Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Anguille]

I doubt Anguille will come back to this thread...didn't she abandon the last one where you pointed out the actual facts?

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[tigerbob]

In 1995, the Congressional Research Service published a response to the EPA report. Are you familiar with the CRS? They are a non-profit research outfit who are publicly funded and report to congress

Crs Report for Congress Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk

Check out any part of that review you like to see the clear levels of doubt expressed by the CRS about the EPA report. But specifically, I would ask you to look at page 23.

"For a variety of reasons, EPA's conclusions have been controversial. While many in the scientific community have accepted the EPA conclusions, others have criticized them. First, the, findings on the studies were mixed, and of the 30 studies examined by the EPA (one Japanese study could not be used because of the presentation data), 24 found an increased risk, though only five were statistically significant at the 95 percent level, and six actually found a negative risk (with one statistically significant). Of the eleven U.S. studies, eight found a positive risk and three found a negative risk, though none was statistically significant.

Reviewing the four recent studies published since the EPA report, the CRS indicates "the new studies, including the very large Brownson study, did not clarify the existence of a risk. Indeed, they complicated the interpretation of the evidence since the two largest U.S. studies - Fontham and Brownson - found in once case a positive risk that was barely statistically significant and the other no risk at all."

Let's return to the issue of Confidence, shall we? Out of 30 reports, 5 showed a statistically relevant risk. One actually showed a positive effect.

Still think the EPA report should be the unquestioned basis for legislation?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Anguille:

How is allowing smoking in a restaurant imposing anything on a non-smoker?
Is someone forcing them to go to that specific establishment that allows smoking?

i'd rather have the freedom to choose which type of establishment to go to.


As an prospective eater I would choose to not go to a smoking establishment just as if I was a prospective employee I wouldn't take a job at a smoking establishment. As an american I feel its wrong to have the government make that decision for a private business on private property.

 

[Ravi]

I doubt Anguille will come back to this thread...didn't she abandon the last one where you pointed out the actual facts?

Sorry to disappoint you.

I shamed you into it.

 

[Anguille]

We no longer have to leave or cease from breathing as we did for decades Now you have to leave or put out the cigarette. Your turn to feel imposed upon, spoiled brat. Quit whining and get used to it.

you might wanna check out the results of your own poll before believing that this one is dead, Anguille. We won't get used to. Instead, we'll take our money where we need to and let your kind drown in the laughable bullshit that results in closed business, limited option and restricted liberty. Trust me, you'll eat your own crow on this issue before it's over.

Anguille:

How is allowing smoking in a restaurant imposing anything on a non-smoker?
Is someone forcing them to go to that specific establishment that allows smoking?

i'd rather have the freedom to choose which type of establishment to go to.


As an prospective eater I would choose to not go to a smoking establishment just as if I was a prospective employee I wouldn't take a job at a smoking establishment. As an american I feel its wrong to have the government make that decision for a private business on private property.

I've answered all these questions several times in many different threads. Most recently in this one
Civil Disobedience

After a while you get tired of people ignoring your points and throwing out strawmen and posting fallacies. I come here for genuine debate and in hopes of learning new things. I love it when I see a good reason to change my opinion on something because then I've grown and become a wiser person. This thread has pretty much come to dead end as far as I can see. I made my points. Others made theirs. Everyone is entiltled to their own opinion. I'm just glad that in the real world I'm no longer having to put up with as much cigarette smoke from the lunatic fringe who thinks it's perfectly okay to smoke around other people.

 

[tigerbob]

One of the highlighted findings (from Jarvis 1989) was that the non-smokers in the study who were exposed to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke, sometimes called Secondary Smoke, sometimes called Passive Smoke - it's all the same thing) had nicotine levels in their bloodstream that equated to "the equivalent of about one fifth of a cigarette per day"

Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of narcotic in their blood?

No, no no no no. You can't do that.

You're the one who yesterday insisted it was "good science". Now I've taken HOURS to show you why it might not be science at all and now you're saying "regardless of whether it was accurate or not"???????

Give...me...a...fucking...break.

 

[Anguille]

I doubt Anguille will come back to this thread...didn't she abandon the last one where you pointed out the actual facts?

Sorry to disappoint you.

I shamed you into it.

You're welcome to think that if it makes you feel you'v won something but actually you didn't as you can see from the sequence of my posts. I was reading tiger bob's posts and decided to respond to him before I ever saw your post.

 

[Anguille]

One of the highlighted findings (from Jarvis 1989) was that the non-smokers in the study who were exposed to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke, sometimes called Secondary Smoke, sometimes called Passive Smoke - it's all the same thing) had nicotine levels in their bloodstream that equated to "the equivalent of about one fifth of a cigarette per day"

Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of narcotic in their blood?

No, no no no no. You can't do that.

You're the one who yesterday insisted it was "good science". Now I've taken HOURS to show you why it might not be science at all and now you're saying "regardless of whether it was accurate or not"???????

Give...me...a...fucking...break.

I never take anything you post at face value.
You neglected to answer this question, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?"

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

you might wanna check out the results of your own poll before believing that this one is dead, Anguille. We won't get used to. Instead, we'll take our money where we need to and let your kind drown in the laughable bullshit that results in closed business, limited option and restricted liberty. Trust me, you'll eat your own crow on this issue before it's over.

Anguille:

How is allowing smoking in a restaurant imposing anything on a non-smoker?
Is someone forcing them to go to that specific establishment that allows smoking?

i'd rather have the freedom to choose which type of establishment to go to.


As an prospective eater I would choose to not go to a smoking establishment just as if I was a prospective employee I wouldn't take a job at a smoking establishment. As an american I feel its wrong to have the government make that decision for a private business on private property.

I've answered all these questions several times in many different threads. Most recently in this one
Civil Disobedience

After a while you get tired of people ignoring your points and throwing out strawmen and posting fallacies. I come here for genuine debate and in hopes of learning new things. I love it when I see a good reason to change my opinion on something because then I've grown and become a wiser person. This thread has pretty much come to dead end as far as I can see. I made my points. Others made theirs. Everyone is entiltled to their own opinion. I'm just glad that in the real world I'm no longer having to put up with as much cigarette smoke from the lunatic fringe who thinks it's perfectly okay to smoke around other people.

Well you didn't answer them in here and I dont go stalking you posts around the forum.

I was just curious as to your answer on those 2 questions. Can't you just answer them in a short easy way?

EDIT: And if you want me to read a post in that thread give me the shortcut in the permalink to the specific post please. I'm not going to read 10+ pages just to find an answer to 2 simple questions

 

[Valerie]

You neglected to answer this question

My argument is for business owners to have a smoking bar if they want to.

As I said......providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants, what's the problem?

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction. The State can set limits on permits and insure worker protections while also protecting personal freedom.

IMO the bar owner should be FREE to do some market research and choose to apply for a permit to cater to smoking customers within his jurisdiction...If the market will bear it and non-smoking workers and patrons have other options, why not???

Maybe the solution should be for restaurants and bars to get licensed to have indoor smoking just as establishments seek liquor licenses, so only a certain number would be allowed within each jurisdiction. That way workers have a choice, patrons have a choice, restaurant/bar business owners have a choice. If you don't like being around drunk people then don't go to bars and if you don't like being around smokers then don't go to smoking establishments. (And if you don't like breathing in coal particles you have every right to not work in a coal mine.)

 

[Anguille]

You neglected to answer this question

My argument is for business owners to have a smoking bar if they want to.

As I said......providing there are also other non-smoking bars and restaurants, what's the problem?

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction. The State can set limits on permits and insure worker protections while also protecting personal freedom.

IMO the bar owner should be FREE to do some market research and choose to apply for a permit to cater to smoking customers within his jurisdiction...If the market will bear it and non-smoking workers and patrons have other options, why not???

I answered that in the other thread, Valerie. Maybe you didn't see it. Bar and restaurant workers have the same rights to protection from workplace hazards as any other type of worker. If you're doing to say they have a choice not to work in such places then you have to allow all owners of all types of workplaces this same option. And even then you are still denying some employees the right to a safe workplace.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

That post by valerie contains way to much common sense to be acceptable

 

[tigerbob]

Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of narcotic in their blood?

No, no no no no. You can't do that.

You're the one who yesterday insisted it was "good science". Now I've taken HOURS to show you why it might not be science at all and now you're saying "regardless of whether it was accurate or not"???????

Give...me...a...fucking...break.

I never take anything you post at face value.
You neglected to answer this question, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?"

It will be a cold day in hell before I respond to any question of yours again on this matter. You have seen fit to dismiss several hours of work (to set up an intellectual proposition that could be debated based on the science) with another one of your pink, fluffy, barbie-esque leading questions.

It's not worth debating this with you Ang because you DON'T DEBATE.

You don't have the slightest clue about the science. You don't understand the epidemiology. You clearly don't even understand the difference between someone saying there is no link and someone saying that the evidence is insufficient to be used in the development of legislation.

BTW, there was nothing that I posted that I was expecting you to take at face value. Did you miss all the links to third party opinion? Did you miss the times where I said you should look this up yourself rather than rely on what I was saying?

Of course you didn't miss it. You just ignored it because you know nothing of any value about the subject. Despite having had numerous opportunities to educate yourself you have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Are you just too lazy to research your subject matter, or is it too complicated?

Why would you even start another thread about smoking when you have nothing additional to say but the "waaah waaah waaah" you've said a hundred times already? It's pathetic.

 

[Anguille]

Anguille:

How is allowing smoking in a restaurant imposing anything on a non-smoker?
Is someone forcing them to go to that specific establishment that allows smoking?

i'd rather have the freedom to choose which type of establishment to go to.


As an prospective eater I would choose to not go to a smoking establishment just as if I was a prospective employee I wouldn't take a job at a smoking establishment. As an american I feel its wrong to have the government make that decision for a private business on private property.

I've answered all these questions several times in many different threads. Most recently in this one
Civil Disobedience

After a while you get tired of people ignoring your points and throwing out strawmen and posting fallacies. I come here for genuine debate and in hopes of learning new things. I love it when I see a good reason to change my opinion on something because then I've grown and become a wiser person. This thread has pretty much come to dead end as far as I can see. I made my points. Others made theirs. Everyone is entiltled to their own opinion. I'm just glad that in the real world I'm no longer having to put up with as much cigarette smoke from the lunatic fringe who thinks it's perfectly okay to smoke around other people.

Well you didn't answer them in here and I dont go stalking you posts around the forum.

I was just curious as to your answer on those 2 questions. Can't you just answer them in a short easy way?

EDIT: And if you want me to read a post in that thread give me the shortcut in the permalink to the specific post please. I'm not going to read 10+ pages just to find an answer to 2 simple questions

You already asked me those questions before and I answered them.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I've answered all these questions several times in many different threads. Most recently in this one
Civil Disobedience

After a while you get tired of people ignoring your points and throwing out strawmen and posting fallacies. I come here for genuine debate and in hopes of learning new things. I love it when I see a good reason to change my opinion on something because then I've grown and become a wiser person. This thread has pretty much come to dead end as far as I can see. I made my points. Others made theirs. Everyone is entiltled to their own opinion. I'm just glad that in the real world I'm no longer having to put up with as much cigarette smoke from the lunatic fringe who thinks it's perfectly okay to smoke around other people.

Well you didn't answer them in here and I dont go stalking you posts around the forum.

I was just curious as to your answer on those 2 questions. Can't you just answer them in a short easy way?

EDIT: And if you want me to read a post in that thread give me the shortcut in the permalink to the specific post please. I'm not going to read 10+ pages just to find an answer to 2 simple questions

You already asked me those questions before and I answered them.

I missed your answer...i will tyr to find it now (although you could have answered them again by now and avoided your last 2 posts toward me )

 

[Valerie]

You neglected to answer this question

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction. The State can set limits on permits and insure worker protections while also protecting personal freedom.

IMO the bar owner should be FREE to do some market research and choose to apply for a permit to cater to smoking customers within his jurisdiction...If the market will bear it and non-smoking workers and patrons have other options, why not???

I answered that in the other thread, Valerie. Maybe you didn't see it. Bar and restaurant workers have the same rights to protection from workplace hazards as any other type of worker. If you're doing to say they have a choice not to work in such places then you have to allow all owners of all types of workplaces this same option. And even then you are still denying some employees the right to a safe workplace.

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

 

[Anguille]

No, no no no no. You can't do that.

You're the one who yesterday insisted it was "good science". Now I've taken HOURS to show you why it might not be science at all and now you're saying "regardless of whether it was accurate or not"???????

Give...me...a...fucking...break.

I never take anything you post at face value.
You neglected to answer this question, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?"

It will be a cold day in hell before I respond to any question of yours again on this matter. You have seen fit to dismiss several hours of work (to set up an intellectual proposition that could be debated based on the science) with another one of your pink, fluffy, barbie-esque leading questions.

It's not worth debating this with you Ang because you DON'T DEBATE.

You don't have the slightest clue about the science. You don't understand the epidemiology. You clearly don't even understand the difference between someone saying there is no link and someone saying that the evidence is insufficient to be used in the development of legislation.

BTW, there was nothing that I posted that I was expecting you to take at face value. Did you miss all the links to third party opinion? Did you miss the times where I said you should look this up yourself rather than rely on what I was saying?

Of course you didn't miss it. You just ignored it because you know nothing of any value about the subject. Despite having had numerous opportunities to educate yourself you have chosen to do absolutely nothing. Are you just too lazy to research your subject matter, or is it too complicated?

Why would you even start another thread about smoking when you have nothing additional to say but the "waaah waaah waaah" you've said a hundred times already? It's pathetic.

I guess you just can't answer this question "why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of addictive narcotic in their blood?" so you throw a hissy fit and accuse me of not being informed or looking at your links.

 

[Anguille]

I answered that in the other thread, Valerie. Maybe you didn't see it. Bar and restaurant workers have the same rights to protection from workplace hazards as any other type of worker. If you're doing to say they have a choice not to work in such places then you have to allow all owners of all types of workplaces this same option. And even then you are still denying some employees the right to a safe workplace.

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

I just answered the question for you again, Valerie. If you don't understand my rsponse, I can't help you any further.

 

[Valerie]

I answered that in the other thread, Valerie. Maybe you didn't see it. Bar and restaurant workers have the same rights to protection from workplace hazards as any other type of worker. If you're doing to say they have a choice not to work in such places then you have to allow all owners of all types of workplaces this same option. And even then you are still denying some employees the right to a safe workplace.

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

I just answered the question for you again, Valerie. If you don't understand my rsponse, I can't help you any further.

I understand that your response does not answer the question.

 

[Ravi]

I answered that in the other thread, Valerie. Maybe you didn't see it. Bar and restaurant workers have the same rights to protection from workplace hazards as any other type of worker. If you're doing to say they have a choice not to work in such places then you have to allow all owners of all types of workplaces this same option. And even then you are still denying some employees the right to a safe workplace.

Nope, I saw the whole thing, I was right there as you kept saying the same things over and over and over again and you still have never answered the question.

Yep.

The only real reason, IMO, that Anguille supports these bans is because in her mind her comfort is more important than anyone else's...heck, if you found people WANTING to work in a bar that allows smoking she'd still be against it.