Stop The Smoking Ban!

[Gaines]

Matt you fucking control-freak zealot asshole...

Shut up!

Just because you failed at saving the whales and are an unemployed 30 year old reject who still lives with his mother, is no reason to send e-mail after e-mail to pompous self-serving politicians with nothing better to do, begging them to protect your fatass from secondary nicotine whenever you step outside of your bubble.

I like the smoking laws as they are in my region. Anyone can smoke their brains out in a designated area or separate smoking room and no one really cares. But people like you don't stop there, do you? You can't accept the fact that there are adults making a legal decision with their lives and that nobody, but nobody will be harmed by a lit piece of crushed tobacco leaves in a well ventilated bar or casino.

Here's an idea - there are toxic gases all over the workplace, some of which people like steelworkers are exposed to on a daily basis. If there wasn't adequate ventilation in place, they would collapse within minutes. Ventilation WORKS!

And if the sign on the door says 'smoking allowed', get a fuckin' clue! If you can't stand the smoke, DON'T GO IN! It's as simple as that.

Due to hysteria and fear mongering by the moron anti smoking industry fostered by government funding, people will demand non-smoking bars and restaurants. LET BUSINESSES MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS!

[qwerty]

you can eat a spoon of anthrax for all i care - but keep it to yourself. unsafe DEADLY businesses are just antisocial - theyre bad for society and should be stopped. if ASSHOLES dont have common sense, or common courtesy, or the smallest amount of morality, then its nice to have gov around to mediate behavior.

if smokers werent inconsiderate and stupid for decades people wouldnt HATE you so much

[Gaines]

you can eat a spoon of anthrax for all i care - but keep it to yourself. unsafe DEADLY businesses are just antisocial - theyre bad for society and should be stopped. if ASSHOLES dont have common sense, or common courtesy, or the smallest amount of morality, then its nice to have gov around to mediate behavior.

if smokers werent inconsiderate and stupid for decades people wouldnt HATE you so much

Hey dipshit, WHOO! WHOOOOO! Here comes the clue train, last stop is you.

You forget your meds? Then please point out where I indicated I was a smoker in my previous post. Like a good anti-smoking lapdog, you ASSUMED I was a smoker based on my discontent about nanny state laws. Well you assumed wrong.

As for the rest of your whiny little rant, where does anti-social behaviour, common sense, common courtesy or especially morality GIVE the government the right to make decisions for businesses?

Go eat some more granola and hide in your sublet, you stupid brainwashed commie socialist fucktard.

[Jimmy Flame]

Morality? Hehe... Whats that, like having morals? (in my best qwerty voice), And the moral of the story is, it is completley safe to talk shit on a forum. Ha!

[qwerty]

sorry big guy, i forgot im supposed to be afeared of you. i will try to pretend.

in the mean time, i have to point out that i think youre VERY VERY VERY STUPID. for smoking. for trying to threaten people on the internet. and for smoking. grow your own tobacco dude! and stick it where the sun dont shine

[Jimmy Flame]

Nobody is threatening anybody. I think it's freakin' hilarious how serious of a subject this has become. Even to the point where you feel threatened. To me, that is comedy. BTW... I'm not a big guy. I don't know where you get that from. You hate smokers. I don't. So what. I hope it makes you feel better to hate people. Maybe an option for you would be to move to the boon-docks and kick it with the Aryan Nations. Then you can all be pure and white together, and collectively kiss my ass.

[Shady_B_206]

this is the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends, some people started bitching, not knowing what they said, and they will continue bitching until their fucking dead!

[Ballardguy]

Smoking Ban? What smoking ban?

[Jimmy Flame]

Hahahaaaa... I went to Portland and smoked outside anyway. It was funny.

[cinders&smoke]

If it's an adults only establishment, like a bar or club, I think it should be up to the owner if they want to allow smoking or not.

I'm new here, but this is really how I feel. I'm engaged in a social activism group called "This Time The Government's Gone 25 Feet Too Far"...

The initiative is infringing on our rights and the rights of bar/club owners. It's like being pro-choice. Though I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. Though I'm not a smoker, I think it should be up to the owners of private establishments to choose whether or not they loose clientele.

Check out our blog...

http://cindersnsmoke.blogspot.com/

[maggie2]

--my shift key is broken, so forgive the lower case post---

yo cinder-smoke,
you should read some of the arguments put forth in this forum over the last year before you go spewing your ignorance.
i don't mean to be insulting to a new person, but your comments are frankly asinine. sorry, but i'm beyond sick of hearing it. you sound like exxon arguing that there is no global warming.
workers rights for a healthy work environment trump any 'owners rights' to allow smoking. period. end of story.
the 25 foot rule protects workers and is not unreasonable. the idea is for smokers to get away from the front door and windows of the establishment. otherwise smoke travels from outside and exposes workers and patrons inside to cigarette smoke. common sense legislation. totally legit. totally necessary.
the notion that the smoking ban hurts business is totally bogus bullshit. overall, business goes up or stays the same. read the stats from our state and other states.
read the numbers. get the facts. educate yourself.

thousands of workers in this state now don't have to worry about getting lung cancer, asthma, or a host of other health problems just so they can work.

i suggest you do your research and educate yourself before you go joining some ignorant-ass 'activist' organization.

[JohnR]

'Cinders and Smoke', a nonsmoker fighting for the 'rights' of the nicotine-addicted to contaminate indoor air and expose restaurant and bar workers to deadly secondhand smoke. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. No one works in a room full of arsenic and cyanide because they like it. They either can't find another job to support a family or they are ignorant. They don't deserve to die because of a job. What's your excuse-are you ignorant or stupid or just plain mean. Maybe you should get a job with RJ Reynolds. The Stranger might be able to hook you up, as they do a lot of work promoting smoking to their young readership for Camel Cigarettes. You are like RJR, in that they are also nonsmokers promoting smoker's 'rights'. They know the smoking rate goes down every time a state or country bans indoor smoking. It costs them billions. At least they are driven by greed. What's your excuse for being anti-human life.

[Gres05]

StudentA:

First, let me just point out that your "brochure" is fatally flawed. In the green box you state that far more deaths occur each year from heart disease that occur from lung cancer. This is very true. However, the number one cause of heart disease is...SMOKING. It is a common misconception that lung cancer accounts for most of the 460,000 deaths attributing to cigarette smoke but this is false. The overwhelming majority of deaths attributed to cigarette smoke are from heart disease. So, your little green box simply points out that the voters of Washington State were doubly right in banning smoking as they addressed too major diseases: lung cancer and heart disease.

Second, there is no "right to smoke" never has been, never will be. Please read this pdf for more info. http://www.smokefreeapartments.org/noright.pdf

Third, you really want to help the elderly who have to live in retirement homes? Help the ones who smoke quit. Do not try to allow smoking back inside these places. You have no idea how horrible it is to be elderly, have respiratory illnesses, and then be forced to live in a place where smoking is permitted. Before I-901 passed, many elderly citizens were forced to live in a place where the very air was harming them.

The bottom line is that enabling smokers to smoke only hurts them and others around them. For you to actively fight for allowing smoking back into places where there are people living with respiratory and circulatory disease borders on criminal.

[Ballardguy]

Reading Cinder's below post and attached blog only reinforced the validity of my past decision to attend and graduate from WWU vs. Seattle U....

Gotta go - I'm off to Bremerton to run down some smoking seniors crossing the highway.

[Melle]

Remember how all the pro-901 people kept telling us, last fall, that "the only ones who stand to lose by 901 are the big tobacco corp.s"? A small sampling, to refresh your memory:

"If they are the ones leading YOU to believe that Big Tobacco is not affected by an indoor smoking ban, maybe you are just easily led."---John R

"We all know that the one group hurt by a smoking a ban is Big Tobacco."---John R

"If 901 passes, Big Tobacco would take a hit."---Maggie2

"[T]here is one industry that will suffer from smoking bans: Big Tobacco."---Matt

Well ... the facts are in. Ahem. Rather interesting: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002982382_webcigarettesales09.html

"Legal cigarette sales in Washington are up, despite a tax increase and a ban on smoking in most public places, state revenue figures show.
"In the first three months of the year, 52.5 million packs of legally taxed cigarettes were sold, slightly more than the 52.4 million packs sold in the first quarter of 2005, according to the state Revenue Department."---The Seattle Times, 05/09/06

Obviously the ban did not hurt Big Tobacco one bit.



Meanwhile, here's what I was saying last fall (yes, that is a halo appearing above my head): "Big Tobacco sure doesn't act like it has much of a stake in this. How much do cigarette sales decline after a ban, anyway?"

[maggie2]

--fuckin' shift key still broken--

cig sales percentages may be up, by a very tiny margin, for now, but they'll go down. look at all the other states where smoking bans have been implemented; people tend to quit smoking.

also, the report you linked mentions that the data doesn't necessarily mean that more people are smoking;

'The figures may reflect tougher action against Internet sales and compacts with more Indian tribes that agree to collect cigarette taxes at about the same rate as off the reservations, said Mike Gowrylow, a spokesman for the Revenue Department.

"It's a 'we're still not sure what it means' kind of thing," Gowrylow said.

State Health Department officials say they have no evidence that more people are smoking after a long and steady decline, agency spokesman Tim Church said.'

so there.

the biggest argument put forth against 901, by the stranger mostly, was that it was flawed legislation that would allow cops to harrass gays. most everyone joined that bullshit bandwagon. what a joke.

[Melle]

--fuckin' shift key still broken--

cig sales percentages may be up, by a very tiny margin, for now, but they'll go down. look at all the other states where smoking bans have been implemented; people tend to quit smoking.

Is that a fact? New one to me; do you have a source?

also, the report you linked mentions that the data doesn't necessarily mean that more people are smoking;

'The figures may reflect tougher action against Internet sales and compacts with more Indian tribes that agree to collect cigarette taxes at about the same rate as off the reservations, said Mike Gowrylow, a spokesman for the Revenue Department.

"It's a 'we're still not sure what it means' kind of thing," Gowrylow said.

State Health Department officials say they have no evidence that more people are smoking after a long and steady decline, agency spokesman Tim Church said.'

so there.

I don't have any idea whether "more people are smoking," or whether fewer people are smoking more. Seems a bit moot. Cigarette sales have increased for whatever reason, which helps rather than hurts the tobacco companies.

the biggest argument put forth against 901, by the stranger mostly, was that it was flawed legislation that would allow cops to harrass gays. most everyone joined that bullshit bandwagon. what a joke.

Well, not "everyone" joined that bandwagon ... 901 passed by like 65%, remember? But the Stranger is full of shit, I agree.

[maggie2]

i think its reasonable to say that any trends that limit or restrict smoking can't be good for tobacco companies. smoking bans send the message to cities and communities that smoking is harmful and shouldn't be tolerated. bans, restrictions on advertising, education - they all work together to push tobacco out of our culture and conscienceness. and smoking rates have declined steadily for decades. look at the big picture.

i may have spoken too definitevly about how smoking rates go down when there are bans, however. there's a few indications here and there, but i must confess, i'm no expert on those stats.

this link offers some indication, but nothing really specific;

http://ash.org/nycstudy.html

as far as washington state goes, i think it's too early to claim whether the ban will affect tobacco sales one way or the other. it's only been 6 months. perhaps over time they will go down.

glad you agree that the stranger is full of shit - and thanks for coming to my defense when i critisized their hypocritical advertising of camel.

[froggiestyle]

Ok, smoking is a horrible habit that no one should do.

Granted.

I do, however, love to see the same folks that moan about 2nd hand smoke when they :
- drive big nasty SUV’s
- consume VAST amounts of electricity (where do you think it comes from and how do you think it’s made?)
- ride their bikes behind diesel busses and trucks inhaling far worse fumes – while breathing heavily nonetheless
- all of the above
- none of the above

Whining and bitching however are inalienable rights.

Listen, come visit France where, even when there’s a GIANT sign inside a shopping mall that says no smoking, there’s some cute guy or cute girl puffing away right underneath it, with their foo-foo doggie on a leash leaving a package on the floor. Vive la clope !

[Gres05]

No Maggie, you didn't speak to soon. Smoking bans are one of the most effective ways to get people to quit smoking. Here is just one of many studies. Most communities see a 50-70% increase in quit attempts in the year after the ban. In King County we are expecting tobacco use to drop from 15% to around 13% within two years. That is a huge.

Are comprehensive environmental changes as effective as health education for smoking cessation?
T Kadowaki1, H Kanda1, M Watanabe2, A Okayama3, N Miyamatsu1, T Okamura1, T Hayakawa4, K Hishida1, Y Kita1 and H Ueshima1
1 Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan
2 Jichi Medical School, Tochigi, Japan
3 National Cardiovascular Center, Osaka, Japan
4 Shimane University, Shimane, Japan


Correspondence to:
Dr Takashi Kadowaki
Department of Health Science, Shiga University of Medical Science, Seta-tsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan; kadowaki@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of health education on smoking cessation for all smokers regardless of their willingness to quit smoking and cumulative environmental changes including designation of smoking places, legislation, and price rise.

Design: Comparison of smoking cessation rates over two time periods: the period of health education on smoking cessation (1997–1999), and the period of cumulative environmental changes (2002–2004).

Setting: An occupational setting in a radiator manufacturing factory in Japan.

Subjects: All habitual male smokers who remained in the worksite through the pertinent time period (n = 202 in the period of health education and n = 170 in the period of environmental changes).

Main outcome measurements: Smoking cessation rates at the end of each time period.

Results: The smoking cessation rates over the periods of health education and environmental changes were 8.9% and 7.1%, respectively. There was no difference between these two proportions in a 2 test (p = 0.513). The age adjustment did not significantly alter the cessation rate.

Conclusions: Cumulative environmental changes are fairly effective in promoting smoking cessation, and may yield similar smoking cessation rates as a health education intervention reaching all smokers regardless of their willingness to quit smoking.





i think its reasonable to say that any trends that limit or restrict smoking can't be good for tobacco companies. smoking bans send the message to cities and communities that smoking is harmful and shouldn't be tolerated. bans, restrictions on advertising, education - they all work together to push tobacco out of our culture and conscienceness. and smoking rates have declined steadily for decades. look at the big picture.

i may have spoken too definitevly about how smoking rates go down when there are bans, however. there's a few indications here and there, but i must confess, i'm no expert on those stats.

this link offers some indication, but nothing really specific;

http://ash.org/nycstudy.html

as far as washington state goes, i think it's too early to claim whether the ban will affect tobacco sales one way or the other. it's only been 6 months. perhaps over time they will go down.

glad you agree that the stranger is full of shit - and thanks for coming to my defense when i critisized their hypocritical advertising of camel.

[Melle]

i think its reasonable to say that any trends that limit or restrict smoking can't be good for tobacco companies. smoking bans send the message to cities and communities that smoking is harmful and shouldn't be tolerated. bans, restrictions on advertising, education - they all work together to push tobacco out of our culture and conscienceness. and smoking rates have declined steadily for decades. look at the big picture.

i may have spoken too definitevly about how smoking rates go down when there are bans, however. there's a few indications here and there, but i must confess, i'm no expert on those stats.

this link offers some indication, but nothing really specific;

http://ash.org/nycstudy.html

as far as washington state goes, i think it's too early to claim whether the ban will affect tobacco sales one way or the other. it's only been 6 months. perhaps over time they will go down.

glad you agree that the stranger is full of shit - and thanks for coming to my defense when i critisized their hypocritical advertising of camel.

The issue of corporate-media collusion is way more important than smoking bans---actually it's on a long list of issues that are way more important. A person doesn't need to agree with the premise to see the hypocrisy. (I didn't agree with Jimmy Swaggart that sex was bad, but any fool or "sinner" could see that he was a stinking hypocrite.) You stuck to your guns even when attacked by almost everyone, because you were right and they were wrong, and that was cool. I would have written more on that thread, but how can you preach to people who are so fundamentally convinced of the bullshit gospel of our time---namely, that whatever a corporation and a newspaper do together, it must be OK?

But speaking of bullshit, how can you listen to groups like ASH? My theory is this: back in the day, you REALLY liked smoking---so in order to quit, you had to make yourself REALLY hate it. So now you hate it and everything about it in order to not do it. A big part of not smoking for you is this reactionary trip, and it enables you to buy snake-oil from the likes of ASH uncritically. So ASH publishes results of "survey" they won't divulge the size of, a survey apparently undertaken for another purpose but with a "tobacco module" attached, asking who knows how many people who knows what kinds of questions. All they really had to do was look up cigarette sales revenues for New York State, like the Seattle Times did with Washington, to see whether or not Big Tobacco was actually hurt by the ban. (I just did a quick Google search myself BTW & could not find anything.)

[maggie2]

No Maggie, you didn't speak to soon. Smoking bans are one of the most effective ways to get people to quit smoking. Here is just one of many studies. Most communities see a 50-70% increase in quit attempts in the year after the ban. In King County we are expecting tobacco use to drop from 15% to around 13% within two years. That is a huge.


Yo Gres05 - thanks for doing the research/ having the knowledge that I was too lazy to acquire.

So Melle - do you agree now that Big Tobacco takes a hit?

[Matt]

Here's some more info:
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205

Here's my favorite, which comes direct from Philip Morris:

“The immediate implication for our business is clear: if our consumers have fewer opportunities to enjoy our products, they will use them less frequently and the result will be an adverse impact on our bottom line.”
Philip Morris, July 8, 1994

Boy, I forgot how good it felt to crush Melle's arguments.

[Gres05]

A "smoke-free" policy was adopted at the Duke University Medical Center but not at the adjacent University Campus. Three months after the smoking prohibition went into effect, a cross-sectional telephone survey was conducted, using randomly selected groups of 400 employees from each campus. Subjects were queried about current and previous smoking histories and their opinion of the smoking ban. As determined retrospectively from this survey, at the time of the announcement of the policy and 6 months before implementation, 23.6% of employees at the Medical Center were smokers, compared with 20.3% on the University Campus. Three months after implementation of the Medical Center smoking prohibition, smoking cessation rates were 12.6% at the Medical Center and 6.9% on the University Campus dating back 9 months to the time of policy announcement (P less than 0.10). Mean cigarette consumption during work hours declined over this same period from 8.1 +/- 6.8 (mean +/- SD) to 4.3 +/- 4.4 at the Medical Center but showed little change on the University Campus (9.3 +/- 7.5 v 8.7 +/- 8.0). Overall, 75.8% of subjects at the Medical Center "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed with the policy compared with 73.2% on the University Campus. A follow-up survey of the cohort of current or recent ex-smokers identified on the initial survey was conducted 6 months later. This survey revealed a smoking cessation rate of 22.5% at the Medical Center and 6.9% on the University Campus, dating back 15 months to the time of policy announcement (P less than 0.01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

New York witnessed 100,000 fewer smokers within one year of its ban. A drop in prevelence greater than anything in the past ten years.

[Melle]

Maggie: I don't know whether Big Tobacco takes a hit. See below.

Matt: I'm not really making an argument, just commenting on a Seattle Times article that I found interesting. If the implications of the data are wrong, that should be easy enough for you to establish; Napoleonic fantasies about "crushing" things are beside the point (but if they soothe the angry voices in your head, crush away).

But why are you touting a Philip Morris quote from 1994? I'm sure it was very interesting in 1994 and all, kind of like predictions about Y2K ... but why bother with that now? And Gres05: Why are we looking at all this speculative data and statistical projection, when there ought to be plenty of cold hard data by now? It's not the early 90's any more. It's 2006. 901 has passed & been in effect for months. The facts, whatever they are, ought to be in. Has Big Tobacco taken a hit or hasn't it? The only article I've seen addressing this question is the Times article, and the answer there is "no, it hasn't."

(BTW, I'm not asking how many smokers are estimated to have quit. I'm asking what's happened to the tobacco industry's profits.)

[Gres05]

Smoking bans cause people to quit and keep people from starting. It is one of the most effective ways, raising taxes is the other. For godsakes, it is a CDC best practice.

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/tobacco/tobac-ev-table-smoke-bans-behavior.pdf

at some point you need to start taking responsibility for educatating yourself.

UGH.



Maggie: I don't know whether Big Tobacco takes a hit. See below.

Matt: I'm not really making an argument, just commenting on a Seattle Times article that I found interesting. If the implications of the data are wrong, that should be easy enough for you to establish; Napoleonic fantasies about "crushing" things are beside the point, but if they soothe the angry voices in your head, crush away.

But why are you touting a Philip Morris quote from 1994? I'm sure it was very interesting in 1994 and all, kind of like predictions about Y2K ... but why bother with that now? And Gres05: Why are we looking at all this speculative data and statistical projection, when there ought to be plenty of cold hard data by now? It's not the early 90's any more. It's 2006, and California has banned smoking, along with New York, Massachussets, Washington, and several other states. To come to the point: The facts, whatever they are, ought to be in. Has Big Tobacco taken a hit or hasn't it? The only article I've seen addressing this question is the Times article, and there answer is "no, it hasn't."

(BTW, I'm not asking how many smokers are estimated to have quit. I'm asking what's happened to the tobacco industry's profits.)

[Melle]

Smoking bans cause people to quit and keep people from starting. It is one of the most effective ways, raising taxes is the other. For godsakes, it is a CDC best practice.

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/tobacco/tobac-ev-table-smoke-bans-behavior.pdf

at some point you need to start taking responsibility for educatating yourself.

UGH.

That's very interesting. Has Big Tobacco seen a profit or a loss since 901 passed?

[maggie2]

'But speaking of bullshit, how can you listen to groups like ASH? My theory is this: back in the day, you REALLY liked smoking---so in order to quit, you had to make yourself REALLY hate it. So now you hate it and everything about it in order to not do it. A big part of not smoking for you is this reactionary trip, and it enables you to buy snake-oil from the likes of ASH uncritically.'

that's not a bad theory, i guess, but it doesn't apply to me.
i was always against smoking and tobacco companies, even when i smoked. i didn't need a 'reactionary trip' in order to hate it because there are more than plenty of things to hate about tobacco addiction/ tobacco corporate practices without having to manufacture a false attitude.
i smoked for 13 years. at first i could get away with it, but the last five years as a smoker were terrible. cigs made me really sick, but i did it anyway. i was finally able to quit, mostly because my body couldn't handle it anymore.
My experiences as a smoker definitely fuels my anger toward passive smoke and ubiquitous camel ads, just as a war vet's experience in Vietnam might make him extra pissed about the Iraq war. My body is also very sensitive to cig smoke; there is a physical and psychological repulsion that occurs when I smell smoke. So that's a big part that motivates me to speak out against it.

As for buying snake oil from ash, the absolute truth is, I don't really know anything about ash. I’ve perused the site, as well as tobacco free kids a few times - that's it. I’m not an egghead when it comes to research. I’m just being honest here. ;;;;cantiloper was a particular challenge with his picogram arguments - what a pain in the ass he was;;;;.

but listen, i'm no idiot, and i know how to disseminate information. There’s a lot of info out there on tobacco, and I’ve read a fair amount. I’ve read enough to know that smoking and passive smoke causes lung cancer and a host of other diseases. I know that it’s addictive as hell, and that's a big part of why it’s so insidious. It’s clear to me that any company that spends billions to market such a product is just plain destructive and unethical. And I know that politicians, restaurant owners, and publications like the stranger that contribute to or tolerate tobacco companies are destructive and unethical as well.

In my view, the movement against tobacco is still pretty damn insignificant. Its too damn tolerated in society and business.

If an organization like Ash exaggerates a study here and there - and I’m not saying they do because I don't know - but if they did, I wouldn't give a rat’s ass about it. Their general thrust and intent is spot on. any organization that vilifies tobacco is doing good in my book.

[Melle]

'But speaking of bullshit, how can you listen to groups like ASH? My theory is this: back in the day, you REALLY liked smoking---so in order to quit, you had to make yourself REALLY hate it. So now you hate it and everything about it in order to not do it. A big part of not smoking for you is this reactionary trip, and it enables you to buy snake-oil from the likes of ASH uncritically.'

that's not a bad theory, i guess, but it doesn't apply to me.
i was always against smoking and tobacco companies, even when i smoked. i didn't need a 'reactionary trip' in order to hate it because there are more than plenty of things to hate about tobacco addiction/ tobacco corporate practices without having to manufacture a false attitude.
i smoked for 13 years. at first i could get away with it, but the last five years as a smoker were terrible. cigs made me really sick, but i did it anyway. i was finally able to quit, mostly because my body couldn't handle it anymore.

Okay, so my theory was wrong. You crushed my argument and exposed me for the liar that I am, kicking my ass in the process. Oh wait ... you're not Matt ... never mind.

My experiences as a smoker definitely fuels my anger toward passive smoke and ubiquitous camel ads, just as a war vet's experience in Vietnam might make him extra pissed about the Iraq war. My body is also very sensitive to cig smoke; there is a physical and psychological repulsion that occurs when I smell smoke. So that's a big part that motivates me to speak out against it.

As for buying snake oil from ash, the absolute truth is, I don't really know anything about ash. I’ve perused the site, as well as tobacco free kids a few times - that's it. I’m not an egghead when it comes to research. I’m just being honest here. ;;;;cantiloper was a particular challenge with his picogram arguments - what a pain in the ass he was;;;;.

Well, he was on his game for sure.

but listen, i'm no idiot, and i know how to disseminate information.

I know that. But I feel that Cecil Adams (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html), Elizabeth Whelan (http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp), Joe Jackson (http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.htm), Trey Parker & Matt Stone (http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season7/E713script.htm), etc., for instance, are not idiots either, and that they also know how to disseminate information. Would you say this to them? "you should read some of the arguments put forth in this forum over the last year before you go spewing your ignorance ... your comments are frankly asinine. sorry, but i'm beyond sick of hearing it. you sound like exxon arguing that there is no global warming." I hope not, because the fact is there are 2 informed opinions on this subject, and someone doesn't automatically reveal idiocy by holding one or the other.

There’s a lot of info out there on tobacco, and I’ve read a fair amount. I’ve read enough to know that smoking and passive smoke causes lung cancer and a host of other diseases.

Yeah, well, auto exhaust and other workplace carcinogens cause instant death, yet somehow mechanics (etc.) live healthy lives. We can ventillate fumes that kill 100% of people in 30 minutes. But we can't ventillate fumes that kill 0.3% of people in 30 years? (If that?)

If an organization like Ash exaggerates a study here and there - and I’m not saying they do because I don't know - but if they did, I wouldn't give a rat’s ass about it. Their general thrust and intent is spot on. any organization that vilifies tobacco is doing good in my book.

Right here is where you & I part company. Exaggeration and fear-mongering are not right; ends don't justify means IMO.

I know I won't change your mind, but civil discussions are pretty valuable on this particular thread, so thanks.

[maggie2]

But I feel that Cecil Adams (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html), Elizabeth Whelan (http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp), Joe Jackson (http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.htm), Trey Parker & Matt Stone (http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season7/E713script.htm), etc., for instance, are not idiots either, and that they also know how to disseminate information. Would you say this to them? "you should read some of the arguments put forth in this forum over the last year before you go spewing your ignorance ... your comments are frankly asinine. sorry, but i'm beyond sick of hearing it. you sound like exxon arguing that there is no global warming." I hope not, because the fact is there are 2 informed opinions on this subject, and someone doesn't automatically reveal idiocy by holding one or the other.

the people you mention here are not ignorant - they lack common sense and can't see the big picture.

look, michael crichton is brilliant and wants to disprove global warming. i don't have to read his book and study his arguments to know that he's got it wrong. what i've read on the subject has allowed me to form reasonable assumptions that global warming is real and we're causing it. majority consensus among scientists is pretty convincing as well. i don't need to become a scientist in order to form reasoned views on global warming or smoking for that matter.

despite what some people claim in this forum, i believe it is reasonable to say that the scientific community, in general, is in agreement that secondhand smoke is significantly harmful.

Yeah, well, auto exhaust and other workplace carcinogens cause instant death, yet somehow mechanics (etc.) live healthy lives. We can ventillate fumes that kill 100% of people in 30 minutes. But we can't ventillate fumes that kill 0.03% of people in 30 years? (If that?)


the greatest concentration of carcinogins come right off the tip of the cigarette. i can't imagine ventilation systems protecting workers from that hazard.
ventilation is not a reasonable alternative to bans. you're looking at cost, varying venues, etc.
bans are awesome. smokers smoke outside - what's the big fucking deal/
even if cigs only caused asthma or simple throat irritation, it would make perfect sense to keep it outside.

[Gres05]

Worldwide, a profit. In WA? We will have to wait to see. In NY and CA and other places with bans, less people smoke and those who do smoke less.

So...Idiot, the industry loses money. The Settlement prevents the industy from using money to oppose public health measures to reduce smoking- that is why resistence is very minimal.

By the by you are about the most lazy, ignorant bitch I have ever come across. Seriously, fucking LOOK something up for yourself now and then.



That's very interesting. Has Big Tobacco seen a profit or a loss since 901 passed?

[maggie2]

Worldwide, a profit. In WA? We will have to wait to see. In NY and CA and other places with bans, less people smoke and those who do smoke less.

So...Idiot, the industry loses money. The Settlement prevents the industy from using money to oppose public health measures to reduce smoking- that is why resistence is very minimal.

By the by you are about the most lazy, ignorant bitch I have ever come across. Seriously, fucking LOOK something up for yourself now and then.

Yo Gres05,

We don't agree with Melle but you're insults are over the top and out of porportion, not to mention against the rules of this forum.

He's not lazy - he has a wide range of knowlege (albeit displaced in my view).

Some play the insult game and it can be fun. Others don't care for it, and Melle has made it clear that he doesn't, so back the fuck off.

And blah, blah, blah and "don't tell me what to say", and "oh, you want to fuck him don't you?" and "let him speak for himself", and "who are you to say.." and blah, blah, blah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't give a fuck.

[DrOctopu5]

a room full of arsenic and cyanide

Hahahahahaha.

Ohhhhhh MERCY.

Nothing like hysterical hyperbole to get your point across, huh?

[Matt]

But why are you touting a Philip Morris quote from 1994?Because it crushes your argument.

I'm not asking how many smokers are estimated to have quit.You're not? Let's review:

Maggie, 6/7/06: "look at all the other states where smoking bans have been implemented; people tend to quit smoking."

Melle, 6/7/06: "Is that a fact? New one to me; do you have a source?"

Matt, 6/8/06: "http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205"

[Matt]

But we can't ventillate fumes that kill [questionable stat removed] of people in [questionable stat removed] years? (If that?)That's right. According to ventilation companies, ventilation does not adequately remove second-hand smoke (which causes cancer): http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267.

[Gres05]

Yo Gres05,

He's not lazy - he has a wide range of knowlege (albeit displaced in my view).


No Maggie, he is exceptionally lazy. In the world of google and quick and easy internet access it hardly takes any effort at all to answer a question yourself through research. Someone who repeatly asks questions about fact instead of looking it up themselves- is lazy. Someone who develops an entire opinion without at least looking to see what the facts are- is lazy.

Someone who asks for someone else to find information for them, gets it, and then bitches about the data only to then get more data, which he didn't even bother to respond to except for a "hmmm, interesting" is a BITCH.

[maggie2]

yo matt and gres,

i've needed your help on 'big tobacco loves the stranger' on the slog.

i have close to zero support over there.

don't you agree that the stranger's relationship with camel - not to mention its stance on 901 - is totally outrageous, unnacceptable, hypocritical, and destructive/

-----no shift key still--------

[Melle]

Because it crushes your argument.

Oh yeah. Tears it to shreds.

My next "argument": Coca-Cola wound up with more market share after the New Coke fiasco. (Please, Matt, PLEASE don't produce an internal Coca-Cola memo from 1985 showing that they feared the opposite! I can't take the beating.)

Melle: "I'm not asking how many smokers are estimated to have quit."

You're not? Let's review:

Maggie, 6/7/06: "look at all the other states where smoking bans have been implemented; people tend to quit smoking."

Melle, 6/7/06: "Is that a fact? New one to me; do you have a source?"

Matt, 6/8/06: "http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205"

Key word, Matt: Estimated. What I said was "I'm not asking how many smokers are estimated to have quit." Your links show nothing but estimates.

And again, all the speculation quoted on your link is from the early- to mid-1990s. (That is, when they even bother to date it.)

According to ventilation companies, ventilation does not adequately remove second-hand smoke (which causes cancer): http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267.

If you're dragging out that old horse again, then I'll have to tell you again that what is being described on your link is not ventilation---it's air filtration/recirculation. (Ventilation means facilitating an airflow through a room, where stale air is replaced by fresh air. Recirculation means pumping the same old stale air supply through a few filters---by far the less healthy alternative, regardless of whether tobacco smoke is involved.)

I know that you and "no smoke.org" like to misidentify and confuse the two---but (fortunately for parking-garage attendants everywhere) that's just wishful thinking on your part. Ventilation really DOES protect employees from carcinogens.

[Melle]

the people you mention here are not ignorant - they lack common sense and can't see the big picture.

look, michael crichton is brilliant and wants to disprove global warming. i don't have to read his book and study his arguments to know that he's got it wrong. what i've read on the subject has allowed me to form reasonable assumptions that global warming is real and we're causing it. majority consensus among scientists is pretty convincing as well. i don't need to become a scientist in order to form reasoned views on global warming or smoking for that matter.

I wouldn't call Michael Crichton "brilliant." He's OK. He does know a lot; he studies the research at its source. I don't think he's trying to "disprove global warming." He thinks it's mostly caused by nature, not human activity. I disagree with him, but I think discussion of the subject is hampered by one side's fixation on its own moral righteousness. The leftist commentator Alexander Cockburn, who I admire very much, wrote some articles with a gist similar to Crichton’s, and he’s an environmentalist hero, so without going too far off the subject let me just say this: Although I agree with you about global warming, even that subject deserves some cool-headed debate in my opinion.

despite what some people claim in this forum, i believe it is reasonable to say that the scientific community, in general, is in agreement that secondhand smoke is significantly harmful.

That may be true; I don’t really know. I do know that a media machine seems to ceaselessly crank out endless “studies,” nearly all of which seem to be by James Repace or Stanton Glantz, that would create the impression of consensus whether there was one or not.

the greatest concentration of carcinogins come right off the tip of the cigarette. i can't imagine ventilation systems protecting workers from that hazard.

But ventilation routinely protects workers from far greater hazards. If it works for car exhaust, how could it not work for tobacco smoke?

ventilation is not a reasonable alternative to bans. you're looking at cost, varying venues, etc.

I think the cost should be borne by the businesses themselves. In budget matters, it’s up to them to decide what’s “reasonable.”

bans are awesome. smokers smoke outside - what's the big fucking deal/ even if cigs only caused asthma or simple throat irritation, it would make perfect sense to keep it outside.

Well, having to go outside isn’t exactly a Greek tragedy & I’m not going to pretend it is. But it’s a drag to me. I don’t think anyone’s going to change anyone’s opinion on this one.

Lastly---I know this was from a different post, but I might as well address it here:


yo matt and gres,

i've needed your help on 'big tobacco loves the stranger' on the slog.

i have close to zero support over there.

don't you agree that the stranger's relationship with camel - not to mention its stance on 901 - is totally outrageous, unnacceptable, hypocritical, and destructive/

I suspect you might be disappointed. The anti-smoking movement likes to talk tough about Big Tobacco, but then they go and partner with publications that expose millions of people to cigarette ad campaigns. (For example, the American Legacy Foundation, i.e. “Tobacco-Free Kids,” is in the midst of its summer tour, sponsered in large part by Cosmopolitan magazine. Cosmo, of course, delivers Big Tobacco advertising to girls and women nationwide. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/american-legacy-foundation-anti.html This same group also boasts, as its “lead corporate partner,” Time Warner Corporation---another massive disseminator of Big Tobacco advertising. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/02/american-legacy-foundation-admits.html) I would truly like to see them join you & mobilize their forces to pressure The Stranger to drop its North Carolina sugar-daddy---but they seem to have stopped doing things like that a long time ago.

[Melle]

As for Gres05: I'm talking about tobacco sales ... he's trying to change the subject to theoretically-projected quit rates. These are 2 different things.

I have posted 1 link on the subject of tobacco sales. He has posted none.

And in case anyone missed it ... yes, my "That's very interesting" was sarcastic. (As in, "That's very interesting about Chewbacca, Mr. Cochran, but can we talk about your client now?")

[Melle]

Last but not least---thanks for standing up for me, Maggie, you're pretty cool, I must say.

[Cantiloper]

Hi again folks! :) Sorry, it's been awhile I know, and I won't pretend that I've actually caught up on all that's gone on in my absence, but let me pick up with some recent comments by Maggie...

Maggie wrote to cindersmoke: "you sound like exxon arguing that there is no global warming."

Maggie, I won't say that I'm ANYwhere near as knowledgeable about global warming as I am about secondary smoke, but you might try giving Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" a read. He's an advocate and could well be arguing a biased point, but I don't know what his motivation would be. He presents a pretty strong case against the global warmers, backed up by dozens of footnotes and graphs.

Maggie also wrote: "the 25 foot rule protects workers and is not unreasonable."

Maggie can you quote a few studies showing ANY harm from smoke outdoors several feet away from nonsmokers? And don't argue that the smoke outdoors becomes different somehow when it travels a few feet and goes indoors: chemistry doesn't work that way unless you're talking about photosensitive chemical transmutation... something I'm fairly certain has never been studied for secondary smoke.

In reality, the firmest of the studies dealing with long term harm from secondary smoke are the lung cancer studies outlined at

http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable

and you'll notice that VERY few of them even pass the bare minimum test of statistical significance... to say nothing of scientific causality.... and most of those studies involved 30 to 50 years of constant indoor exposure in poorly ventilated conditions.

So I fail to see what you're basing your support for a 25 foot ruling on.

Can you elaborate?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com

[Matt]

Oh yeah. Tears it to shreds.Glad you agree.

Key word, Matt: Estimated. What I said was "I'm not asking how many smokers are estimated to have quit." Your links show nothing but estimates.Yes, Melle, we know that you don't accept any evidence that counters your point of view. But that's okay. My goal isn't to change your mind. I know there are many lurkers who will read http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205 and see how strong the evidence is. Smoking bans lead to clean air and, according to Philip Morris, harm Big Tobacco's profits. Which is obvious. And that is a good thing!

[Matt]

Well, having to go outside isn’t exactly a Greek tragedy & I’m not going to pretend it is. But it’s a drag to me.I feel bad for you. You know, people who blast loud music from a boombox in the middle of a restaurant think it's a drag to have to go outside, too. It must be difficult to lead life as an inconsiderate public nuisance, huh?

Oh, speaking of public nuisances, check out this awesome news:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/14762471.htm

In a 3-2 vote, the City Council voted Tuesday night to proceed with creating an ordinance that would declare secondhand cigarette smoke a public nuisance

Each day, there's just more and more good news!!

[Melle]

Yes, Melle, we know that you don't accept any evidence that counters your point of view.

Or, to put it in another, more truthful way---your "evidence" doesn't counter my point of view at all, but you're misrepresenting it as doing so. Estimates from 1994, before the fact, don't contradict sales receipts from 2006, after the fact. This is pretty basic.

And by the way, what you call my "point of view" is not (strictly speaking) my point of view at all. It's a statement, purporting to be factual, reported by the Seattle Times.

But that's okay. My goal isn't to change your mind. I know there are many lurkers who will read http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205 and see how strong the evidence is. Smoking bans lead to clean air and, according to Philip Morris, harm Big Tobacco's profits. Which is obvious. And that is a good thing!

Yes indeed, all lurkers, please read Matt's link http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205 . And please tell me if it contradicts anything in my link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002982382_webcigarettesales09.html

[Matt]

Hi again folks! :) Cantiloper!! Boy I missed you!

Hey, I heard the PA smoking ban didn't make it. 14-14 committee vote. Veeery close and actually is good news because it shows how PA is getting closer and closer to clean air. Never got so close before.

Next year, it'll pass the committee. And within 5 years, it'll pass the legislature. It's inevitable, as we all know. And when that day comes, I will come to Philly, your home town, with my "No Smoking" balloons and personally make sure that nobody smokes in restaurants and bars, just like I do here in Seattle. Oh what a joyous and rapturous day that shall be!!!

Clean air is on the way!!

[Matt]

Yes indeed, all lurkers, please read Matt's link http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=205. Tell me if it contradicts anything in my link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002982382_webcigarettesales09.htmlOf course it does. No lurker is stupid enough to think that three month's worth of stats is the final story. The numerous studies at my link show quite clearly that smoking bans have a negative impact on cigarette usage, as Philip Morris admitted. I know you think you know more about Philip Morris' bottom line than Philip Morris does, but I kinda doubt it.

[Melle]

Of course it does. No lurker is stupid enough to think that three month's worth of stats is the final story. The numerous studies at my link show quite clearly that smoking bans have a negative impact on cigarette usage, as Philip Morris admitted. I know you think you know more about Philip Morris' bottom line than Philip Morris does, but I kinda doubt it.

Philip Morris, 1992: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average… Milder workplace restrictions, such as smoking only in designated areas have much less impact on quitting rates and very little effect on consumption."

The Seattle Times, 2006: "Legal cigarette sales in Washington are up, despite a tax increase and a ban on smoking in most public places, state revenue figures show. In the first three months of the year, 52.5 million packs of legally taxed cigarettes were sold, slightly more than the 52.4 million packs sold in the first quarter of 2005, according to the state Revenue Department."

In a related story, the Titanic's owners declared it unsinkable prior to the disaster. Wouldn't it be nice if reality were dictated by the forecasts of a few businessmen?

[Melle]

No lurker is stupid enough to think that three month's worth of stats is the final story.

If that's all you got, why not just say so? If you're confident that sales figures will turn around, why not just join Maggie and say they're bound to turn around, sooner or later? It's not the end of the world. Maybe you'll be right. Maybe I'll wind up like a Red Sox fan gloating in the spring. It's not that big a deal---certainly not big enough for you to elevate a few Philip Morris execs to the status of Nostradamus (in defiance of concrete record).

[maggie2]

Maggie can you quote a few studies showing ANY harm from smoke outdoors several feet away from nonsmokers? And don't argue that the smoke outdoors becomes different somehow when it travels a few feet and goes indoors: chemistry doesn't work that way unless you're talking about photosensitive chemical transmutation... something I'm fairly certain has never been studied for secondary smoke.

In reality, the firmest of the studies dealing with long term harm from secondary smoke are the lung cancer studies outlined at

http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable

and you'll notice that VERY few of them even pass the bare minimum test of statistical significance... to say nothing of scientific causality.... and most of those studies involved 30 to 50 years of constant indoor exposure in poorly ventilated conditions.

So I fail to see what you're basing your support for a 25 foot ruling on.

Can you elaborate?

---Shift key broken---

Hi cantiloper, you old devil...

You want to argue that small amounts of passive cigarette smoke are not significantly harmful to one's health.

Studies suggested that even small amounts could trigger a stroke or contribute to heart disease.

I couldn't find those studies just now on google. I’m sure you are very familiar with them and have problems with them. If you could link me to the studies I’d be glad to hear your arguments.

The evidence that small amounts irritate the throat and respiratory system is irrefutable, as is the evidence that it is harmful to those with asthma, the elderly, and the newborn. That alone is reason to keep small amounts away from the workplace - hence part of a reasonable rationale to support the 25-foot rule.

In my view, given the fact that passive smoke can be significantly harmful to a person's health, it is not unreasonable to create laws that prohibit cigarette smoking within 25 feet of workplaces, even if there may be a some debate about the health effects of small amounts of secondhand smoke.

I live near a pub that I can't go to because smokers smoke in the doorway. The cig smoke comes right off the tip of the cigarette and goes directly into the pub. I can see the smoke as it travels to my face. I am not exaggerating. As there is a high concentration of carcinogens that emanate from the tip of a cigarette, it is not unreasonable for me to assume that by staying in that pub my health may be at risk.

The 25-foot rule, as you know, is not enforced. Nearly everywhere I go I will still smell cigarette smoke. I was at the hop vine on 15th in Capitol Hill over the weekend and sat right in the middle of the restaurant with a friend I hadn't seen for a long time. I didn't want to leave because he really wanted to hang out there and I didn't want to ruin his evening. But there I sat, breathing cigarette smoke for two hours. It truly seemed like someone was smoking inside.

Fuming, I, of course, got up to investigate. There was a single smoker sitting on a chair right outside the front door. I didn't say anything to him because, for all I knew, it was you sitting there. I didn't want to hear the words, 'fuck you bitch, make me.' which I have indeed heard on another occasion.

My night out became all about drama, inconvenience, irritation, and justifiable inner-rage. Who needs that shit? Get the fuck away from the door you inconsiderate pricks.

There are many, many rationales to justify 901 and the 25-foot rule.

The law now says that indoor workplaces are smoke-free. Given that fact, is it unreasonable to expect to not smell cigarette smoke when I go to a smoke-free establishment/

There are big-picture/ common sense arguments to consider here cantiloper.

Welcome back.

[maggie2]

Last but not least---thanks for standing up for me, Maggie, you're pretty cool, I must say.

your welcome

from matt - 'Notice how Cantiloper and Melle reappeared almost simultaneously?'

actually, matt, that guy shows up when i come around, i think. he knows i get sucked into his damn picogram arguments and uses me as a tool to obfuscate.

'You know, people who blast loud music from a boombox in the middle of a restaurant think it's a drag to have to go outside, too. It must be difficult to lead life as an inconsiderate public nuisance, huh?'

matt - that nails it on the head...

btw, i wonder how this reunion came together/
i'm glad to be with you fellas - can't stand brodeo, jimmy flame, and those other newbie piss-babies.

[maggie2]

From smoke free action--

A little article I found about our friend cantiloper, the prestigious author who works for cigarette companies that get people hooked on cigarettes so they die young and take others with them to an early grave - and look butt-ugly, too with deep crows feet at age 38, hocking up tar and snot behind me when I’m trying to watch a fucking movie.

The Tobacco Industry Has Tried to Subvert and Cover Up the Evidence On the Health Impact of Secondhand Smoke.

Based on internal documents from the tobacco industry, studies have show that the industry has sought to systematically distort the scientific evidence on the harmful effects of tobacco, especially in relation to secondhand smoke. [39] For example, attempts have been made to infiltrate scientific institutions such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); [40] studies have been commissioned to cast doubt on the evidence of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke either by producing findings counter to major influential studies [41] or by proposing other factors such as diet as the harmful factors. [42] . Various front-bodies have also been funded to publish studies and hold conferences that aim to criticise the accepted evidence on secondhand smoke, such as the ‘European Science and Environment Forum’ and ‘The Centre for Indoor Air Research’. [43] [44] [45]

and for everyone----

Smoke-Free Laws Have Improved People’s Health

Smokefree laws can reduce health problems in a surprisingly short time. In the isolated American town of Helena, Montana, smoking was banned in all public buildings including restaurants, bars and casinos in 2002. The law was later over-turned following a campaign by tobacco lobbyists. It was found that admissions to the local hospital for acute myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) fell in the six months when the ban was in effect (June- November 2002) compared with the same months in the years before the law was introduced and after it was overturned. [46]

Smokefree laws have also helped to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke in the home [47] through encouraging smokers to give up [48] and through increasing the proportion of smokefree homes/homes with smoking restrictions. [49] [50] [51]

[maggie2]

If that's all you got, why not just say so? If you're confident that sales figures will turn around, why not just join Maggie and say they're bound to turn around, sooner or later? It's not the end of the world. Maybe you'll be right. Maybe I'll wind up like a Red Sox fan gloating in the spring. It's not that big a deal---certainly not big enough for you to elevate a few Philip Morris execs to the status of Nostradamus (in defiance of concrete record).

sales figures are going down.

oh there may be spikes,
like the hairs of dykes,
but they'll be going down.

'cept for overseas
where they do what they please
with the tobacco-push charade
disguised as free-trade

but they'll be going down

we'll all look back
at those sinister folks

with their 20-cig packs
defending their smokes

and merging with kraft
but still going broke

'til everyone laughed and laughed

and coughed up some blood chunks.

[Cantiloper]

Hello Maggie! Good to be back, and happy to help you out! You wrote: "I couldn't find those studies just now on google. I’m sure you are very familiar with them and have problems with them. If you could link me to the studies I’d be glad to hear your arguments. "

OK, here ya go, and I'll be VERY happy to hear your (and Matt's) specific responses:

Otsuka’s 30 Minute Heart Attack Study
(Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking…. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)


In July of 2001, Ryo Otsuka supposedly showed that simply sharing a room with a smoker for 30 minutes could kill you. The news flashed around the world with the same hype that would later greet Helena, but once again the hype was more fraud than fact. Unless you actually read the study rather than just the news headlines you’d never know that:

 The level of smoke exposure (6ppm of CO) was 300% more than the levels in smoking sections of pressurized airplanes. This was not simply “a room with a smoker” or any decently ventilated hospitality venue. Copycat studies have used even smokier chambers… up to FORTY ppm of CO: 2,000% more!

 The study used only extreme nonsmokers devoted to avoiding smoke in their daily lives. They were forced to sign a “protocol” acknowledging potentially dangerous conditions and then stuck in a smoke-choked room for 30 minutes. The result? A small change in blood chemistry comparable to what’s seen after a meal. The amazing thing is there were no heart attacks just from the stress!

 There was no control. Even a high school science project would have included a sham model and “protocol signing” with control subjects exposed to harmless but eye-stinging levels of skunk scent and fog. The control results would probably have been identical to smoke.

 Why wasn’t such a control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps… I actually can’t think of any other reason. Otsuka’s study didn’t show a physical reaction to smoke: it showed a physical reaction to fear and stress… conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke.


Otsuka is at fault for deliberately avoiding reasonable controls to balance extreme experimental conditions. The media is at fault in not acknowledging those conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers. And Smoking Prohibitionists are at fault for using this study to frighten people with the idea that simply being near smokers for short periods causes heart attacks. This study and its use is an example of fear-mongering in its ugliest sense.

========

So, let me hear what YOUR thoughts are as to why

1) the experimental condition was deliberately so much higher than anything normally encountered in any decent real life restaurant setting

2) the pool of subjects was deliberately chosen as an extreme rather than a representative pool

3) why no control was set up

and

4) why the researcher himself has never responded to these charges.

Tell ya what, why don't you write and ask him???

LOL!

You know, someday WE will have an equal microphone with you... and when we DO... well, we'll see what happens to government mandated, rather than business mandated, smoking bans.

Meanwhile... care to answer my questions?

:>
Michael

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com

<Aintcha glad I'm back?>

[Cantiloper]

Maggie wrote: "A little article I found about our friend cantiloper, the prestigious author who works for cigarette companies that get people hooked on cigarettes" -

Very nice Maggie. I believe this is the first time that anyone has actually libeled me on the internet.

Of course you can't prove your statement, since it isn't true, and of course I can prove that it's not true.

Thank you. Do you have a lot of money? I don't, since I'm working on the wrong side of the issue... but we'll see what happens.

- Michael

[Melle]

sales figures are going down.

oh there may be spikes,
like the hairs of dykes,
but they'll be going down.

'cept for overseas
where they do what they please
with the tobacco-push charade
disguised as free-trade

but they'll be going down

we'll all look back
at those sinister folks

with their 20-cig packs
defending their smokes

and merging with kraft
but still going broke

'til everyone laughed and laughed

and coughed up some blood chunks.

Not bad. I got dibs on the film treatment:

Act V. Turning her back on the icy luxury of Philip Morris headquarters, Maggie sets out on foot across the scorching desert. After 50 or 100 yards she turns to look back. She glares at the tobacco giant's palatial mansion, a look of rejection and fierce contempt on her face. The house sits like a work of nature, huge, unyielding. Maggie continues to stare with hatred in her eyes. Suddenly, without warning, the mansion explodes.

Thunderous noise and blinding light fill the valley as Philip Morris headquarters bursts into raging flame. After a few moments, plastic lighters and Kraft smegma-like cheese and other brightly phoney products rain down from the wreck. Maggie, cleansed in the purifying vision, turns back to the desert and sets out on her way.

[Crane back. Fade to white.]

[Gres05]

Ok, so we know more people quit after a ban, and we know that those who continue to smoke, smoke less; and we now know that children in WA are less likely to start: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273464_teensmoking10.html.

So, Melle, ae you proposing that non-smokers are now buying cigarettes and just throwing them away or perhaps saving them for their historical value?

Maybe you also missed the part in the article you provided that stated that LEGAL sales of tobacco have risen (not overall sales). The state has cracked down on internet sales and tribes are honoring agreements to tax their cigs to match the state price. That, coupled with the fact that the ban was just being implemented during the time period mentioned (most likely not enough time for smokers to make the behavioral change to quit) most likely accounts for the difference.

[maggie2]

Not bad. I got dibs on the film treatment:

Act V. Turning her back on the icy luxury of Philip Morris headquarters, Maggie sets out on foot across the scorching desert. After 50 or 100 yards she turns to look back. She glares at the tobacco giant's palatial mansion, a look of rejection and fierce contempt on her face. The house sits like a work of nature, huge, unyielding. Maggie continues to stare with hatred in her eyes. Suddenly, without warning, the mansion explodes.

Thunderous noise and blinding light fill the valley as Philip Morris headquarters bursts into raging flame. After a few moments, plastic lighters and Kraft smegma-like cheese and other brightly phoney products rain down from the wreck. Maggie, cleansed in the purifying vision, turns back to the desert and sets out on her way.

[Dolly back. Fade to white.]

awwww - you gave away the ending.

on an ironic twist, maybe i should find a camel to give me a ride through the desert.

[maggie2]

Maggie wrote: "A little article I found about our friend cantiloper, the prestigious author who works for cigarette companies that get people hooked on cigarettes" -

Very nice Maggie. I believe this is the first time that anyone has actually libeled me on the internet.

Of course you can't prove your statement, since it isn't true, and of course I can prove that it's not true.

Thank you. Do you have a lot of money? I don't, since I'm working on the wrong side of the issue... but we'll see what happens.

- Michael

you are so funny. what a big baby - threatening to sue a low admin-level temp.

i would be shocked and even dissapointed if i found out you weren't collecting actual dollars from tobacco, since you work so damn hard for their pr machine.

if you don't work for tobacco, why not apply for a job/ they would fucking love you and you'd get rich. what point is there to being an evil genius if you can't profit from it/

of course, you would have to get paid under the table, because tobacco dollars would instantly taint all of your studies as biased and corrupted. then you'd have to deny actually working for tobacco and threaten to sue people if you got accused of it. it could get uncomfortable.

[maggie2]

Hello Maggie! Good to be back, and happy to help you out! You wrote: "I couldn't find those studies just now on google. I’m sure you are very familiar with them and have problems with them. If you could link me to the studies I’d be glad to hear your arguments. "

OK, here ya go, and I'll be VERY happy to hear your (and Matt's) specific responses:

Otsuka’s 30 Minute Heart Attack Study
(Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking…. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)


In July of 2001, Ryo Otsuka supposedly showed that simply sharing a room with a smoker for 30 minutes could kill you. The news flashed around the world with the same hype that would later greet Helena, but once again the hype was more fraud than fact. Unless you actually read the study rather than just the news headlines you’d never know that:

? The level of smoke exposure (6ppm of CO) was 300% more than the levels in smoking sections of pressurized airplanes. This was not simply “a room with a smoker” or any decently ventilated hospitality venue. Copycat studies have used even smokier chambers… up to FORTY ppm of CO: 2,000% more!

? The study used only extreme nonsmokers devoted to avoiding smoke in their daily lives. They were forced to sign a “protocol” acknowledging potentially dangerous conditions and then stuck in a smoke-choked room for 30 minutes. The result? A small change in blood chemistry comparable to what’s seen after a meal. The amazing thing is there were no heart attacks just from the stress!

? There was no control. Even a high school science project would have included a sham model and “protocol signing” with control subjects exposed to harmless but eye-stinging levels of skunk scent and fog. The control results would probably have been identical to smoke.

? Why wasn’t such a control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps… I actually can’t think of any other reason. Otsuka’s study didn’t show a physical reaction to smoke: it showed a physical reaction to fear and stress… conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke.


Otsuka is at fault for deliberately avoiding reasonable controls to balance extreme experimental conditions. The media is at fault in not acknowledging those conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers. And Smoking Prohibitionists are at fault for using this study to frighten people with the idea that simply being near smokers for short periods causes heart attacks. This study and its use is an example of fear-mongering in its ugliest sense.

========

So, let me hear what YOUR thoughts are as to why

1) the experimental condition was deliberately so much higher than anything normally encountered in any decent real life restaurant setting

2) the pool of subjects was deliberately chosen as an extreme rather than a representative pool

3) why no control was set up

and

4) why the researcher himself has never responded to these charges.

Tell ya what, why don't you write and ask him???

LOL!

You know, someday WE will have an equal microphone with you... and when we DO... well, we'll see what happens to government mandated, rather than business mandated, smoking bans.

Meanwhile... care to answer my questions?

:>
Michael

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com

<Aintcha glad I'm back?>

i can't argue picograms, cantiloper, i'm not a scientist.

i do believe, however, that i answered your original question quite well - about my reasoning for supporting the 25-foot rule.

do you still think the 25-foot rule is unreasonable.

btw - are you really thinking about suing me/ i don't need to spend my weekend worrying about that.

[Melle]

Ok, so we know more people quit after a ban, and we know that those who continue to smoke, smoke less; and we now know that children in WA are less likely to start: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/273464_teensmoking10.html.

So, Melle, ae you proposing that non-smokers are now buying cigarettes and just throwing them away or perhaps saving them for their historical value?

I'm not proposing anything. I just mentioned the cold hard facts, which happen to not be confirming your studies & predictions. Spin it however you want.

(Your P.I. link, by the way, has no relevance to 901. According to the article, the survey on youth-smoking rates, undertaken every 2 years, will be updated this fall, meaning the most recent data is from the fall of 2004---a full year prior to 901.)

Maybe you also missed the part in the article you provided that stated that LEGAL sales of tobacco have risen (not overall sales).

Missed it? No, actually I quoted that part. Twice.

The state has cracked down on internet sales and tribes are honoring agreements to tax their cigs to match the state price. That, coupled with the fact that the ban was just being implemented during the time period mentioned (most likely not enough time for smokers to make the behavioral change to quit) most likely accounts for the difference.

Sounds like more wishful thinking. The ban was implemented on December 8, 2005 and immediately touted as a resounding success (according to Roger Valdez, compliance was at "95 to 98 percent" by December 23: http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=8979&postcount=678). The "time period mentioned" in the article was the first 3 months of 2006.

Anyway, I think the reason legal sales are cited is because there's no record of illegal ones.

[Matt]

[speaking to Cantiloper] if you don't work for tobacco, why not apply for a jobBecause Cantiloper knows the tobacco business is unhealthy and dying. (Just like its customers!!)

[Nan]

Hello,
Here is your friendly forum moderator to remind you to keep your arguments civil. This topic gets people riled up more than any other. Nonetheless, if I see any more name calling or threats (litigious or otherwise,) I'll start deleting posts and even banning users. Oh, yes I will!
Your schoolmarm has spoken.

[Ballardguy]

I see the Melle and Cantaloupe are back on tour again. Better than a vaudeville act. :). And really...are we at the point of hinting at lawsuits? Please.

I admire your steadfast convictions that smoke is "harmless"...but let's have a sanity check. I don't think anyone cares one way or another about smoking stats and studies. The ban passed because the majority of people hate cigarette smoke, were tired of the indifference shown by smokies in lighting up anywhere they pleased, and yes, because it does lead to health problems (hence, the worker language). It could have been promoted to advance the safety of puppies walking past bars and would have passed.

Do you really think that huffing and puffing up "data" on tobacco profitability...safety of 25 vs 15 feet....% changes of smokies....is going to change any of that? No. Why is that? Maybe....just maybe.....the mass majority of people like smoking bans. Interesting fact - all counties in Washington passed the ban, so can we please stop the barking about this being a Seattle liberal thing?

Here's a recommended stat to look up: Has any smoking ban ever been repealed by either popular vote or the court system? Maybe there was a clarification here or there, but a repeal? I don't think so. Does anyone?

BTW - let's keep this current. No fair going back to the 16th Century to find any repeals. :).

[Shady_B_206]

As the number of posts surpass 1500 I think it is time for our politicians to re-examine the "Stop the Smoking Ban!" debate. HOW MANY MORE POSTS ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE WAKE UP. Rep. Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, and also a former TheStranger Poster has reversed his initial support for the Stop The Smoking Ban! Thread in light of its heavy cost saying, "As a former Marine I must say enough has been said about the Smoking Ban. In the Marines some people smoked and some did not, but as a former Marine I must say this debate is pointless and costly." He went on to talk about the fact that he used to be a Marine.

The bottom line is that this debate cannot go on, that critical 2000 post mark is on the horizon and coming ever so nearer....

[Matt]

The bottom line is that this debate cannot go on, that critical 2000 post mark is on the horizon and coming ever so nearer....And I'm going to post #2000.

[maggie2]

And I'm going to post #2000.

i got 1500 cuz me so fucking cool.

[Shady_B_206]

And I'm going to post #2000.


You Sir have no heart...

[fawkes]

thats alot of posts dude.

[Shattered Roses]

muchos d'el postos, yes. All that aside, why should we lift the ban on smoking (I'll be in reference to New Jersey's) if smoking has been actually proved in multiple studies to kill people. Even if you don't "believe in" secondhand smoke, you still must see the clear and present danger posed by smoking to people with asthma! If you need a smoke so bad that you refuse to go to a restaurant because of your addiction, you need to look at your addiction, not the ban.

[Ballardguy]

muchos d'el postos, yes. All that aside, why should we lift the ban on smoking (I'll be in reference to New Jersey's) if smoking has been actually proved in multiple studies to kill people. Even if you don't "believe in" secondhand smoke, you still must see the clear and present danger posed by smoking to people with asthma! If you need a smoke so bad that you refuse to go to a restaurant because of your addiction, you need to look at your addiction, not the ban.

Here it comes...you can almost hear the rumbling hoofs....

Posts like this bring the smokies out of the woodwork. Melle will drone on about unproven studies and quote an obscure source; followed by challenging you to show him the statistics on how many people who need a smoke are in restaurants....The Cantaloupe will blather on about the typical non-smokie train of thought and may even threaten to sue you, while thinking "I wrote a book, so I must be right"......Shady will scream "duh" at you and remind you how good we have it under the Bush regime, and Jimmy.....well....Jimmy might offer to kick your ass, but he's a bit of a wildcard. :)

Chow time smokies - come and get it. Only 490 posts to go.

[Melle]

muchos d'el postos, yes. All that aside, why should we lift the ban on smoking (I'll be in reference to New Jersey's) if smoking has been actually proved in multiple studies to kill people. Even if you don't "believe in" secondhand smoke, you still must see the clear and present danger posed by smoking to people with asthma!

No, I honestly don't see this "clear and present danger." Were asthmatics dying in Washington's bars prior to December 8?

If you need a smoke so bad that you refuse to go to a restaurant because of your addiction, you need to look at your addiction, not the ban.

But I don't refuse to go to restaurants.

[fawkes]

No, I honestly don't see this "clear and present danger." Were asthmatics dying in Washington's bars prior to December 8?


No, but they were risking their lives. Listen, I don't want lung cancer because you're addicted to nicotine. Sorry, get the cigarette out of my face, and go outside if you need that smoke so bad.

[Matt]

Here's some awesome news from a typical Washington town, as reported in the 6/14/06 issue of the Issaquah Press (http://isspress.1upsoftware.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=179&ArticleID=3132). 901 is doing exactly what supporters hoped it would do.

Headline:Bar business is booming despite smoking ban

So much for claims about noncompliance:
Issaquah police haven’t had any trouble with establishments enforcing the ban in the area. “As far as the tobacco thing goes, it hasn’t been a problem for us around here,” said Cmdr. Stan Conrad. “It seems like the establishments, at least around here, were in compliance from the beginning — I’m sure it had something to do with our bar checks.”
So much for claims about lost business:Despite an initial drop in sales for some businesses during January and February, owners and staff in the area indicate that sales seem to be back on track — in some cases better than what they were before the ban. As the weather has gotten nicer, there has been an increase in sales of about 15 percent to 20 percent, and that is continuing to rise, Reynolds said. . . At the Gaslamp Tavern, food sales was the first noticeable increase, but gambling and sales of alcohol has gone up to where they were before or better, Taylor said.
So much for claims that incoming nonsmokers wouldn't fill the shoes of departing smokers:“It’s strange, because more people come in that wouldn’t have come in before,” she said. “Even though we lost some smokers, we’ve gained a lot of new nonsmokers that wouldn’t have come in before.”
And finally, let's hear it for the main purpose for 901: protecting workers and creating clean air!!!!“We’re happy and we really enjoy the atmosphere and the clean air,” she said. Workers at other establishments echoed that sentiment.
We can all differ on minor points, but one thing we can all agree on is that 901 was a fantastic win-win for everyone!!!!

[maggie2]

Were asthmatics dying in Washington's bars prior to December 8?

no, because they were forced to stay away from smoky bars. in other words, they were discriminated against. bars may as well have put up signs that read 'no asthmatics allowed - we prefer that people be allowed to smoke than serve your kind'

think about it. you're asthmatic. the bar that is walking distance from your house, where all your friends are - the bar that has a great game on a widescreen tv - is off limits to you because they allow conditions that can trigger an asthma attack.

thanks to 901, that is no longer the case.

[Melle]

No, but they were risking their lives.

If they were risking their lives and NONE were dying, then either every asthmatic is a death-defying Evel Knievel ... or it's just not much of a risk.

[Melle]

no, because they were forced to stay away from smoky bars. in other words, they were discriminated against. bars may as well have put up signs that read 'no asthmatics allowed - we prefer that people be allowed to smoke than serve your kind'

think about it. you're asthmatic. the bar that is walking distance from your house, where all your friends are - the bar that has a great game on a widescreen tv - is off limits to you because they allow conditions that can trigger an asthma attack.

thanks to 901, that is no longer the case.

But asthmatics were allowed---the choice of which establishments to go into was up to them. If the activity inside a given bar made it dangerous to them because of a medical condition, then they probably wouldn't want to go in. (If their friends insist on going to smokey bars, they need some new friends, not draconian laws.)

This is a pity, but these things are bound to happen in free societies. Do we outlaw dog-shows because a minority is deathly allergic to dogs? Should we?

[maggie2]

But asthmatics were allowed---the choice of which establishments to go into was up to them.

sure they were 'allowed', but they would be nuts to go in because smoke could trigger an attack and they could die. it's a forced choice - a choice they are forced to make because the bar allows smoking. you make it sound like the asthmatics have a range of choices here. bullshit.

it's still discrimination. if your bar allows blacks, but holds regular kkk meetings, then it would be nuts for a black person to go there. that's discrimination.

If the activity inside a given bar made it dangerous to them because of a medical condition, then they probably wouldn't want to go in.

no. they want to go in but they can't. difference.

(If their friends insist on going to smokey bars, they need some new friends, not draconian laws.)

question; which is more reasonable - creating conditions inside a bar that would allow a local asthmatic to have a good time with his friends, or asking that asthmatic to ask his friends to go out of their way to look for a smoke free, non-local, perhaps less-fancy and far-away bar.
they would have to go to great lenghths to change their plans, habits, etc. smokers only have to go outside.
to put it another way - who should be inconvenienced, the smokers blowing harmful smoke in the air, or the asthmatic and his friends.
there is only one reasonable answer to this question.

smoking laws are not draconian by any measure. smokers are asked to smoke outside so non-smokers aren't bothered. what is draconian about that. zero.

Do we outlaw dog-shows because a minority is deathly allergic to dogs? Should we?

dogs are a requirement of dog shows. no dogs; no dog show.
cigarettes are not a requirement of a bar.

melle, c'mon - check your reasoning skills. take a logic course.

[BridgeTroll]

No, I honestly don't see this "clear and present danger." Were asthmatics dying in Washington's bars prior to December 8? blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.......

But I don't refuse to go to restaurants.


Ballardguy was right. Dude can't help himself.

I can't believe everyone is still talking about this.

Oh, in regards to the asthmatic question, yes, they were dying in bars. Amazingly enough, 4 out of 5 asthmatics died JUST THINKING about smokie bars. Now they can live a free and easy life.

[Shattered Roses]

No, I honestly don't see this "clear and present danger." Were asthmatics dying in Washington's bars prior to December 8? I don't refuse to go to restaurants.

Astmatics (like my mother and brother) haven't died in bars because they avoid them. My mother never took us anywhere that was too smokey for fear that she or my brother would get an attack. How the fck do you not see the danger?

[Shattered Roses]

If they were risking their lives and NONE were dying, then either every asthmatic is a death-defying Evel Knievel ... or it's just not much of a risk.


THERE HAVE BEEN FCKING ATTACKS DUE TO SMOKE. WHERE ARE YOUR FCKING STATISTICS THAT SAY CIGARETTE SMOKE HAS NEVER CAUSED ASTHMA RELATED DEATHS? WHERE?!

[Shattered Roses]

But asthmatics were allowed---the choice of which establishments to go into was up to them. If the activity inside a given bar made it dangerous to them because of a medical condition, then they probably wouldn't want to go in. (If their friends insist on going to smokey bars, they need some new friends, not draconian laws.)

This is a pity, but these things are bound to happen in free societies. Do we outlaw dog-shows because a minority is deathly allergic to dogs? Should we?

People can watch dog shows on Animal Planet if they were so inclined to. I doubt that people can watch bars on TV! Bars themselves aren't detrimental to one's health, it's the fact that selfish smokers like yourself are creating a hazardous environment for those whose cannot breathe in the toxic smoke that comes out of that abhorrent, beastly, repulsive, atrocious, rotten, execrable, loathsome, odious, contemptible, revolting, and wretched mouth of yours!

[Melle]

sure they were 'allowed', but they would be nuts to go in because smoke could trigger an attack and they could die. it's a forced choice - a choice they are forced to make because the bar allows smoking. you make it sound like the asthmatics have a range of choices here. bullshit.

it's still discrimination. if your bar allows blacks, but holds regular kkk meetings, then it would be nuts for a black person to go there. that's discrimination.

First of all---whatever the law, asthmatics DO have a range of choices.

Second of all---I think a KKK bar such as you described is a legal thing in all 50 states. Very few bar owners would allow such activity, but BY LAW it's up to them. The idea is that, as bad as the KKK is, a government that controls what people can do in bars is not the kind of government we want.


no. they want to go in but they can't. difference.

In fact, they can. There is no attitude of "we don't serve your kind" whatsoever preventing them from going. It is their own health consideration which prevents them from going.

question; which is more reasonable - creating conditions inside a bar that would allow a local asthmatic to have a good time with his friends, or asking that asthmatic to ask his friends to go out of their way to look for a smoke free, non-local, perhaps less-fancy and far-away bar.
they would have to go to great lenghths to change their plans, habits, etc. smokers only have to go outside.
to put it another way - who should be inconvenienced, the smokers blowing harmful smoke in the air, or the asthmatic and his friends.
there is only one reasonable answer to this question.

I disagree. I think there are almost as many reasonable answers to that question as there are people. I think there ought to be some bars that cater to customers with debilitating asthma, and some that cater to smokers, and some that cater to hip hoppers, drag queens, pool-playing frat boys, lesbian construction workers, Mormon hippies, Pakistani gangsters, whoever. It is not the purpose of law to decide what's "reasonable." The purpose of law is to determine what's criminal.

smoking laws are not draconian by any measure. smokers are asked to smoke outside so non-smokers aren't bothered. what is draconian about that. zero.

Smokers are not "asked" to smoke outside, they're forced to smoke outside. This is not a venue asking customers to observe its rules: this is law with the threats implicit in state power levered if it's not obeyed. People are forced to obey without exception, in every type of workplace, everywhere the state of Washington has jurisdiction.


dogs are a requirement of dog shows. no dogs; no dog show.
cigarettes are not a requirement of a bar.

melle, c'mon - check your reasoning skills. take a logic course.

C'mon yourself. My point is easy enough to get, and superficial objections are merely incidental. Fine---forget dog-shows. Plenty of bars, cafes, and espresso shops allow dog owners to bring their dogs in. Subsitute them for dog-shows in my analogy. Should they be banned?

[fawkes]

In fact, they can. There is no attitude of "we don't serve your kind" whatsoever preventing them from going. It is their own health consideration which prevents them from going.


Yes, them not wanting to die overrides their want of a drink. You are an idiot, or just stubborn. No one is telling you not to smoke, just don't do it the fck next to me, when im trying to enjoy my time at a bar. You smoking keeps asthmatics out of bars. There is no way around that. Their having asthma just makes you either not smoke or step outside. No one is telling you can't smoke, they are just telling you not to endanger other's lives when you do.

[Shattered Roses]

No one is telling you can't smoke, they are just telling you not to endanger other's lives when you do.

AND NO ONE, MELLE, IS GOING TO TELL ME I CAN'T DRINK AND DRIVE! IF I WANT TO DRINK, NO GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO STOP ME! IT IS MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN TO DRIVE DRUNK! IF THOSE PUSSIES ON THE ROAD ARE AFRIAD OF ME, THEY SHOULD GET ON THEIR OWN DAMN ROADS! IT'S THEIR CHOICE!! THEY CAN CHOOSE NOT TO DRIVE ON THE SAME ROADS I DO, IF THEY WANT! THEY AREN'T ASKING ME TO NOT DRIVE DRUNK, THEY'RE REQUIRING IT!! EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY THEY ARE NOT ALLOWING ME TO DRIVE DRUNK! IT'S LUDICROUS!!

DAMMIT, MELLE! THINK OF SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF FOR ONCE IN YOUR WORTHLESS LIFE!

[Melle]

Astmatics (like my mother and brother) haven't died in bars because they avoid them. My mother never took us anywhere that was too smokey for fear that she or my brother would get an attack. How the fck do you not see the danger?

It sounds like the kind of danger a cliff poses: you avoid the cliff.

I'm sorry, I don't think society can provide 100% safety for 100% of the population. I don't think you're going to find symphony halls for people allergic to perfume. I don't think you'll find ballparks for people who can't breathe dust. I don't think you'll find tanning salons that cater to claustrophobics. And most importantly, I don't think we SHOULD attempt to make everything safe everywhere for everybody.

There's an idea today that liberalism means making everything bright and shiny and safe and accessible to all, but IMO this is an '80s corruption of '60s liberalism. The older liberalism was more like an acknowledgement of conflict: It's a big, bad world out there, full of things that you don't like, and things I don't like, and plenty of people who don't like us, but it's up to you to watch your ass and find your way. (This is a cultural thing, BTW, not an economic thing. This is not to be confused with the dog-eat-dog capitalism and social Darwinism of the neocon/libertarian crowd.) Looking to the State to force the kind of world you want into existence is a mistake because it creates a lousy busybody government that's a pain in the ass.

[Shattered Roses]

It sounds like the kind of danger a cliff poses: you avoid the cliff.


BUT YOU ARE THE FCKING CLIFF! YOU ARE FORCING PEOPLE AWAY FROM ENJOYING THINGS! YOU ARE SMOKING AND YOU ARE ENDANGERING THEM! A BALLPARK IS GOING TO HAVE DUST AND A TANNING SALON IS GOING TO HAVE TIGHT QUARTERS! A BAR DOESN'T FCKING HAVE TO HAVE SMOKE!

[Melle]

. You are an idiot, or just stubborn. No one is telling you not to smoke, just don't do it the fck next to me, when im trying to enjoy my time at a bar ... No one is telling you can't smoke, they are just telling you not to endanger other's lives when you do.

Fawkes, to "endanger your life," I'd have to spend about 30 years chain-smoking next to you in a sealed room. No offense but I suspect the charm of your company would wear a bit thin before then.

In the absence of a ban, it's the bar owner's business whether smoking is allowed or not. You go into a venue that allows smoking, your beef is with the management, not with the smokers.

[fawkes]

It sounds like the kind of danger a cliff poses: you avoid the cliff.

I'm sorry, I don't think society can provide 100% safety for 100% of the population. I don't think you're going to find symphony halls for people allergic to perfume. I don't think you'll find ballparks for people who can't breathe dust. I don't think you'll find tanning salons that cater to claustrophobics. And most importantly, I don't think we SHOULD make the attempt to make everything safe everywhere for everybody.



Listen, melle, forget asthmatics (wouldn't be a reach for you apparently). Just the fact that other people can get lung cancer from your cigarette (which is not necessary to your health, whereas breathing clear air is for asthmatics,sorry i really did want to leave them out) should be enough for you to take your cigarette outside. But you were too stubborn to, and now the government is stepping in to tell you to. Also, perfume allergies are not widespread. Anyone can get lung cancer from cigarettes, so the danger you pose is much different than the danger perfume/dust/tanning salons (?) poses.

It is your choice to smoke. But you do not get to choose to give me lung cancer. Sorry.

[Shattered Roses]

Fawkes, to "endanger your life," I'd have to spend about 30 years chain-smoking next to you in a sealed room.

Again, THINK OF SOMEONE ELSE FOR ONCE IN YOUR WORTHLESS LIFE! You have this mentality that you can do whatever you want and no one can stop you. If they don't like it, they can fck themselves. You are not the only smoker ol' Fawkes is going to encounter in his lifetime. Also, if poor Fawkes was asthmatic and you were chain smoking next to him for 30 years, he'd be dead after maybe ten minutes if he's lucky.

[Melle]

BUT YOU ARE THE FCKING CLIFF! YOU ARE FORCING PEOPLE AWAY FROM ENJOYING THINGS! YOU ARE SMOKING AND YOU ARE ENDANGERING THEM! A BALLPARK IS GOING TO HAVE DUST AND A TANNING SALON IS GOING TO HAVE TIGHT QUARTERS! A BAR DOESN'T FCKING HAVE TO HAVE SMOKE!

Some bars, in the absence of bans, are going to have smoke. This is obvious. There never has been a law saying you HAD to smoke in bars. It's just what people tend to do in the absence of coercion, and the way bar owners tend to run things. Looks like freedom is the "cliff."

[fawkes]

Oh, so this whole thing is just you protecting the civil rights of people who smoke. oh ok. The problem is, remember what we are founded on? "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Life-not dying when I step into a bar. Liberty-being able to go to bars now because they are w/o smoke. Happiness- clean air, being able to breathe.

[Shattered Roses]

Some bars, in the absence of bans, are going to have smoke. This is obvious. There never has been a law saying you HAD to smoke in bars. It's just what people tend to do in the absence of coercion, and the way bar owners tend to run things. Looks like freedom is the "cliff."


YOU STILL REFUSE TO COMMENT ON WHY YOU ARE SO SELF-CENTERED? Why don't you care that you are endangering lives by smoking? Why don't you give a crap about how you are personally preventing asthmatics from entering bars? Why can't you accept responsibilty for your fcking actions?

I WANT YOU TO ANSWER ME!

[Jasen Palmer]

How did we get from opposing smoking to attacking smokers? Non smokers might arguably be healthier but not in any way superior. I have been told by some zealots that it should even be illegal to smoke in ones own house or car!
No person or government ever has the right to tell me what I can put into my own body. My body is mine exclusively at all times and under all circumstances.
It is not for you to allow me, it is for you to try and stop me.

[Melle]

Listen, melle, forget asthmatics (wouldn't be a reach for you apparently). Just the fact that other people can get lung cancer from your cigarette (which is not necessary to your health, whereas breathing clear air is for asthmatics,sorry i really did want to leave them out) should be enough for you to take your cigarette outside. But you were too stubborn to, and now the government is stepping in to tell you to. Also, perfume allergies are not widespread. Anyone can get lung cancer from cigarettes, so the danger you pose is much different than the danger perfume/dust/tanning salons (?) poses.

It is your choice to smoke. But you do not get to choose to give me lung cancer. Sorry.

Oh, come on. IF exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, it only becomes a risk factor after decades. Decades of heavy, chronic exposure. If the studies have shown anything, they have shown this: that it takes a long time, and it's only a weak risk factor. You're pretty susceptible to alarmism if you think of me, sitting in this particular bar, smoking this particular cigarette, as a particular danger to your life. (In a world full of fossil-fuel burning vehicles the idea is preposterous.)

[fawkes]

im not attacking smokers, but if im in a bar and I've made a conscious choice to not smoke, your smoking is affecting me. Why is it a problem that I don't want to have smoke right next to me anytime i want a drink?

[Shattered Roses]

How did we get from opposing smoking to attacking smokers? Non smokers might arguably be healthier but not in any way superior. I have been told by some zealots that it should even be illegal to smoke in ones own house or car!
No person or government ever has the right to tell me what I can put into my own body. My body is mine exclusively at all times and under all circumstances.
It is not for you to allow me, it is for you to try and stop me.

I am attacking Melle because she doesn't give a damn about what somking does to other people in public. I don't give two shits if she lights up at home or in the car (unless there are children... but that really can't be banned by a reasonable law). I only am pissed off because Melle does not see how other people are affected by her actions. SHE IS NOT AN ISLAND!

[Shattered Roses]

Melle, I Challenge You To Answer The Damn Questions I've Asked Down There!

[fawkes]

ok melle, my friend's uncle was a waiter for 12 years, and in that time, he dealt with a lot of smokers. He was diagnosed with lung cancer 2 years ago. Explain how smoking had nothing to do with this.

[Melle]

YOU STILL REFUSE TO COMMENT ON WHY YOU ARE SO SELF-CENTERED? Why don't you care that you are endangering lives by smoking? Why don't you give a crap about how you are personally preventing asthmatics from entering bars? Why can't you accept responsibilty for your fcking actions?

I WANT YOU TO ANSWER ME!

I'm not going to comment on "why [I am] so self-centered"---not on this thread, at least. Exchanging personal attacks is fun, but I've discovered that it's a lousy way to keep to the subject.

You and plenty of people like to post about what's wrong with me. I suggest you start a separate thread for that particular subject. I'll certainly post and defend myself there, but I'm through doing it here.

[Shattered Roses]

I'm not going to comment on "why [I am] so self-centered"---not on this thread, at least. Exchanging personal attacks is fun, but I've discovered that it's a lousy way to keep to the subject.

You and plenty of people like to post about what's wrong with me. I suggest you start a separate thread for that particular subject. I'll certainly post and defend myself there, but I'm through doing it here.

Who here has ever defended you except yourself? Doesn't that point to you possibly being wrong? You seem to be so angry about the ban. Explain to me why clean air is such an invasion of your rights? I am only attacking you because you don't care about the well being of others. Maybe if you showed me some glimmer of respectabilty and humanity in your personality, my attacks will stop.

[Melle]

ok melle, my friend's uncle was a waiter for 12 years, and in that time, he dealt with a lot of smokers. He was diagnosed with lung cancer 2 years ago. Explain how smoking had nothing to do with this.

Something like 0.7% of non-smokers get lung cancer. Chronic exposure to secondhand smoke, over decades, has been shown (in some studies) to raise the odds to around 0.9%. That's it. This is what's known in epidemiology as "a very weak risk factor" (or "insignificant"---it depends who you ask). Meaning that you can't even honestly claim that smoke was the "cause" of cancer in that 0.2%, just that it was a risk factor.

As I explained to Maggie months ago, lung cancer barely even existed prior to the 20th century. Only a few dozen cases had ever been diagnosed. Yet smoking had spread all over the globe in the 16th century. The whole world was breathing secondhand smoke for 400 years and no one got cancer: you explain that one to me.

[fawkes]

yes, which does bring up the point of pollution, which would be a problem. But, due to the current conditions, you are making the problem worse.

And tell me where you got those stats. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Melle]

yes, which does bring up the point of pollution, which would be a problem. But, due to the current conditions, you are making the problem worse.

And tell me where you got those stats. Maybe I'm wrong.

I've posted this stuff so many times, it's all on here somewhere, but I won't ask you to wade through 200 pages looking for it. However, I've gotta go. Contrary to suspicion I do have a quite busy, glamorous, and alluringly sordid life outside of this.

I'll post it this evening, how's that? For now it will have to wait. I'm not bullshitting you; the fact is I'm always good for a link or two (right, Maggie)?

[Melle]

I am attacking Melle because she doesn't give a damn about what somking does to other people in public. I don't give two shits if she lights up at home or in the car (unless there are children... but that really can't be banned by a reasonable law). I only am pissed off because Melle does not see how other people are affected by her actions. SHE IS NOT AN ISLAND!

Oh yeah, by the way---I'm a guy, dude.

[maggie2]

holy cranoly.....

[Ballardguy]

holy cranoly.....

I like to jab Melle as much as anyone else (cause it's kinda easy, and I love reading smokie skewed statistics :) ), but c'mon. Isn't it better to keep this a little more light-hearted?

I'd buy the dude a beer in a bar. Hell, I'd even go as far as letting him borrow my tape measure to mark off 25 feet from the entrance.

[fawkes]

oh yeah, i'll drink with him, I just won't let him smoke next to me there.

[Melle]

And tell me where you got those stats. Maybe I'm wrong.

Would you believe I got most of them from anti-smoking web pages/studies? They get a lot of mileage out of no one really reading the data or doing any thinking.

Here, I'll back up what I said point-for-point:

Something like 0.7% of non-smokers get lung cancer.

The anti-smoking website GASP states the following (http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artcl-new.php?ID=40): "For any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1,000 ordinarily"; the figures seem to vary, but I've consistently seen around 0.3% to 1.0% for lifetime risk.

Chronic exposure to secondhand smoke, over decades, has been shown (in some studies) to raise the odds to around 0.9%. That's it.

Here's a typical study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Citation) which purports to find such a risk, from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The "odds ratio" (aka "relative risk") for lung cancer after a lifetime with a smoking spouse was found to be 1.16. This means that the risk of lung cancer is 1.16 times higher than normal. So if normal risk is 0.5%, the risk for a chronically-exposed spouse is 0.58%.

This is what's known in epidemiology as "a very weak risk factor" (or "insignificant"---it depends who you ask). Meaning that you can't even honestly claim that smoke was the "cause" of cancer in that 0.2%, just that it was a risk factor.

First, the study I cited above demonstrates some of what I said. Its authors characterize their own evidence as "weak" and refer to "risk of lung cancer" rather than causality (emphasis added).

Second, odds ratios below 2.0 are traditionally held to be meaningless by epidemiologists. Here are a few quotes: "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." --- Marcia Angell, New England Journal of Medicine
"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." --- Robert Temple, The Food and Drug Administration.
"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." --- The National Cancer Institute

As I explained to Maggie months ago, lung cancer barely even existed prior to the 20th century. Only a few dozen cases had ever been diagnosed.

You can find the thing I said to Maggie here (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=6740#post6740) (see "Reason #1), but the anti-smoking page with the factual foundation for it here (http://www.smokinglungs.com/cighist.htm).

Yet smoking had spread all over the globe in the 16th century. The whole world was breathing secondhand smoke for 400 years and no one got cancer: you explain that one to me.

It looks like I should have said "in the 17th century" rather than 16th, but that still leaves nearly 3 centuries of cancer-free smoke exposure around the globe. You can find the history of tobacco anywhere---try Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco).

[Melle]

I like to jab Melle as much as anyone else (cause it's kinda easy, and I love reading smokie skewed statistics :) ), but c'mon. Isn't it better to keep this a little more light-hearted?

I'd buy the dude a beer in a bar. Hell, I'd even go as far as letting him borrow my tape measure to mark off 25 feet from the entrance.

Thanks, BG, mighty decent of you. We'll have to grab that beer sometime. I figure if we discuss politics generally, & stay off the topic of smoking, we'll be OK.

[Matt]

The anti-smoking website GASP . . . states the following: "For any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1,000 ordinarily"And now, thanks to that gloriously sweet piece of initiative called 901, that risk is even lower. And that's a good thing!!! You go, 901!!!

P.S. If you're one of the 4 or 5 who get lung cancer, you probably wouldn't classify the risk as "small."

[Smalan Ithee]

Who here has ever defended you except yourself? Doesn't that point to you possibly being wrong? You seem to be so angry about the ban. Explain to me why clean air is such an invasion of your rights? I am only attacking you because you don't care about the well being of others. Maybe if you showed me some glimmer of respectabilty and humanity in your personality, my attacks will stop.Not to dwell here for too long, but Melle has been defended numerous times by several different posters over the course of the 1500+ posts/60 + pages. Whether you agree or disagree with his points, he's taken a lot of shit and been pretty damn civil throughout this debate. I don't remember that he's ever challenged someone to show "some glimmer of respectability and humanity in (their) personality" as a condition of halting personal attacks.

[fawkes]

a dude named Shattered Roses holding another guy named Melle hostage with personal attacks until he shows some humanity. It sounds like a bad remake of Phone Booth.

[Jimmy Flame]

1,554... Maybe the Stranger will publish a book on this shit.

[fawkes]

how many threads have actually maxed out at 2000? And I think this should be the topic of a book. An unbiased take on the issue of smoking in public can't be a bad thing.

[Jimmy Flame]

how many threads have actually maxed out at 2000? And I think this should be the topic of a book. An unbiased take on the issue of smoking in public can't be a bad thing.

Un-Biased? Just about everyone on here has been biased in some way. The anti smoker people don't want to accept that they could make a choice to avoid a nasty smoker bar. Smokers are saying "rights this and that".

So I'm standing outside. Having a smoke. I hear, "excuse me, but could you move down a little with that cigarrette?", he continues, "I'm sitting outside trying to eat". I'm in the middle of a drag, so I exhale towards the ground. I'm thinking to myself, "So, what, go buy your condo down the street and fuck off". Doesn't this person realize that he is out in public now? That a lot of people do a lot of different things. What about the other guy smoking? Or the 15 more people standing outside smoking? So I decide to be a gentlemen about it. I walked about 8 feet in the opposite direction. Out onto the street.

Could this situation be considered "biased"?

[fawkes]

oh yeah, that was biased. That dudes an asshole. Anyway, what I meant by "unbiased" is to show both sides. Not to say "well if the filthy, evil smokers would just stop trying to give me cancer, the problem would go away" or "its my right to smoke right next to you inside a bar, even if you do have asthma". Whatever. I'm thinking a book that details both sides of the argument and does not pass judgment, thus allowing the reader to make his/her own judgment would be a good idea.

It'll never happen though. I mean, the number 1 book right now is "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" by Ann Coulter, and that bitch insults 9-11 victims. It is because of the fact that we like reading stuff that contains our own opinion, and we like attacking the other side, that this book will never be written.

[scourge]

This issue, to me, is a great instance of what the slippery slope hath wrought. You start with seatbelt/helmet laws and wind up with this.

Actually all the ugly people are getting on my nerves and stressing me out. Not to mention cases of whiplash caused by sudden aversion of the eyes. So I'm going for a "No Ugly People in Public" initiative. Where's Eyman?

[Melle]

Not to dwell here for too long, but Melle has been defended numerous times by several different posters over the course of the 1500+ posts/60 + pages. Whether you agree or disagree with his points, he's taken a lot of shit and been pretty damn civil throughout this debate. I don't remember that he's ever challenged someone to show "some glimmer of respectability and humanity in (their) personality" as a condition of halting personal attacks.

Much appreciated, Smalan. In all fairness I've been pretty damn UNcivil plenty of times (& enjoyed it too). I haven't suddenly become a gentleman or anything. It's just like I said: sometime before this most recent go-round, I realized that hostilities bury the subject of discussion.

[Melle]

"its my right to smoke right next to you inside a bar, even if you do have asthma".

Not to split hairs, but that isn't my argument. (In fact I don't think I mentioned "rights" at all during the asthma discussion.) My argument is based on what kind of expectations are reasonable.

As far as personal behavior goes: If I were knowingly sitting next to an asthmatic, I wouldn't light up. What kind of asshole would do that? However, absent that knowledge, I have 2 responsibilities as a bar patron: to observe the rules of the establishment and to obey the law of the land. If I were in a bar that allowed smoking, in a state that allowed smoking, then (all other things being equal) I would smoke in that bar. IMO this is a reasonable thing to do. (What is NOT reasonable, IMO, is the idea that I'm responsible for the health of any hypothetical asthmatics who could possibly walk in.)

As far as law goes: I don't agree that a whole type of establishment should be illegal if it can't be enjoyed by 100% of the population. This is not selfishness, or callousness toward people with asthma (or any other chronic disease); it is dislike of a legal precedent that would pretty obviously lead to absurdity, if consistently applied.

(BTW, the above paragraphs are concerned solely with asthma. They don't summarize my opinion on secondhand smoke risk generally.)

A lot of the misunderstanding is probably due to the assumption that I want to smoke in ANY bar, ANYWHERE. In fact, I don't want that. I think the concerns of nonsmokers who dislike smoke are completely valid; those of nonsmokers for whom smoke is an irritant, more valid still; and those of asthmatics, more valid than either of these. I think there should be nonsmoking bars. I just don't think they should be the only kind of bars.

[Melle]

By the way, Maggie, over a week has gone by with no response to this (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=16838&postcount=1477) (except for mine). Disillusioned yet?

[maggie2]

By the way, Maggie, over a week has gone by with no response to this (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=16838&postcount=1477) (except for mine). Disillusioned yet?

you have no idea.

[fawkes]

uhh, Melle, i was exaggerating both sides. Hyperbole, to emphasize the dangers of letting only one side tell the whole story. I wasn't including your, or any of your opponents', opinions in that. I was just trying to show that an unbiased book wouldn't be a bad thing.

[Melle]

uhh, Melle, i was exaggerating both sides. Hyperbole, to emphasize the dangers of letting only one side tell the whole story. I wasn't including your, or any of your opponents', opinions in that. I was just trying to show that an unbiased book wouldn't be a bad thing.

That's cool; sorry if I singled you out. You weren't the only one who's referred to me and "rights" lately; what I posted was meant as a general response to that.

[fawkes]

o ok yeah, that's cool. That's true also, you've mostly used scientific, more solid evidence rather than "its my right"> What number are we up to yet?

[Matt]

Hey [Cantiloper], I heard the PA smoking ban didn't make it. 14-14 committee vote. Veeery close and actually is good news because it shows how PA is getting closer and closer to clean air. Never got so close before.

Next year, it'll pass the committee. And within 5 years, it'll pass the legislature. It's inevitable, as we all know. And when that day comes, I will come to Philly, your home town, with my "No Smoking" balloons and personally make sure that nobody smokes in restaurants and bars, just like I do here in Seattle. Oh what a joyous and rapturous day that shall be!!!

Clean air is on the way!!Well, it didn't get through at the state level, but it looks like Philly is making the right decision!!

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14829363.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/14839128.htm

Bwaahaaahaaaa!!!! -- nyukk --- snort.

Hey, Cantiloper, I'm packing my bags and balloons!!!!!! See you soon!!

[Matt]

Here's some awesome news from a typical Washington town, as reported in the 6/14/06 issue of the Issaquah Press (http://isspress.1upsoftware.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=179&ArticleID=3132). 901 is doing exactly what supporters hoped it would do.

Headline:Bar business is booming despite smoking ban

[snip]
And finally, let's hear it for the main purpose for 901: protecting workers and creating clean air!!!!“We’re happy and we really enjoy the atmosphere and the clean air,” she said. Workers at other establishments echoed that sentiment.Additional evidence that workers want smoking bans:
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1318518&secid=1

Heidi Thomas has seen smoke snuff out the occasional waitress. “I’ve had waitresses quit because the smoke bothered them too much,” said Thomas, the head bartender at Rum Bay in downtown Colorado Springs. “They would be choking at the end of the night, their eyes would hurt, their throat would hurt. They would notice they were getting sick more often and easier.”

Luckily for those workers, clean air is coming to Colorado (and the rest of the U.S. soon enough). Yep. Sure is. Inevitable. Lame-ass arguments won't change that.

[Matt]

Interesting quote in this article (http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1318518&secid=1):She gave up cigarettes in September and looks forward to July 1, the day smoking no longer will be allowed in Colorado restaurants and bars. “I’m tickled pink. I’m so happy,” said Thomas, who smoked for 20 years. . . . [S]he’d rather not have her clothes and hair stink. Now that her olfactory system has sharpened, she’s acquired a new perspective: “Whoa! Did I smell like that?” I've always wondered about that. Are smokers aware of how bad they smell? But instead of wondering, I'm going to conduct an official study on this matter.

ATTENTION ALL SMOKERS: Please respond to this official survey by 5 P.M. June 23. I will compile results, analyze same, and publish the results on this very thread later this month.

Here's the survey question:
==================================
Are you, a smoker, aware that you stink?

[ ] Yes, I am aware that I reek.

[ ] No, I am not aware that everyone around me can tell that I smoke even when I'm not currently smoking because my body, hair, and clothes reek like an ashtray.
==================================
Thank you for participating.

[Employees of Philip Morris are not eligible to participate.]

[Kizzume]

The whole stinking thing--yep, that's a for sure. Smokers generally have no clue how much they stink. They have no clue how much it makes their hair look smoke damaged. They have no clue how bad cigarettes burning like incense stinks. They don't care about cigarette butts laying around everywhere. I think it's REALLY pathetic when people smoke in their houses with no ventilation when they have kids who have no choice in the matter as to whether they can breathe smoke or not.

I had a friend that was a chain smoker who had lung cancer and had it removed, but they smoked the whole time and smoked after the surgery, and then they had roommates who chain smoked, and then they adopted a child, and still kept the same habits--I couldn't even look him in the face and I stopped contacting him. It was as pathetic as seeing someone who has a hole in their throat to breathe because of surgery for cancer inhale cigarettes through that little hole. I know most of you have seen it.

Also, try being a musician and find a bar or tavern or an establishment that isn't a coffeehouse that voluntarily is non-smoking. Ha! Won't happen. I lived in Portland for a year and couldn't find a single establishment to play that was smoke free except coffeehouses. That was it.

I am so happy that this ban has went through, and I'm so happy to be living in Washington again. I shouldn't have to give up performing music to keep from being around smoke. Someone could argue--"Well then just go to the coffeehouses"--yeah, and never get my music heard by anyone that matters. Yeah, that will make me really want to go out and play--not.

What really confuses me is why anyone who has never smoked would ever start. I just don't get it. I really really don't get it. If you've just GOT to smoke something, at least have it be something that gets you high, and not just take care of a nicotene fit.

People mentioned the B.O. thing in an earlier post--yes, you can smell the B.O. at a bar now that the cigarette smell is gone--it was there before but it was covered up. The thing about B.O. is that it smells while you're in the place, but it doesn't stick to your clothing unless it's YOUR B.O.

[fiona]

you people are so dumb. thats no big deal for the nazis but the smokers just keep chasing their tails with all their philasopophical bullshit. if bars defy the ban then no more ban, its that simple. everyone has bent over and given up except for the rimrock on Lake city way. the nazis keep coming by and then we fire up when they leave. if your gonna be an idiot you may as well be incompedant too

[maggie2]

What really confuses me is why anyone who has never smoked would ever start. I just don't get it. I really really don't get it.

Well, one place to look for an answer would be the pages of the so-called progressive newspaper that offers this forum - The Stranger. This rag is chock full of Camel and American spirit ads.

People start smoking young, and a third of them begin due to advertsing. And this crap newspaper plays a huge role.

Read this study that shows a direct relationship between advertising and smoking rates:

http://factsheets.globalink.org/en/advertising.shtml

It concludes:

"A convincing body of evidence demonstrates that tobacco advertising plays an important part in encouraging non-smokers to begin smoking. Advertising is a particularly important factor among young people (11). Comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising and promotion can result in a considerable reduction of tobacco consumption on a national level. Laugesen and Meads (9) conclude that where a complete ad ban is coupled with an intensive public information campaign on smoking, a reduction in tobacco consumption of 6% can be achieved. A recent report by the World Bank supports this conclusion ([23]). Prohibition of outdoors advertising is a valuable first step; however, even where a comprehensive ban on advertising and promotion is in place, the tobacco industry will constantly try to find other ways of promoting its products."

[maggie2]

you people are so dumb. thats no big deal for the nazis but the smokers just keep chasing their tails with all their philasopophical bullshit. if bars defy the ban then no more ban, its that simple. everyone has bent over and given up except for the rimrock on Lake city way. the nazis keep coming by and then we fire up when they leave. if your gonna be an idiot you may as well be incompedant too

fona, you ar so wight, i gonner stop wha i doin anna liten too yoo. ythanks you - i thank you.

[fawkes]

yeah, fiona, just what the hell were you talking about?

[Ballardguy]

yeah, fiona, just what the hell were you talking about?

Fiona is so hot....

[qwerty]

im scared of nazis. they fly around in ufos. who know when theyre gonna attack.

http://www.naziufos.com/

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

What really confuses me is why anyone who has never smoked would ever start. I just don't get it. I really really don't get it.

I started smoking because of the affect I saw it had on others, it's a major relaxer, puts people in a good mood, opens up the conversation. Some say "Well, if you didn't have the stress of wanting a cig you'd be in a good mood all the time", but that's not true at all. I knew the negatives and positives when I started smoking, and watched myself closely to see how my atitude changed. I'm a much more positive person now. You can call BS all you want, but it's just the truth of the matter.


Well, one place to look for an answer would be the pages of the so-called progressive newspaper that offers this forum - The Stranger. This rag is chock full of Camel and American spirit ads.


Ugh for the second time just quit bitchin'. You don't smoke, so don't give people who do shit about it. You know you don't actually care about their health, the only reason why you care is so you can have a reason to give people a hard time. Get over yourself.

[maggie2]

Troll Alert!
Just look at his name - that's the area he's responsible for.
You're a disgrace to humanity.

[qwerty]

i like to swallow sugar coated razor blades. it relaxes me.

if it drags the economy - FU its my life. if i want to die early thats my problem. if my idiocy drives up everyones health insurance - FU. i can probably point to some one worse. so SHUT UP. (i dont like to listen to people i dont agree with) SHUT THE HELL UP.

[maggie2]

i like to swallow sugar coated razor blades. it relaxes me.

if it drags the economy - FU its my life. if i want to die early thats my problem. if my idiocy drives up everyones health insurance - FU. i can probably point to some one worse. so SHUT UP. (i dont like to listen to people i dont agree with) SHUT THE HELL UP.

You shut up.
Butthole.

[maggie2]

Smoke all you want. Smoke yourself to death. I truly don't care.
I smoked for 13 years. For 6 years, it was pure heaven. I loved cigarettes.

Now I don't smoke. As a citizen of this community, I want to eat, drink, and play wherever the fuck I want without having to breath it. Any of it. Not a single whiff. So I worked hard to kick you ignorant-ass smokers out of the places I like to go. Why? Because my request for clean air is more reasonable than your request for toxic air. So I have more of a right to be there than you inconsiderate, arrogant fucks.

Also, as a citizen, I'm mindful of destructive forces in our society. One of them is the overwhelming power of tobacco companies. They spend one hundred and fifty BILLION dollars a year to brainwash people like you with their marketing. You don't know it (because you're too damn stupid) but you are one of the people being duped.

158 billion. Think about that number for a minute. Can you let it sink in? Can you comprehend it? That's 3 times Bill Gate's fortune, spent every 365 days. It truly boggles the mind.

Well, it doesn't boggle your mind. Because you're too stupid.

Here's a question for you, Qwerty (or any other pro-smoker on this site). Answer honestly.

What is your cigarette brand of choice? My guess is Camel Lights.

Answer honestly.

I've said this so many times: Tobacco advertising WORKS. That is a fact. It's therefore wrong to advertise tobacco. That's why I go after The Stranger.

You just can't refute that. You can't.

I'm not trying to be anybody's Mommy. Go jump off the fucking Space Needle for all I care, and eat a bushel of tobacco on the way down. Good riddance.

It's wrong and destructive to advertise tobacco, period. You just can't argue with that.

It makes sense to speak out against it.

[Matt]

As a citizen of this community, I want to eat, drink, and play wherever the fuck I want without having to breath it. Any of it. Not a single whiff.Amen!! You go, Maggie, you hot thing!!! (much hotter than fiona) I agree. I don't want a single goddamn whiff of their shit, either!! Their arguments are like saying, "Well, I just want to urinate a little bit on your leg." No! Bitches! Not a single drop.

So I worked hard to kick you ignorant-ass smokers out of the places I like to go."Ignorant-ass smokers"!!!! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!! That is beautiful.

Why? Because my request for clean air is more reasonable than your request for toxic air. So I have more of a right to be there than you inconsiderate, arrogant fucks.I swear to Jesus and the 7 dwarves that if Maggie ever ran for President, she would get my vote. That woman is a goddamn genius!!!!

[fawkes]

i agree with maggie about the clean air trumps toxic air. But not about the other stuff. And Matt seems to be what I like to call, a jackass.

[fiona]

yeah, fiona, just what the hell were you talking about?

what i'm saying dumbass is that the ban has never been obeyd in rural king county and the nazis can't enforce it even in Seattle. The rimrock is telling you all to screwoff and they can't do anything about it. Other bars are starting to catch on to this

[maggie2]

Thank you once again, Fiona, for alerting us to the unlawful activities taking place in some rural public places. We'll be sure to double our efforts to locate these establishments and fine them.

Thanks again - you are a true warrior in the effort to keep 901 enforced and effective.

And, just between you and me:

oters sayy yew ar hot but i think their mus be ferkin crazy becus yew dumbder tan a bag off hamers.

[maggie2]

Their arguments are like saying, "Well, I just want to urinate a little bit on your leg." No! Bitches! Not a single drop.

The analogy of the century, Matt. Love right back atcha.

"We can understand why they want us to stop wiping our shit all over the walls, but they want to ban farts too? That goes to far!"

Idiots.

[Lurkasaurus]

what i'm saying dumbass is that the ban has never been obeyd in rural king county and the nazis can't enforce it even in Seattle. The rimrock is telling you all to screwoff and they can't do anything about it. Other bars are starting to catch on to this

Hmmm, she may have just been released from Harborview or someplace but I went to see a friend's '70's mullet-rock band at a place called the Rimrock on Lake City Way a week ago and the smokies fired up as soon as the band did.
As to rural King Co, I've no idea.

[fawkes]

crack is not the answer fiona. But on a different note, we should definitely end this thread on post number 1999, how goddamn sweet would that be?

[scourge]

How about 1984?

[Melle]

I agree. I don't want a single goddamn whiff of their shit, either!! Their arguments are like saying, "Well, I just want to urinate a little bit on your leg." No! Bitches! Not a single drop.


The analogy of the century, Matt.

SIGH. What is this thing for the potty analogies? This is the harshest smear you can dream up---"it's like pooping and peeing!"? Of course, there are Freudian implications here, evident hang-ups from childhood toilet training. And of course there's the well-known correlation between prohibition as social policy and anal retention as a personal trait.

But I'll treat what you said on its own level. The trouble with the analogy is, 901 isn't just a ban on public urination. It's a ban on public restrooms too.

[scourge]

SIGH. What is this thing for the potty analogies? This is the harshest smear you can dream up---"it's like pooping and peeing!"? Of course, there are Freudian implications here, evident hang-ups from childhood toilet training. And of course there's the well-known correlation between prohibition as social policy and anal retention as a personal trait.

Now that's funny.

But I'll treat what you said on its own level. The trouble with the analogy is, 901 isn't just a ban on public urination. It's a ban on public restrooms too.

Good point.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Ugh, too many hippies on this board.

I'm not trolling just because I'm the only one here to argue this side. You're taking shots without expecting a response. If you're annoyed by me telling you to quit bitchin, then.... quit bitchin. I'd love for you to give me a dirty look in real life, I'd empty my drag in yo face. God that would be lovely.

You call it trolling, I call it balancing out the ratio.

[qwerty]

youre kidding yourself. a ban on public rest rooms? i know youve modified your brain architecture so that you truly need a nic fix several times a day. but its unnatural and the result of your own folly. its a ban on public spitoons!!! its a ban on a safe place to inject drugs and clean hypodermic needles. etc. whatever. you know its toxic and deadly - we just ask you keep your activities to the privacy of your own home or car or just waaay out of the radius of any healthy human being. poisoning is just not cool.

[JohnR]

Ridiculous point. When used as intended, public restrooms don't injure the innocent by-stander. Public smoking does.

[maggie2]

SIGH. What is this thing for the potty analogies? This is the harshest smear you can dream up---"it's like pooping and peeing!"? Of course, there are Freudian implications here, evident hang-ups from childhood toilet training. And of course there's the well-known correlation between prohibition as social policy and anal retention as a personal trait.

Poo + Pee = Laughter.
Proof: Family Guy, South Park, etc,etc,etc,.
No smoker should bring up Freud, by the way.
Carlin said it best:
"Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But sometimes a cigar is a big, brown, wet, dick."

[maggie2]

Ugh, too many hippies on this board.

I'm not trolling just because I'm the only one here to argue this side. You're taking shots without expecting a response. If you're annoyed by me telling you to quit bitchin, then.... quit bitchin. I'd love for you to give me a dirty look in real life, I'd empty my drag in yo face. God that would be lovely.

You call it trolling, I call it balancing out the ratio.

The guy admits to trolling. Wow. That's classy. Really.

[maggie2]

youre kidding yourself. a ban on public rest rooms? i know youve modified your brain architecture so that you truly need a nic fix several times a day. but its unnatural and the result of your own folly. its a ban on public spitoons!!! its a ban on a safe place to inject drugs and clean hypodermic needles. etc. whatever. you know its toxic and deadly - we just ask you keep your activities to the privacy of your own home or car or just waaay out of the radius of any healthy human being. poisoning is just not cool.

What's your brand?

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

The guy admits to trolling. Wow. That's classy. Really.

This girl doesn't show enough respect to read others posts before trying to come back at them. Real mature.

[maggie2]

This girl doesn't show enough respect to read others posts before trying to come back at them. Real mature.

Man, give a guy a compliment...

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

I'll take a compliment, just not a fallacious one.

[placid_panic]

youre kidding yourself. a ban on public rest rooms? i know youve modified your brain architecture so that you truly need a nic fix several times a day. but its unnatural and the result of your own folly. its a ban on public spitoons!!! its a ban on a safe place to inject drugs and clean hypodermic needles. etc. whatever. you know its toxic and deadly - we just ask you keep your activities to the privacy of your own home or car or just waaay out of the radius of any healthy human being. poisoning is just not cool.

healthy human being? where? all the people i know are full of car exhaust and pesticide. and personally i expect to be underwater and heavily irradiated long before i feel any adverse effects from tobacco smoke.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

healthy human being? where? all the people i know are full of car exhaust and pesticide. and personally i expect to be underwater and heavily irradiated long before i feel any adverse effects from tobacco smoke.

Chuch. These folks think walking around downtown and getting a whiff of smoke is going to kill them. They probably also have four dead bolt locks on their doors and don't go out after 8 pm.

[fawkes]

wait, you don't? its 5 deads, but i stay out til 9. Also, Melle seemed to be "balancing the ratio" pretty well by himself. Since he was here, I've realized that 1)smoking isn't deadly in and of itself,and 2) maybe we overpanicked. But since a majority of smokers (you, others) love being assholes about smoking, now you can drag your asses outside for a smoke. Sorry Melle.

[qwerty]

placid panic. you are so desperate to poison people, you make up silly excuses. just becasue theres a lot of anti social poisoners out there does not give you the right to make it worse.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

wait, you don't? its 5 deads, but i stay out til 9. Also, Melle seemed to be "balancing the ratio" pretty well by himself. Since he was here, I've realized that 1)smoking isn't deadly in and of itself,and 2) maybe we overpanicked. But since a majority of smokers (you, others) love being assholes about smoking, now you can drag your asses outside for a smoke. Sorry Melle.

I speak of "blowing drags into anti-smokers faces" because of how these people (such as yourself) get (your)their panties in a wad. These people are hilarious in their attempt to show how disgusting and unhealthy smokers are. They act like a child who wants candy. They squirm in their seat put on a pouty face and cry. There was a great South Park episode a while back, that had the most famous-anti-smoking-campaigner- Rob Reiner stuffing hamburgers down his throat the whole time. The point is, there are some many other health dangers out there, and catching a whiff of second hand smoke every now and then is the least of your worries.

Oh, and stop bitchin

[fawkes]

did you read my post? I agreed with both points you made. That's what the "smoking is not so dangerous" and "maybe we overpanicked" comments were about. Plus, im not bitching. Retards like you are why smokers are reviled. Again, not you melle. You're alright.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

did you read my post? I agreed with both points you made. That's what the "smoking is not so dangerous" and "maybe we overpanicked" comments were about. Plus, im not bitching. Retards like you are why smokers are reviled. Again, not you melle. You're alright.

The quit bitchin part was directed towards maggie. Even though she hasen't responded in a while I needed to get it off my chest.

When you call someone an asshole are you seriously not expecting a response along the same lines?

[fawkes]

yeah, but you are actually being an asshole (i should use troll, you actually admitted to that), whereas I'm just attacking you for being one.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Lol, you guys really need to read my second post. I stated that you guys thought I was a troll, and I thought I was balancing out the ratio. I was admitting a difference of opinion.

Hard to grasp?

Oh, I'll be right back I'm going to have a smoke break.

[fawkes]

nah, but its easier just to spin it to make you look bad. man, whatever. I don't smoke, I don't care that you guys do, just don't be an asshole about it. Sorry you guys got fucked over and can't smoke inside. Sorry. But when people start acting like you and Fiona, I get pissed off. Especially fiona. How come she can't type, or even spell? Whatever. As I said, sorry. but don't be a prick about it.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

That's fair. But Fiona's arguement that bars are catching on to not obeying the smoking rule is true. My bar of choice rolls down the shades and lights up at about midnight. And it is right downtown by the piers.

[placid_panic]

placid panic. you are so desperate to poison people, you make up silly excuses. just becasue theres a lot of anti social poisoners out there does not give you the right to make it worse.

and maggie youre a frickin tard. im glad youre anti smoking, but youre daft. if you think im a smoker you need a brain operation.

at least my poison can be obtained without anybody getting blown up or shot up or burned up or whatever. and at least it comes with a warning label on it so that everybody knows it's poison. i have to live and die on a planet that's being destroyed by carelessness but nobody has to hang around in a bar where people are smoking.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Wait a minute, I thought Qwerty was on Maggie's side. Hug it out bitches

[maggie2]

if it drags the economy - FU its my life. if i want to die early thats my problem. if my idiocy drives up everyones health insurance - FU. i can probably point to some one worse. so SHUT UP. (i dont like to listen to people i dont agree with) SHUT THE HELL UP.

Ooops, sorry Qwerty.
I singled you out because I didn't think you were being sarcastic here.
I get people confused here sometimes, and I admit, most of the time I'm only half paying attention.
I'm gonna delete the FU post.
Again, my bad.

[maggie2]

Wait a minute, I thought Qwerty was on Maggie's side. Hug it out bitches

Yeah - totally my bad. I got Qwerty confused with someone else.
Me = wrong/ way off base/ ADD/ Etc.

[maggie2]

my bad. i merely presumed you were a freakin tard when you replied to an over the top sarastic statement - as if i was serious. it was absurd. but now i realize that youre not dum and stupid. youve merely never heard of sarcasm. here read this its going to blow your fckin mind:


sar·casm
noun
Definition:
cutting language: remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride.

so anyhow i was mocking the fools you were "debating." we really have nothing to debate since we agree that its lame for the stranger to run tobacco ads. and etc. anyhow sorry youre stupid or a innocent hippy or whatever. im sure you have 5 phds.

What the fuck? I said I was sorry.
By the way - you suck at sarcasm.
Sarcasm requires more exaggeration and a wink, wink, here and there.
Gimmie a break.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Yeesh, good to be on this side of the arguement; us smokers get along pretty easily.

[Melle]

When used as intended, public restrooms don't injure the innocent by-stander.


Just like smoking sections.

[qwerty]

smoking kills more people every day than the war against iraq , the war against the people of afganistan and the "war against terrorism" combined has killed so far. and why are you linking these issues? bad+bad=bad

(sorry maggie, i threw down before i saw your follow up post - plus im great at sarcasm. my mom told me so)

[Melle]

Poo + Pee = Laughter.
Proof: Family Guy, South Park, etc,etc,etc,.
No smoker should bring up Freud, by the way.
Carlin said it best:
"Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But sometimes a cigar is a big, brown, wet, dick."

But sometimes a cigarette is a little white nicotine-yielding titty. I am a manly man.

[Melle]

Yeesh, good to be on this side of the arguement; us smokers get along pretty easily.

Generally true, except I don't like libertarians or neocons. Anyone who started smoking because of Atlas Shrugged belongs with the non-smokers.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

smoking kills more people every day than the war against iraq , the war against the people of afganistan and the "war against terrorism" combined has killed so far. and why are you linking these issues? bad+bad=bad

(sorry maggie, i threw down before i saw your follow up post - plus im great at sarcasm. my mom told me so)

Nothing like comparing the deaths of unwilling innocent civilians to those who chose to take the risk of smoking. I'll pull out a maggie: "Classy, Really."

[maggie2]

smoking kills more people every day than the war against iraq , the war against the people of afganistan and the "war against terrorism" combined has killed so far. and why are you linking these issues? bad+bad=bad

(sorry maggie, i threw down before i saw your follow up post - plus im great at sarcasm. my mom told me so)

I would like to take this moment to throw my love over to Qwerty and all my non-smoking, pro-901, and (or) anti-tobacco ad friends.

I'm glad to have had this exchange with Qwerty, not just for the intellectual stimulation, but also because its just so much fun typing his (her) name on the keyboard!

If your name was Qwertyuiop it would be even funner!

BTW - is Qwerty short for Qwertyuiop?

Anyhoo...

(BTW, I also love my anti-901, pro-ad people as well. The truth is, I am a hippie at heart. As Ozzy loves to say when he performs live, "I love you all!")

((On another post, I ripped on AFI's movie list of most inspiring films. One film they got right: Places in the Heart. I don't want to give away the ending, but its one of the most powerful endings in the history of film. Aw, fuck it - I'll give it away. I doubt any of you will be rushing out to see Places in the Heart anytime soon. {{By the way - this is the film that Sally Field won the Oscar for when she said, "you like me, you really really like me!"}}
At the end of the film, all the people who hated and cheated and hurt eachother throughout the movie - including a young black boy who accidentally shot a man and was brutalized for it - are all in a church passing around a cup. The message was clear - in the end, we are all human, we are all fallible, and we must all love eachother.)

[maggie2]

Generally true, except I don't like libertarians or neocons. Anyone who started smoking because of Atlas Shrugged belongs with the non-smokers.
Melle - that was a good one. Very funny. (Not sarcastic here).

[maggie2]

Nothing like comparing the deaths of unwilling innocent civilians to those who chose to take the risk of smoking. I'll pull out a maggie: "Classy, Really."

Choice is an overrated concept when it comes to smoking.

Most smokers start before reaching the age of maturity, when choice-making skills are not developed.

Aaaand, you must take into account the addictive nature of tobacco. Stronger than heroin.

Aaaaaaaaaaand, don't forget that tobacco co's spend ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY EIGHT BILLION dollars per year (3 times Bill Gate's fortune every 365 days) on marketing to get people started and hooked on cigarettes.

Choice is an overrated concept anyway. We are all the products of nature and nurture. Every choice we make can only be made if we are capable of making the choice. Biopsychologists call it determinism. Makes sense to me.

I would never "choose" to rob a bank because its not "in me" to do so. Bank robbers have it "in them".

Choice is complex.

GodDAMN I need a job.............

[maggie2]

Hey, c'mon you people. Let's get this motherfucker to 2000 so we can all go home.

'Cept I won't be goin' to Fuzed's congrats' party. Hate that guy.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Choice is an overrated concept when it comes to smoking.

Most smokers start before reaching the age a maturity, when chocie-making skills are not developed.

Aaaand, you must take into account the addictive nature of tobacco. Stronger than heroin.

Choice is an overrated concept anyway. We are all the products of nature and nurture. Every choice we make can only be made if we are capable of making the choice. Biopsychologists call it determinism. Makes sense to me.

I would never "choose" to rob a bank because its not "in me" to do so. Bank robbers have it "in them".

Choice is complex.

GodDAMN I need a job.............
Reply With Quote

Maggie, you can't defend comparing the killing of innocent civilians to deaths attributed to people who chose to smoke. It's not moral, and it doesn't work as an arguement- period.

[Ballardguy]

Verbal vomiting is hot and heavy lately. Please keep it up so we can hit 2000 by month end. Who will get the cherished # 2,000 post? My hunch is it will be the same person who gets #s 1990, 1991…..1999….



Keep it up smokies! Please continue on with the alternative reality logic of:




Comparing smoking with car exhaust (love that one).
Announcing the formation of militia style Political Action Groups to overturn the ban (Where have the WA Alliance people been hiding lately?).
Self-reporting bars and taverns that are allowing smokies to huddle up in secret. Are you so addicted that you have to go out late at night with the hope of maybe being able to light up? (Brilliant!).
Being dumb enough not to realize that reporting these establishments may actually piss off the bar owners enough to stop this practice (Doff!).
Telling everyone how “rough and tough” you are (I blew smoke in his face!....and, and...then he cried!).
Screaming that smoking is a Constitutional Right (All time favorite).
Justifying smoking by comparing it to the death toll in Iraq (dumb).
Claiming that the ban was instituted by hippies and/or liberals (it passed in every WA County).
Oh, and finally, to certain smokies posting on this blog……. two words – Spell Check.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

* Comparing smoking with car exhaust (love that one).
* Announcing the formation of militia style Political Action Groups to overturn the ban (Where have the WA Alliance people been hiding lately?).
* Self-reporting bars and taverns that are allowing smokies to huddle up in secret. Are you so addicted that you have to go out late at night with the hope of maybe being able to light up? (Brilliant!).
* Being dumb enough not to realize that reporting these establishments may actually piss off the bar owners enough to stop this practice (Doff!).
* Telling everyone how “rough and tough” you are (I blew smoke in his face!....and, and...then he cried!).
* Screaming that smoking is a Constitutional Right (All time favorite).
* Justifying smoking by comparing it to the death toll in Iraq (dumb).
* Claiming that the ban was instituted by hippies and/or liberals (it passed in every WA County).

If you read this thread correctly you'd realize;

It was the Anti-Smokers who compared Smoking attributed deaths to the death tole in Iraq


None of the bars that us smokers 'reported' to allow smoking actually had their name mentioned.


Would you rather inhale car exsaust or second hand smoke? I sure hope it's the former, for your health.

[placid_panic]

smoking kills more people every day than the war against iraq , the war against the people of afganistan and the "war against terrorism" combined has killed so far. and why are you linking these issues? bad+bad=bad

(sorry maggie, i threw down before i saw your follow up post - plus im great at sarcasm. my mom told me so)


i'm just frustrated that nobody seems to give a shit about all the things they're doing to fuck my world up but they get all vitriolic about people smoking in bars, which is something that nobody needs to be protected from. i don't hear about any initiatives to maybe warn people about the poisons in food, i sure as hell get sick of breathing exhaust all the time and our environment is going to shit and we're not even willing to stop fighting this war that everybody agrees is wrong but hey, we passed the strictest smoking ban ever because smokers are stupid and smelly and full of poison and death.

[maggie2]

Maggie, you can't defend comparing the killing of innocent civilians to deaths attributed to people who chose to smoke. It's not moral, and it doesn't work as an arguement- period.

Who sez I'm doing that? I'm just commenting on the "choice" comment.

The only correlation I make with the war is the evilness of the big corporations behind the war.

Haliburton and Unical and Carlyle and Exxon - they're all bad, very bad - but look at fucking Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds sometime. Tobacco co's are the # 1 (NUMBER ONE) lobbyists of congress.

And look at the numbers - 400,000 cig deaths a year - that is not an insignificant number, my friend.

You used the word "choose" again, fully ignoring my argument that choice is an overrated concept.

[qwerty]

keeping poison out of public places is good. so stating that you hate that one good thing was done becasue there is still evil in the world is kinda nonsensical.

also, fuck the oil companies. i walk to work. ive been driving a subcompact for years, and my next car will be plug in electric (unless some one likes $ enough to mass produce solar).

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Who sez I'm doing that? I'm just commenting on the "choice" comment.

The only correlation I make with the war is the evilness of the big corporations behind the war.

Haliburton and Unical and Carlyle and Exxon - they're all bad, very bad - but look at fucking Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds sometime. Tobacco co's are the # 1 (NUMBER ONE) lobbyists of congress.

And look at the numbers - 400,000 cig deaths a year - that is not an insignificant number, my friend.

You used the word "choose" again, fully ignoring my argument that choice is an overrated concept.

Yes, I have and will use the word 'chose'. Because us smokers CHOSE to smoke. End of the story. It's called being responsible for our own actions, and I am. Cocaine is pretty addictive, do you not hold those addicts responsible? I do.

I never said smoking wasen't harmful, but as long as it is within the law to smoke, I will continue to do so, untill I get to a point in my life when I no longer need them. Either it doesn't contribute to my day-to-day activities, or I am in a serious relationship with someone who doesn't want me to.

I also don't find anything wrong with Tobacco companies having the most lobbyists in congress. I could bring up some points why, but I'm tired of arguing for the day, and I'm leaving work in about 20 minutes so I've turned my brain off already.

And Qwerty- everytime you write "poison in public places" I laugh for atleast 15 seconds. Keep that up.

[qwerty]

Northbysoutheastseattle, I support your right to smoke if you are moral. IF you have no morality and you poison your friends and neighhbors with deadly second hand toxins, and you pass on the cost of your suicide to the public by destroying your health and expecting the the gov or insurance companies (and their stock holders) to pay for it, then FU.

[fawkes]

i wanna take this time to say that qwerty and maggie are too extreme, but so was NBSES with his "ratio balancing".

[Ballardguy]

If you read this thread correctly you'd realize;

It was the Anti-Smokers who compared Smoking attributed deaths to the death tole in Iraq


None of the bars that us smokers 'reported' to allow smoking actually had their name mentioned.

Would you rather inhale car exsaust or second hand smoke? I sure hope it's the former, for your health.

LOL - you got me on the Iraq quote - misread same. However, bars were named. "The rimrock is telling you all to screwoff and they can't do anything about it". Fiona. And a comment about a favorite bar on the downtown waterfront....hmmmm....even the Scooby Gang could probably sniff that lead out pretty quick. A clue Scooby! VVrrrwwwhhhatttt??

I love the car "exsaust" comments! I envision people running down 3rd Avenue, chasing down cars to snort the exhaust fumes. Run with that logic - it serves you well.

[Jimmy Flame]

Verbal vomiting is hot and heavy lately. Please keep it up so we can hit 2000 by month end. Who will get the cherished # 2,000 post? My hunch is it will be the same person who gets #s 1990, 1991…..1999….



Keep it up smokies! Please continue on with the alternative reality logic of:




Comparing smoking with car exhaust (love that one).
Announcing the formation of militia style Political Action Groups to overturn the ban (Where have the WA Alliance people been hiding lately?).
Self-reporting bars and taverns that are allowing smokies to huddle up in secret. Are you so addicted that you have to go out late at night with the hope of maybe being able to light up? (Brilliant!).
Being dumb enough not to realize that reporting these establishments may actually piss off the bar owners enough to stop this practice (Doff!).
Telling everyone how “rough and tough” you are (I blew smoke in his face!....and, and...then he cried!).
Screaming that smoking is a Constitutional Right (All time favorite).
Justifying smoking by comparing it to the death toll in Iraq (dumb).
Claiming that the ban was instituted by hippies and/or liberals (it passed in every WA County).
Oh, and finally, to certain smokies posting on this blog……. two words – Spell Check.



It still does not mean that anyone is right. You have your point of view on the issue. I'd say, your a non-smoker who shares the view of other non-smokers.

I don't recall anyone "screaming". This is a message board. There is no audio.

The car exhaust issue. Why wouldn't you be pissed about that? That has nothing to do with the smoking issue, but if smokers make it an issue, why not address it? Find evidence that car exhaust is healthy to breath in.

The "rough and tough" quotes you speak of... It's Seattle. I think for the most part, people have been considerate about this issue. At least in my world. I can't speak for everyone.

Smoking is not a constitutional right. Sure. Suicide isn't a right either. So why is such a horrible product still ofered to the public? Especially since it's considered "slow suicide". Isn't suicide illegal?

Nicotine is addictive. You wouldn't understand if you've never had that addiction. I would say from experience that it is nice to be able to have a drink and a smoke. Smoking without a drink is whole different experience.

Militia style groups? Do you know what the militia is? It's not a group to overturn a smoking ban, and has nothing to do with this subject. I don't think the U.S. government is going to call up the "militia" because of a smoking ban. Besides, the militia is actually protected by the constitution, unlike "smokers".

I think that about covers it. This is just another point a view. The whole idea of debate is to ultimatley have to think right? Thinking is healthy, and highly addictive, and may cause you to think... OOwWWw!!

[fawkes]

Thinking is healthy, and highly addictive

what?!? since when has thinking been addictive? half the damn world isn't thinking most of the time........damn i sound pessimistic.

[Ballardguy]

It still does not mean that anyone is right. You have your point of view on the issue. I'd say, your a non-smoker who shares the view of other non-smokers.

Who said anyone was right? Of course it is personal opinion. One opinion however...is backed by oodles of science (smoking is bad), and the vote of the people.

I don't recall anyone "screaming". This is a message board. There is no audio.

Keep looking my friend. You came on this blog a bit late in the game. Early fun times included many rants about smokie constitutional rights.

The car exhaust issue. Why wouldn't you be pissed about that? That has nothing to do with the smoking issue, but if smokers make it an issue, why not address it? Find evidence that car exhaust is healthy to breath in.

Absolutely! Run with it Jimmy. In fact...start an initiative. Smokie Ban against car exhaust. Eyman probably has some free time.

As far as finding evidence that car exhaust is healthy...why, that's crazy talk. Almost as crazy as stating that second hand smoke has little or no health impact to others.


The "rough and tough" quotes you speak of... It's Seattle. I think for the most part, people have been considerate about this issue. At least in my world. I can't speak for everyone.

3 words for you - "tongue in cheek". I wrote this with humor, however poor, in mind.

Smoking is not a constitutional right. Sure. Suicide isn't a right either. So why is such a horrible product still ofered to the public? Especially since it's considered "slow suicide". Isn't suicide illegal?

Huh? Ok, you got me. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. But following this rabbit trail of logic...are you of the opinion that smoking (slow suicide) should be illegal?

Nicotine is addictive. You wouldn't understand if you've never had that addiction. I would say from experience that it is nice to be able to have a drink and a smoke. Smoking without a drink is whole different experience.

Try it - it might grow on you. Once you can actually taste the beer, you realize what crap budweiser is. Uh oh.....another blog topic?

Militia style groups? Do you know what the militia is? It's not a group to overturn a smoking ban, and has nothing to do with this subject. I don't think the U.S. government is going to call up the "militia" because of a smoking ban. Besides, the militia is actually protected by the constitution, unlike "smokers".

Seriously Jimmy..relax and breathe. You are reading way way too much into this.

I think that about covers it. This is just another point a view. The whole idea of debate is to ultimatley have to think right? Thinking is healthy, and highly addictive, and may cause you to think... OOwWWw!!


What about spell check? You forgot to comment on the spell check remark.

[Melle]

As far as finding evidence that car exhaust is healthy...why, that's crazy talk. Almost as crazy as stating that second hand smoke has little or no health impact to others.


Well, BG, you've always missed my point about car exhaust. Lemme try this once again: My point is that it's a fairly common workplace pollutant that's inarguably lethal, yet ventilation is effective in protecting workers who are exposed to it (mechanics, garage attendants, rental valets, etc.).

Yes, secondhand smoke has "little to no health effect." I think 20/20 put it nice and concisely in a recent program, even though they support bans: http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1

"Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease. But they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect."

To repeat what I've already said: We can ventillate fumes that kill 100% of people in 30 minutes, but we can't ventillate fumes that kill 0.3% of people in 30 years? (If that?)

P.S. to qwerty: Please read the 20/20 quote above. No individual smoker, smoking the odd cigarette in your presence, has a material effect on your health. What DOES effect your health are the choices you make concerning the environment you spend your time in, accumulated over the decades of your life. If you spend hours & hours in a smokey room, YOU'RE responsible for putting yourself there, not me or Northbysoutheast or any other smoker who may happen to share the same space for a moment. Those choices are yours, Rodion Romonovich, yours & nobody else's.

[fawkes]

when is this going to end?

guys, second-hand smoke is not as deadly as we think. The ban is bad. Oh well, sorry. im going to vote for it again, just so those who think smoking, a conscious choice that has no material, physical or emotional gain inherent in it, is a right, can fall flat on their face. If its a right, enjoy it outside.

melle, id have no problem if you lit up in the same bar as me, but i dont personally like smoke, so id probably just walk away for the moment. Sorry you got fucked over.

[Shady_B_206]

We should ban people as they can cause illness.....

[Melle]

I speak of "blowing drags into anti-smokers faces" because of how these people (such as yourself) get (your)their panties in a wad. These people are hilarious in their attempt to show how disgusting and unhealthy smokers are. They act like a child who wants candy. They squirm in their seat put on a pouty face and cry. There was a great South Park episode a while back, that had the most famous-anti-smoking-campaigner- Rob Reiner stuffing hamburgers down his throat the whole time. The point is, there are some many other health dangers out there, and catching a whiff of second hand smoke every now and then is the least of your worries.


That South Park is a classic. When Reiner says "come meet my friends in the anti-smoking movement," and takes them into a room full of angry screwballs and unbalanced sickos, fuck, was that a bulls-eye.

[fawkes]

i love that episode.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

LOL - you got me on the Iraq quote - misread same. However, bars were named. "The rimrock is telling you all to screwoff and they can't do anything about it". Fiona. And a comment about a favorite bar on the downtown waterfront....hmmmm....even the Scooby Gang could probably sniff that lead out pretty quick. A clue Scooby! VVrrrwwwhhhatttt??

I love the car "exsaust" comments! I envision people running down 3rd Avenue, chasing down cars to snort the exhaust fumes. Run with that logic - it serves you well.

Theres more than one bar near the waterfront, I'll give you the oppurtinity to have one guess on which one I'm speaking about. And Fiona... well she needs to be a tad more hush hush. The amount of car exhaust fumes that people inhale is the same if not more than cigarette smoke- and you don't need to chase a car down to inhale it. Just standing at any corner downtown will suffice. Cigarette smoke doesn't just hang in the air waiting to kill somebody. Be realistic. If you are standing right next to someone who is smoking- and they blow it in your face, then yes you're going to get exposed to more of it, but really... when does that happen to you? Never. The only people that die from second hand smoke are those who live with smokers for many many years. Yes- the smoke that smokers exhale is much worse than what's left in our lungs, but getting a whif of it once a week will not hurt anyone.

If you can find a single medically documented case of someone dieing from second hand smoke that did not regularly live or hang out with a smoker who smoked next to them, than I will not come back to this post.

Northbysoutheastseattle, I support your right to smoke if you are moral. IF you have no morality and you poison your friends and neighhbors with deadly second hand toxins, and you pass on the cost of your suicide to the public by destroying your health and expecting the the gov or insurance companies (and their stock holders) to pay for it, then FU.

"If I'm moral"? you-- are a joke son. Plain and simple. Your arguements make no sense and you can't go a sentence without throwing out laughable words such as "suicide" and "poisons". Why don't you up your class a little bit and maybe you can expect a reasonable response to your 'claims'.

[Melle]

when is this going to end?

guys, second-hand smoke is not as deadly as we think. The ban is bad. Oh well, sorry. im going to vote for it again, just so those who think smoking, a conscious choice that has no material, physical or emotional gain inherent in it, is a right, can fall flat on their face. If its a right, enjoy it outside.

melle, id have no problem if you lit up in the same bar as me, but i dont personally like smoke, so id probably just walk away for the moment. Sorry you got fucked over.

Thanks Fawkes, you're OK. Does your name come from Harry Potter? I might as well join in the love fest going on. Northbysoutheastseattle: dude, you fuckin' rock. Cantiloper: you're the Dean of Clean. Mr. sparkly pants: you're the heir of flair. Gomez: you're the mayor of debonair. Smalan: you're the duchess of muchness. Anyone I forgot, rocks hard all the same.

Anti-smokers: you're all alright (except for Godfree, JohnR, Matt, BridgeTroll, and Gris05. The rest of you are all alright). (Cue '70s show theme.)

[fawkes]

nah, from Guy Fawkes. Ever heard of him? Watch V for Vendetta if not. lol. Or google him. Whatever.

[qwerty]

Um... fuck 2020 dude. theyre not an authority on ANYTHING. theyre entertainment filled with corperate infomercials.

How come youre quoting them as authorities on health matters? what about the american lung association.

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

smkrs are addicted and addicts say some absurd shit. step back a sec and remember what youre saying to delude yourself aint gonna work on non addicts. just be considerate and moral and keep your poison stank to the privacy of your own diseased lung tissues. try being a good person its not that hard.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Um... fuck 2020 dude. theyre not an authority on ANYTHING. theyre entertainment filled with corperate infomercials.

How come youre quoting them as authorities on health matters? what about the american lung association.

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

smkrs are addicted and addicts say some absurd shit. step back a sec and remember what youre saying to delude yourself aint gonna work on non addicts. just be considerate and moral and keep your poison stank to the privacy of your own diseased lung tissues. try being a good person its not that hard.

Okay cub scout.. I'll set it straight for you- atleast us smokers are presenting an arguement. A feat of which is clearly above and beyond your capabilities.

[fawkes]

yeah, but you guys are evil, so we dont need an argument. That's just science.

[qwerty]

oooooh. burn.

lies and fake science arent an arguement you can use on the sane. just on yourself. read that warning label and take another puff. sucka

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

With that type of vocabulary you're clearly not even of legal smoking age so what weight do you have in this? Like I said, get some class bud.

[Melle]

Um... fuck 2020 dude. theyre not an authority on ANYTHING. theyre entertainment filled with corperate infomercials.

How come youre quoting them as authorities on health matters? what about the american lung association.

Who cited 20/20 as an "authority"? Not me; I quoted them as saying something I more or less agreed with. I didn't form my opinion based on their statement.

If you want to see the kind of sources I cite as authorities, look back through my posts: for instance, this (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=17798&postcount=1549) recent one on lung cancer. I cited the IARC and three epidemiologists. I even cited two anti-smoking pages. But no corporate media at all. (And BTW, if you think that huge "non-profit" fundraising orgs aren't beholden to corporations, you have a few things to learn.)


smkrs are addicted and addicts say some absurd shit. step back a sec and remember what youre saying to delude yourself aint gonna work on non addicts. just be considerate and moral and keep your poison stank to the privacy of your own diseased lung tissues. try being a good person its not that hard.

I have never heard this "addicts say absurd shit" line applied to anything except tobacco. When crackheads or heroin addicts write tell-all memoirs or rock songs (which they do constantly), they don't glorify their drug of choice, or make it out to be harmless. The whole tradition, from Confessions of an Opium Eater on down to "Mr. Brownstone," consists of cautionary tales plain and simple. Marijuana users are the only ones I can think of who claim their drug is benign---but then they make a good case, and besides, no one regards marijuana as addictive anymore. Why would tobacco, alone among habit-forming drugs, cloud its users' minds and make them blind to its influence? You & other anti-smokers keep implying that habit-forming drugs always do this, obviously & as a matter of course. This is clearly untrue.

[Ballardguy]

Well, BG, you've always missed my point about car exhaust. Lemme try this once again: My point is that it's a fairly common workplace pollutant that's inarguably lethal, yet ventilation is effective in protecting workers who are exposed to it (mechanics, garage attendants, rental valets, etc.).

No I didn't. Car exhaust is a red herring. I think we are currently on car exhaust since no one bought off on "smoking rights", "science", "business rights" or any argument brought to date. After "car exhaust"...what's next in the smokie arsenal of logic? I suggest following Steve Colbert's theory, and claim that bears (his number 1 threat to America) are more lethal than smoking. Should we outlaw bears? How can we institute a smoking ban when bears are more dangerous!! I mean after all, look at all the workers who are exposed to bears (park rangers, zoo attendants, urban cat owners, and campers! What about the campers?).

I always said that the ban would have passed even if it was written to protect the health of puppies. Majority of society hates smoke - not only for the health concerns, but because it stinks. For every smokie that lights up, four people are annoyed.

Smokies are not upset about the ban. They are upset that they can no longer combine two vices in public - smoking and drinking. If this was a "coffee shop" ban, there would not be near the outcry. No one is crying out about smoking bans in airports, buses, workplaces etc.... I have a hard time believing Jimmy is out there thinking "I would say from experience that it is nice to be able to have a smoke with a bus ride. A bus ride without a smoke is a whole different experience." Or Fiona (so hot) and the directionally confused guy talking about "the 72 bus to Ravenna allows smoking after 10 pm...ha ha non-smokies!" Then again....maybe they are.

Regardless...if you are so wound up over car exhaust, then join Jimmy and start the initiative. If society agrees, then we can all push our cars around in order not to "exhaust" in public. Unless being chased by bears.

[scourge]

Stop the Smoking Ban Thread.

Smokers hate the ban, non-smokers love it - so what else is new.

How many smokers are for the ban and how many non-smokers aren't? That's the question.

I don't smoke, do not agree with the ban, signed the petition to get it on the ballot (because I feel the voters should decide), voted against it, and live with it.

I think bar owners got screwed, but its nice to go out and not come home smelly.

[Melle]

Regardless...if you are so wound up over car exhaust, then join Jimmy and start the initiative. If society agrees, then we can all push our cars around in order not to "exhaust" in public. Unless being chased by bears.

No, you clearly missed my point. I am not wound up over car exhaust. Ventilation effectively protects employees from car exhaust. If it works on car exhaust, it works on tobacco smoke.

[Ballardguy]

No, you clearly missed my point. I am not wound up over car exhaust. Ventilation effectively protects employees from car exhaust. If it works on car exhaust, it works on tobacco smoke.

What about bears? Does it protect workers against bears? Have you no concern for the park ranger's safety?

Until bars are built the size of parking garages, or have garage size doors that stay open 90% of the time, the comparison is silly.

And again...this ban would have passed even if written to protect the health of puppies.

[Melle]

Until bars are built the size of parking garages, or have garage size doors that stay open 90% of the time, the comparison is silly.


Not really. Jiffy Lube isn't the size of a parking garage, and obviously, multi-story garages don't have garage doors on every floor.

And besides, are you suggesting that a bar and a garage share anywhere NEAR the same volume of pollution? If so, your comparison is "silly," not mine.

[qwerty]

i donbt know how all those unbiased scientists can get tobacco wrong. its one of the biggest saddest storeis of all time. im weeping now for all the maligned tobacco execs and theire leaked internal documents.

who the fuck wants to breath car exhaust? if all car exhaust disappeared tomorrow who would miss it.... that ventilation bs is obviously some business owner bullshit like arsenic in drinking water. a little ansernic never killed anyone.

and your claim that coke and heroin addicts "don't glorify their drug of choice" is silly. thats a joke right? i would suggest you talk to some junkies and crackies but you have enough trouble with your cigarette problem. sucka.

[Melle]

who the fuck wants to breath car exhaust? if all car exhaust disappeared tomorrow who would miss it.... that ventilation bs is obviously some business owner bullshit like arsenic in drinking water. a little ansernic never killed anyone.

Call it "business owner bullshit" if it gives you kicks. The fact remains that mechanics etc. work around exhaust all day without keeling over dead in 30 minutes---a slightly different experience from the famous sealed-garage suicide method. The reason for the difference? Hmmm, I don't know, maybe all those mechanics eat their Wheaties every morning. Or maybe ventilation is effective at removing carcinogens. Who's to say????????

and your claim that coke and heroin addicts "don't glorify their drug of choice" is silly. thats a joke right? i would suggest you talk to some junkies and crackies but you have enough trouble with your cigarette problem. sucka.

No, it's not a joke. I've never heard a junkie glorify junk or a crackhead glorify crack. You're saying that you have?

[fawkes]

they dont die because they are strong supporters of the ban, and their belief in the evil of smoking protects them from exhaust. I have to tell you, melle, you don't catch on very fast.

[Melle]

they dont die because they are strong supporters of the ban, and their belief in the evil of smoking protects them from exhaust. I have to tell you, melle, you don't catch on very fast.

Oh yeah. Four legs good; two legs bad. Four legs good; two legs bad.

[fawkes]

exactly. Now you get it.

[qwerty]

yeah junkies *all* go through a phase where they glorify junk. and theres a whole genre of music called KRUNK (ever hear of it) that glorifies smoking crack. GET KRUNK!

[Ballardguy]

Not really. Jiffy Lube isn't the size of a parking garage, and obviously, multi-story garages don't have garage doors on every floor.

And besides, are you suggesting that a bar and a garage share anywhere NEAR the same volume of pollution? If so, your comparison is "silly," not mine.

Sigh....

Cmon Melle. You're grasping at straws. Last time I went to Jiffy Lube, I turned off my car. It also has doors open on both sides of the bay. Of course it's ventilated - it's practically outside. And last I checked, most cars in a garage are parked, with motors off.

As far as bars and garages sharing the same amount of pollution - of course not. Smoking ban is now in bars. However, before the ban, it was quite possible to walk into a thick haze of smokie pollution. Not so in a garage.

This is a silly comparison....are smokies seriously grasping at this?

Move on to the dangers of bears. :)

[placid_panic]

yeah junkies *all* go through a phase where they glorify junk. and theres a whole genre of music called KRUNK (ever hear of it) that glorifies smoking crack. GET KRUNK!

http://www.krunk-radio.com/

[Melle]

Sigh....

Cmon Melle. You're grasping at straws. Last time I went to Jiffy Lube, I turned off my car. It also has doors open on both sides of the bay. Of course it's ventilated - it's practically outside. And last I checked, most cars in a garage are parked, with motors off.

Maybe this really is getting silly ... Not everyplace is Ballard, with its one-story buildings, ample space, and low urban density. Multi-story parking garages exist all over densely-populated cities. Attendants run around all day between entering & exiting cars, and they are not "practically outside"; they are also not dying from pollution. Anyone who's worked on a car knows you have to run the engine at some point for almost all jobs, even small ones. And auto exaust is just one example of how carcinogens are dealt with by means of ventilation; I chose it because it's a familiar example. I'm not grasping at straws, believe me, I'm sitting on a haystack.

As far as bars and garages sharing the same amount of pollution - of course not. Smoking ban is now in bars. However, before the ban, it was quite possible to walk into a thick haze of smokie pollution. Not so in a garage.

You're saying there are more carcinogens in a smokey bar than in a busy auto garage? because you can see & smell the smoke? Okay, if you're seriously saying this, then haven't you ever seen news items on carbon monoxide leak victims---you know, the family of 4 found dead, sitting in their easy chairs? Carbon monoxide is a sightless & odorless gas. A well-tuned car has pretty clean exhaust. You can't judge air toxicity based on a visual impression of smokiness.

I am glad that you seem to see the point I'm trying to make. But if you're just going to enumerate all the differences between a garage and a bar, without admitting that the principle of ventilation is clearly operative and effective, then you obviously have a lot of time to waste.

[Melle]

yeah junkies *all* go through a phase where they glorify junk.

I see. Do you have any substantiation for that statement, or is it just true because you say so?

and theres a whole genre of music called KRUNK (ever hear of it) that glorifies smoking crack. GET KRUNK!

No, I don't know too much about Krunk. (Sorry, not going to do the bit with the caps-lock.) Does anyone involved with this music actually smoke crack? It looks pretty tongue-in-cheek to me.

[qwerty]

um... youre right, all drug references in music are tongue and cheek. music is one of the most notoriously drug free professions in the world today. get krunk motherfucker.

are there any junkies/musicians reading this - that can jump in here?

[Matt]

Has anyone noticed that Melle isn't quite as enthusiastic as he once was? He seems a little down, not as much oomph. I think it's because he sees the writing on the wall. Every day, another city, county, state goes smokefree. That's gotta hurt when you're pro dirty air. Hard to be enthusiastic when you're fighting a lost cause.

But onto Melle's latest argument.... oh wait.. .. this is one he's repeated -- like a broken record -- dozens of times before... oh well... I never get tired of correcting him.. Here goes:

Well, BG, you've always missed my point about car exhaust. Lemme try this once again: My point is that it's a fairly common workplace pollutant that's inarguably lethal, yet ventilation is effective in protecting workers who are exposed to it (mechanics, garage attendants, rental valets, etc.).Oh Melle? Bad analogy. Car exhaust is a required part of life when you're dealing with cars. Cigarette smoke is NOT a required part of bowling, ice skating, eating food, or drinking a beer.

[Matt]

Car exhaust is a red herring. I think we are currently on car exhaust since no one bought off on "smoking rights", "science", "business rights" or any argument brought to date.Yep. Red herring. I think I once suggested that Melle and Cantiloper go into the red herring business together, like Forrest and Bubba: "There's pineapple herring, lemon herring, coconut herring, pepper herring, herring soup, herring stew, herring salad, herring and potatoes, herring burger, herring sandwich." Those two would make a killing.

Should we outlaw bears? How can we institute a smoking ban when bears are more dangerous!!Yep. I made a similar point numerous times. If a scientist cures the #2 cancer, Melle would scream at them for not working on #1.

The word tard-nicious comes to mind.

[Matt]

Or maybe ventilation is effective at removing carcinogens.Not according to ventilation companies:
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267

[Ballardguy]

Maybe this really is getting silly ... Not everyplace is Ballard, with its one-story buildings, ample space, and low urban density. Multi-story parking garages exist all over densely-populated cities. Attendants run around all day between entering & exiting cars, and they are not "practically outside"; they are also not dying from pollution. Anyone who's worked on a car knows you have to run the engine at some point for almost all jobs, even small ones. And auto exaust is just one example of how carcinogens are dealt with by means of ventilation; I chose it because it's a familiar example. I'm not grasping at straws, believe me, I'm sitting on a haystack.



Why do you refuse to acknowledge the danger of bears? Lots of bears roaming around Seattle these days. One was killed in the U-District last month.

I agree with Steve Colbert. Bears pose much more risk to America and its health than any Volvo out there.

[Jimmy Flame]

Mr. Ballard Guy... Ummmmm... Start an initiative over car exhaust? But thats absurd and you know it.
I wouldn't compare a public bus with a watering hole, or an airport. Those are public places people obviously "need" to be. Well, besides a watering hole. You don't need that for anything besides a beer, and some like minded people. Well, maybe not like minded, but the common bond is that we'd enjoy sitting in a bar listening to loud ass rock n' roll music with chicks and smoke and alcohol. You just don't "get it". So instead of passing on these places on your way to bed at 8pm, and being pissed that you don't get any pussy, we get to go outside and smoke cigarettes! Don't worry, we leave our drinks inside. I wouldn't want anyone to see someone else doing something they enjoy. Thats why most people walk down the street with sticks in their ass'. So that you can't figure them out! And the only reason that would ever come up in a thought is because you think, "Why are these people walking around with sticks in their ass'?" I can't even imagine why you would call yourself "Ballard Guy", and be so Queen Anne. Whatever fuckstick.

[Ballardguy]

Mr. Ballard Guy... Ummmmm... Start an initiative over car exhaust? But thats absurd and you know it.
I wouldn't compare a public bus with a watering hole, or an airport. Those are public places people obviously "need" to be.

I completely agree. Almost as absurd as comparing smoking to car exhaust. But not bears. Bears are truly dangerous.

Well, besides a watering hole. You don't need that for anything besides a beer, and some like minded people.

Wow. That's a great description of what the majority of people think. That's why the ban passed. Watering holes are for drinks, not for smoke.


Well, maybe not like minded, but the common bond is that we'd enjoy sitting in a bar listening to loud ass rock n' roll music with chicks and smoke and alcohol.

Exactly. As I said, you are not angry about the ban, but only that your playground was taken away. That's what this all boils down to.

You just don't "get it". So instead of passing on these places on your way to bed at 8pm, and being pissed that you don't get any pussy, we get to go outside and smoke cigarettes! Don't worry, we leave our drinks inside. I wouldn't want anyone to see someone else doing something they enjoy. Thats why most people walk down the street with sticks in their ass'. So that you can't figure them out! And the only reason that would ever come up in a thought is because you think, "Why are these people walking around with sticks in their ass'?".

I keep reading this...and it still makes no sense. Let me see...Pedestrian #1 is angry about not getting laid....passes happy smokie mob puffing away (with drinks inside the bar). This results results in pedestrians' #2-20 mysteriously putting sticks in their asses, leaving others to wonder why. Is that it?

Is there any relevant studies out there linking smoking to dementia?

I can't even imagine why you would call yourself "Ballard Guy", and be so Queen Anne. Whatever fuckstick.

Be like Jimmy! When you have absolutely nothing left to justify or defend your point of view, then resort to the "You must be gay" defense.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Well, maybe not like minded, but the common bond is that we'd enjoy sitting in a bar listening to loud ass rock n' roll music with chicks and smoke and alcohol. You just don't "get it". So instead of passing on these places on your way to bed at 8pm, and being pissed that you don't get any pussy, we get to go outside and smoke cigarettes!


Excactly. Anti-smokers are the most boring, pissed off, depressed crowd around. They huddle up in their homes and think of ways to piss us off, while we're just out having a good time on the weekend. Kind of like how North California hates South California, but South California doesn't really give a shit.

Thats the basic difference between us.

[Ballardguy]

Excactly. Anti-smokers are the most boring, pissed off, depressed crowd around. They huddle up in their homes and think of ways to piss us off, while we're just out having a good time on the weekend. Kind of like how North California hates South California, but South California doesn't really give a shit.

Thats the basic difference between us.


Another brilliant commentary by a disgruntled smokie.

Sounds like someone has nicotine withdrawal. Scoop up your change and run to 7-11. Watch out for bears.

[Matt]

ATTENTION ALL SMOKERS: Please respond to this official survey by 5 P.M. June 23. I will compile results, analyze same, and publish the results on this very thread later this month.

Here's the survey question:
==================================
Are you, a smoker, aware that you stink?

[ ] Yes, I am aware that I reek.

[ ] No, I am not aware that everyone around me can tell that I smoke even when I'm not currently smoking because my body, hair, and clothes reek like an ashtray.
==================================Reminder to all smokies: This survey ends at 5 P.M. today. Please complete the survey. Let your voice be heard!!!!

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Another brilliant commentary by a disgruntled smokie.

Sounds like someone has nicotine withdrawal. Scoop up your change and run to 7-11. Watch out for bears.

Hey, I'm pretty sure I was commenting on your lack of cheerfulness.

Oh, and I had a smoke about 10 minutes before posting that, and I just had one right after my delish Teriyaki. I'm in a great mood, can't say that for yourself.

Health Fascists aren't a joyful crowd.

[Ballardguy]

Hey, I'm pretty sure I was commenting on your lack of cheerfulness.

Oh, and I had a smoke about 10 minutes before posting that, and I just had one right after my delish Teriyaki. I'm in a great mood, can't say that for yourself.

Health Fascists aren't a joyful crowd.

Although tone and mood can be hard to convey via written text, I have always been in a good mood with this blog. I think it's hysterical.

Gotta run. A bear smoking a cigarrette is chasing a car down the street. Truly, the most dangerous threat ever posed to all of our health.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Although tone and mood can be hard to convey via written text, I have always been in a good mood with this blog. I think it's hysterical.

Gotta run. A bear smoking a cigarrette is chasing a car down the street. Truly, the most dangerous threat ever posed to all of our health.

Serially, are the Stephen Colbert references really necessary? You can do better, you're from Ballard.

[Ballardguy]

Serially, are the Stephen Colbert references really necessary? You can do better, you're from Ballard.

What would you prefer? Lutefisk?

The point being, the analogy between car exhaust and a room full of cigarette smoke is as absurd as comparing it to bears.

[Matt]

Gotta run. A bear smoking a cigarrette is chasing a car down the street. Truly, the most dangerous threat ever posed to all of our health.No, a bear smoking a cigarrette and chasing a car down the street while carrying scissors is the most dangerous threat ever posed to all of our health.

Btw, dude, you have an odd number of quotation marks in your sig. Just imagine if that bear saw your sig and decided to start running around with an odd number of quotation marks!!! We'd all be in serious doo-doo. Please, Ballard, for god's sake, shape up!

Ha ha!! Boy, we anti-smoke guys have a lot of fun, with our friendly comaraderie, high spirits, and jocularity!!* We're not like those unpleasant and whiny smokie butt-heads. Remember that Gomezticator guy? Yikes. "The cops are out to get me! The cops are out to get me!!!" Unhappy pathetic people. Must be the nicotine addiction.


*And balloons

[Melle]

Oh Melle? Bad analogy. Car exhaust is a required part of life when you're dealing with cars. Cigarette smoke is NOT a required part of bowling, ice skating, eating food, or drinking a beer.

"Bad analogy"? How about "not an analogy at all"? Car exhaust is ventilated; cigarette exhaust could be---that's a deduction, not an analogy.

If a scientist cures the #2 cancer, Melle would scream at them for not working on #1.

Again, this just doesn't describe my position at all. To state my actual position, in your terms: If a method prevents "#1 cancer," I'd suggest that it applies to "#2." (Speaking in a reasonable tone of voice.)

Not according to ventilation companies:
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267

Okay, I can repeat this just as often as you can ignore it: what is being described on your link is not ventilation. It's air filtration/recirculation. (Ventilation means facilitating an airflow through a room, thus replacing stale air with fresh air. Recirculation means pumping the same old stale air supply through a few filters---by far the less healthy alternative, regardless of whether tobacco smoke is involved.)

I know that you and "no smoke.org" like to misidentify and confuse the two---but (fortunately for parking-garage attendants everywhere) that's just wishful thinking on your part. Ventilation really DOES protect employees from carcinogens.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

whiny smokie butt-heads.

Smokie butt-heads? Wow, how juvenile of you. I'm almost impressed.

If you guys quit preaching for a few minutes, you'd realize that life isn't all that bad, whifs of second hand smoke won't kill you, and that you really don't need to control others to make yourself feel better.

Oh, and If I were you; I wouldn't use hypocrisies as arguements, they don't work too well. :)

[Melle]

As I said, you are not angry about the ban, but only that your playground was taken away.


1) What's the difference?

2) If you insist on using those terms, why wouldn't a person be angry if his playground is taken away?

[Melle]

The point being, the analogy between car exhaust and a room full of cigarette smoke is as absurd as comparing it to bears.

Absurd situation, yes. But calling attention to it isn't absurd; it seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.

We live in an era when monster truck shows can be held in the Tacoma Dome, but you can't smoke there because of a cig's "deadly fumes."

Absurd indeed ... but not MY fault.

[Melle]

Gotta run. A bear smoking a cigarrette is chasing a car down the street. Truly, the most dangerous threat ever posed to all of our health.

No, a bear smoking a cigarrette and chasing a car down the street while carrying scissors is the most dangerous threat ever posed to all of our health.

Ha ha! And a few grams of dried leaves, rolled into a cylinder & smoked by someone else, is the most dangerous thing in the history of time.

[Ballardguy]

1) What's the difference?

2) If you insist on using those terms, why wouldn't a person be angry if his playground is taken away?

Wow - a triple Melle response. Big day for me.

The difference is actually significant. Arguing a position on the merits alone is one thing - providing the basis for objective discussion. Arguing based on anger or annoyance of a "playground taken away" shifts this to a debate based primarily on resentment.

Curious question for you and for all smokies out there (this will be fun..). No matter how much you resent the ban, do you concede any positive impact that has resulted from it?

And non smokies - any negative impacts occur as a result of the ban?


I'll start. One negative impact of the ban is that Jimmy is out on the streets more. :).

[pernapi]

Is there anyway this thread can end? You know, just go away. No one respond to the other sides baiting?

By the way, I'm a non-smoker that did not vote yes who doesn't give a shit if the majority did. Enough from me. Please don't respond. Think about something else, please...I beg of you.

[Smalan Ithee]

Smalan: you're the duchess of muchness.Awww, thanks Melle. I've not been reading the past few days and missed the lovefest.Smokies are not upset about the ban. They are upset that they can no longer combine two vices in public - smoking and drinking. If this was a "coffee shop" ban, there would not be near the outcry. No one is crying out about smoking bans in airports, buses, workplaces etc.Ballardguy, you may be right on that point, but perhaps not for the reason you think. Most of us here have no problem with smoking bans in generic places where anyone will and can be present. Even the "smokers' rights" offshoot can't (or shouldn't) be in favor of blowing smoke in kids' faces at a daycare, etc. However, the difference between the places you've pointed out (airports, buses, workplaces, coffee houses, etc) and bars is it can be guaranteed that only adults will be in a bar. Unless an establishment is loose with their ID-checking and wants to lose their liquor license, but that's beside the point. It cannot be assumed that the places you've mentioned will not have minors present - it can be assumed that minors will not be present in a bar. And I'm not talking about restaurant/bar combos - I'm talking strictly 21+ establishments. Many of us think that in adults-only establishments, the owner of said business should have the final say-so on allowing smoking.Curious question for you and for all smokies out there (this will be fun..). No matter how much you resent the ban, do you concede any positive impact that has resulted from it?I am absolutely sure there are many service workers and restaurant/bar patrons who can literally breathe easier because of the ban. On a personal level, the ban was a key component in my choice to quit smoking - the temptation to smoke while drinking went down when the convenience of lighting up was no longer there. However, after 3 months smoke-free, I'm now back to smoking occassionally, thanks to a trip to Las Vegas. Now I just patronize businesses that allow smokers to light up outside, on the property w/ drink in hand. Or save some money by relaxing on my porch, enjoying the warm summer evening with a beer in one hand and a smoke in the other.