert!
References. Surely someone of MARSHALL KEITH’s stature will have a bureau to check references. lefty, you put down Bill and Mr. Marcos. Mr. Marcos will put down Mrs. Marcos and Joey. Joey will have me and Chad. Chad, you’ve got Joey and me. Mrs. Marcos….OH NO!!! We’ve left Mrs. Marcos exposed to the radiation of the nuclear fallout of Mahmoud Ahmarshalldinikeith’s holy ICBM’s of Online Truth!
Well…she’s always been one to take one for the team.
What are we going to do?!? The Supreme Leader of Pretentiousness MARSHALL KEITH and his TWIN CITIES FRIENDS ARE COMING!!! We’re in danger of Double Secret Probation!!! May God have mercy on our souls!!!!!!!
AAARRRHRHGHGHGHGHGHGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
January 26th, 2011 at 10:23 am
I think we have the first candidate for 2011 comment of the year. I understand MSPD never wins jack, but I just might buy him lunch for making my morning.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Hey Tyler, thats a panic attack. I wonder how much green you get from the big pharma foundation funding to the anti smoking mafia?
You anti smokers are so darn funny spreading the big pharma fear, big pharma wants everyone on their nicotine patch or chewing their nicotine gum.
Anti smoking and smoking bans are the most brilliant marketing scams for profit in history.
Tyler, have you ever heard of just not going to a smmoking permitted business, its not the hospital you need
January 26th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
MSPD, that was perfect. One for the record books. No worries Mrs. Marcos, I got your back.
January 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Mrs. Marcos and I will be hiding out at the undisclosed location of a secret bunker/igloo made solely of stacked zip drives, venturing out only to hit the “Chili’s To Go” drive ups of the south metro in a randomized order so as to elude this nefarious stalker and his cronies. We’ve also got Ramy’s delivery on speed dial, and have enough Diet Coke to last us into the next century. Let us know when its safe to come out after the Marshapocalypse.
January 26th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Oh, and awesome post MSPD. Definitely a candidate for the voting. Made my day.
January 26th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Easy to throw mudpies at someone banned from the forum, eh?
Btw, I didn’t notice our host pointing out any errors in Marshall’s statements about the history of his expulsion. If Marshall’s account is accurate then it would seem that the blogmeister here is more at fault than Marshall is. Meanwhile, he’s got it laid out at his blog and as far as I know I would doubt that he censors so go have at him if you want.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” and quite clearly neither Marshall, Harley, or any other anonymous or non-anonymous poster here.
January 26th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
I’m feeling the love from my lady friends….I’m not even afraid of Marshapocalypse.
MMMM Chili’s!
January 26th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Holy shit! The sudden appearance of McFadden clearly indicates that the hellfire of the Marshapocalypse has begun!
Oh McFadden, please be gentle when you dissect my brain. Whatever you do, please do not remove the part where reason allows me to make the decision not to smoke. It is this function that not only makes me live longer, but makes me more attractive to women, allows me to pass over smokers for promotions (smokers appear weak to management types) and generally be regarded as a member of high society.
On a related note Mikey, did you hear that Miley Cyrus has an identical twin sister, and she is the one that actually played Hannah Montana? Yep, you heard it here first. Run with the scoop, you might even meet a girl for yourself if you can convince her you don’t smoke.
Your new buddy,
lefty
January 26th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
The hell? Whit and Mrs.M don’t invite me into their igloo? This blog just isn’t what it used to be.
I may take up smoking.
January 26th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
dm, well why not? It’s not harmful. It’s all a Big Pharma scam after all. But don’t take my word for it because this site is one-sided. You should read all the anti-smoking ban blogs instead because they’re fair and balanced research sources.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:58 am
dm – Don’t succumb to the temptation of the Other Side! Bring a box of wine and hunker down in the bunker. The more the merrier.
January 27th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I thought I’d stop back to see how things were going.
Lefty, thank you for the special attention. I promise I won’t try to dissect your brain. Dissecting Antismokers’ brains is a tough job. A microscope will not work, simply because the brains are too small. Same goes for a nanoscope, while a picoscope merely shows a speck in the visual field.
A femtoscope enlarges the speck to a point where it appears to actually have some physical elements while an attoscope allows one to determine that it is more than a unitary mass. A zeptoscope *almost* does the trick as it allows one to detect actual movement of a sort, but it’s not until you invest in a yoctoscope that it’s possible to record several subneutronic particles bouncing around in seemingly random activity.
Unfortunately, there’s also the expense of complete hazmat outfits and precautions when dealing with such things, so for the moment Lefty your brain is quite safe. :)
As to the concerns raised about anti-ban blogs here, I don’t have a blog so I can’t refer you to one. I do have some analyses of scientific studies that I could share a link to, but I don’t know if such studies are really the strong suit of the bloggers here. Still, if you wish, I will be happy to share.
- MJM
January 27th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Get back on topic. Now.
January 27th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Happy to Bill! :)
You started off with an article about bars defying the Wisconsin ban. I’m sure you’ve seen reports, posts, and emails about defiance in other states as well. One of the methods used by bar owners in some areas is to resist being drafted as unpaid, untrained, uninsured, and unempowered “Citizen Vigilante Enforcers” of the law.
Such resistance is a bit different different than what the bar owner in your article is doing, since she seems to be outright defying the law while bar owners in Michigan, South Dakota and elsewhere who are using the “Letter of the Law” approach are actually fully obeying the law. If you’d like my thoughts on the Wisconsin law and how it relates to your example in the article I’d be happy to share them, but would appreciate a link to the law itself so I can be sure that I’m not misrepresenting it.
- MJM
January 27th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Ways to ensure nobody will give a crap about your opinion in an argument:
1. Belittle those who disagree with you.
2. Continue belittling. Naming various scopes nobody cares about or has heard of works well.
3. Be sure to distract from the original topic.
Way to go MJM. You nailed all 3.
If you ever come back to Lazy Lightning, try treating the readers and maybe even the author with some respect. We often disagree with one another. That’s part of life. But we do a pretty good job of treating each other as if we’re sitting at a bar together, which in many cases we actually are.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Thank you for the comment and advice Joey, but in terms of your #1 I’d suggest you look at posts #’s 216 and 224. In terms of #2, it was in direct response to 224 and was meant to be enjoyable for the blog readers as well. As for #3, you seem to have missed reading my post *directly* above yours… a post that seems to be more on topic actually than your #231.
Finally, I certainly do hope to come back here if smoking topics are being discussed and I am not censored for some reason. I think you’ll find that I always remain on-topic, either addressing the general subject of the leading blog article or responding to the regular posters (although it’s true that sometimes regular blog posters get a bit off topic and one shouldn’t really “feed the trolls” by responding.)
To return to the topic here, please remember that I am waiting to hear if the blog would be interested in discussion of actual scientific medical studies concerning the topic and would like a link to some such analysis for discussion (the initial analyses are bit involved to be presented as blog posts, although if the blog owner desired that format I’d be happy to accommodate him) and am also hoping someone can share a link to the actual Wisconsin law discussed in the opening article.
- MJM
P.S. Do you folks actually sit around at a bar and do this stuff on your laptops? Interesting idea… I’ve never tried that!
January 27th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
“One of the methods used by bar owners in some areas is to resist being drafted as unpaid, untrained, uninsured, and unempowered “Citizen Vigilante Enforcers” of the law.”
Do said bar owners allow their customers to kill each other? Or steal from the cash register? If not, does this make them “Citizen Vigilante Enforcers” of the law also?
January 27th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Hi Sandy! :)
Most bar owners call the police for killings, stabbings, robberies, assaults and such things. Of course owners might be welcome to act as vigilantes by some police forces (although I think usually not) but I believe that’s usually on a voluntary basis.
Smoking ban violations technically are more on the order of parking in handicapped parking spot. If a pizza store worker sees someone who’s obviously healthy park in the lot in front of their store in such a spot, should they be fined if they serve the customer? Should they be expected to throw the customer out? Or grapple them and hold them for the police?
- MJM
January 27th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
All right, I will bite, one time. As the previous pro smoking crack pots chose to simply ignore the point.
Please explain to me, either in simple terms I am likely to understand, or in scientific terms that you likely dont understand, why a smokers lung is black and full of a gummy tarlike substance? Given a basic understanding of anatomy and how the lungs take in air, separate the oxygen, and feed the body quite literally the air needed to breath, explain to me how this black tar is NOT harming smokers.
Next, please explain to me why people who have smoked for years spend 30 minutes each morning hacking to clear their lungs?
Oh, and just to make it an even three….explain to me what the term Risk Factor means.
Before you get to carried away, please understand that I spend a good part of each day looking at medical records and death certificates, including the little area where the coroner, me, or Dr indicate if smoking was a factor in the death.
January 27th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Smoking isn’t really a topic that ever comes up here. This is the first time I can remember it coming up.
Even if you want to put the health concerns aside, the smell is enough to make anyone want to vomit. My grandma smoked for years in her house and I used to cry as a kid when we’d visit. (And yes, she died of lung cancer in her early 60s…)
If people were regularly sitting down on bar stools and opening up stink bombs for some stupid reason, I suppose that would get outlawed at some point too.
January 28th, 2011 at 1:22 am
Joey, “bad” smells differ very much from one person to another. There’s a whole area of research on what brings about differing “disgust” responses in different cultures. Some of it is biological (e.g. we pretty much all strongly dislike the smell of decaying bodies and rotten food) but sometimes it can fool you too (e.g. Limburger cheese probably isn’t bad for your health but antifreeze supposedly tastes sweet – at least to dogs unfortunately.)
Re bars with stink bombs: There probably wouldn’t be a law, but there’d probably be very few bars that were willing to hang “Stink bombers welcome here!” on their doors… quite different from the smoking situation.
So what about my bar/laptop question? I’m actually quite curious.
- MJM
January 28th, 2011 at 7:53 am
This is not on topic. Do not bring up anything except information about the smoking ban in WI again. I will not warn you again.
January 28th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Sorry Bill. Before being distracted by Joey’s post, I had asked if anyone had a link to the actual law concerning the smoking ban in Wisconsin. Has anyone here found and read the law itself?
- MJM
January 28th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I am confident that with a single Google search you’ll be able to find it. Don’t ask again.
January 28th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Sorry, but feeding these trolls like McFadden have lost their fun. He and his friends will just keep on beating the same, tired drum of the imaginary affront to our “liberties” and the ominous hand of government taking over our every move.
Yawn.
And, if he follows the usual M.O. of these people, I know I’m about to get some quote from some dead person about giving the government an inch and they’ll eventually take a mile. Save it McFadden. Here, I’ll just save you your standard “cut and paste” exercise:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (blah, blah, blah).
January 28th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
I’ll respect Bill’s wishes and refrain from further comment on MPSD’s off-topic post about such things as “trolls like McFadden” and “liberties,” or Chad’s post about medical stuff, but I *have* found the text of the Wisconsin ban law at:
http://www.tlw.org/public/content/Documents/Smoking%20Ban/09Act12.pdf
to enhance the on-topic discussion.
“The person in charge” evidently is prevented from providing fire-safety equipment (ashtrays) in the event that someone breaks the law, and, excerpting directly from the law while adding *emphases* for key points, here is the key section regarding enforcement:
“A person in charge shall make reasonable efforts
to prohibit persons from smoking at a location where
smoking is prohibited by doing all of the following:
1. Posting signs …
2. Refusing to serve a person, *if the person is smoking*
in a restaurant, tavern, or private club.
3. *Asking* a person who is smoking to refrain from
smoking and, if the person refuses to do so, *asking* the
person to leave the location.
(d) If a person refuses to leave … the person in
charge *shall immediately notify* an appropriate law
enforcement agency of the violation.
(e) A person in charge *may* take measures in addition
to those listed in pars. (b) and (c) to prevent persons from
being exposed to others who are smoking or to further
ensure compliance with this section.”
You’ll note that I emphasized three things:
1) “if a person is smoking” — note that the law does not state that a person may not be served once they have stopped smoking.
2) “Asking” smokers to stop or to leave — not take any physical measures against them or their property.
3) “shall immediately notify” the police or such — in other words it is not up to the discretion of the management: If a person keeps smoking they must immediately call 911 or the sheriff’s office or such.
4) “may take further measures” — Note that the manager is not required to take any further measures than the above, nor are they authorized to do so. It is of course always an option for those in control of premises to behave in any legal fashion toward their workers and patrons, but this law does not seem to authorize battery or such things. Noncompliance should simply be met with calls to the police as far as I can see.
Any further thoughts on the law itself? Or anything that might be directly relevant to informati/comments about the smoking ban in WI?
January 28th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
This thread is now closed to comments because I’m tired of dealing with the assholes.