Smoking Ban Vote in My Town [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

View Full Version : Smoking Ban Vote in My Town

JimmyWint

03-31-2005, 08:59 AM

Chubby

03-31-2005, 09:02 AM

Do they have the provision that if a bar loses X% of business they can file for a waiver and allow smoking again? This was part of the law in NY state banning smoking in public buildings.

Drake

03-31-2005, 09:02 AM

It doesn't matter how you feel. Your community is going to pass it one way or the other.

Has there ever been a smoking ban proposal that failed to pass?

Chubby

03-31-2005, 09:03 AM

"Plus, I have the choice of just avoiding the Bars if I dont like the smoke."

The people that work at the bars don't.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 09:03 AM

"Plus, I have the choice of just avoiding the Bars if I dont like the smoke."

I think you just made the most convincing argument of all.

The combination of your free choice where to go/not go and their ability to engage in a legal activity pretty much cover it AFAIC.

Like I said, your post makes the pertinent factors pretty clear.

JimmyWint

03-31-2005, 09:08 AM

"Do they have the provision that if a bar loses X% of business they can file for a waiver and allow smoking again? This was part of the law in NY state banning smoking in public buildings."

Chubby,
No such provision exists.
Jim

stevew

03-31-2005, 09:08 AM

The people that work at the bars don't.

I'll gaurantee at least 70% of the workers there smoke.

Chubby

03-31-2005, 09:10 AM

I'll gaurantee at least 70% of the workers there smoke.
Feel free to back that up anytime.

'Course you can't cause you're wrong.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 09:10 AM

The people that work at the bars don't.

They knew the conditions when they accepted the job.
Don't like it? Don't take the job.

Same reason I don't take job where I have to work outside or something else environmental I find unpleasant.

Anthony

03-31-2005, 09:12 AM

i'd say it's about 75%-80% myself.

stevew

03-31-2005, 09:12 AM

Feel free to back that up anytime.

'Course you can't cause you're wrong.

Dude, i have worked in restaurants and bars for the last 10 years, and conservatively 7 out of every 10 people i work with smokes. Id say its closer to 80%

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 09:14 AM

Dude, i have worked in restaurants and bars for the last 10 years, and conservatively 7 out of every 10 people i work with smokes. Id say its closer to 80%

Yes, but it runs contrary to what the troll thinks it should be, therefore ... you're wrong.

B & B

03-31-2005, 09:14 AM

The people that work at the bars don't.

You could smoke in the establishment BEFORE that person applied/was hired. Its not as if this whole cigarette thing just came up. Its a friggin BAR.

If you dont like working in a smoking environment, then dont. Find a non-smoking bar or restaurant, etc. to work in.

People used to be able to smoke in places that the public had to be in. Like grocery stores, post offices, and airplanes. (horror!) Banning all indoor smoking at places like bars, for example, is ridiculous. If a private business owner wants to make his place non-smoking - thats his decision. The less government invading personal liberties - the better.

stevew

03-31-2005, 09:15 AM

Yes, but it runs contrary to what the troll thinks it should be, therefore ... you're wrong.

My bad, fuck what i have learned through experience. Chubby obviously knows best.

wbatl1

03-31-2005, 09:15 AM

I know that some bans also allow smoking in places that don't serve or employ people under the age of 18, so if you go to bars that have age restrictions, there might still be smoking.

stevew

03-31-2005, 09:16 AM

Man, i wish i could hire some detectives right about now.

Huckleberry

03-31-2005, 09:21 AM

My thoughts:

I'm a non-smoker. I find smoking to be idiotic and disgusting. I don't go to places where I'll have to deal with it. Austin passed a smoking ban and the percentage of my money that was spent out went up.

However, I don't think the government should be doing this. Nevertheless, I don't see it as some sort of Constitutional question at this point. There's no right to smoke, IMO. So local government can enact ordinances to their hearts' content. I won't vote for them, though.

What I do think the government should be able to do is require that absolutely no second hand smoke be allowed to leave a bar or restaurant via external exits to the establishment. The public may have to walk directly past such an establishment to get to wherever they want to go. The air quality on the sidewalks is the government's business. If that means the bars have to buy filtering technology that's expensive as hell, tough shit. They can figure it out, especially with all the crying about how much money they'll lose with no smoking.

Or, alternatively, they can require all bars and restaurants to post signs at the front door that state "Cancer-Causing Gases Inside. Enter At Your Own Risk." :D

The Afoci

03-31-2005, 09:21 AM

Smoking bans that allow bars to have smoking kills all other drinking establishments. A friend of mine owns a bowling alley that has seen his alcohol sales be reduced by 75 percent by a smoking ban for his place of business, but allows the 2 bars on either side of him to have smoking. His league bowlers come in and bowl and then go drink and smoke at the bars afterward instead of staying there. Smoking bans have to ban all smoking or they are very hurtful towards certain businesses.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 09:21 AM

Hi all,
There is going to be a smoking Ban vote on April 5th in the community in which I live, and I am totally on the fence as to which way to go.

First let me say I am a Non-Smoker, but almost all of my friends smoke. I spend at least one night a week in the Bars, since I am on a dart league. The smoking has never really bothered me too much, I guess I have just gotten used to it, but I can see the appeal to no smoke...no smelly clothes, no second hand smoke risk ect...

On the other hand, the Bar and Resturaunt owners will probably take a hit, and it is really not fair for the government to tell a business owner that they can not allow something that is legal in thier place of business. Plus, I have the choice of just avoiding the Bars if I dont like the smoke.

Anyone have a convincing argument for me to go either direction?
Thanks!
JimJim. Support the smoking ban.

Not too surprising each side has come out with statistics as whether the ban has hurt local restaurants and bars where in place, e.g., New York, Dublin, Montgomery County, MD, etc. Pro-smokers say the ban has hurt sales, pro-banners say it hasn't. I have no idea who to trust, but I've been to New York and Dublin since their respective bans went into effect and places were as crowded and buzzing as before.

What I think is a bit more of important issue is a bit more personal. My wife suffers from asthma. Second hand smoke triggers her ashtma attacks. We pretty much can't go to any bars because of the smoke and even a few restaruants. While living in Brussels we pretty much couldn't go out period. There are millions of Americans with asthma, some more severe than others. In some cases (like my wife) the desire to avoid smoke does not arise from aesthetic preference, but from immediate medical necessity.

You can draw a parallel between second-hand smoke and severe asthmatics to lack of access for wheelchair users. In practice, smoke to a person with a respiratory disease can be as much of an obstacle as stairs are to a person with limited mobility. Therefore, allowing smoking in public places, in addition to its more commonly cited evils (as you note above: safe/healthy work place for those at the bar, smelly clothes, harm from second hand smoke, etc.), has the additional fault of precluding access to amenities to a large category of people with a medical condition that is beyond their control. And this is unjust.

CraigSca

03-31-2005, 09:22 AM

Personally, I am pleasantly surprised, relieved, etc., when I enter a bar and there is no smoking. It's great being able to enjoy a brew and watch the game in a fun atmosphere without the guy next to me blowing smoke in my face.

My question to the argument about bars losing money....where will these smokers go and spend their money instead of the bar? Do smokers really say, "That's it - I will never go out to that bar again - I'll go to X" because the bars don't allow smoking?

Loki

03-31-2005, 09:22 AM

This is one of the dumbest laws I've ever seen.

One of the local cities around here not only passed a smoking ban in bars/eateries, but you can't smoke within 25 feet of them, and you can't smoke in public parks.

Either it's legal, or it isn't. Make up your fucking mind.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 09:22 AM

It doesn't matter how you feel. Your community is going to pass it one way or the other.

Has there ever been a smoking ban proposal that failed to pass?
Plenty. DC for example.

Loki

03-31-2005, 09:23 AM

QuikSand

03-31-2005, 09:27 AM

I say vote your self-interest, rather than getting caught up in all the political philosophy.

KeyserSoze

03-31-2005, 09:31 AM

I feel sorry for Honolulu Blue´s wife, but I really hate the bans.

I understand that the non-smokers should have free-smokes places, but the smokers have the right too to have places where they could smoke.

I dont smoke. I don´t like smoke. I prefer to go places without smoke. But I think both sides has the rights to be free. If in a town 100% people smoke, ok, lets all the places have clouds of smoke. If nobody likes smoke, even without bans, all the bars will be clean.

If a bar makes himself "smoke-clean" he will atract some clients. If he puts a cartel "smoke til die" will atract others. Everybody is happy. What´´s the problem???

"Not to force. Not to ban"

hhiipp

03-31-2005, 09:38 AM

Sure wish they'd ban it in my town, Applebees is the only place around here right now that doesn't allow any smoking, and I really enjoy eating there a lot more since the change.

KevinNU7

03-31-2005, 09:44 AM

Massachusetts is smoke free and it is great.

Draft Dodger

03-31-2005, 09:47 AM

They knew the conditions when they accepted the job.
Don't like it? Don't take the job.

that is just so stupid, I can't even begin to refute it.

I've been on record here for a while as being strongly in favor of smoking bans. In my opinion, it is a no brainer, although I can see where the anti-ban people are coming from. In my town, smoking is banned in all restaurants; if the restaurant has a bar, smoking is allowed only if the bar can be completely closed off from the restaurant. When the ban went into place, many of these places talked about losing bar business and where planning remodels to close off the bar. A couple years later, no restaurant (to my knowledge) has done this - none seem to have taken a hit in the bar at all. Of course, even if they HAD lost business, I'd still be strongly in favor of the ban.

Dutch

03-31-2005, 09:49 AM

Sure wish they'd ban it in my town, Applebees is the only place around here right now that doesn't allow any smoking, and I really enjoy eating there a lot more since the change.

Having a choice is a beautiful thing.

My wife was a waitress in a few bars/restaurants in California. It was a large percentage of people who smoked and a large percentage of waiters/waitresses/bartenders who were wildly against the no-smoking bans.

The commercials showed the exact opposite. While the commercials were not lying (talking about how a couple of employees hated the smoke) they were misrepresenting the vast majority of service workers in bar/restaurants who opposed such bans.

But that was a long time ago, things could easily have changed since then. I personally do not visit establishments where people smoke, I'm a recovering "smokaholic".

Celeval

03-31-2005, 09:51 AM

Ditto HB - we spent many more nights out once the Atlanta counties started banning smoking.

Draft Dodger

03-31-2005, 09:55 AM

I understand that the non-smokers should have free-smokes places, but the smokers have the right too to have places where they could smoke.

there are certainly places a smoker can smoke - his own home, for example.

Cuckoo

03-31-2005, 10:00 AM

Put me on the side of the fence against smoking bans. I smoked for several years and quit. Now, smoke bothers me quite a bit when it's in large doses. I also have asthma. A couple weeks ago, my wife and I went to a comedy club. It was great except for the smoke, and we commented several times on how unbearable it was. We probably won't ever go back, and that's too bad because it was enjoyable otherwise.

Nevertheless, if it's a legal activity, governments shouldn't be able to ban it in private establishments. Seems cut and dried to me.

Dutch

03-31-2005, 10:00 AM

there are certainly places a smoker can smoke - his own home, for example.

Non-smokers can certainly not inhale second-hand smoke at home as well, if that's your argument.

Mustang

03-31-2005, 10:07 AM

I'm a non-smoker.

Bars/Restaurants are a place you pick by choice to go to.. it is not your business. If the owner wants it a smoke free area.. fine, if he wants to pump in cigarette smoke.. fine. I don't know why people insist a business must conform to their standards. If you are hungry for Italian food, you don't go to a Chinese restaurant and bitch that they don't have ravioli on the menu. If you want a smoke free restaurant.. you go to a smoke free environment.

(Although, the smoke/smell should be relatively confined to that environment. If you were in a strip mall or something where air was shared between the businesses.. either they are all smoke environments or smoke - free.. can't really mingle them)

Now, places that different people need to go to where you really don't have a clear choice or alternate option (such as post office, hospital), I don't have a problem with banning smoking there.

Draft Dodger

03-31-2005, 10:07 AM

Non-smokers can certainly not inhale second-hand smoke at home as well, if that's your argument.

it's not really my argument - just addressing the specific point that smokers need places where they can smoke. they can smoke at home, they can smoke in their car, they can smoke many places outside, and in my town they can smoke in bars.

so, when Keyser says that smokers should have places where they can smoke, I say they do.

hhiipp

03-31-2005, 10:10 AM

One place I'd really like to see ban smoking is bowling alleys, I enjoy the occasional bowl but it's so unbearable when you go in there, 5 minutes in the place and it's like you smoked a pack of cigs in a car with the windows up. Feel dirty, smell dirty, and it's a dirty habit in general.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:13 AM

In practice, smoke to a person with a respiratory disease can be as much of an obstacle as stairs are to a person with limited mobility. Therefore, allowing smoking in public places, in addition to its more commonly cited evils (as you note above: safe/healthy work place for those at the bar, smelly clothes, harm from second hand smoke, etc.), has the additional fault of precluding access to amenities to a large category of people with a medical condition that is beyond their control. And this is unjust.

My uncle is an alcoholic. He'd really like to go into bars, but they have this nasty habit of serving alcohol -- and alcoholism is a serious, potentially fatal medical condition. I wonder if he can get ordinances in place to prevent bars from serving alcohol because of the risk to his health.

Wait, wait, statistics tell us that up to 20% of the U.S. population is at risk for alcohol addiction because of genetic or environmental factors. It's pretty unjust to preclude their access to the amenities of sports bars (BIG SCREEN TV!!!) because of their medical conditions.

Or maybe, if they want to be healthy, they can just choose not to go to bars.

Edit: I want to make it clear that I've got nothing against HB's wife or people with asthma. Medical conditions suck. But I'm also extremely wary of arguments from medical conditions like this, mainly because it always comes down to I want it the way I want it instead of the way it is once you strip away the medical-conditions-suck wrappers.

hhiipp

03-31-2005, 10:16 AM

Drake, are you really trying to say that HB and his wife shouldn't go out because she has a medical condition that without this stimuli can mostly be held in check?

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:21 AM

I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to dictate to businesses what services/amenities they can or can't offer just because of her medical condition.

Yes, medical conditions suck. No, that doesn't mean you get to dictate to the people making the financial investment how they should run their business. Rather, support businesses that provide the amenities you like.

Hell, SuperSize Me demonstrated to my satisfaction that eating fast food is really bad for my health and therefore I shouldn't go eat at McDonald's. Doesn't mean I should lobby my local government to ban the serving of fatty foods in my community.

hhiipp

03-31-2005, 10:22 AM

Hell, SuperSize Me demonstrated to my satisfaction that eating fast food is really bad for my health and therefore I shouldn't go eat at McDonald's. I bolded the key words in your statement, eating fatty foods is bad for your health so you can control that if you want and cut it out of your diet. However, people who go to the same establishments that you do and choose to smoke effect everyone's health, not just their own.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:24 AM

Vote against the ban. Let market forces determine the stance that individual businesses take regarding smoking in their establishment. I don't go to restaurants that are all smoking or do not section off the smoking section. Luckily for me, most of the restaurants in my area have switched to non-smoking of their own free will.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:25 AM

dola...

I guess I'm just saying that the argument from personal circumstance doesn't impress me. On the other hand, I'm fully willing to buy the Public Health argument. So in other words, don't try to sell the legislation's legitimacy to me as "I want to go to this restaurant but can't because they allow smoking, so everyone should have to change to suit me". Sell it as "In the interest of the whole community's public health, we're going to make this (possibly) unpopular change" -- because when it comes right down to it, your right to breathe unpolluted air does not trump my right to pollute it. If it did, we'd all be forced to drive hybrid cars.

CraigSca

03-31-2005, 10:27 AM

My uncle is an alcoholic. He'd really like to go into bars, but they have this nasty habit of serving alcohol -- and alcoholism is a serious, potentially fatal medical condition. I wonder if he can get ordinances in place to prevent bars from serving alcohol because of the risk to his health.

Wait, wait, statistics tell us that up to 20% of the U.S. population is at risk for alcohol addiction because of genetic or environmental factors. It's pretty unjust to preclude their access to the amenities of sports bars (BIG SCREEN TV!!!) because of their medical conditions.

Or maybe, if they want to be healthy, they can just choose not to go to bars.

Edit: I want to make it clear that I've got nothing against HB's wife or people with asthma. Medical conditions suck. But I'm also extremely wary of arguments from medical conditions like this, mainly because it always comes down to I want it the way I want it instead of the way it is once you strip away the medical-conditions-suck wrappers.
But your uncle drinking a beer in a bar doesn't detract my experience and/or health. If everytime someone drank a beer, beer went flying around the room causing everyone else to drink it, that would be one thing. However, smoking and drinking are entirely different animals. It's apples and oranges.

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 10:28 AM

Lots of smokers want to stop smoking, and would find it easier to do so if there were public lounges where nobody else smokes.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:29 AM

I bolded the key words in your statement, eating fatty foods is bad for your health so you can control that if you want and cut it out of your diet. However, people who go to the same establishments that you do and choose to smoke effect everyone's health, not just their own.

Actually, those people who eat fatty foods are more prone to obesity, which leads to a documented increase in the need for medical services. The increasing need ties up resources in the health system leading to increased costs and unnecessary service delays, which means that a percentage of the population at any given time has inadequate access to proper medical care either through resource-drain or economic forces (i.e. they simply can't afford optimum services). So yes, your eating a hamburger does impact me.

condors

03-31-2005, 10:30 AM

I am a smoker and i will not go to places that ban smoking.

I am ok with places than ban smoking.

I also believe that there should be places that have smoking.

There is nothing wrong with choices.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:31 AM

Lots of smokers want to stop smoking, and would find it easier to do so if there were public lounges where nobody else smokes.

I don't think I've ever seen this argument used to support a smoking ban.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:32 AM

So yes, your eating a hamburger does impact me.

Indirectly.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:34 AM

But your uncle drinking a beer in a bar doesn't detract my experience and/or health. If everytime someone drank a beer, beer went flying around the room causing everyone else to drink it, that would be one thing. However, smoking and drinking are entirely different animals. It's apples and oranges.

Every time my uncle drinks a beer, he gets behind the wheel of his car (you are aware, I assume, that the average alcoholic drives drunk 30 times for each DUI). Thankfully, he hasn't killed anyone (yet), but I'd say drunk driving is a pretty goddamned big public health issue.

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 10:35 AM

I don't think I've ever seen this argument used to support a smoking ban.

Smoking bans are also something like bans against spitting in public. Spitting in public isn't really a health hazard, but it's disgusting. Lots of people feel the same way about smoking (including many smokers).

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:37 AM

but I'd say drunk driving is a pretty goddamned big public health issue.

Sure it is. It's not the state of being drunk that is the problem. It's the inherent lack of respect he has for other human beings that might be on or near the roads he drives drunk on.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:37 AM

Indirectly.

Yeah, and the guy lighting up a cigarette at the next table over in a restaurant might possibly, indirectly, combined with a variety of other environmental factors, genetic predispositions and personal choice factors cause me to one day suffer from asthma, cancer, emphysema or some other unfortunate medical condition.

But at the end of the day, getting in my car and driving to work is statistically more dangerous than walking into a smoke filled restaurant for an hour a couple times a week.

But you don't see us banning driving.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:39 AM

Smoking bans are also something like bans against spitting in public. Spitting in public isn't really a health hazard, but it's disgusting. Lots of people feel the same way about smoking (including many smokers).

They must not find it too disgusting or they would stop. Smoking in public might be less disgusting if smokers did not feel the need to leave their cigarettes all over the ground, and if it didn't make them smell like they rolled around in an ashtray.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:39 AM

Sure it is. It's not the state of being drunk that is the problem. It's the inherent lack of respect he has for other human beings that might be on or near the roads he drives drunk on.

The fact that he might kill someone directly (with his car) is less important to you than the fact that someone else might kill you indirectly (and forty years down the road) with second hand smoke?

Does that even make sense?

Or could it be that you don't mind drinking a beer every now and then, but you're not a smoker?

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:42 AM

Yeah, and the guy lighting up a cigarette at the next table over in a restaurant might possibly, indirectly, combined with a variety of other environmental factors, genetic predispositions and personal choice factors cause me to one day suffer from asthma, cancer, emphysema or some other unfortunate medical condition.

The analogy with the hamburger only works if I force you to eat my shit (the waste product of eating the hamburger) when I was finished. The smoke (the waste product of the smoking act) is something the smoker is pushing into the room for everyone else to breathe. Let's get your analogy right, if you really want to compare the two acts properly.

But at the end of the day, getting in my car and driving to work is statistically more dangerous than walking into a smoke filled restaurant for an hour a couple times a week.

But you don't see us banning driving.

Driving is becoming more restricted every year with new regulations. There are more automated violation detection mechanisms, new laws, and in some places it is harder to get a license than ever before. So, actually, driving is becoming increasingly more regulated. If this is the analogy you want to make, you're actually encouraging the further encroachment of government into cigarette smoking.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 10:43 AM

because when it comes right down to it, your right to breathe unpolluted air does not trump my right to pollute it. If it did, we'd all be forced to drive hybrid cars.
Yes it does. There are all sorts of anti air and water pollution (and emission laws for cars) that exist to protect people's right to breath less polluted air. Environmental laws don't go all the way in banning these polutants because they are seen as a necessary evil that result from certain activities such as driving, manufacturing goods, etc. that we as a society need to do in order to keep things working. These laws balance the evil with the good.

But smoking? It's totally unnecessary. What benefit does it give us? It's addictive. It harms those who smoke. It harms those around those who smoke. There is no real "good" from smoking other than keeping tobacco companies in business. Therefore banning smoking from the work place seems a pretty logical step to me.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:45 AM

Hey, T -

I want to be clear here: I'm not opposed to smoking bans per se (and yes, I am a smoker). I am opposed to arguments that proceed from "I want to go to this bar, but don't like it because they allow smoking there, so the laws should change to suit my wants". I think most people see the inherent selfishness in this argument, so they start rolling out the "I have a medical condition, so I can't help it (give me what I want)" version instead, because it seems more legitimate.

The bottom line is that one group of people wants to take privileges away from another group of people for no better reason than they want it. That doesn't fly with me.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 10:46 AM

The fact that he might kill someone directly (with his car) is less important to you than the fact that someone else might kill you indirectly (and forty years down the road) with second hand smoke?

It is less important to me that he would kill someone directly with his car? I'm of the opinion that driving drunk should be considered attempted murder. I'm not sure where you got this idea that I tolerate or approve of drunk driving. I merely stated that getting drunk is not the problem with drunk driving, it's the driving part that is the problem.

Did you read that I advised a vote AGAINST the ban? Why are you going after me? I don't like smoking and so I don't go to places that allow it free reign. That's my choice. I don't support government banning it.

Does that even make sense?

Personal choice, buddy. That makes perfect sense.

Or could it be that you don't mind drinking a beer every now and then, but you're not a smoker?

I would never deny that statement, although I fail to see the importance in it that you do.

JHandley

03-31-2005, 10:49 AM

I don't think I've ever seen this argument used to support a smoking ban.

That's because it's a flawed argument. You don't see flawed arguments used very often.

Smokers don't smoke because they see someone else smoke, they smoke because they are addicted. They want to quit and find it hard because they are addicted. There are plenty of places for smokers to go to see people not smoke. A significant majority of people don't smoke. If the smoker wanted to see people not smoke, he/she could simply stand up and turn around a couple times.

The best case that the pro-ban people have is the workers. Granted, they could find another place to work, but the smokers could find another place to smoke as well. Only one of those groups of people have to be there, the other wants to be there.

I'm all for the ban, I'm married and I don't go out to bars much anymore, so it really doesn't affect me. However, I see it as a way to limit the amount of contact non-smokers have with a obvious health risk.

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 10:54 AM

That's because it's a flawed argument. You don't see flawed arguments used very often.
It was actually used quite a bit here in Madison last year.

The best case that the pro-ban people have is the workers. Granted, they could find another place to work, but the smokers could find another place to smoke as well. Only one of those groups of people have to be there, the other wants to be there.

I agree with that - I was just pointing out that there are a lot of ways to look at it. In terms of public policy, it seems like a no-brainer. There is no 'right to smoke', and smoking reduces the quality of life of a class of people - not least the smokers themselves.

Drake

03-31-2005, 10:55 AM

Did you read that I advised a vote AGAINST the ban? Why are you going after me?

Sorry, T. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you. I was just trying to type fast in and around working.

panerd

03-31-2005, 11:02 AM

condors

03-31-2005, 11:04 AM

I know smokers pay a ton in taxes every time they buy a pack of smokes.

I know this was not passed in Philadelphia not long ago. If this becomes a national thing. I believe alot of smokers will be smoking less/quitting, new smokers will be rare.

Who is going to pay the extra taxes?

JimmyWint

03-31-2005, 11:04 AM

Thanks for all of the varying thoughts and observations! In Case anyone is curious, the Vote is April 5th and I am in Appleton, Wisconsin.

There is ONE smoke free bar in town that I know of, but it is part of a larger dance club and no one ever goes in there, but I took my wife there once and we had a nice time. I wish there were more smoke free options, but I don't think any other bar owners want to take the chance.

panerd

03-31-2005, 11:06 AM

Penn & Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on second hand smoke. I saw the preview on the cable guide, but haven't had a chance to catch it yet. Anyone seen this one? They have made some pretty big holes on other topics that I have seen.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 11:07 AM

Here is the arguement I have always had....

Smoking is legal. The politicians want to make a lot of friends/voters by dictating to bar & restaurant owners that there can't be a legal activity in a private business. If smoking is so bad than why don't all of these politicans (who care so much) fight to make smoking illegal? Ask your state senator or local alderman why they don't take on Phillip Morris.

They did take on Phillip Morris...

The tobacco settlement agreement, officially known as the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), is an accord reached in 1998 between the state Attorneys General of 46 states, five U.S. territories, the District of Columbia and America's major tobacco companies concerning the advertising, marketing and promotion of tobacco products. The MSA was signed after four prior agreements were entered into by the major manufacturers with the states of Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas. The tobacco settlement agreements set standards for, and impose significant restrictions on, the advertising, marketing and promotional activities of participating cigarette manufacturers.

The reason they will not ban it is because they would no longer be able to tax it and it would just be another illegal item bought and sold in the underground. I wish they would apply this same logic to the rest of the "controlled substances" so we could knock billions out of the budget for the "War on Drugs" and do away with the privacy invasions it brought to us.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 11:11 AM

Who is going to pay the extra taxes?

They will find things that are not taxed and create those, while raising tax rates on everything else, of course.

JHandley

03-31-2005, 11:14 AM

It was actually used quite a bit here in Madison last year.

That's a shame then. Using the "It's for their own good, they just don't know it yet." argument rarely works. The Democrats have been trying it for years now and all it does is solidify the opposition out of spite and stubbornness.

Bad-example

03-31-2005, 11:35 AM

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 11:41 AM

What is so hard about taking your tobacco outside? By lighting up indoors, a smoker is saying "fuck you" to everyone in range that does not like breathing that crap. Yes, I am a non-smoker and yes, I have a health problem that smoke exacerbates. Many people like to think of smoking as a freedom issue, but the right of non-smokers to breathe is more important than a smoker's right to decide to light up.

I am biased but I always root for smoking bans to pass.

You do not believe that the right of the owner/operator of the business trumps all inside their structure? If you don't like someone smoking there, tell management that you won't be back until they make it all non-smoking. Why invoke the power of government force to do it for you? Take your money to a different establishment that values your patronage enough to have an arrangement you approve of.

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 11:46 AM

You do not believe that the right of the owner/operator of the business trumps all inside their structure? If you don't like someone smoking there, tell management that you won't be back until they make it all non-smoking. Why invoke the power of government force to do it for you? Take your money to a different establishment that values your patronage enough to have an arrangement you approve of.

The problem with this argument is that there ARE NO similiar establishments to go to. A bar/lounge that bans smoking can't compete with those that permit it, and will be forced to close. It's an example of the tyranny of the majority.

I suppose a compromise could be economic sanctions against bars that permit smoking; charge them 100,000 dollars (or whatever number ensures competitive equality) for a 'smoking license.' In that way, you could have smoking and non-smoking bars competing, people that don't want to subjected to smokers have someplace to go, etc.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 11:49 AM

Draft Dodger

03-31-2005, 11:51 AM

That's because it's a flawed argument. You don't see flawed arguments used very often.

except on this board!
:)

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 11:53 AM

If you think there is sufficient demand for a non-smoking bar and none of the current operators will change, why don't you just raise the capital to start your own? That would be how an entreprenuer would handle it. He wouldn't go and beg government to use their power to implement his change. He would do it in the market and beat the other proprietors at their game.

For the same reason that, for example, a topless bar, would never not serve liquor UNLESS there were regulatory reasons to do so. There is no economic motivation for the owner/operator to ban smoking; that's why these smoking bans keep coming up.

HomerJSimpson

03-31-2005, 11:55 AM

I'm against the government banning legal activities in private establishents and would never vote for such referendum. That said, I inwardly was happy when local bans went into place. I hate eating around smokers, and smoke always makes my daughter sick. So, I'd never vote for them, but don't expect me to be outraged when they go into affect.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 11:56 AM

For the same reason that, for example, a topless bar, would never not serve liquor UNLESS there were regulatory reasons to do so. There is no economic motivation for the owner/operator to ban smoking; that's why these smoking bans keep coming up.

And that is exactly why they shouldn't be happening. If the customers demanded it, it might happen. If the employees demanded it, it might happen. If they can't get anybody to come in because of the smoke, they would have to consider changing. If they could not get good employees because of the smoke, they would have to change. Is there any bar that has such a stranglehold on a community that normal market forces would have no effect on their business?

Bad-example

03-31-2005, 11:56 AM

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 11:58 AM

If the employees demanded it, it might happen.

I can't speak to every one of these referendums, but here in Madison, and in Chicago it WAS the employees who were a big part of the push.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 12:01 PM

I wish there were more smoke free options, but I don't think any other bar owners want to take the chance.
I think you've answered your own question, mate. Like Quick said, vote for personal interest on this one. Makes no sense not to.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 12:05 PM

Take your money to a different establishment that values your patronage enough to have an arrangement you approve of.

Which is exactly what I do with pretty much all smoke-free places, deny them my dollars & tell them why.

All making the ban here statewide will do is take my money out of the restaurant economy altogether, and when you're one of those people who typically eat out more than 10 times a week like I do, it seems fairly significant (as part of a whole). It comes down to a choice between grabbing a couple of sandwiches here at home and being able to enjoy them OR going out to eat and being utterly miserable both before & after the meal, then it's pretty obvious that I'm gonna go with the sandwiches at home.

And I've already grabbed the list of how legislators voted on the current Georgia measure, both my own and others elsewhere. And in 2006, I'll vote / work / contribute / support accordingly. This bill is just one more nail in the GOP majority coffin, because it further splits the rural/metro solidarity (not that it needed much help, Sonny-boy has done plenty toward that end on his own). I've never seen any group work harder than this one to become the minority party in my entire life.

lungs

03-31-2005, 12:10 PM

If anybody tried to ban smoking in some of the old dirty taverns in rural Wisconsin where I live, there'd be hell to pay.

I frequent many such taverns and even if some kind of ban was in place it would simply be ignored. I think it'd be a hell of a lot easier if we could just designate between 'trashy' establishments and 'classy' establishments. Let the trashy establishments allow smoking.

My preference is of course a trashy bar. I feel out of place in classy establishments. Not necessarily because I'm poor white trash, because I'm not. But the cloud of smoke and down to earth people sure beat the so called classy places.

Ban all the smoking you want but don't you dare touch my trashy bars.

Mustang

03-31-2005, 12:14 PM

The problem with this argument is that there ARE NO similiar establishments to go to.

How is it governments responsiblity to ensure that you have a bar/restaurant to go to? If there is such an upswell of people demanding non-smoking establishments then, ultimately, the economics of the situation will dictate if smoking/non-smoking establishments win out.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 12:16 PM

How is it governments responsiblity to ensure that you have a bar/restaurant to go to?

I think that's one of the Amendments ... protecting Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Cobb Salad.

Drake

03-31-2005, 12:26 PM

I see nothing wrong with a law forcing people to have the common decency to stop inflicting their smoke on non-smokers.

I see everything wrong with a law forcing other people's definition of common decency on me while enjoying a service I'm paying for.

Bad-example

03-31-2005, 12:34 PM

I see everything wrong with a law forcing other people's definition of common decency on me while enjoying a service I'm paying for.

I suppose if you were one of those with asthma you might have a different view. I still don't see why smokers can't just take it outside. After all, if smoke didn't bother non-smokers the smoking ban laws wouldn't win at the polls.

condors

03-31-2005, 12:51 PM

Bad-example:

I am alergic to bees, if i go outside for a smoke get stung and die because my wife is inside enjoying her meal with my needle(in her purse, i have neven gotten into the whole manbag thing) that is ok then right?

Sure its 2 freaking degrees hey everyone lets go outside and continue our converstation and have a smoke.

I am all for having a smoke free place for you to eat. Tell me to take it outside, Go eat your salad outside while everyone else eats their inside and tell me that it is all good.

lungs

03-31-2005, 12:53 PM

I suppose if you were one of those with asthma you might have a different view. I still don't see why smokers can't just take it outside. After all, if smoke didn't bother non-smokers the smoking ban laws wouldn't win at the polls.

How many of these voters actually go to the bars? Like I said, I have no problems with restaurant smoking bans but I find banning smoking in bars is ridiculous. A good portion that vote for these things probably don't set foot in a bar.

Karlifornia

03-31-2005, 12:59 PM

Non-Smokers die every day. Non-smokers die of cancer every day. Me, I only smoke when I am drunk. California doesn't allow smoking indoors at public establishments. I like that, because I don't have a problem stumbling into the alley to smoke if it makes everyone else more comfortable. Plus, it's a good opportunity to get the girl you were talking to alone. :)

Drake

03-31-2005, 01:02 PM

I suppose if you were one of those with asthma you might have a different view. I still don't see why smokers can't just take it outside. After all, if smoke didn't bother non-smokers the smoking ban laws wouldn't win at the polls.

Smokers have taken it outside -- out of the workplace, out of most restaurants, out of public buildings, movie theaters, airplanes, etc. And in general, I think smokers have been very amicable during this whole process. And when you say "take it outside", where outside do you mean? My town just made it a punishable offense to stand within 30 some-odd feet of a building. Thirty feet!! That puts most of the smokers out into the street (where, of course, it's illegal to smoke -- jaywalking and all). You can't even smoke at outdoor restaurants.

The question is when are the non-smoking zealots going to be happy? Going after bars is just getting greedy. ( :) )

But honestly, I care less and less about public place smoking than I do about the trend that will one day make it illegal for me to smoke in my car if there's a non-smoker riding with me or illegal to smoke in my house if there are kids present. (Yes, smoking in even your own car with a non-smoker who doesn't like it is rude; yes, smoking around kids -- especially kids who aren't your own -- is rude. However, at this point, if you don't want to be around or have your kids around my smoke, you can choose not to ride with me in my car or choose not to send your kid over to my house. It's the day that someone else's preference dictates to me what I can and can't do with a legal substance inside my own property that I dread.)

No one disputes that smoking is bad. I just personally consider the tyranny of the majority worse than smoking.

Drake

03-31-2005, 01:06 PM

dola...

Somebody who isn't as lazy as I am should compare results between this thread and the thread on driving with cell phones to see if the same folks who are against smoking in public places are also against cell phones while driving. Actually, that'd make a pretty interesting national survey...

Marmel

03-31-2005, 01:07 PM

Smokers have taken it outside -- out of the workplace, out of most restaurants, out of public buildings, movie theaters, airplanes, etc. And in general, I think smokers have been very amicable during this whole process. And when you say "take it outside", where outside do you mean? My town just made it a punishable offense to stand within 30 some-odd feet of a building. Thirty feet!! That puts most of the smokers out into the street (where, of course, it's illegal to smoke -- jaywalking and all). You can't even smoke at outdoor restaurants.

The question is when are the non-smoking zealots going to be happy? Going after bars is just getting greedy. ( :) )

But honestly, I care less and less about public place smoking than I do about the trend that will one day make it illegal for me to smoke in my car if there's a non-smoker riding with me or illegal to smoke in my house if there are kids present. (Yes, smoking in even your own car with a non-smoker who doesn't like it is rude; yes, smoking around kids -- especially kids who aren't your own -- is rude. However, at this point, if you don't want to be around or have your kids around my smoke, you can choose not to ride with me in my car or choose not to send your kid over to my house. It's the day that someone else's preference dictates to me what I can and can't do with a legal substance inside my own property that I dread.)

No one disputes that smoking is bad. I just personally consider the tyranny of the majority worse than smoking.

Preach on brother!

dubb93

03-31-2005, 01:07 PM

I suppose if you were one of those with asthma you might have a different view.

Drop it, I have asthma and am offended that you would use my condition to force your views onto others. I will never support anything that cuts into anyones right to something that is currently legal. I "put up" with the smoke and have a smoke myself from time to time, it's called getting over your "medical" conditions and living life. Entirely possible with asthma.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 01:10 PM

I see nothing wrong with a law forcing people to have the common decency to stop inflicting their smoke on non-smokers.

Edit-Quoted wrong post

When people start barging into someone else's home or their car and forcing them to breathe in the smoke, you will have a legitimate point. If you're choosing to go to a location where you know people will be smoking, it's your own fault.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 01:11 PM

I can't speak to every one of these referendums, but here in Madison, and in Chicago it WAS the employees who were a big part of the push.

If they all quit, or walk out, and the business cannot, or will not, find replacements, then the change will happen on its own.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 01:19 PM

My town just made it a punishable offense to stand within 30 some-odd feet of a building.

This can be offensive, but smokers crowding around the only entrance to a building is a problem that deserves to be addressed. If smokers had shown the proper respect involving this, ordinances like the one mentioned, might not ever come up.

But honestly, I care less and less about public place smoking than I do about the trend that will one day make it illegal for me to smoke in my car if there's a non-smoker riding with me or illegal to smoke in my house if there are kids present.

Folly on the non-smoker for getting in a car with you without you first agreeing to not smoke. I certainly wouldn't do that. The grey area, for me, is with minors. Do you have the right to determine that they need to be exposed to that? I don't feel they are able to consent to it, so it really boils down to whether you think, as their parent or some other adult, you have the right to force smoke on them or not.

No one disputes that smoking is bad. I just personally consider the tyranny of the majority worse than smoking.

I just hope that those who are opposed to the tyranny of the majority on this matter are consistent across the board. There are lots of instances where the majority is tyrannical, such as "gay marriage." If you ever agree with the tyranny of the majority, you better be prepared for a tyrannical majority to come along and take something away from you.

Drake

03-31-2005, 01:25 PM

The grey area, for me, is with minors. Do you have the right to determine that they need to be exposed to that? I don't feel they are able to consent to it, so it really boils down to whether you think, as their parent or some other adult, you have the right to force smoke on them or not.

I agree, but I don't see it as any different than what example parents set with regards to video games (if you play, you model the behavior for your kids, who will be more prone to play also, who will subsequently get less exercise, increasing their risk of obesity and heart disease) or fast food (if you decide to get McDonald's for dinner, what choice do your kids have?) or even home schooling (presents them with a worldview and bias that you chose for them rather than one they developed organically from a variety of environmental factors).

There are people out there trying to put a stop to any or all of those activities. Supporters are outraged; opponents are invigorated. At the end of the day, what happens in my house with my kids is my business.

I don't think we're disagreeing here. I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from.

I just hope that those who are opposed to the tyranny of the majority on this matter are consistent across the board. There are lots of instances where the majority is tyrannical, such as "gay marriage." If you ever agree with the tyranny of the majority, you better be prepared for a tyrannical majority to come along and take something away from you.

Right on, brother.

Then again, I don't have a desire to force people to be consistent, either. :)

condors

03-31-2005, 01:34 PM

This can be offensive, but smokers crowding around the only entrance to a building is a problem that deserves to be addressed. If smokers had shown the proper respect involving this, ordinances like the one mentioned, might not ever come up.

Check where the ashtray is if the ashtray is by the door odds are that is where people will be. Put some benches and ashtrays 100 feet from the doors and i bet that is where the people would smoke.

You can't rip smokers for smoking by the ashtray

Solecismic

03-31-2005, 01:38 PM

Now, what about smoking in the privacy of your own home? What if there are children involved? Should the state take away your children if you smoke at home, considering there's significant evidence that second-hand smoke causes asthma, ear infections and a few other problems for small children?

If we're willing to take on bars and restaurants over the health concerns of a tiny population of workers, most of whom already smoke, then why not take on something that affects millions of defenseless children?

...

That's the problem I have with the direction we're headed right now. There needs to be a balance. There should be bars where smokers can go and get some rest from the evil eye.

Restaurants should have a choice. I know I avoided the restaurants that allowed smoking, or had only a token non-smoking section (you know, three tables bordered by a few plants that looked like they had last been watered during the Italian Renaissance). I ate out more as the trend toward non-smoking restaurants increased. My choice.

This was a good fight when smoking was still allowed in just about any workplace. And my own pet peeve was having to run the gauntlet at building entrances - especially when there was plenty of comfortable room 20 feet from the entrance. But today, it seems we're going a bit too far. "Smoke-free towns?" That's a bit Orwellian for my tastes.

...

Devil's Advocate: Nicotene is a dangerous drug that probably should be regulated. If tobacco were invented today, it would never be approved for public or private use. Nicotene is perhaps more addictive than cocaine, and cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands of people per year. Maybe there should simply be a ban on tobacco products?

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 01:40 PM

Drop it, I have asthma and am offended that you would use my condition to force your views onto others. I will never support anything that cuts into anyones right to something that is currently legal. I "put up" with the smoke and have a smoke myself from time to time, it's called getting over your "medical" conditions and living life. Entirely possible with asthma.
Blow me.

I am glad that your ashtma is such that it allows you to have a smoke every now and then and to "put up" with second-hand smoke. Bully for you.

But there are asthmatics out there (like my wife) whose condition does not allow them to simply "put up" with it. There is no "toughing it out" no "hiking up your skirt" or any other manly-man bullshit that can allow these people to breathe in the presence of second-hand smoke. They have as good a chance of breathing under water as they would in a smoke-filled room. So while certain asthmatics may be able, others can not.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 01:42 PM

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 01:43 PM

You can't rip smokers for smoking by the ashtray

True dat.

There is a very strong moth-to-flame effect for smokers & ashtrays that I can attest to. Put it 30 feet from the door, I'll stop there & finish. Put it 2 feet from the door, I'll stop there & finish. Put it 100 feet from the door & that's where I'll be.

And I post this not only to support your observation but to also tell a bit of UIC that goes with it. My wife was having some tests done at the local hospital a couple of months ago. She's in the little mobile MRI truck out back, I've got time to kill, smoking under stress is kind of a given for me. So there I am, basically hovering at the ashtray (complete with a sign that says "smoking area"), basically watching the grass grow. And in my boredom, my eyes kind of wander around the area ... and I realize that the ashtray is less than 5 feet from the storage area for the oxygen containers -- complete with all of the "No flame - Explosive - Combustable" signage & everything.

Drake

03-31-2005, 01:45 PM

Or, along a smiliar line, how many people are anti-smoking ban, but pro gay marriage ban.

Excellent point, HB.

hhiipp

03-31-2005, 01:45 PM

Why can't you fault them for standing by the ashtray? I've never seen a smoker actually use one, unless they were throwing their gum away. . .

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 01:46 PM

Why can't you fault them for standing by the ashtray? I've never seen a smoker actually use one, unless they were throwing their gum away. . .

Then you're either blind or not paying attention. Or you're full of shit.
Take your pick.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 01:51 PM

You can't rip smokers for smoking by the ashtray

I'd believe you, if I didn't see the opposite demonstrated often. Fact is, smokers believe they should stand by the door if it is really cold and put their cigarette out on the ground...or they can't possibly walk to the smoking area first, they must light up the instant they step out the door. I want to believe you, but it doesn't jive with the actions I see from smokers each week.

Drake

03-31-2005, 01:51 PM

When I was in Berlin in January, one of the things that greatly impressed me about that city was how clean it was--very few butts on the ground. Then I realized that every trash can I saw had a butt can attached to it.

Compare that to Prague, Budapest and Oswiecem where I'd been earlier in the week -- places that seemed to have never heard of an ashtray -- and you can guess which city was the cleanest.

Personally, I think smokers should be taught when they're young to handle their butts military style (i.e. ripping off the last of the tobacco bit and stuffing the filter bit in your pocket for later disposal), but a pocket full of butts does tend to get a bit stinky after awhile.

Bad-example

03-31-2005, 01:54 PM

Bad-example: Sure its 2 freaking degrees hey everyone lets go outside and continue our converstation and have a smoke.

I am all for having a smoke free place for you to eat. Tell me to take it outside, Go eat your salad outside while everyone else eats their inside and tell me that it is all good.

No one forced you to live in a climate that is too cold. Just because you are too delicate to endure the weather does not mean we need to smell your cloud.

If eating my salad made people vomit, have trouble breathing and lose their apetites, I guess that would be appropriate.

Tekneek

03-31-2005, 01:54 PM

Now, what about smoking in the privacy of your own home? What if there are children involved?

Do you believe a parent is being responsible by choosing to expose their child to that? The kid does not have the ability to consent. Wouldn't it be more respectful if the parent did it outside or in a room that the kid was not in? For me, it is not a matter of taking that smoking choice away, it is a matter of not forcing it upon anyone that is not a consenting adult.

Maybe there should simply be a ban on tobacco products?

Or stop the expensive double standard and do away with the controlled substances act. I do agree that the government should follow this through to its logical conclusion in one direction or the other.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 02:01 PM

Personally, I think smokers should be taught when they're young to handle their butts military style (i.e. ripping off the last of the tobacco bit and stuffing the filter bit in your pocket for later disposal)

Oddly enough, that's often how I dispose of them when there's no ashtray present. And indeed, I learned the habit from several friends in the military, I was just never sure whether "field-stripping" was a purely military thing or if it was just became common in the armed forces.

dubb93

03-31-2005, 02:01 PM

Blow me.

I am glad that your ashtma is such that it allows you to have a smoke every now and then and to "put up" with second-hand smoke. Bully for you.

But there are asthmatics out there (like my wife) whose condition does not allow them to simply "put up" with it. There is no "toughing it out" no "hiking up your skirt" or any other manly-man bullshit that can allow these people to breathe in the presence of second-hand smoke. They have as good a chance of breathing under water as they would in a smoke-filled room. So while certain asthmatics may be able, others can not.

When your argument boils down to "blow me" it is a sign that you have nothing to back up your point..... :rolleyes:

condors

03-31-2005, 02:15 PM

No one forced you to live in a climate that is too cold. Just because you are too delicate to endure the weather does not mean we need to smell your cloud.

If eating my salad made people vomit, have trouble breathing and lose their apetites, I guess that would be appropriate.

That is comical. I have yet to see someone vomit from my smoke.

I will repeat myself i have no problem if you have a smoke free place but i need a place where i can smoke while i eat. If you smoked you may have a better understanding.

You want to call me delicate because you vomit if i smoke??? what are you smoking?

larrymcg421

03-31-2005, 02:18 PM

I think a reasonable compromise could be a restaurant or bar would have to have a completely enclosed smoking space. Some of the places I've been with no-smoking sections are complete jokes.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 02:18 PM

When your argument boils down to "blow me" it is a sign that you have nothing to back up your point..... :rolleyes:
No my argument started following the "blow me." When you can't respond to anything after my initial greeting ;) then you clearly have nothing to back up your point... Hell, you don't even seem to have a point in response. :rolleyes:

st.cronin

03-31-2005, 02:20 PM

I've always been amazed by the obnoxious asses who smoke cigars in public lounges.

Bad-example

03-31-2005, 03:06 PM

That is comical. I have yet to see someone vomit from my smoke.

I will repeat myself i have no problem if you have a smoke free place but i need a place where i can smoke while i eat. If you smoked you may have a better understanding.

You want to call me delicate because you vomit if i smoke??? what are you smoking?

Ok...want to vomit...does that make it less comical to you?

You do have a place to smoke while you eat. Unless you are homeless.

This is a freedom issue. Smokers feel they should have the freedom to inflict their smoke on non-smokers. Non-smokers feel they should have the freedom to breathe. It just seems to me that outdoors there is plenty room to smoke without bothering other people.

condors

03-31-2005, 03:15 PM

Well luckily i still have places to smoke indoors.

There are smoke free restaurants where i live.

There are also smoking restaurants.

I like the way that is and don't want it to change.

What i don't like is someone coming to a smoking restaurant and feel entitled to have a smoke free enviroment when the same could be had down the street.

dubb93

03-31-2005, 03:28 PM

No my argument started following the "blow me." When you can't respond to anything after my initial greeting ;) then you clearly have nothing to back up your point... Hell, you don't even seem to have a point in response. :rolleyes:

OK, here goes....and the facts are going to hurt.....

This is the United States, you can't(as far as the principles our country was founded on) take away the right of the minority(they want to smoke in public places) b/c the majority wants to. It goes against everything our country was founded on. And I see it happening way to much. Not just in this smoking issue. With that said here are some facts:

Second hand smoke has never been proven to be a serious health risk. Seriously......I dare you to find me one study that proves conclusively otherwise. In fact only one study has ever been done on the topic that has been widely accepted. It was done by the Environmental Protection Agency and released in 1993. It contains many damning evidence about second hand smoke such as “Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among non-smokers… are estimated to be attributable to ETS (second hand smoke) in the United States.” This is the rallying cry in most of the debate for anti-smoking advocates.

The only problem with this report is that in 1998 a federal court ripped this report to pieces, saying and I quote about the study…”EPA’s procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law” and “…EPA ‘cherry picked’ it’s data.” And perhaps most damning about the entire report, “EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure…to ensure a preordained outcome.” What does this decision mean, the EPA faked the study. They lied and ignored the facts the did come across and scientific standards to reach a politically motivated conclusion. Once again, the EPA lied. But people still believed their first study and smoking bans spread across the country.

Another study that is less accepted, but also cited by smoke free advocates was done by the World Health Organization. The press release claimed “Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You.” Lets ignore what the title of the report says and actually dig into the content. The report itself states, “Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS (second hand smoke) and lung cancer risk.” And for adults the study admitted that the increased risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke was not statistically significant. Why would they release a press release with that title and then include that content? The WHO lied too.

The following groups agree that second hand smoke causes cancer:
American Lung Association
American Caner Society
American Heart Association
U.S Public Health Service

But they all cite the 1993 study done by the EPA (that was thrown out by a federal court) as their primary source. On top of all that, they have now inflated the number of U.S. deaths caused by second hand smoke each year from 3,000 to 50,000. This new number isn’t based on hard data, it’s a projection based on mortality rates caused from heart disease and other causes of death. What they really do is see a person that dies from heart disease, and if they lived with someone that smoked, they list the cause of death as second hand smoke.

O.K., say for instance you accept the EPA’s own study, even though it was thrown out by a federal court, anti-smoking fanatics will say that your chances of dieing from lung cancer increases by 25% when you are exposed to second hand smoke (living with a smoker or working with a smoker). How do they calculate that increase? The chances of dieing from lung cancer for those exposed to second hand smoke is 1:80,000, for people not exposed to secondhand smoke, it is 1:100,000. That may sound like a big difference, but if you do that math it is really just 12.5 in 1,000,000 for people exposed to secondhand smoke compared to 10 in 1,000,000 not exposed to it, which is statistically of no significance.

Smoking is bad for your health (you will die from smoking), but second hand smoke is not (as far as scientific studies have been able to prove).

Worry about crime, worry about protecting the streets of big cities, worry about corruption, but come on, smoking? Seriously? There are already hundreds of non-smoking places in each city, don't force your views on everyone (until you have proof).

----Credit Penn&Teller’s Bullshit on Showtime

dubb93

03-31-2005, 03:29 PM

Ok...want to vomit...does that make it less comical to you?

You do have a place to smoke while you eat. Unless you are homeless.

This is a freedom issue. Smokers feel they should have the freedom to inflict their smoke on non-smokers. Non-smokers feel they should have the freedom to breathe. It just seems to me that outdoors there is plenty room to smoke without bothering other people.

So what you are saying is when you walk into a place where the owner allows smoking that YOU should be able to tell everyone in there to stop smoking. The world doesn't revolve around you buddy. Go somewhere people aren't allowed to smoke, leave smokers the few places they are still welcome.

sabotai

03-31-2005, 04:19 PM

I kind of skimmed through. It's pretty identical to most other conversations had here on this topic. Just wanted to say a few things.

Tekneek mentioned on page 1 that restaurants in his area have gone completely non-smoking on their own without a ban. See, market forces DO work. If enough people want a totally nonsmoking place to eat and drink alcohol, the market will provide. I have also noticed this in several places I have been in Philly and NJ. Some places are totally nonsmoking because people want totally nonsmoking places. The market provides. There is no need for a ban.

Several people have commented "What does smoking do? It's pointless". Oh, how to explain the effects to a nonsmoker....

All I can give is my own personal experience. I used to smoke. I still do very occasionally, when I'm with certain friends, once or twice out of the month, I'll smoke a few cigarettes through the night. But for the most part, I have 99% quit smoking.

I get very anxious in situations. Extremely anxious, actually. Most of the time, I get so paniced that I have to leave. No matter what the situation is, once I get like that, I felt like a caged animal ready to spring once the door opens slightly. I would get very moody and I was in a bad mood a lot. I would avoid society like every mf out there carried the plague. I had an extremely short fuse. Mind you, I would never actually attack anyone, but the short fuse made me hate you very quickly and cut you off for good. And then I would panic some more.

When I started smoking, that all stopped. I mean, literally, it stopped completely. I was in a better mood generally. The panic attacks and anxiety stopped. The only time I would feel them was when I was in a completely nonsmoking area (say, my girlfriend's sister's apartment...yes, with my gf and she was married. Get your damn minds out of the gutter. :) ). Now, most nonsmokers will just brush that off and say "you were just having a nic-fit". I assure you I was not. I was going through what I went through before I even started smoking.

Now I have quit, because it got to the point that I would smoke sporadicly, my body didn't like the swings, and I would feel really crappy after smoking. Of course, the anxiety is back, the panic is back and (if you haven't noticed on the board. :) ), my general bad mood is back. But I put up with it because smoking makes my chest hurt now (when I do it excessively, not a few in a night).

So....for you nonsmokers (and some smokers) who don't think smoking does anything except give cancer and make the air stink, well, that's what it did for me.

Honolulu_Blue

03-31-2005, 04:23 PM

OK, here goes....and the facts are going to hurt.....

This is the United States, you can't(as far as the principles our country was founded on) take away the right of the minority(they want to smoke in public places) b/c the majority wants to. It goes against everything our country was founded on. And I see it happening way to much. Not just in this smoking issue. With that said here are some facts:

Second hand smoke has never been proven to be a serious health risk. Seriously......I dare you to find me one study that proves conclusively otherwise. In fact only one study has ever been done on the topic that has been widely accepted. It was done by the Environmental Protection Agency and released in 1993. It contains many damning evidence about second hand smoke such as “Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among non-smokers… are estimated to be attributable to ETS (second hand smoke) in the United States.” This is the rallying cry in most of the debate for anti-smoking advocates.

The only problem with this report is that in 1998 a federal court ripped this report to pieces, saying and I quote about the study…”EPA’s procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law” and “…EPA ‘cherry picked’ it’s data.” And perhaps most damning about the entire report, “EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure…to ensure a preordained outcome.” What does this decision mean, the EPA faked the study. They lied and ignored the facts the did come across and scientific standards to reach a politically motivated conclusion. Once again, the EPA lied. But people still believed their first study and smoking bans spread across the country.

Another study that is less accepted, but also cited by smoke free advocates was done by the World Health Organization. The press release claimed “Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You.” Lets ignore what the title of the report says and actually dig into the content. The report itself states, “Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS (second hand smoke) and lung cancer risk.” And for adults the study admitted that the increased risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke was not statistically significant. Why would they release a press release with that title and then include that content? The WHO lied too.

The following groups agree that second hand smoke causes cancer:
American Lung Association
American Caner Society
American Heart Association
U.S Public Health Service

But they all cite the 1993 study done by the EPA (that was thrown out by a federal court) as their primary source. On top of all that, they have now inflated the number of U.S. deaths caused by second hand smoke each year from 3,000 to 50,000. This new number isn’t based on hard data, it’s a projection based on mortality rates caused from heart disease and other causes of death. What they really do is see a person that dies from heart disease, and if they lived with someone that smoked, they list the cause of death as second hand smoke.

O.K., say for instance you accept the EPA’s own study, even though it was thrown out by a federal court, anti-smoking fanatics will say that your chances of dieing from lung cancer increases by 25% when you are exposed to second hand smoke (living with a smoker or working with a smoker). How do they calculate that increase? The chances of dieing from lung cancer for those exposed to second hand smoke is 1:80,000, for people not exposed to secondhand smoke, it is 1:100,000. That may sound like a big difference, but if you do that math it is really just 12.5 in 1,000,000 for people exposed to secondhand smoke compared to 10 in 1,000,000 not exposed to it, which is statistically of no significance.

Smoking is bad for your health (you will die from smoking), but second hand smoke is not (as far as scientific studies have been able to prove).

Worry about crime, worry about protecting the streets of big cities, worry about corruption, but come on, smoking? Seriously? There are already hundreds of non-smoking places in each city, don't force your views on everyone (until you have proof).

----Credit Penn&Teller’s Bullshit on Showtime
Wow.

First off, my response was to your "put up" with it manly-man post about smoke and asthma. You don't address any of what I said, which I think is for the best.

Second, I don't know what you were smoking when you wrote that little patriotic bit about the ideals upon which our country was founded on. Touching, brought a tear to my eye, but mayhap you should go talk to some gay folks in certain states and ask them about taking away the rights of minorities because the majority wants to. You may be shocked at what's going on in our country!

As for the evidence, you post some interesting stuff... Just so happens , however, that there have been plenty of studies (other than those you mentioned) that have been conducted the world around that soundly prove that second hand smoke is harmful.

If you're still not convinced after reading all the studies below, I would invite you over and watch what happens when my wife is in a smoke filled room. Watch as she is unable to breathe and, as far as I know, science has pretty much proved that not being able to breathe is harmful to one's health.

Enjoy...

The global consensus on Secondhand smoke...

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=200 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/img/pixel.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#336600><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff>Secondhand smoke (SHS) is the original term used by scientific and medical researchers. It clearly identifies the product of a primary, active source that has an effect on non-smokers downstream.

Passive smoking and involuntary smoking are other terms for exposure to Secondhand smoke.

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a term invented by the tobacco industry to suggest the presence of this pollutant is a normal part of our environment.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Every authoritative, peer-reviewed assessment of the scientific evidence over the years has concluded that Secondhand smoke causes a lengthening list of diseases.

The only dissent has come from Big Tobacco and the scientists and organizations affiliated with it. Researchers supported by Big Tobacco are eighty-eight times (http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-Barnes&Bero-WhyReviewArticles.pdf) more likely than independent researchers to conclude there is no evidence that Secondhand smoke is dangerous.

The most current knowledge first...

The first studies showing that Secondhand smoke causes respiratory problems in children were published over thirty years ago. First evidence that Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer was published in 1981. Since then, the list of dangers has steadily grown. This page sums up the major, independent, consensus statements produced by scientific bodies since 1985, most recent first.

2004 Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) Secondhand Smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. High level U.K. committee strengthens earlier conclusions that Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, sudden infant death, and asthma, as well as cancer and points out some groups -- such as bartenders -- are at particular risk. Full report (http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf)

QUOTE The increased risk to non-smokers of lung cancer from secondhand smoke (SHS) was estimated at 24% ...

New studies on SHS exposure and the risk of heart disease have strengthened the findings of the 1998 SCOTH overview which estimated that the excess risk in non smokers exposed to SHS compared to those not exposed was 23%. We now have greater understanding of the ways in which tobacco smoke inhalation damages the blood vessels. Whereas lung cancer risk increases in a linear fashion with the number of cigarettes smoked and the duration of smoking, damage to the heart and the arteries occurs disproportionately at the lower exposures experienced by those exposed to SHS. ..

... Children are at greatest risk in their homes and the evidence strongly links SHS with an increased risk of pneumonia and bronchitis, asthma attacks, middle ear disease, decreased lung function and sudden infant death syndrome. It has also been shown that babies born to mothers who come into contact with SHS have lower birth weights.

Overall exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in the population has declined somewhat as cigarette smoking prevalence has continued to come down. However, some groups, for example bar staff, are heavily exposed at their place of work and almost half of all children still live in households with at least one smoker.
2002 WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Program Monograph on Tobacco Smoking, both Active and Passive
Summary (http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr141a.html)

QUOTE Nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Even the typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among never smokers. Second-hand tobacco smoke IS carcinogenic to humans. 2001 U.S. National Toxicology Program, Ninth Report on Carcinogens. Adds Secondhand smoke to its list of cancer-causing substances.
Full report (http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html#toc) | Secondhand smoke section (http://ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/ninth/known/ets.pdf)

QUOTE Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans that indicate a causal relationship between passive exposure to tobacco smoke and human lung cancer. Studies also support an association of ETS with cancers of the nasal sinus.

...Many studies, including recent large population-based case control studies, have demonstrated increased risks of about 20% for developing lung cancer following prolonged exposure to ETS, with some studies suggesting higher risks with higher exposures. Exposure to ETS from spouses smoking or exposure in an occupational setting appears most strongly related to increased risk.
1998 Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. High level U.K. committee reiterates earlier conclusions that Secondhand smoke causes heart disease, sudden infant death, and asthma, as well as cancer.
Full report (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/report.htm) | Secondhand smoke section (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/tobacco/part-2.htm)

QUOTE Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20-30%.

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of ischaemic heart disease and, if current published estimates of magnitude of relative risk are validated, such exposure represents a substantial public health hazard.

Smoking in the presence of infants and children is a cause of serious respiratory illness and asthmatic attacks.

Sudden infant death syndrome, the main cause of post-neonatal death in the first year of life, is associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The association is judged to be one of cause and effect.

Middle ear disease in children is linked with parental smoking and this association is likely to be causal.
1997 California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Most comprehensive assessment of health effects, took several years to prepare; tobacco industry critiques (http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/ets-comm.html) (see U.S. EPA report below) were fully considered in preparing this report.
Full report (http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/m10_complete.pdf) | Alternative location (http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/)

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#c8a858 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Effects Causally Associated with ETS Exposure
Developmental Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Fetal Growth: Low birthweight or small for gestational age</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Respiratory Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Acute lower respiratory tract infections in children
(e.g., bronchitis and pneumonia)</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Asthma induction and exacerbation in children</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Chronic respiratory symptoms in children</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Eye and nasal irritation in adults</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Middle ear infections in children</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Carcinogenic Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Lung Cancer</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Nasal Sinus Cancer</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Cardiovascular Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Heart disease mortality</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Acute and chronic coronary heart disease morbidity</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Effects with Suggestive Evidence of a Causal Association with ETS Exposure
Developmental Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Spontaneous abortion</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Adverse impact on cognition and behavior</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Respiratory Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Exacerbation of cystic fibrosis</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Decreased pulmonary function</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Carcinogenic Effects</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Cervical cancer</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#c8a858 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=3>Estimated Annual Morbidity and Mortality IN NONSMOKERS Associated with ETS Exposure</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentb width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff rowSpan=2>Condition</TD><TD class=contentb width="69%" bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=2>Number of People or Cases</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentb width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>in the U.S.</TD><TD class=contentb width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>in California</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentb width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Developmental Effects</TD><TD width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD><TD width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Low birthweight</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>9,700 - 18,600 cases</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>1,200 - 2,200 cases</TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>1,900 - 2,700 deaths</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>120 deaths</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentb width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Respiratory Effects in Children</TD><TD width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD><TD width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Middle ear infection</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>0.7 to 1.6 million physician office visits</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>78,600 to 188,700 physician office visits</TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Asthma induction</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>8,000 to 26,000 new cases</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>960 to 3120 new cases</TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Asthma exacerbation</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>400,000 to 1,000,000 children</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>48,000 to 120,000 children</TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Bronchitis or pneumonia in infants and toddlers
(18 months and under)</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>150,000 to 300,000 cases 7,500 to 15,000

hospitalizations 136 - 212 deaths</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>18,000 to 36,000 cases 900 to 1800

hospitalizations 16 - 25 deaths</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentb width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Cancer</TD><TD width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD><TD width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Lung</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>3000 deaths</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>360 deaths</TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Nasal sinus</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>N/A</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>N/A</TD></TR><TR><TD class=contentb width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Cardiovascular Effects</TD><TD width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD><TD width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff> </TD></TR><TR><TD class=content width="31%" bgColor=#ffffff>Ischemic heart disease</TD><TD class=content width="35%" bgColor=#ffffff>35,000 - 62,000 deaths</TD><TD class=content width="34%" bgColor=#ffffff>4,200 - 7,440 deaths</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

1997 National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). The Health Effects of Passive Smoking. A tobacco industry lawsuit delayed this report’s release, but its conclusions were unaltered.
Full report (http://www.health.gov.au/nhmrc/advice/nhmrc/foreword.htm)

QUOTE The review of the scientific evidence found positive associations between passive smoking and the following diseases: asthma in children, lower respiratory illness, lung cancer, major coronary events and other illnesses.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250 align=right bgColor=#336600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff>In 1993 Big Tobacco sued the U.S. EPA in a North Carolina court and won on procedural grounds. The EPA appealed and in 2002 the 4th Circuit Count of Appeals threw out Big Tobacco's suit.
Critique of original ruling... (http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/Extra/hotdocs/OsteenArticle.htm)

Federal judge says: "It is beyond dispute that Secondhand smoke is a carcinogen." (Sayville Inn v. County of Suffolk, 98-CV-4527 E.D.N.Y. 1998)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Updated research on respiratory diseases and lung cancer summarized by Surgeon General and National Research Council in 1986. Quantified problem, defined Secondhand smoke as indoor air pollution and serious environmental toxin.
Full report (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ets/etsindex.cfm) | Summary (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsfs.html)

QUOTE Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, EPA has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the U.S. presents a serious and substantial public health risk.

In adults:

ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. non-smokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.

In children:

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.

ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.

ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.

ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
1991 U.S. National Institute for Safety and Health. Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace: Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects.
Full report (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/91108_54.html)

QUOTE Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is potentially carcinogenic to occupationally exposed workers.

Research on the toxicity and carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke has demonstrated that the health risk from inhaling tobacco smoke is not limited to the smoker, but also includes those who inhale ETS.

[Authoritative] reviews estimated the relative risk of lung cancer to be approximately 1.3 for a non-smoker living with a smoker compared to a non-smoker living with a non-smoker.

Recent evidence suggests a possible association between exposure of non-smokers to ETS and an increased risk of heart disease.

By 1986, 15 years ago, there was strong consensus that Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, and respiratory problems in children:
1986 U.S. Surgeon General Report: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking.
Full report (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr_1986.htm)

QUOTE 1. Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy non-smokers.

2. The children of parents who smoke, compared with the children of non-smoking parents, have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures.

3. Simple separation of smokers and non-smokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke.
1986 National Research Council. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects.
Full report (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309037301/html/)

QUOTE Considering the evidence as a whole, ETS increases the incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers.

Since children exposed to ETS from parental smoking have an increased frequency of pulmonary symptoms and respiratory infections, it is prudent to eliminate ETS exposure from the environments of small children.
1986 National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Effects of Passive Smoking on Health.

QUOTE There is strong evidence to suggest that maternal smoking after birth is associated with increased diseases of the lower respiratory tract for the first year of life.

Council notes that the epidemiological evidence shows that inhalation of passive smoke by healthy individuals and those with pre-existing respiratory disease commonly causes acute irritant effects in the upper, and, to a less extent, the lower respiratory tracts. There are sufficient data to indicate that asthmatics suffer significant acute effects following exposure to passive smoke.

Council notes that there is mounting epidemiological evidence that passive smoking may increase the risk of occurrence of lung cancer.
The World Health Organization (http://tobacco.who.int/page.cfm?pid=43) reaches similar conclusions about the dangers of Secondhand smoke.

See what happens when you cite a couple of "funny men" as your source. :p

Desnudo

03-31-2005, 04:34 PM

True dat.

You never struck me as one to roll with the homies.

HomerJSimpson

03-31-2005, 04:35 PM

You never struck me as one to roll with the homies.

I bet he has rolled a few homies in his time. :D

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 04:36 PM

Sabotai, I'm as dedicated & unlikely to ever quit until they're pried from my cold dead fingers smoker as I think you're likely to find these days, so I surely relate to a lot of what you describe, but ... something in there rings a bell in my head.

I can't but wonder, have you been tested (pretty thoroughly) for some sort of chemical imbalance that nicotine was somehow counteracting? I get the screaming fits as bad as they come when I'm without nicotine for an hour or so, and I'm certainly wound about as tightly as you'll get (with or w/out the smokes), but something about the way you described it AND the fact that it's something you were familiar with BEFORE you ever smoked, well, it just makes me think that there might be something else at work on you chemically/physically. And if the nicotine helped, then there might be a way to get similar relief from some other form of the same thing.

Something that might be worth a try for you, just to see if it would work/help, is the Ariva "cigalette". Basically, it's like a uber-Altoid mint, made of powdered compressed tobacco. Kinda like smokeless tobacco, except in a mint about the size of your pinkie nail ... and you don't have to spit ;) They are my survival trick for situations where I absolutely cannot smoke/catch a break to smoke. Enough nicotine to mimic the effects of a cigarette short term. Kind of hard to find sometimes, but I know that CVS stores carry them behind the counter. Sounds like they might be worth trying, at least to see if you can get some of the benefits without some of the negatives.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 04:39 PM

If you're still not convinced after reading all the studies below, I would invite you over and watch what happens when my wife is in a smoke filled room.

That's too bad, seriously.

But she has not one more fucking iota of right to go where she pleases & do as she pleases within the confines of the law than I do. And most particularly not one damned bit more right to enjoy, say, dining out, than I do.

sabotai

03-31-2005, 04:49 PM

I can't but wonder, have you been tested (pretty thoroughly) for some sort of chemical imbalance that nicotine was somehow counteracting? I get the screaming fits as bad as they come when I'm without nicotine for an hour or so, and I'm certainly wound about as tightly as you'll get (with or w/out the smokes),

No, never got tested or anything. I did date (and kind of still do) a psych major (now going for her PhD) for several years and she's pretty convinced that I have at least social anxiety, and probably more. But, I don't have health insurance, so...no therapy and no drugs for me.

I'll try out the Ariva thing. Might as well give it a shot, and probably cheaper than therapy and drugs.

and you don't have to spit

I never had to spit when I smoked cigarettes. But when I would smoke a cigar....damn. I HAD to be outside to smoke a cigar for the spitting alone (or have at least a few drinks lined up)

dubb93

03-31-2005, 05:18 PM

Honolulu_Blue, your last post is nice and all, but I still don't see anything in there that hasn't already been covered by my last post. That is filled with percentages instead of hard numbers. B/c the hard numbers would make them look like complete idiots, arguing over increases of 2:1,000,000.

I already covered some of those studies, and it seems you included pieces of the 1993 EPA study that was tossed out by the federal court. I read pieces of the 2004 report, but stopped when I didn't see any hard numbers and saw that they tossed out a study (for no reason) when it didn't support their conclusion. The only reason they cited was that there wasn't a big enough study group on that study. Just not enough hard facts in there, mainly they have the conclusion without any real proof to back it up. I believe you about your wife, but her rights don't trump anyone elses rights. She has smoke free places to go, smokers are allowed to go to places where smoking is allowed. You don't see smokers grouping together and trying to make all non-smoking places allow people to smoke in them. Let us each have our own hang out spots.

As a side note the "patriotic" part was my own feelings. And I see where you are coming about the gay rights, but I see no difference here. I hate gays so I don't frequent gay bars. I don't go out and try to close them down, I just don't go to them. I feel they have the same rights I do and vote FOR gay rights every time they come up for vote, even though I can't stand them.

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 05:18 PM

I never had to spit when I smoked cigarettes.

Heh. I was actually referring to the spitting required with smokeless tobacco products (dip, snuff, etc.).

Give Ariva a try, usually priced about the same as a pack of cigarettes, so no net gain/loss there. If it's enough of a nicotine jolt to allow me to survive meetings, air travel, etc. without it being tooooo bad, then it should be enough of a dose to at least let you figure whether it was the nicotine that was helping your situation or something else (be it psychological or whatever).

dubb93

03-31-2005, 05:39 PM

Keep in mind in all of those studies, when they cite an increase of 25%, it is a 25% increase over the normal 10 out of 1,000,000 people, which would be just 2.5 people in a million. Nowhere else have I seen any more of science take such a little increase and make it sound like such a big number. That is exactly why they work in percentages in these studies, and not the hard numbers.

So if second hand smoke caused an increase of cases of lung cancer by 25% in people in the US 680 people would die of lung cancer each year b/c of second hand smoke (that is assuming that they are really caused by that and not factories pumping smoke into the environment or some other form of "smoke"). While 2,750 people would die each year as a result of lung cancer that has nothing to do with smoking period(second hand or first hand smoke).

I did the math, the EPA's own study says that 1:100,000 die from lung cancer each year with no regard to smoke. They just develop it. So an increase of 25%, like some of those studies claim would be 2.5 in a million. The last census says we have 275 million people in the country.

sabotai

03-31-2005, 06:12 PM

Heh. I was actually referring to the spitting required with smokeless tobacco products (dip, snuff, etc.).

Ah.....ew.

I had a friend who used to spit a lot when he smoked so I thought you were refering to that. But yeah, not having to spit stinky, brown crap is a huge plus for any product I buy. :)

HomerJSimpson

03-31-2005, 09:18 PM

Statewide smoking ban approved
By SUSAN ABRAMSON | Thursday, March 31, 2005, 07:07 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Senate gave final approval today to a statewide ban on smoking in most enclosed public places that allow minors.

The legislation will allow smoking in bars and restaurants that do not serve customers younger than 18 or employ anyone younger than 18. Protecting children and employees from the hazards of secondhand smoke is the intent of the bill, lawmakers said.

Eleven states have banned smoking in public places; four of them, including Florida, still allow smoking in most bars.

The bill wouldn’t affect the two dozen municipalities across Georgia that already have passed local smoking ordinances. For example, Decatur’s all-out ban on smoking in indoor public places and workplaces begins Friday. For nine months the city had allowed smoking only after 9 p.m. in most of restaurants and bars.

Under the bill, smoking still would be allowed at Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, outdoor sports venues, retail tobacco shops and outdoor places of employment. The hotels could designate up to 20 percent of their rooms for smoking.

When asked for comment, one Senator said "Well, it might decrease income in some restaurants, but at least we don't have to worry about eating out with that Jon from Monticello anymore."

:D

JonInMiddleGA

03-31-2005, 09:37 PM

:D

There's also a recently elected state Sen. who will find a much different reception when he comes calling at my door next year. And a 1st term state Rep. who retains my support for doing exactly what he said he would do when I confronted him on this issue -- he fought a good fight, he voted just as he said he would, I won't hold him responsible for the outcome. These other sorry bastards however ... their clock is ticking.

Ragone

04-01-2005, 01:06 AM

Every time my uncle drinks a beer, he gets behind the wheel of his car (you are aware, I assume, that the average alcoholic drives drunk 30 times for each DUI). Thankfully, he hasn't killed anyone (yet), but I'd say drunk driving is a pretty goddamned big public health issue.

Thats it, lets just ban alcohol in public as well! cause if we do that.. nobody will ever go out!

JimmyWint

04-05-2005, 10:13 PM

Hey Guys...The results are in...Appleton Will be Smoke Free as of July 1st.

After giving this a lot of thought I did go ahead and vote for the Ban. I figured I am a non-smoker and I would enjoy a non smoke environment. I do not believe that the Government should dictate to business what they can and can't do though. I am hoping the surrounding communities now take action, so there is a level playing field for the whole area. Interestingly Appleton has a population of around 70,000 and under 20,000 voted. I was suprised by the small turnout....The results Follow.

Appleton approves smoking ban

Appleton voters stand behind a citywide workplace smoking ban.

The question: Shall the City of Appleton adopt an ordinance to ban smoking in all indoor public places, including public transportation, and additionally provide for enforcement of said ban as well as penalties for violations thereof, to become effective July 1, 2005?

Here’s the latest vote totals as of 9:25 p.m. Tuesday:

16 of 16 Districts

Yes: 9,655 — 57 percent

No: 7,399 — 43 percent

sabotai

04-05-2005, 10:18 PM

After giving this a lot of thought I did go ahead and vote for the Ban. I figured I am a non-smoker and I would enjoy a non smoke environment. I do not believe that the Government should dictate to business what they can and can't do though.

Well, apparently you do.

dubb93

04-05-2005, 10:26 PM

Well, apparently you do.

I wasn't going to be the first to say anything, but since you already did.....

JimmyWint

04-05-2005, 10:38 PM

99% of the time I am for less Government and NO Government intrusion...I guess this was the 1%. I hope it never comes back to bite me, but I voted with my heart and not my head this time. I let those tree huggers get the best of me ARGH!

Drake

04-06-2005, 10:55 AM

Wow, that vote was actually a lot closer than I would have expected.

Honolulu_Blue

04-06-2005, 11:11 AM

Congrats to JW and the residents of Appleton!! You have taken a step to make your little corner of the world a better place...

JimmyWint

04-06-2005, 01:23 PM

Sounds like it may now face a legal battle...

Smoking ban passes

Foes set to mount court fight

By Steve Wideman
Post-Crescent staff writer

APPLETON — Wisconsin’s toughest smoking ban will take effect here this summer after voters on Tuesday approved a prohibition on lighting up in all workplaces.

But the ban could face a court challenge from businesses fearing a loss of revenue when smoking is banned.

A binding referendum — banning smoking in workplaces, including restaurants and bars throughout the city, and in the recently re-energized downtown entertainment area — passed voter scru-tiny by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin.

The Common Council in February sent the question to voters after proponents of the smoking ban gathered enough petition signatures to force a referendum under the state’s direct legislation law.

“We are extremely excited and I thank all of the hundreds of volunteers that went out in the cold, snow, wind and ice to collect all the signatures to get it to this point, and to the voters of Appleton for doing what they knew was right. We are going to have a much healthier community,” said Connie Olson, executive director of Community Action for Tobacco Free Living, a volunteer group that spearheaded the workplace smoking ban.

Robbie Johnson, president of Citizens for Responsible Regulation, which opposed the ban, said his group is disappointed.

“We had a lot of people working hard to get the issue defeated, but in the end they (proponents) outspent us 20-to-1 and didn’t fully disclose how much money they took in and spent. In the end, the public is going to lose,” Johnson said.

Johnson said he expects his group, comprised primarily of bar owners, to begin work later this week on a legal challenge to the referendum’s proceedings.

“The state’s direct legislation law says you can’t use a referendum like this to repeal a specific ordinance. They (proponents) cite existing legislation at least three times,” Johnson said. “You can’t make law if you can’t obey the law. It’s going to be an ugly court fight, but we have an obligation for the public to fight this.”

“We pretty much anticipated a court challenge because the other side had thrown up roadblocks to pretty much everything we’ve done,” Olson said. “We are very hopeful whatever challenge comes up that we are prepared to overcome it. We are prepared to fight to the end.”

Stevie Schmidt, chairman of Clean Air Works, a political action group that circulated petitions leading to the referendum, said the ban is long overdue.

“It’s a gift to the residents who voted. It’s a gift to Appleton and it’s a gift to the future of Appleton, to all our grandchildren who will be out there waitressing to get through college or tending bar or working in any capacity,” Schmidt said.

Appleton’s ban is tougher than that of Madison, the only other Wisconsin municipality to have a comprehensive workplace ban. Among more lenient clauses in Madison’s ban is allowing smoking in private clubs while Appleton’s bans the practice.

According to state law, the ordinance is officially on the books upon publication in the city’s official newspaper, The Post-Crescent. Publication has to occur within 10 days of the election. The language of the ordinance states it will be effective as of July 1.

Olson said the three-month delay is intended to help businesses concerned with loss of revenue.

“The reason we didn’t put it into effect right away is because we wanted a transition period for all the establishments to be able to move into this and do the things they need to do to feel comfortable that this is going to work for them,” Olson said.

Olson said her group will be available to assist business with education efforts.

“That’s what the coalition is really about, educating people,” Olson said.

Schmidt said she is happy with the 56 percent who voted in favor of the ban.

“I’m happy with any majority,” Schmidt said.

Olson said her group is ready to take the smoking ban effort to other Fox Cities communities.

“Appleton was the first place we wanted to start this because it usually starts in larger communities,” Olson said. “We will go into surrounding communities as they want us to. We didn’t do this in Appleton without the support of the people.

“When surrounding communities hear how successful this effort has been I think we will hear from a lot of them.”

Ben E Lou

05-21-2005, 07:59 AM

Crapshoot

05-21-2005, 08:18 AM

I just read this thread. It is a little stunning to me how many of you are pro-freedom, but only if it is convenient for you and yours. Sheesh. You can't handle smoke? Then don't go to or work in places where it is allowed. It really is that simple. I don't like smoke one bit, so I don't eat in places that have a non-enclosed smoking section. Period.

Why is it legal when marijuana is not ? I'm in favor of allowing smoking, but not in public where you're exposing other people to your smoke- your rights do not supercede others rights to a healthy environment,. In private bars etc, I see absolutely no reason to ban smoking unless the bar owner chooses to do so.

Ben E Lou

05-21-2005, 08:24 AM

Why is it legal when marijuana is not ?Marijuana should be legal, too. Duh.

I'm in favor of allowing smoking, but not in public where you're exposing other people to your smoke- your rights do not supercede others rights to a healthy environment,.When you say "in public," do you mean outdoors, or what? If it is on GOVERNMENT-owned property, then it is within their jurisdiction to ban it there, sure. However, for example, if a business owner says, "No smoking inside my building, but you can smoke on the land that I own right outside the building," then there ya go.

In private bars etc, I see absolutely no reason to ban smoking unless the bar owner chooses to do so.Ditto for restaurants, office buildings, and the like. You don't like the way they do business? Then don't go there.

Sharpieman

05-21-2005, 08:41 AM

I really don't care about the rights of smokers. They're smoking isn't anything more than an addiction. Why should I have to go pick and choose because of someone elses nasty addiction?

Ben E Lou

05-21-2005, 09:01 AM

I really don't care about the rights of smokers. They're smoking isn't anything more than an addiction. Why should I have to go pick and choose because of someone elses nasty addiction?Last time I checked, making a non-felonious bad decision wasn't cause for forfeiture of rights--not in THIS country, at least.

Freedom is fine, but only as long as you're doing something I approve of.Boiled it down to the essence for ya.

wade moore

05-21-2005, 09:53 AM

As much as I HATE smoking, I'm with SD on this one... The government can ban it in places they own (Buildings, streets, parks, etc)... but not in privately owned locations (private buildings, private streets, private parks, etc)...

So.. If smoking is that much of a problem for me, I won't go to that place... if enough of the community feels that way, it will not be profitable for the business owner and he'll have to do a cost/benefit analysis on whether he/she wants to keep allowing smoking. Simple as that.

If we can ban smoking, why can't we ban eating with a napkin tucked into your shirt? Or talking loud? Or children at restaurants? Or shorts? Or jeans? Or bad Musak (ok, maybe that SHOULD be banned ;) )...

st.cronin

05-21-2005, 03:29 PM

You all are a bunch of loony libertarians!

Craptacular

05-21-2005, 11:24 PM

You all are a bunch of loony libertarians!
So are you one of Madison's many hippiecrit liberals?

stkelly52

05-22-2005, 12:38 AM

When you say "in public," do you mean outdoors, or what? If it is on GOVERNMENT-owned property, then it is within their jurisdiction to ban it there, sure. However, for example, if a business owner says, "No smoking inside my building, but you can smoke on the land that I own right outside the building," then there ya go.

Ditto for restaurants, office buildings, and the like. You don't like the way they do business? Then don't go there.

So by that logic, If I own my own business, and I want to say that I will not serve any blacks, then that is OK because it is my business and I should be able to run it anyway that I please.

Or if I have a business, I should be allowed to ignore all of the OSHA rules and regulations. If my employees don't like it then they can just get a job somewhere else.

st.cronin

05-22-2005, 03:29 AM

So are you one of Madison's many hippiecrit liberals?

I'm so out of place here you wouldn't believe it. I actually voted for George Bush. On purpose.

Craptacular

05-25-2005, 09:37 PM

I'm so out of place here you wouldn't believe it. I actually voted for George Bush. On purpose.
I would believe it, because I am as well.

Ben E Lou

05-25-2005, 10:21 PM

So by that logic, If I own my own business, and I want to say that I will not serve any blacks, then that is OK because it is my business and I should be able to run it anyway that I please.

Or if I have a business, I should be allowed to ignore all of the OSHA rules and regulations. If my employees don't like it then they can just get a job somewhere else.I really have no problem with either, from a big-picture view, although in both cases, the laws should be obeyed. That being said, I'm not a fan of the current laws in these two cases. I fully admit that maybe it is because I've lived in Metro Atlanta for all of my adult life--nearly 15 years--a place where market forces would very easily override a business who tried to get away with either of the scenarios above. Perhaps if I lived somewhere else, I'd feel more of a need for government intrusion in these areas

JimmyWint

04-05-2006, 09:28 AM

We had yet another vote on the Smoking ban here in town to modify our smoking ban to only be in Bars as opposed to all workplaces. A total ban won out again...

Smoke ban survives

57% of Appleton voters say 'no' to change

By Steve Wideman
Post-Crescent staff writer

APPLETON — One of the state's toughest smoking ban will remain in effect after voters on Tuesday rejected efforts to exempt bars and other businesses.

Just more than 57 percent of voters — 11,559 to 8,674 — favored keeping the ban in place. That is virtually the same margin by which the ban was put into place after a referendum last April, although 2,956 more voters turned out for Tuesday's vote than did last year.

Smoking ban advocates are hailing the vote as a victory for healthy lifestyles while bar owners are predicting some bars may go out of business.

"We are thrilled with the vote. This lays the groundwork for us to go state-wide," said Connie Olson, executive director of the Community Action for Tobacco Free Living Coalition, which first brought the issue of secondhand smoke danger to Appleton.

Appleton's workplace smoking ban has been in place since July 1 and, according to bar owners, has resulted in significant loss of income.

Bar owners agree the next step is pursuing a statewide smoking ban.

Terry Harvath, owner of the Wishing Well Tavern, 2709 E. Newberry St., and head of the Outagamie County Tavern League, said the league will push for a statewide ban to level the playing field among competitors.

"That's the only way we can survive," he said.

Olson said she would welcome help from bar owners.

"If they want to do a statewide effort that is as strong as Appleton, come on board, boys. We are ready to go, but it has to be 100 percent smoke-free, including bars," Olson said.

Ruthie Coley of Appleton, who voted against changing the existing ban, said campaign signs declaring "Vote yes to smart smoking ban in restaurants" may have confused some voters into thinking they were upholding the current ban instead of voting to change the ban. A "yes" vote was in favor of overturning the ban.

"At first glance, if a person was unaware of what exactly they were voting for it could have made a person think they were voting yes to banning smoking in restaurants," said Coley, a former smoker. "I think a lot of people probably voted the wrong way because of the signs out there. They (voters) just weren't thinking it through.

"I think it's wonderful (the ban was upheld). Nonsmokers should be able to go wherever they want. Smokers can go to the same places. They just can't smoke anywhere they want."

Robbie Johnson, spokes-man for the Appleton Coalition for Business Owners' Rights, a political action group that collected enough signatures on petitions to force Tuesday's vote, said he was disappointed by the outcome.

"We tried our hardest," said Johnson, manager of The Bar on the Avenue, 427 W. College Ave. "I'm not a smoker and don't own a business but I feel sorry for the people who do. We had an opportunity to help small business in Appleton. For whatever reason we can't do that.

Johnson said some bar owners are now considering closing or laying off staff.

"The bar owners have some serious decisions to make," he said. "You can't sit here and lose money every day and stay open. Unfortunately, this (vote) is going to cost real jobs for real people."

Sharon Reader, owner of Emmett's, 139 N. Richmond St., said the vote means an immediate end to lunches at her bar and the end of full-time jobs for two employees.

"My nighttime business has always supported my daytime business. Since the ban went into effect and I lost 28 percent of my nighttime business, I can no longer afford to stay open for lunch for the first time in 16 years," Reader said.

Stevie Schmidt, chairwoman of Clean Air Works, a political action committee that circulated petitions leading to last year's referendum establishing the ban, said the vote settles the health versus economics issue.

"Obviously, the people in Appleton care. The vote margin was very strong," Schmidt said. "This means that health is most important to most people in this community. This vote should make an impact on our state legislators."

Harvath said he was surprised by the outcome.

"I thought it was actually going to go in our favor, especially with surrounding communities passing something similar to what we wanted and this wasn't a total repeal," Harvath said.

Harvath said Appleton bars remain at a competitive disadvantage with bars in neighboring communities "but the voters have spoken."

"The bar owners will fight tooth and nail to stay in business, to come up with new gimmicks to bring people in the bars," he said.

While planning begins on a statewide ban identical to Appleton's, Olson said local education efforts will continue.

"Grand Chute is next," Olson said. "We are coming to help you step up to the plate with Appleton. We will work with the Grand Chute governing body to help them understand why it is important to have a 100 percent smoke-free workplace law in effect."

Dr. Tony Phillips, an Appleton oncologist, said the vote shows Appleton residents understand the dangers of secondhand smoke.

"The people understand removing secondhand smoke from workplaces is the right thing to do," Phillips said. "Now we clearly have to find a way to spread this to the state and surrounding communities."