Alcohol and Crime - heck with banning smoking in bars, maybe ban beer?

[The Straight Story]

# Published studies suggest that as many as 86% of homicide offenders, 37% of assault offenders, 60% of sexual offenders, up to 57% of men and 27% of women involved in marital violence, and 13% of child abusers were drinking at the time of the offense.
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, October 1997

# Among spousal abuse victims, 75% of the incidents were reported to have involved an offender who had been drinking. By contrast, an estimated 31% of stranger victimizations in which the victim could determine the absence or the presence of alcohol were perceived to be alcohol-related.
- Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002

# 35% of violent victimizations involve the use of alcohol.
- US Dept of Justice, 2002

# Each year, an average of nearly 3 million victims of violence perceived the use of alcohol by their attacker.
- Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002

# In 1996, Alcohol use at the time of the offense was commonly found among those convicted of public-order crimes, a type of offense most highly represented among those on probation and in jail. Among violent offenders, 41% of probationers, 41% of those in local jails, 38% of those in State prisons, and 20% of those in Federal prisons were estimated to have been drinking when they committed the crime for which they were convicted
- Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002

# In 1999, a Johns Hopkins University study found that almost one-third of people who are murdered or die of non-traffic related injuries were legally drunk at the time of death.
- Drug strategies: Millennium Hangover: Keeping score on alcohol, 2002

# In many domestic violence cases, both the assailant and the victim have been drinking. Half of alcoholic women have been victims of domestic violence.
- Drug strategies: Millennium Hangover: Keeping score on alcohol, 2002

# Rates of male to female intimate violence are two to four times higher among men with alcohol problems than among men without alcohol problems. Female to male intimate violence is about two times more frequent in relationships where men have alcohol problems than in other relationships.
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Journal of Substance Abuse Caetano et al 2000

# In a study by UCLA, in violent acts involving adolescents, drugs and/or alcohol were frequently used by both the assailant (58% of the males and 55% of the females) and the victim (56% for the males and 66% for the females).
- Arch Pediatrics Adolescent Med 2002 Aug; 156(8): 831-5

# State child welfare records indicate that substance abuse is one of the top two problems exhibited by families in 81% of the reported child abuse cases.
- Connecticut Clearinghouse, The Relationship Between Parental Alcohol or other Drug Problems and Child Maltreatment, April 1999

# Alcohol abuse frequently plays a role in child abuse and neglect cases. Alcohol and other drug abuse by a parent or guardian is involved in 7 out of 10 cases of child abuse and neglect; 90 percent of child welfare professionals cite alcohol as the drug of choice in these cases.
- Drug strategies: Millennium Hangover: Keeping score on alcohol, 2002

# According to a 1993 study conducted by the Research Institute on Addictions, nearly nine in ten alcoholic women were physically or sexually abused as children.
- Drug strategies: Millennium Hangover 2002

# About 20% of suicide victims are alcoholic.
- National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1993

# In 2000, approximately 3 million youths were at risk for suicide during the past year. Youths who reported past year alcohol use were twice as likely to attempt suicide.
- SAMSHA, NHSDA Report, July 2002


http://www.vpcla.org/factAlcohol.htm

Second hand smoke, it seems, causes many less problems than alcohol. 'Second hand drinking', as it were, is a huge problem across the board.

So now that we have dealt with smokers and how evil they are, and how much they drive up our health costs, should we now turn our attention to an even bigger issue??

Or maybe we should just leave people alone to live their lives and make their own choices. We don't want the religious folks giving us their morality, and frankly maybe most of us also don't want others giving us theirs.

[rman]

1. i like my stories straight

and i love your sig

[The Straight Story]

2. Just for the record

I am against banning beer :)

And thanks, though maybe it is due time to change that old sig....


My view is that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking - and if people are so gung ho to ban smoking places then they ought to be as keen to ban drinking. It won't happen though...

[mondo joe]

3. More dangerous?

Alcohol, properly used, doesn't harm anyone.

Cigarettes, with any use, harms anyone in the immediate area.

Sort of an odd comparison.

[rman]

6. how does the harm of cigarettes

compare to car- and industry exhaust?

talk about odd comparison.

"any use"? seriously: one cigarette a day "harms anyone in the immediate area"? sure - but to what extent?

[mondo joe]

8. Good question - please note like many dems I support strong controls on

auto and factory emissions. Don't you?

It's perfectly consistent to support cleaner air in a variety of ways.

[rman]

15. The question remains:

how does air pollution by cigarette smoke compare to air pollution by cars and industry?

I think the former is insignificant compared to the latter.

This i think this should be weighted against personal freedoms. Pollution by cars and industry in and of itself does not benefit anyone - but smoking cigarettes does. I'm wondering if perhaps you are of the persuasion that anything that could harm anyone - even if ever so slightly - should be banned.
I think the downside of banning smoking is disproportionate to the benefits.

[mondo joe]

17. One doesn't depend on the other.

How does air pollution by cigarette smoke compare to air pollution by cars and industry?

It doesn't matter to the extent that the electorate is not obliged to tackle problems in any set order. They can opt to deal with the worst, with the easiest, or with all in varying degrees.

I'm not into banning cigarettes, but just as I respect the desire to mitigate auto pollution I respect the right to mitigate second hand smoke.

The people may someday opt to ban car exhaust, and that wouldn't be bad, but it's unlikely to happen since we have a culture and economy that depends on cars.

I don't see most smoking bans as infringing on personal freedoms - I don't believe poisoning others is a right (though I believe poisoning yourself should be).

Although I am not a particular proponent of smoking bans, I am decidedly opposed to inaccuracy and fallacy - hence my response to the OP.

[rman]

22. As i pointed out,

smoking is more then "poisoning others" - certainly not comparable to the poisoning of others by means of car pollution. Smoking is also a pleasure to the smoker, while car pollution as such is not a pleasure to anyone.

If you're serious about poisoning others not being a right, then why be selective?
And why frame smoking as though its only effect is "poisoning others"?


Back to your original point: "Cigarettes, with any use, harms anyone in the immediate area."
Compared to "Alcohol, properly used, doesn't harm anyone"

How about "Cigarettes, properly used, don't harm anyone".

And "Alcohol, with any use, can harm anyone." (i think "any use" includes abuse)

What i mean is, i think you make a skewed comparison.

[mondo joe]

27. It doesn't matter if smoking does things other than poison people -

if the electorate decides it wants to prohibit that poisoning.

Car pollution may not be a pleasure to anyone, but getting to and from work is a necessity. You live in a culture that now necessitates driving - not so smoking. Just the same, many people do in fact seek to mitigate the negative effects of auto exhaust by supporting emissions controls, and encouraging alternatives.

Why be selective? Because not all things are possible - not all at the same time anyway. People will decide what they want to handle and when.

But your follow up is completely inaccurate - alcohol can be used in ways that don't harm anyone. The same is not true of cigarettes. That said, I don't care if you want to harm yourself with either.

"Alcohol, with any use, can harm anyone" is not accurate, because the word "any" would necessarily include those ways which are harmless, rendering your sentence internally inconsistent.

We have laws to prevent or mitigate alcohol use from negatively impacting others. Smoking bans do the same with cigarettes.

[400Years]

39. Are you against having a smoking establishment?

Why not allow at least on bar for the types that want to drink and smoke? You don't have to go in there.

[mondo joe]

43. The one time I was faced with this on a ballot I voted against the

smoking ban.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons FOR such bans, and I've yet to see any response to those reasons that wasn't a fallacy.

[400Years]

44. I've never seen anyone say they were against non smoking establishments

but I have seen people come out against allowing for the existence of a smoking establishment.

[mondo joe]

50. Your post is disputing something no one, to my knowledge, has

claimed.

Yes, people have advocated prohibiting smoking establishments. I'm not one of them, but they do have legitimate arguments.

[400Years]

55. I guess you've missed out.

There are quite a few cities where they have banned smoking in all bars.

[mondo joe]

56. I think you misunderstand.

Yes, there are cities that have banned smoking in all bars - I live in one.

As I mentioned previously, when that issue was on the Seattle ballot I voted against the ban.

But the ban advocates have some legitimate points, and I find most of the responses to those points to be fallacious.

[400Years]

58. I do understand that

and we had a vote in our city too. The majority of the bars and restaurants where smoke free but there were a few in which the staff were all smokers and the ban ended that. That may be a good thing but it's not up to us to force somebody to live a healthy lifestyle.

I still see nothing wrong with letting someone have a bar where all the tobacco addicts can go.

I just see those who are against that as just getting off on picking on a minorty.

[mondo joe]

61. It's not up to us to force somebody to live a healthy lifestyle,

true, but it is up to us to prohibit certain activities or materials that impact the health of others.

Take asbestos siding or lead paint for example, or dumping toxic materials.

If you see nothing wrong with smoking bars then let your vote reflect that, and if you choose to do so, make reasoned arguments to those who vote differently.

But to argue that others don't have the right to decide these things flays in the face of reality.

[400Years]

63. I've made it pretty clear

If bar in which the people who work there are smokers and they want to have a place where people can smoke why can't they have a smoking establishment? If you don't smoke you don't have to go there. How much more of an argument do you want? It would not impact the health of anybody who doesn't want to go in there.

[mondo joe]

66. You've asked a question, not made an argument.

And your opponents would counter you in a variety of ways.

They might say anyone should have the right to enter any bar or restaurant without risking second hand smoke. They might say employees within their city or state should have the right to work without having to breathe in second hand smoke.

They might say we don't have asbestos-bars and no-asbestos-bars.

What I am saying is that I don't have much of a dog in this fight. There are two sides to the matter, and though I've so far voted against bans, the arguments against them are growing so riddled with fallacies that I wonder if I voted wisely.

[400Years]

69. Whatever

I already have heard those arguments as far as the right to work, that is why I put in the caveat that "if it is a bar run by smokers for smokers" and the only response to that is they just don't want to allow other people to smoke even if it does not affect non-smokers.

The asbestos analogy doesn't work here.

The argument is that second hand smoke hurts people who don't want to inhale it.
You can't tell me that a bar run by smokers for smokers is forcing anybody to inhale a carcinogen.
Asbestos was banned because in was a widely used building material that caused cancer. Tobacco is something people smoke knowing the risk.

[mondo joe]

71. Why not simply place a visible sign so consumers can make

up their own mind, Asbestos Restaurant or Asbestos Free Restaurant?

Same with food safety rules.

[400Years]

73. This is the case in LA for instance

A B or C regarding their latest food safety inspection.

I have already pointed out the bogus nature of the asbestos example.

[iconoclastNYC]

88. The reason is -- the "free market" for smoke-free bars has failed.

There are no smoke free bars. Do you want to know why? No bar owner is going to unilaterally go smoke free on thier own...they'd immediately lose business because even no smokers would go to the smoking bars because thier smoker friends are too lazy and selfish to step outside to smoke.

That's what's missed in all this. There would be no need for smoking bans if smokers would just step outside and smoke outside. Too many smokers just want to ignore the fact that thier behavior impacts others. Putting aside the dangers to my lungs from breathing smoke-filled air I don't want to have my clothes smell bad.

[iconoclastNYC]

90. All those things are illegal

Drunk Driving...illegal.

Wife beating...illegal.

Smoking in Bars in NYC...illegal.

And you know what? We still have bars here.

If smokers had the decency to smoke outside without having a law force them we woudln't need smoking bans.

The issue is smokers irresponsible behavior. It pollutes indoor air.

[rman]

139. So non-smoker make a choice to hang out with their smoking friends

And (small?) govt has to step in and correct this behavior?

If you don't want to put your lungs in danger and don't want your clothes to smell bad, maybe you should pick other friends, or talk to your friends about their smoking habit. But instead you want the govt to tell your friends not to smoke? WTF. What kind of friendship is it if you go behind their back to get their smoking prohibited? Would you even tell them you voted for such legislation? You got to be kidding me.

[Kingshakabobo]

20. You are comparing the benefits of smoking to the benefit of car exhaust?

Don't you mean to compare the benefit of cars/trucks/autos to the benefit of smoking.

Automobiles are, for the time being, a necessary evil in our economy. Cigarettes? Not so much. I haven't see anyone here talk about banning cigarettes (there may be a few).

BTW, all of the side-effects of alcohol listed in the OP already ARE banned/illegal.

[jus_the_facts]

78. *Necessary* evils of the automobile industry....

...there have been MANY alternatives to the combustion engine invented decades ago but never implemented...and THIS is what happens with car exahust year in and year out to the air we ALL breathe...cigarettes are extremely MINOR in light of this information...
:nopity:


Each car spills a witches’ brew of dangerous gases into the air each year, including an average of:
4,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide
300 kilograms of carbon monoxide
30 kilograms of nitrogen oxide
35 kilograms of ozone-forming hydrocarbons as well as lesser amounts of methane, lead and particulates."

http://www.rco.on.ca/factsheet/fs_b02.html

Thats 9625 pounds of exhaust per car per year. Nearly 5 tons!

[Kingshakabobo]

83. How "minor" is it?

How many dead are OK with you so someone can hang a burning piece of rolled up paper and tobacco from their lip? Give me a figure. The AHA and Surgeon General estimates about 30k deaths/year from second hand smoke. What's a good number for you?

I'm all for reducing auto emissions as much as possible. Question: Why can't we do both?

[jus_the_facts]

95. If something isn't done about 5 TONS of shit pouring out of autos...

..PER CAR PER YEAR..then the entire population will DIE off becuase of it...there's a HUGE difference...and nothing has been done to correct it regardless of *reducing emissions*...people will die from smoking sure..and overeating...drug/alcohol abuse...abuse/murder from drug/alcohol abusers...asbestos...industrial pollution...chemicals in our FOOD...WATER...GROUND...the list goes on and on and on...regardless of any laws to the contrary..because it's virtually impossible to CONTROL anybody or anything but your own self and your own behavior and even THAT is impossible for some people to ever be able to grasp. :nopity:

[Kingshakabobo]

100. Got any other tunes to play on that violin?

Other than: if we can't fix "A" then we shouldn't even TRY to fix "B"......"A" being issues that are already banned/illegal and or issues that progressives feel strongly about fixing.

Or are you a one hit wonder?

For the record, we are not talking about PERSONAL behavior. We are talking about smokers ruining their own health and taking non-smokers with them.

[jus_the_facts]

106. Yeah like drivers who're taking non-drivers down with them....

....same analogy but with much larger implications...and it is ALL about *personal behavior*..smoking is a personal behavior as is driving. :eyes:

:nopity:

[mondo joe]

118. So let's do something about it.

There's no reason to not do anything else in the interim.

[jus_the_facts]

120. People have been saying that for decades...yet not enough...

..or much of anything has been done...not even by Clinton and 'Earth In The Balance' Gore when they were in office. :think:

[mondo joe]

123. Then you should be happy that some cities are doing what little they

can.

Your idea that we can't do anything until we address the most difficult is sort of funny, IMO.

[jus_the_facts]

125. Whatever...it's not MY idea....it's reality....

...and it's not funny at all. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

126. So what are you doing about pollution?

And since no one is doing anything about pollution, why pick on the smoking ban people as if they alone are responsible?

There are lots of advocates for a lot of issues on DU - why not complain that THEY aren't dealing with abortion instead?

[iconoclastNYC]

87. I don't think you are allowed to drive

Your car into a bar and foul the air with your exhaust. Why is i that it's ok for smokers to foul indoor air with thier cig smoke?

[jus_the_facts]

111. Here are a couple links about indoor pollution and vehicle exhaust....

http://www.who.int/indoorair/health_impacts/en/

Indoor cooking and heating with biomass fuels (agricultural residues, dung, straw, wood) or coal produces high levels of indoor smoke that contains a variety of health-damaging pollutants.

There is consistent evidence that exposure to indoor air pollution can lead to acute lower respiratory infections in children under five, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer (where coal is used) in adults.


Small particles with a diameter of 10 microns (PM10) or less are able to penetrate deep into the lungs and appear to have the greatest health-damaging potential

Indoor air pollution from solid fuel use is responsible for more than 1.6 million annual deaths and 2.7% of the global burden of disease (in Disability-Adjusted Life Years or DALYs). This makes this risk factor the second biggest environmental contributor to ill health, behind unsafe water and sanitation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2001/109-9/focus-abs.html

Dont Breathe and Drive? Pollutants Lurk inside Vehicles

Drivers motoring in freeway carpool lanes not only avoid the congestion of traffic in slower neighboring lanes, they may also avoid lung congestion from pollutants that seep into their vehicles as they creep along in bumper-to-bumper traffic. In-vehicle pollutants have been investigated in about two dozen studies over the past two decades, with consistent findings around the world: driving in tightly packed traffic leads to interior concentrations of pollutants that are up to 10 TIMES higher than those in ambient city air.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[rman]

4. people should drink beer, party, etc

instead of plotting global domination.
:thumbsup:

[Jack from Charlotte]

99. I'd be OK with banning light beer. Not strong, tasty beer, however. *

*

[Initech]

5. Didnt they already try that? I believe it was called Prohibition?

And didnt that fail big time?

[rman]

7. yeah but banning smokes will be a big success

ok maybe not

[mondo joe]

9. Smokes aren't banned. n/t

[rman]

11. Obviously

Hence the OP's proposal.
:sarcasm:

[Initech]

13. Nope, just like banning weed or contraceptives.

[Jose Diablo]

10. Absolutely

After the smokes, then the booze problem can be attacked.

"There just ain't no end to doin' right."

[SPKrazy]

12. Actually Plenty Of Laws RE: Alcohol On The Books

can't drink and drive
public intoxication
age limits on alcohol
laws prohibiting adults from buying for minors
and others I'm sure

What laws are there for tobacco?

What, can't smoke in a restaurant in some places? Big Whoop! So I don't have to smell the smoke while I eat my dinner.

Who wants to ban smoking? Not me. Just don't smoke where I breathe please.

Thanks

[mongo]

14. It's funny how the "porn causes violence" crowd

is always silent on the effects of alcohol.

[rman]

16. or violent movies for that matter.

video games on the other hand...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Porn Causes Violence???? ROFLMAO!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

seriously, you aren't kidding, there's a crowd out there that actually proclaims that porn causes violence? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What is it, a group of like 3 people who hate sex or something? Porn causing violence? Wow, that's a new one. My god what will they come up with next.

[Kingshakabobo]

40. I remember all the bible-thumpers in a tizzy after Ted Bundy.......

blamed his violence against women, partially at least, on his porn addiction.

[American Tragedy]

18. I couldn't care less what you do to your own body

As far as I'm concerned, you can sit at the table and shoot heroin, so long as you don't force everybody else to share.

I just think it's rather unreasonable to expect everyone to share in some borderline gag-inducing stench and environmental poison, and for people like my mother to be at risk of having a violent allergic reaction and entering anaphylactic shock (she's been hospitalized before), all because somebody can't wait a little while for their fix.

Personally, I'm not an active supporter of the bans, simply because I believe the free market will ultimately prevail on the issue. There are far more non-smokers than smokers, and many of us are vocal now about refusing to go to establishments that tolerate it. In my opinion, businesses increasingly find it to their benefit to go non-smoking of their own volition, if only to get use out of empty smoking-section tables, without governmental compulsion.

[High Plains]

21. I see a "tobacco manufacturer" club has opened in Chicago.

The city has banned smoking indoors, but this club got around it by receiving a permit as a tobacco manufacturer. They make cigarettes on-site for customers to buy and smoke. And guess what? They're owned by RJ Reynolds.

The market is at work. Too bad the bar has to jump through such hoops just to be able to choose to be a smoking-permitted establishment.

[Kingshakabobo]

23. The market is at work???

Owned by RJR? Kinda reminds me of Scaife buying up Coulter books and then bragging about how republicans win in "the free market of ideas."

[High Plains]

26. I guess we'll see if people are willing to pay $9 a pack for the

privilege of smoking in a bar.

I suppose it took someone with the resources (and the incentive) of RJR to research the Chicago law and come up with the loophole.

You certainly can't say the market is at work when the state bans something, can you?

[Kingshakabobo]

30. I guess you can't.

You certainly can't say the market is at work when RJR goes out of it's way to hook kids on cigarettes so they have a nice little addict to last a (shortened) life-time.

Speaking of Chicago. There was a TV anchor here by the name of Walter Jacobson who was sued and forced to pay RJR(or another big tobacco???) a multi-million dollar settlement because he had the NERVE to say that RJR was marketing to kids.

Twenty years later and the truth came out. I wonder if he ever had a cause of action.

Edit: It was Brown&Williamson....$3.5million dollars

[High Plains]

33. Well, I guess we can agree there's no free market involved here.

Government coercion vs. corporate profits.

I just want to be able to sit in a bar and have a smoke with my fellow unhealthy barflies.

[oblivious]

19. Banning smoking in bars is so civilized.

It's so nice to leave the bar without smelling like shit. Not to mention the health benefits of smoke-free recreation.

[rman]

24. How about "non-smoking" and "smoking" bars?

Then both smokers and non-smokers could each enjoy their preferred recreation.

I'm sure there's a market for both, why only cater to one?

[oblivious]

25. Right. Good idea.

[400Years]

48. seems like a reasonable solution to me

[misternormal]

28. Don'tcha just love it when...

... a post like this... intended to inform... is basically ignored...

And it turns into another anti-smoking thread...

I don't know of anyone who smoked a cig and and it got them so they couldn't drive... or made them beat their spouse, or pass out in the gutter...

chuckles...

sorry.

[mondo joe]

29. Intention to inform is useless when it's fallacious.

Cigarettes and alcohol aren't the same thing.

It's fallacious to pretend they are.

[oblivious]

31. Yes, I love it too!

[Kingshakabobo]

32. Don't play dumb. It's not very becoming.

This thread was hardly intended to be an informative post RE:alcohol.

Did you happen to notice this part of the thread title?:"heck with banning smoking in bars"

It was another silly attempt to compare all the, already ILLEGAL/BANNED, side-effects of alcohol abuse to smoking.

For the record: drinking and driving, spousal abuse and sleeping in the gutter are already against the law. :)

[The Straight Story]

34. Silly? Maybe

The idea was to show that if you want to ban smoking (due to it's effects on others) than it logically goes that you want to ban alcohol - and I don't mean an all out ban.

Most people drive home from a bar. Or they drive home from their place of eating after having a few drinks. Therefore they are putting people at risk - a greater risk one could argue - that if those same establishments allowed smoking (and not drinking).

To me they are both silly ideas. The government has some reasons to regulate business but at times it can go beyond it's boundaries. So we are left to say 'If the govt has done X for Y reason it should also do the same for other X's since the Y reason applies.'

So all one has to do is a make a case that Y reason is valid on something else, whip up hysteria, show how it will make everyone's life's better, and we can improve the life of all people (whether they like it or not).

[mondo joe]

35. Your example is already illegal.

Driving drunk is illegal already, precisely because it puts others at risk.

Drinking and smoking present different risks to others, not the same risks. You're arguing the case FOR smoking bans by citing laws already in place AGAINST drinking putting others at risk.

[400Years]

38. too many of you anti-tobacco types don't want smoking and non-smoking bars

That is banning smoking when you won't even allow for a place to be a smoking establishment while another place to be a non-smoking establishment. You are against giving people a choice and that puts you in a situation where you are for banning smoking.

That is the issue most of the anti-smoking types don't want to address.

Nobody forces you to go into a smoking establishment. Yet you don't even want them to exist.

[Kingshakabobo]

41. Second hand smoke is a public health hazard.

You shouldn't have to waive your rights to not inhale easily preventable carcinogens when you work in or patronize a place of public accommodation. Smokers addiction's are becoming more of a PERSONAL problem and not the problem of people around them.

If public health officials and the electorate deem second-hand smoke a danger they are well within precedent to regulate exposure. You can't "waive" your rights to a safe work environment. State and local governments have thousands of laws that deal with public/workplace safety in private establishments and private property.

A few that come to mind:

Asbestos regulations/bans
Hygiene requirements in restaurants/bars
Fire exits
Building structure codes
electrical codes

The only difference is YOUR addiction and the fact that smokers got suckered in to a foul habit they were under the impression they would be able to practice just about anywhere they choose.

[400Years]

46. First of all your assumptions here are wrong

1. I don't smoke (but I don't care if others do).
2. Nobody would be forcing you to go into a bar that is for smokers. (I probably wouldn't patronize a place like that either but I wouldn't give a shit if smokers had a place to have drinks together.)


As far as your feer of second hand smoke, city smog kills way more people yet you aren't whining about that.

[mondo joe]

52. There's another fallacy.

"As far as your feer of second hand smoke, city smog kills way more people yet you aren't whining about that."

In fact, many dems (including those concerned with second hand smoke) favor strong controls on factory and auto emissions. One can be concerned about, and respond to, second hand smoke as well as other hazards.

[400Years]

57. You didn't address my second point

nevertheless, the shit coming out of your tailpipe, by volume, is way more than any smoker will ever produce, and therein lies the absurdity of your concerns.

[mondo joe]

62. I'm happy to address your second point, but offering nothing

but insults is a fallacy that won't win you many converts.

Is anyone forced to enter smoking establishments? No. Just like no one is forced to enter asbestos lined buildings, but we have banned them for health reasons as well.

You might argue that it is preferable to allow for smoking establishments for a number of reasons,and that I think might be more helpful to you.

[400Years]

67. very strange

show me where I insulted anybody in the post above.

The asbestos analogy doesn't work here.

The argument is that second hand smoke hurts people who don't want to inhale it.
You can't tell me that a bar run by smokers for smokers is forcing anybody to inhale a carcinogen.
Asbestos was banned because in was a widely used building material that caused cancer. Tobacco is something people smoke knowing the risk.

[mondo joe]

70. The insult would be right here:

"the shit coming out of your tailpipe, by volume, is way more than any smoker will ever produce".

With regards to asbestos, why can't bars use asbestos provided they put out a warning?

Why can't restarants ignore food safety laws provided they place a visible warning?

Then everyone can decide for themselves.

[400Years]

75. Did I insult the pollution?

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes and insult.

Do you know people who willingly hang out in asbestos filled places?

If somebody wants to they can go eat as much asbestos as they want. There is no law against that.

[mondo joe]

77. It seems I misunderstood your comment - I took you to mean

what I was writing was my "shit".

I can see now what you meant and how I misunderstood. I apologize, sincerely.

[mondo joe]

42. I'm not anti-tobacco. I'm anti-fallacy.

I have never voted for a smoking ban. In fact, I voted against one in Seattle.

But the pro-tobacco arguments are ridiculously fallacious and deserve to be torn down.

As far as my vote is concerned, I'm quite willing to allow for smoking bars. But I also acknowledge there are legitimate arguments for such bans.

[400Years]

47. what fallacy?

I've seen plenty of people clamoring for an outright ban on anybody being able to have a smoking establishment.

[mondo joe]

49. There's a long long list.

Like:

Alcohol should be treated identically (despite the fact that the pose different risks)

Or, one problem can't be addressed until all problems are addressed.

These are both fallacies used as smokescreens, if you will.

The simple matter is that whether or not smoking establishments should be legal is a matter for the electorate to determine, by vote or through representation.

[400Years]

54. I agree with some of that

like the point about alcohol.

But as far as the "one problem can't be addressed until all problems are addressed" statement, I think you are missing the point. Second-hand smoke is such a silly issue when compared to all the things we face that I just can't get worked up about it. I'm not against smoke free establishments but banning smoking establishments (which many here advocate) is over the top.
As far as the electorate thing goes, you are just advocating for the tyranny of the majority.
How would you feel if the eletorate voted to put you and your family in jail just because they didn't like you?

[mondo joe]

60. We must all make choices about what issues we'll handle, and

how and when.

Example: I need to remodel my bathroom - the tiles are falling off the walls and there may be dry rot. Does that mean I won't change a light bulb just because it's not the biggest problem?

Every city faces many problems - they may choose to address some and not others, for a variety of reasons, including where they can actually have an impact.

Then you move onto another fallacy: "How would you feel if the electorate voted to put you and your family in jail just because they didn't like you?"

False comparison - you have not been jailed, and you have not had your civil rights violated in the least "just because they didn't like you".

You're not suggesting the public has no right to set public safety standards or to ban hazardous materials - are you?

[400Years]

65. why do you refuse to address the issue

If smokers want to have a bar of their own why not let them?

Hazardous materials have nothing to do with it.

It's not a false comparison when you are arguing for a tyranny of the majority. That is why we live in a constitutional republic. The bill of rights is about protecting the minority from the majority. Hence, the comparison.

[mondo joe]

68. I'm happy to respond.

If some bars want to have asbestos lined walls why not let them?

Of course hazardous materials have something to do with is. Why shouldn't people be free to take their business to any establishment without risking second hand smoke?

Please remember - I voted AGAINST the ban in Seattle. But the question above is legitimate.

Is it tyranny of the majority to require food safety laws in restaurants? Is it tyranny of the majority to ban asbestos in buildings? Is it tyranny of the majority to impose sexual harassment laws?

Face it - there are MANY laws that MANY people (even liberals) support that are no more or less tyrannical than this.

Your analogy was indeed false - you haven't been put in prison. The bill of rights protects you from being put in prison just because someone "doesn't like you". But it doesn't protect you from being put in prison for breaking the law, and it doesn't protect you from substance bans put in place by the electorate or their representatives.

[400Years]

72. Why would somebody who doesn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke

walk into a place that sasy "THIS IS A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT"?

That is tantamount to someone who is against nudity walking into a nudist colony.

Where is the victim here?

Sexual harassment implies a victim as do asbestos laws.

[mondo joe]

74. They probably wouldn't - that's the point.

Why would somebody who doesn't want to be exposed to second hand smoke walk into a place that says "THIS IS A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT"?

They probably wouldn't. I think that's rather the point of the smoking bans - the belief that anyone should be able to go into any establishment without that barrier.

[400Years]

76. exactly, they wouldn't

I don't see what you are concerned with.

[mondo joe]

79. The smoking ban proponents would be concerned that

they couldn't enter any bar without having to choose between second hand smoke or not.

I explained that.

It's not much of an issue for me - I rarely go to bars, and I'm just not that worried about it.

But a lot of people are worried about it - and that's the reality of the situation. They don't feel they should have to live with second hand smoke just to go out for a drink.

[400Years]

81. well right here is a contradiction

"They don't feel they should have to live with second hand smoke just to go out for a drink."

How in the world would that occur under the scenario I outlined?

[mondo joe]

84. It would occur when they faced a smoking bar that was where they

wanted to go, but for the smoking status.

I can't believe how obtuse people can be about this. People want to be able to goto any restaurant or bar, without having to decide to breathe in second hand smoke or go elsewhere.

I'll remind you one more time: I'm not one of them. But they are there. And they are passing laws.

[400Years]

85. Oh, I agree that they are there

I'm not being obtuse about anything.

I just don't get the mindset that says "Well there is this bar on the other side of town that is for smokers and I don't smoke but I still want to go in there and not have anybody smoke."

That mentality just makes no sense to me.

Do people who hate porn insist on going into porno theaters and demand that they show non-porn only?

[mondo joe]

91. That's because you think the bar "is for smokers" and they think

it's a bar for people.

The primary business of bars is not giving people a place to smoke - it's serving alcohol.

A porn business, on the other hand, exists to sell porn.

You've made an interesting distinction - you're suggesting a bar might be for a particular type of person, rather than a particular type of business.

That's somewhat more discriminatory than the smoking ban, which doesn't prohibit any type of person, but prohibits activities which are non essential to the businesses in question.

Personally, if I wanted to run a smoking bar, I'd look into the legality of creating a smoking club that serves alcohol, with a nominal membership fee. I don't know if that would pass muster legally, but I'd try it.

[400Years]

136. not prohibiting anybody

it just says if you don't like it you don't have to come in here, just like with any other establishment. If you don't like Chinese food don't bother going to China Inn or whatever.
People have to make those kinds of choices every day.

[mondo joe]

138. Likewise, smokers are not prohibited when a smoking ban is in

effect.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Alcohol Is Far Worse Of An Evil Than Tobacco, And Even Moreso Than Pot.

I'm not saying they should ban it, but the hypocrisy around alcohol as it relates to tobacco and marijuana have perplexed me for years. Guess Homer put it best when he said "ahhhh, alcohol. The cause of, and solution to all of life's problems" :)

and to the anti smokers? *expletive deleted* should *expletive deleted* friggin *expletive deleted* *expletive deleted* before I *expletive deleted* *expletive deleted* you *expletive deleted*! :)

[Swamp Rat]

45. ban people too n/t

[progressivebydesign]

51. God.. are you smokers EVER going to get over it?

I know the chemicals deaden the part of the brain that regulates denial, but this is getting stupid. Sorry that others haven't caught on what the thread is really about.

Hey.. someone could sit next to me in a drunken stupor and I could not contract cancer from being near them.

[mondo joe]

53. Precisely.

I'd rather have someone seated near me in a bar drink rather than smoke.

I'd rather have the driver in the lane near me smoking rather than driking.

That doesn't make smoking and drinking equal, nor does it call for the same response. To the contrary, they are different activities with different potential risks.

[400Years]

59. talk about a fallacious argument

What is wrong with letting the tobacco addicts have a bar of their own.

I'm for smoke free places but if these people want to have a place where they
can go have a beer and hang out, what do you care?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Nor Could You Contract Cancer From Sitting Next To A Smoker.

That is, unless you sat next to them for each of their 20 cigarettes a day, each day for at least 10 years. Any less often than that and the worst you're dealing with is having to smell an odor you don't like. Whoopee.

[Kingshakabobo]

80. Got a link or research for that statement professor?

>>>sat next to them for each of their 20 cigarettes a day, each day for at least 10 years<<<



Or did it come out of your arse?:)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. Well, Even Then It May Be Harmless.

One thing I can say, is that being in the vicinity of a smoker every so often ain't gonna do a damn thing to adversely affect your health. You would have to be in an environment surrounded by second hand smoke for long periods of time over the course of years; such as a spouse of a smoker that smokes indoors and has done so for years and years of their being together. Outside of that, it's just an odor. It takes a hell of a lot more exposure to second hand smoke to even come close to causing harm to health than some extremist non-smokers claim. And if you want to dispute that, I'd ask that you present a legitimate study that proves otherwise.

Thanks! :hi:

[Kingshakabobo]

89. .

http://www.repace.com/fact_exp.html

>>>>>>Under typical conditions of smoking, building occupancy, and ventilation, indoor smoking produces levels of RSP far in excess of the U.S. federal fine particle standard for particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or below, 15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) This standard is designed to provide increased protection against a wide range of PM-related health effects, including premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, primarily in the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease; increased respiratory symptoms and disease, in children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma; decreased lung function, particularly in children and individuals with asthma; and alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. <<<<<

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

93. Well That Was Worthless.

I said a study that shows anything other than 20 years worth of everyday surrounding of secondhand causes any adverse health problems consistently.

Try again.

[Kingshakabobo]

96. You have eyes yet you do not see.

You have google yet provide no links.

I'm not going to hold your hand and read the whole study for you:


>>>There is an international scientific consensus that secondhand smoke kills

Secondhand smoke under typical conditions of smoker density and ventilation poses unacceptable risks to nonsmokers

Secondhand smoke cannot be controlled to acceptable levels of risk by ventilation or air cleaning

There is no objective evidence to support the claim that smoke-free restaurants impose economic penalties on owners<<<

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

98. Oh I've Researched This Topic Extensively For Years, Thank You.

And the most competent of studies have always questioned the validity that second hand smoke under normal conditions is harmful in any real capacity. But why provide links? You're just gonna reply with "well that was funded by so and so wah wah, or that study wasn't real, I bet the scientist was a smoker snort snort" so what's the point? Just like the ones you present me I'm going to more than likely view as hidden agenda crap from extremist points of view that try and claim it kills when there is not ONE conclusive study done on the entire planet that shows under normal circumstances it is harmful to adults at all. (I do recognize that young children that are put in an environment with concentrated secondhand smoke can develop breathing problems, asthma etc... and they should be kept away from it as often as possible)

As a last statement, if second hand smoke was even 1/10th as bad as you and others fraudulently claim then almost all of us would have breathing problems and be dying from some sort of lung cancer by now. Ain't the case though is it. In fact, can you name or find even 3 fucking examples where someone contracted cancer that was concluded was caused from second hand smoke under normal conditions? Have fun with that.

[Kingshakabobo]

101. LOL. You coulda saved a lot of time and said: "I got nothin......

....I pull facts out of my arse." Good luck with THAT on DU.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

102. Awww, How Cute. Are You Avoiding The Challenge?

See, the burden of proof is on you ya know :rofl:

Looks like you're the one who got nothing bub. You want to claim that second hand smoke under normal occasional circumstances causes permanent and severely damaging health issues? Well, unless you are pulling those opinions out of your ass, I would expect you'd be able to back up such absurd claims. Since there are so many smokers in the world, and have been for years and years and years, I would think it would be EASY for you find 3 cases where a non-smoking adult suffered permanent and severe health damage from occasional exposure to second hand smoke. Unless, of course, it isn't so easy because your concept is a fallacy with no real conclusive evidence to support it. But I'll leave you to your beliefs of flawed logic. Doesn't really concern me much what you choose to believe. But the burden of proof is on you bub. 3 cases. That's all I'm asking for. 3 cases, out of the millions and millions (probably billions) of adults who are exposed to second hand smoke under normal circumstances. Of all those billions, you can't find 3 cases that were conclusive where they definitively suffered permanent health damage due to normal exposure? 3 out of billions? I'd say it's an exxtremely reasonable request.

bye now! :hi:

[Kingshakabobo]

103. I posted a link but you didn't read it.

You CLAIM to have secret research proving otherwise yet you provide ZERO links. Who are you? Nixon, with a secret plan?

You have changed your criteria three different times now when challenged on your bogus claims. As I said: You.Have.Got.Nothing ...... but little smilies. Good luck with that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. No. Actually, Ya Didn't. The One Earlier Was Worthless. But Now, That's

no longer what I'm asking you for. I believe you are avoiding the issue because you know you have nothing to offer. I think you know you can't provide anything conclusive. Give me 3. Give me 3 cases. I can give you several billion cases of non-smokers exposed to occasional second hand smoke that DIDN'T suffere any permanent and severe health issues directly related to it. But you don't really want me to have to make a list of names of all those billions of people do you? I mean, for starters you could add your name to the list, and everyone else's in this thread, so it's extremely easy for me to provide my side of this challenge, because it is overwhelmingly obvious that the billions of people exposed to occasional second hand smoke DO NOT in fact suffer any real permanent health damage. But you say they do. Ok. I don't need you to list names of BILLIONS of people like I could if I had to, I just want 3. 3 fucking conclusive cases.

3 people out of the potential billions, that under normal circumstances suffered severe permanent health issues due to occassional exposure to second hand smoke.

3 people out of billions. If it is as dangerous as the non-smoking extremists claim, then this should be the easiest exercise to accomplish.

3 from a pool of billions. That's what I'm asking for. That's what I want you to show. If you can't then I consider your position to not be able to hold any water whatsoever.

3. Of Billions. Show me the proof. If you can't, then I believe you have no leg to stand on and I consider this argument over. Thanks.

[Kingshakabobo]

105. I'll listen to the EPA, AHA, CDC and ALA's studies thankyouverymuch.

Not "truthiness" pulled out of your rear-end.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

>>Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.3

A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.4<<

Come on, no linky?

YOU:

>>>And the most competent of studies have always questioned the validity that second hand smoke under normal conditions is harmful in any real capacity. But why provide links?<<<<<

Come on, provide a link. Pretty please?

BTW, I'll be waiting for you to provide those brazillion names.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

107. LMFAO! You Just Can't Do It Can You!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If it is reallllllly so dangerous when exposed to it occassionally then it should take 2 seconds to find 3 people out of the potential BILLIONS that had severe permanent damage due to second hand smoke. But you can't do it! You simply CANNOT do it! Guess that means your position is a fallacy after all! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm done with this subthread. If you can't provide THREE SPECIFIC CASES of adults that suffered severe permanent damage from being occasionally exposed to second hand smoke, out of the billions you would think would be harmed since second hand smoke is just sooooooooooo dangerous, then you are done in my opinion. Just flat out done.

Give me 3 specific conclusive cases. I don't want to see anything else. That's all I want to see in response. I won't hold my breath.

I will not reply any further, but would appreciate the 3 cases anyway.

tootaloo

[Kingshakabobo]

108. Mandy Lipsitz, Frank Huffleberger and Bill Whatzisname.

How's that for truthiness?

Just for the record........you have provided zero links. Lotsa smilies though.:)

[The Straight Story]

113. Out of 300 million?

If smoking, and 2nd hand smoke, is that terrible there should be millions of deaths per year.

It makes me wonder if we worship at the altar of science when it fits our desires, or if we are truly open minded.

Are you telling me that SOME scientists lie and that science is aking to religion???

But besides all that - are you against people, of like mind, hanging out together and having a cigarette? Is that against your beliefs?

[Kingshakabobo]

114. I don't get it? Are you saying 30k isn't enough?

Is that your point?

Don't believe science? How about common sense then? You walk in to a room where the smoke is hovering down from the ceiling around waist level. You know the toxic shit that's in that smoke but you want to use a George Bush line: "the jury is still out on .........."

Sure like minded people can hang out. The smokers need only step outside to enjoy their silly addiction.

[The Straight Story]

131. Common sense

You serve alcohol in a bar and people leave bar to drive home (or any other food place that sells alcohol).

---There were 16,694 alcohol-related fatalities in 2004 – 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.

The 16,694 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2004 represent an average of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.

NHTSA estimates that alcohol was involved in 39 percent of fatal crashes and in 7 percent of all crashes in 2004.

In 2004, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed in motor vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes.

An estimated 248,000 people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured approximately every 2 minutes.
---

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

So 17,000 (or 250,000) is not enough for you?

Add that to all the info above and is smoking more of a threat than drinking??

IF we are serious about saving others from things then why we still allow drinking??

[Kingshakabobo]

133. I'll type slow so you can comprehend.

DRINKING AND DRIVING HAS ALREADY BEEN BANNED.

The negative side effect of SOMEONE ELSE'S ADDICTION/HABIT has been mitigated by being made illegal by this thing we call SOCIETY. Why has that so hard to understand?

[dionysus]

115. OK, finally got pissed off enough to respond to your utter bullshit

a nonsmoker walking down the street smelling some secondhand smoke WILL NOT DO SHIT TO YOU. I agree that secondhand smoke would be bad in large concentrations, such as if you were a child living in a smoke-filled household for years, or worked in a smoky bar for decades. The latter would be the choice of the employee.

Be fucking realistic here.

Which is why your argument is shit.

The vast majority of smokers wish they never started (nicotine is more addictive than heroin), so if a bar would allow smoking stay the fuck out of there then. Don't be a self-righteous nanny for grown adults. GAK.

[Kingshakabobo]

116. WTF are you talking about?

We're not talking about "walking down the street smelling smoke."

Where did you get that? Are you posting drunk?

We are talking about employees and patrons of "smoky bars" and other public accommodations.

And no, it's not always the choice of the employee. YOUR argument is shit. People, especially low-paid waiters and waitresses shouldn't have to compromise their health to earn a pay-check......no more than a factory worker should have to put up with asbestos in the workplace just because he has a"choice" where to work. Sorry, smokers are just going to have to get used to the fact that the gig is up when it comes to polluting everyone else's indoor air.

[jus_the_facts]

124. DEADLY indoor pollution exists without cigarettes being involved....

...all sorts of it will kill you and give you cancers without smoking ever entering into the picture at all. :eyes:

[Kingshakabobo]

135. Ok, we've come full circle now. Circular arguments are for children.

I'll say it again even though it's been said like ten times on this thread. You choose to ignore it.

Yes, there are lots of things that cause cancer AND HEART DISEASE. Some, like cigarette smoke, are preventable. Others are not. Your logic, or lack of logic says we shouldn't mitigate one risk if we can't mitigate them all. The reality based community says we should try to mitigate second-hand smoking by making the smoker go outside. That's all.

[dionysus]

129. LOL

yeah, the people who are forced to work late night shifts as bartenders have clothespins over their noses to avoid the smoke, hillarious. I'm willing to bet you haven't logged that much bar time. Waiters and waitresses work at RESTAURANTS, not bars. Bars are where people swill poison that destroys their livers. Like previous posters said, have smoking and non-smoking bars. Everyone would be happy then except you.

[Kingshakabobo]

134. OK THIS is the dumbest thing I've read on this thread...

"Waiters and waitresses work at RESTAURANTS, not bars":rofl:

The waitress serving me drinks on Friday night IN A BAR must have been a figment of my imagination. :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh.


Add: Yes, bars where SOME (not all) people go to destroy THEIR liver. I'll type slow so you can understand this: Not everyone in a bar 1. DRINKS alcohol 2. not everybody drinks to excess to damage their liver.

3. This is the important part so pay attention: "THEIR" is the operative word in this whole thread. Drinking is a personal choice that doesn't affect the people around them.

Note: Save the "drunk driving" and "spouse abuse" and "violence" meme. They're all illegal and have been discussed and debunked ad nauseam.

[dionysus]

130. and you ignored this part of my post, facist..

"I agree that secondhand smoke would be bad in large concentrations, such as if you were a child living in a smoke-filled household for years, or worked in a smoky bar for decades. The latter would be the choice of the employee.
"

[Kingshakabobo]

132. So we are in agreement. You are just too dense to realize it.

We are in agreement that second-hand smoke indoors is a health hazard. That's all I'm sayin. If you sober up enough to read my posts. You think other people should have to partake in your deadly habit, I don't. Your attitude is; fuck the waiters and waitresses. Who's the fascist?

[The Straight Story]

86. Here is one

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html

[Kingshakabobo]

92. That's a tobacco company funded study

Posting a tobacco company paid study.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=331



Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). Studies coming out of national laboratories, and the scientists conducting the research there, have a high level of perceived credibility simply because they come from government entities. However, in addition to research and development in its official capacity as a national laboratory, ORNL also accepts private contracts whose research and results do not have official government standing.

Michael Guerin, who runs the analytical chemistry division at ORNL, has received more than $1 million from the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) and the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR).1

Roger Jenkins, a chemist with ORNL, performed research on tobacco smoke and secondhand smoke exposure for the tobacco industry, specifically on research commissioned by R.J. Reynolds (RJR) and the CIAR.2

In 1997, Dade County (FL) Circuit Court Judge Robert P. Kaye barred tobacco industry witness Roger Jenkins from testifying in the Florida flight attendants’ lawsuit regarding his secondhand smoke studies, on the grounds that R.J. Reynolds’ (RJR) assistance with field work and lab analysis made the research suspect. Judge Kaye stated, “ It reminds you of having the fox in the henhouse in a situation like this.”7

edit: change post header from"nice job"...posting in wrong spot

[The Straight Story]

94. So scientists are like televangelists?

They lie for money?

I need to remember that for the religion group on here :) Can't trust anyone.

And yes, I knew who it was funded by. Guess the truth is - well....truth is elusive. Agendas and personal beliefs will always dominate the truth, it has nothing to do with religion.

[jus_the_facts]

97. How about a TEST..puff a cig..then go puff on the fumes from a gas station

...THEN go start your car and take a puff off the tailpipe...see which one has the worst ill effects and would kill you faster!! ;-)

[rman]

140. So don't sit next to a smoker -

go to a non-smoking bar, which would exist if there would be a market for it.

Or do you to want to use the goverment to get the people you hang out with to do what you can't or don't dare to do - to force them to stop smoking?

[U4ikLefty]

109. It's how our rights are being chipped away.

I'm truly appaled that progressives on this board are not only for indoor bans, but also outright banning of smoking in all public areas (Calabasas law). Another reason to move to Canada.

[jus_the_facts]

112. It's used to divide us further...takes attention away fm MAJOR pollution..

...practices and how THAT is killing people at light speed.

[mondo joe]

119. Nonsense. There's 24 hours in a day - plenty of time to be concerned

with multiple issues.

[jus_the_facts]

121. Really....I never was aware of that before.....

:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

122. You seem to be unaware of it, since you are under the impression that

concern about second hand smoke distracts from pollution issues.

How many issues are you concerned with? How many determine your votes?

[jus_the_facts]

127. That's a lame-ass assumption once again....

...the facts speak for themselves...I don't have to make a list to justify anything to you.

[mondo joe]

128. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You've already wasted art least 20 minutes posting on DU, distracting yourself from the "real" issue of auto pollution.

How ironic.

[mondo joe]

117. Like our right to sexually harass, our right to ignore food safety laws,

our right to use asbestos in buildings, our right to use cars without catalytic converters...

[400Years]

137. those are all bogus examples

You keep repeating them but it doesn't make them any more valid.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. You know, there are plenty of limits on WHERE people can drink.

You can't stand on the sidewalk in most cities and drink a beer. Try standing on the sidewalk and smoking a joint in most states, and you'll be in REAL trouble...

Only cigarette smokers seem to think their god-given "rights" are being infringed upon whenever anyone tells them they can't smoke in certain, specific, indoor locations.

For the record, I've seen the damage both alcohol AND nicotine can do- in spades. My dad died of lung cancer and my best friend was killed by a drunk driver at age 26. But I don't think banning what consenting adults can do with their own bodies- insofar as they aren't endangering or harming others- is any kind of a rational response to any of it. But please note that 'banning' something and telling people they have to step outside to do it are two entirely different things.