Stop The Smoking Ban!

[Melle]

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.


You're confusing the impulse to argue with the substance of an argument. A person might be motivated to argue by anger or annoyance, and yet still be objectively right. (In fact if they are objectively right, they would probably be more angry and annoyed rather than less. This doesn't invalidate their arguments at all.)

[qwerty]

gee thats nice you dont want to poison kids. but why the fck would adults want toxic gas added to their environment. i know smokers are weak feeble minded fools who cant help but light up and poison people once theyve had a drink - but FU. serial killers probably have the same impulse.

[Ballardguy]

Hey Smalan,

Nice post. I may not agree entirely with you, but that was a well articulated position. Refreshing change :).

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Ballardguy - you realize the term 'smokies' doesn't offend us right?

[Ballardguy]

Ballardguy - you realize the term 'smokies' doesn't offend us right?

It was never intended to. Just a fun term.

[Smalan Ithee]

Hey Smalan, Nice post. I may not agree entirely with you, but that was a well articulated position. Refreshing change :). Thanks Ballardguy. A difference of opinion makes a good horse race, and this board would most definitely be boring (and not nearing 2000) if we all agreed.

[Gres05]

I like the term "smoketard" better.

[scourge]

Thanks Ballardguy. A difference of opinion makes a good horse race, and this board would most definitely be boring (and not nearing 2000) if we all agreed.

Do I see a truce forming between the nazis and the serial killers? :)

[Matt]

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.Oh, but you'd still have workers there, and 901 was passed in part to protect workers. So I guess your argument doesn't really work.

Many of us think that in adults-only establishments, the owner of said business should have the final say-so on allowing smoking.No, 'fraid not. Owners don't have the final say-so to allow asbestos-lined seats. They don't have the final say-so to allow dirty water. And, now, thanks to 901, they no longer have the final say-so to allow cancer-causing air.

After all, you'd have be stupid to want to give an owner the right to do any of those things. Only smoketards want dirty air, and they don't count (the same way people who like to urinate on other people's shoes don't count).

[Jimmy Flame]

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.

LOL... It wasn't a 'you must be gay' defense. I already know that you are gay because I am psychic.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Only smoketards want dirty air, and they don't count

Only Christians want the ten commandments put in court houses, but they don't count.. right?

Wow, you guys really are Health-Fascists. And I still think you kids can do better than "smoke-tards" and "smokies". Something... I don't know slightly more mature.

There still aren't any cases of people getting cancer from limited second hand smoke('now and then'), yet you guys like to think that going once to a smoke filled bar is going to kill you.

The majority of the people who voted to get smoking out of bars never go, but by your definition of the democratic process, they are the only ones who should have a say in the matter. Thank goodness for 45 year old stay at home moms(and a catchy title such as Healthy Indoor Air for All), or your 901 wouldn't have gotten half of what you needed.

Ah, but it's hard to shoot a gun with no bullets, so you have to use something to keep this arguement going.

[fawkes]

Ah, but it's hard to shoot a gun with no bullets, so you have to use something to keep this arguement going.

No, but they can use the gun as a glorified club and just bludgeon you into submission with the same crap over and over again.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

No, but they can use the gun as a glorified club and just bludgeon you into submission with the same crap over and over again.

Their repitition of the same 'proof' over and over again feels like them hitting me with a memory foam pillow. Laughable as a joke the first few times, then slightly annoying afterwards.

[fawkes]

only 297 left

[Melle]

There still aren't any cases of people getting cancer from limited second hand smoke('now and then'), yet you guys like to think that going once to a smoke filled bar is going to kill you.


Not only are there no cases of cancer from limited exposure---there are no cases at all. The following article is pretty interesting: http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

"After reading the claim that second hand smoke kills for the zillionth time, I decided to have some fun at the expense of the propagandists. I submitted the following question to their contact person:

"'On your website you claim that 63,000 people die from second hand smoke every year. Could you please name three or four or them?'

"... Contact Results:
American Heart Association: Request Ignored
Joe Cherner, President, SmokeFree Educational Services, Inc.: Request Ignored
Stanton Glanz, Founder of Americans for Non-Smokers Rights, Tobacco Scam, and other anti smoker organizations: Request Ignored
TobaccoFree.org: Request Ignored
Tompkins County Health Department: Evaded the question in their first reply. When asked again if he could supply names, their spokesperson responded: 'No, I cannot.'
American Lung Association: Evasive reply. Unable to supply any names
Jeffery Wigand: Star of 'The Insider,' professional anti-smoker gadfly. Supplied one name, which could not be verified.
James Repace: Repace and Associates, professional anti-smoker gadfly. Supplied three names. One could not be verified. One had been ruled against by a jury. One was rejected by a jury because her claim was a massive fraud.

"Total Number of valid, verifiable names supplied: 0."

[fawkes]

whatever smokie, it still causes cancer. JK. This is a slow death, I'll tell you that. Dude, they may not be able to give out names, for either legal or privacy concerns. W/e. I think it might be b/s, the whole secondhand smoke thing.

[Melle]

whatever smokie, it still causes cancer. JK. This is a slow death, I'll tell you that. Dude, they may not be able to give out names, for either legal or privacy concerns. W/e. I think it might be b/s, the whole secondhand smoke thing.

Oh Fawkes? Guess what. The EPA said that secondhand smoke kills 900 million billion Seattleites every week. It causes muscular dystrophy, elephantitis, 7 years' bad luck, chronic diarrhea, and rabies. Plus it makes you stinky and icky and working-class-ish, and you types are no longer welcome in the Sno-King-Pierce Megalopolis; get lost, creep.

But fortunately 901 has passed! Yay! That is a good thing, Fawkes. A good thing. Let's celebrate; let's all play with balloons & bob for apples & watch the Michael Landon Super-Marathon on The Puritan Channel at our newly sanitized local dive bar. See how fun anti-smokers are. Fun. Happy days are here. Hip hip ... HOORAY!!! Wahooo. Yesssss.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Not only are there no cases of cancer from limited exposure---there are no cases at all. The following article is pretty interesting: http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

"After reading the claim that second hand smoke kills for the zillionth time, I decided to have some fun at the expense of the propagandists. I submitted the following question to their contact person:

"'On your website you claim that 63,000 people die from second hand smoke every year. Could you please name three or four or them?'

"... Contact Results:
American Heart Association: Request Ignored
Joe Cherner, President, SmokeFree Educational Services, Inc.: Request Ignored
Stanton Glanz, Founder of Americans for Non-Smokers Rights, Tobacco Scam, and other anti smoker organizations: Request Ignored
TobaccoFree.org: Request Ignored
Tompkins County Health Department: Evaded the question in their first reply. When asked again if he could supply names, their spokesperson responded: 'No, I cannot.'
American Lung Association: Evasive reply. Unable to supply any names
Jeffery Wigand: Star of 'The Insider,' professional anti-smoker gadfly. Supplied one name, which could not be verified.
James Repace: Repace and Associates, professional anti-smoker gadfly. Supplied three names. One could not be verified. One had been ruled against by a jury. One was rejected by a jury because her claim was a massive fraud.

"Total Number of valid, verifiable names supplied: 0."

Oh come on Melle, be reasonable here; someone who lives with a smoker and constantly inhales the second hand smoke for many years will be in danger. I'm not disputing that, what I'm saying is no one gets hurt from an occasional second hand smoke inhale. And you shouldn't just ban something because 'it smells icky'.

Oh Fawkes? Guess what. The EPA said that secondhand smoke kills 900 million billion Seattleites every week.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

I mean yeah second hand smoke in large doses over a very, very long period of time is unhealthy and might possibly be lethal, but hey-you can overdose to a lethal level on Tylenol within hours, they should ban that aswell.

"Oh but Northbysoutheastseattle you have to choose to OD on Tylenol you smoke-tard"

Yeah well, you also choose to marry a chain smoker who can't go outside to smoke, so- either way.

[Ballardguy]

Not only did Big Dave (failed Canadian mime) submit questions, he followed up with phone calls. Here is the call transcript to the American Heart Association:

Mime: Hi, this is Dave Hitt from the Hitt Report, and.....
AHA: Who?
Mime: Dave Hitt...you know....you must have heard of my famous Hitt Report.
AHA: Uhmmmm...no.
Mime: Don't be evasive! I need names of everyone who died from second hand smoke.
AHA: Hey....is this you John? Very funny. I told you not to crank call me at work.
Mime: John? Wha?....no! I'm Dave Hitt, damnit! Respect my authority!
AHA: Good one John. I'll get you back for this. (click).
Mime: Hello? Hello? I knew it! No deaths from second hand smoke! 60 Minutes, eat your heart out.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Is the word you're looking for "prank"?

Lovely job avoiding the fact and our arguement that occasional second hand smoke hurts nobody. Keep going with that, it's really helping :)

[Ballardguy]

Is the word you're looking for "prank"?

No. I wasn't looking for "prank". I intentionally used "crank".

Lovely job avoiding the fact and our arguement that occasional second hand smoke hurts nobody. Keep going with that, it's really helping :)

PART 1: What fact? I've seen some opinions, but no "fact" on the safety of second hand smoke. AHA refusing to speak to a mime (ironic, isn't it?) does not constitute a "fact".

Lovely job avoiding the fact and our arguement that occasional second hand smoke hurts nobody. Keep going with that, it's really helping :)

PART 2: That was an argument? Huh. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was fantasy; especially since it involves using a Mime as a key validation reference.


You can keep shouting at the wind over SHS if you want, but I don't think it merits an "argument". It's more of a time filler than anything else.

[Gomezticator]

This thread is immortal.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Ballardguy: yet to refute the arguement.

[Melle]

What is this "Dave Hitt is a mime" shit? What's weird is, if you Google "'dave hitt' mime," you get a few hits, but they're all in reference to the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) protocol. (All, that is, except for another claim that he's "a mime from an improv group" from this very forum.) Is this just bullshit? (I doubt he's "Canadian," anyway, since his return address on those mailings is a New York State address.)

But whatever; he gives a complete record of these e-mail exchanges. http://www.davehitt.com/2004/namethreemessages_edited.html Obviously he's breaking serious libel laws if these exchanges aren't real.

So Ballardguy, are you saying he made this all up?

[Ballardguy]

Ballardguy: yet to refute the arguement.

No need to, especially since I do not see any argument. The Flat Earth Society (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/) presents a more compelling case than the theory that SHS is not harmful. This is nothing but a time waster, getting us closer to 2000.

If you wish, google "second hand smoke". There are 39,300,000 returns. A quick glance indicates the huge majority of these profess the dangers of SHS.


PS: Please stop spelling it as "arguement".

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

The arguement is that occasional second hand smoke is not harmful. This is not a time waster, this is not in an attempt to get closer to 2000. It's the sole reason why I am against 901, and you and your people have yet to put up any compelling evidence to challenge it.

I'd search google, but it's pretty obvious which camp of us goes out of their way to sway people into their belief. And either way, those sites would have zero information about occasional second hand smoke inhale, the numbers they use are misleading and do not correspond with the amount of second hand smoke an average person actually inhales in their daily lives. (not including those who live with chain smokers)

901 sole purpose was to keep the average joe from having to inhale shs in some public places, when the only people dying from it are those who live with smokers that refuse to smoke outside. - Real useful.

If you want to keep us from getting to 2000, and don't have a response to this point then don't respond. It might just kill the thread.

Or you can bring up bears again, what a laugh that was.

[Melle]

Oh come on Melle, be reasonable here; someone who lives with a smoker and constantly inhales the second hand smoke for many years will be in danger.

I'm not so sure ... What the studies (some of them) actually show is that "someone who lives with a smoker and constantly inhales the second hand smoke for many years" may be in danger. The risk is pretty slight---small enough that traditional epidemiologists label it meaningless. See this post (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=17798&postcount=1549) for some details.

The Flat Earth Society presents a more compelling case than the theory that SHS is not harmful.

That's an interesting opinion. My opinion is that the Flat Earth Society's case is less compelling.

In support of my opinion, I can cite the British Medical Journal, whose editor stated (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/505-a): "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered."

In support of your opinion, can you cite the editor of a leading scholarly journal, saying the question of Earth's roundness "has not been definitively answered"?

Just curious.

[Jimmy Flame]

Puff puff GIVE!!! Wait, would anyone be opposed to having a marijuana bar? And have a smoking section? Mwwaahahahaha!!!

[fawkes]

SHS=not deadly is a more compelling argument, but harder to disprove. I'd rather just take an around the world boat ride, disprove the flat earth thing, then completely ignore smokers. But I can't, so I'm waiting for stats from both sides, non-biased stats (if they even exist), showing the danger/lack thereof of SHS.

[BridgeTroll]

Shut the fuck up and get over it smokies. Spouting off about your claims of safe second hand smoke makes all of you look like the smart kid in a Downs Syndrome Summer Camp.

Idiots.

[Ballardguy]

In support of my opinion, I can cite the British Medical Journal, whose editor stated (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/505-a): "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered."

In support of your opinion, can you cite the editor of a leading scholarly journal, saying the question of Earth's roundness "has not been definitively answered"?

Just curious.

I don't need to. I can just continue tearing your source data apart.

About that passive smoke study from the British Medical Journal....

Although the study claims to have been based on 38 years of data involving 118,000 smokies and family members in California, researchers admit it does not have any data past 1972 - a 26 year gap.
Because there was a 26 year gap, the researchers "wisely" assumed that a smokie in 1972 must have continued to be a smokie through 1998, therefore misclassifying many non-smokies as smokies.
It was immediately condemned by the Journal's parent organization (British Medical Association).
The report involved payments from the tobacco industry to the researchers (confirmed by the Journal).
The British Medical Association went even further in response to this "study", stating:

that 1,000 people die every year in the U.K. as a result of passive smoking.


"There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks," said Vivienne Nathanson, BMA's head of science and ethics. "In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth, as well as both causing and worsening asthma."

Do I think the earth is flat? Of course not. Even more absurd however, is this study.

Peter Pan is back, carrying his bag of magic smokie dust. Look out everyone.


Postscript: The Surgeon General just released a report about second hand smoke this morning. Interesting stuff. Among other findings, it concluded that ventilation systems and separate smoking sections don't work.

This should perk up the blog. Ok smokies - put on the conspiracy hats.

[scourge]

must...keep...thread.(gasp)...going...(cough)

[Melle]

About that passive smoke study from the British Medical Journal....


Uhhh ... I'm not talking about a "study."

I'm talking about a statement by the BMJ's editor.

What are you talking about?

[Melle]

I don't need to. I can just continue tearing your source data apart.


Kind of like you "tore apart" my last source, with your "he's just a failed Canadian mime," and your made-up AHA phone dialogue? And ignored the fact that the link I posted is either true, or a libel suit waiting to happen?

(By the way, you never answered my question: Is Dave Hitt really a mime---or is that just a load of bullshit, based only on the fact that his name brings up Google hits mentioning MIME e-mail protocol?)

[Matt]

Yes, Virginia, there are days when it's good to be pro-clean air. The U.S. Surgeon General has released today a comprehensive scientific report that completely utterly fully thoroughly comprehensively, and yes, conclusively destroys the repetitious and lame-ass arguments from the smoketards on this thread that secondhand smoke is harmful only in high amounts and long exposures.

So let's review. First, we have recent comments from smoketards:

Northbysoutheastseattle: "[W]hat I'm saying is no one gets hurt from an occasional second hand smoke inhale."

Northbysoutheastseattle: "The arguement [sic] is that occasional second hand smoke is not harmful. . . . It's the sole reason why I am against 901, and you and your people have yet to put up any compelling evidence to challenge it."

Melle: "Fawkes, to "endanger your life," I'd have to spend about 30 years chain-smoking next to you in a sealed room."
Now let's see what the U.S. Surgeon General says:

"U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

"Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease."

"Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says."
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

Yes, of course Melle and friends will lash out in fury at this new report. It will be amusing to see what they come up with. Perhaps they'll scream about a misspelling in the report, which thus renders the entire conclusion moot. But in the end, it will be more sad than funny, because we are witnessing the last pitiful death throes of a demoralized subhuman group of people who have seen every one of their arguments crushed, one by one. I feel sad for them. But then, a few seconds later, I start laughing and forget about them.

[Matt]

In support of my opinion, I can cite the British Medical Journal, whose editor stated (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/505-a): "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered."That's an interesting opinion piece from several years ago. But, now, the question has been definitively answered:

“The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought,” said Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.”
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

The information you put up begins with stating shs can be deadly; which I agree with. But then you put these snippets with "Cans" and "coulds" pertaining to occasional shs.

Sorry, but that's not good enough.

In the words of stephen colbert, apparently a language which some of you will understand; that was a whole lot of "truthiness"

Update: I read both of your links. They are the same report by the way, but apparently different websites = difference sources in your belief.

Niether have actual evidence, or polls, or studies. Just claims. Sad that a Surgeon General would make claims with no evidence?

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

This report has nothing to do with occasional shs besides one or two 'possibilities'. And isn't even a report, just a compilation.

concerned about young children who can't escape their parents' addiction in search of cleaner air:

especially to smoke outside if they can't quit,

It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke

(the best research is the research that agrees with your claims.)

Living with a smoker

although the evidence is suggestive.

http://pomaybo.net/humility.jpg

TRUTHINESS

[Ballardguy]

Uhhh ... I'm not talking about a "study."

I'm talking about a statement by the BMJ's editor.

What are you talking about?

Keep looking. The BMJ editor's statement was in response to questions about this study - the study that has been torn apart by everyone, including the parent organization.

Kind of like you "tore apart" my last source, with your "he's just a failed Canadian mime," and your made-up AHA phone dialogue? And ignored the fact that the link I posted is either true, or a libel suit waiting to happen?

(By the way, you never answered my question: Is Dave Hitt really a mime---or is that just a load of bullshit, based only on the fact that his name brings up Google hits mentioning MIME e-mail protocol?)?

Of course the AHA phone dialogue was made up. At the same time, I bet it was pretty close to reality. Why the hell would AHA respond to Dave Hitt? Or even know (or care) who he was? The fact that he wanted names was a big giant clue that responding was not appropriate (HIPAA (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/)).

I must have missed your question, but Dave Hitt was (and, who knows or cares...maybe still is) a mime and also professes to be a improv actor. The improv reference is even listed on his own site (http://www.davehitt.com/improv.html).

What is with all the implied hints of libel suits? Your link was "true" in respect that it actually went to a site and actually contained "words" you quoted. It did not however, include the fact that it was associated with a study that has been widely debunked.

Do I think you intentionally misled anyone? No. Do I think the relationship between this quote and this study is relevant? Yes.

[Shady_B_206]

I read a study that said People are generally bad for the public health which leads me to the conclusion that we should of course ban people from public places, or maybe only the people we do not like who may cause the most harm such as:

Smokers, Conservatives, Christians, Business Owners, Ronald McDonald.. well that’s all I can think of right now.....

[Ballardguy]

This report has nothing to do with occasional shs besides one or two 'possibilities'. And isn't even a report, just a compilation.


Nothing to do with SHS? Than....what is the report on? Cotton Candy? here's an excerpt from the NY Times:

"Overwhelming" evidence showed that secondhand smoke is responsible for "tens of thousands" of premature deaths from heart disease (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/heartdisease/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and cancer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/cancer/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) among nonsmokers each year.
"I am here to say the debate is over: the science is clear," Dr. Carmona said at a televised news conference this morning, at which he released a report updating the original surgeon general's study of secondhand smoke in 1986.

In the years since then, hundreds of studies have indicated that the harm caused by secondhand smoke is far greater than earlier believed, he said. The report's findings include the following:

* There is no safe level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause harm, especially for people already suffering from heart or respiratory diseases (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/respiratorydiseases/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).

* For nonsmoking adults, exposure raises the risk of heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and of cancer by 20 to 30 percent, and accounted for an estimated 46,000 premature deaths from heart disease and 3,000 premature deaths from cancer last year.

* Secondhand smoke is a cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, accounting for an estimated 430 deaths last year. The risk is elevated both for children whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/pregnancy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and for children exposed in their homes after birth.

* The impact on the health and development of children is more severe than previously thought. "Children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke," Dr. Carmona said.

* Efforts to minimize the effect of secondhand smoke by separating smokers and nonsmokers are ineffective, as are ventilation systems meant to remove smoke from a shared space.

* While exposure has declined, as many as 60 percent of nonsmokers show biological evidence of encountering secondhand smoke, and an estimated 22 percent of children are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes.

[Melle]

Keep looking. The BMJ editor's statement was in response to questions about this study - the study that has been torn apart by everyone, including the parent organization.


My "source material" was the BMJ's statement---not a study.


Of course the AHA phone dialogue was made up. At the same time, I bet it was pretty close to reality. Why the hell would AHA respond to Dave Hitt?

Why not? The American Lung Association thought it was worth their time.

I must have missed your question, but Dave Hitt was (and, who knows or cares...maybe still is) a mime and also professes to be a improv actor. The improv reference is even listed on his own site (http://www.davehitt.com/improv.html).

Seriously? The website says he started the improv group recently (2001) as something he knew little about. It says nothing about being a "mime." Where does this "mime" stuff come from?

What is with all the implied hints of libel suits? Your link was "true" in respect that it actually went to a site and actually contained "words" you quoted. It did not however, include the fact that it was associated with a study that has been widely debunked.

I was referring to Hitt's posting as either being true or libelous.

As for the Enstrom/Kabat study, we can discuss that at some point if you want, but it's a completely separate topic.

[Melle]

As for the Surgeon General's report---Jesus, I'm not the one saying there's no controversy. I'm not the one denying that there are arguments being made by medical authorities on the other side. There is a dispute on the subject of secondhand smoke, with lots of people saying things that directly contradict lots of other people; this is precisely what I've been pointing out with quotes like the BMJ's.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

"Overwhelming" evidence showed that secondhand smoke is responsible for "tens of thousands" of premature deaths from heart disease and cancer among nonsmokers each year.
"I am here to say the debate is over: the science is clear," Dr. Carmona said at a televised news conference this morning, at which he released a report updating the original surgeon general's study of secondhand smoke in 1986.

Wheres the evidence? ^ does not bring up occasional second hand smoke.

* There is no safe level of secondhand smoke, and even brief exposure can cause harm, especially for people already suffering from heart or respiratory diseases.

Can cause harm? Can we have some evidence?


* For nonsmoking adults, exposure raises the risk of heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and of cancer by 20 to 30 percent, and accounted for an estimated 46,000 premature deaths from heart disease and 3,000 premature deaths from cancer last year.

Once again a generalized use of the word "exposure" in which case they mean to say the evidence they used was not from occasional exposure. That's how these types of reports work. On both sides of the arguement. Hell in any arguement. If a report is going to reference evidence, but use generalized terms in doing so, you can easily discredit it.

* Secondhand smoke is a cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, accounting for an estimated 430 deaths last year. The risk is elevated both for children whose mothers were exposed during pregnancy and for children exposed in their homes after birth.

Not concerning occasional SHS.

* The impact on the health and development of children is more severe than previously thought. "Children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke," Dr. Carmona said.

Not concerning occasional SHS.

* Efforts to minimize the effect of secondhand smoke by separating smokers and nonsmokers are ineffective, as are ventilation systems meant to remove smoke from a shared space.

Doesn't comment on adverse affects.

* While exposure has declined, as many as 60 percent of nonsmokers show biological evidence of encountering secondhand smoke, and an estimated 22 percent of children are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes.

Doesn't comment on adverse affects, the part about children being exposed in their homes is not pertaining to occasional SHS.

Tired of hearing me mention occasional SHS? Well, that's what 901 was for. As I said before, I'm not arguing living with a smoker is healthy, it's not; and it can be deadly if they refuse to smoke outside and you live with them for many, many years. I'm arguing that inhaling small amounts of SHS now and then is not unhealthy and definitly will not kill you.

[Ballardguy]

My "source material" was the BMJ's statement---not a study.
Cmon Melle. The statement was made in response to the study. It was a weak attempt by the editor to justify why the skewed results were published in the first place.


Why not? The American Lung Association thought it was worth their time.
No they didn't. They responded that they could not name 3 people. Nor could they name one person or a thousand people. HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA.


Seriously? The website says he started the improv group recently (2001) as something he knew little about. It says nothing about being a "mime." Where does this "mime" stuff come from?
I found a reference a few months back in response to Sonoma. Who cares? If you wish, start a "Was Dave Hitt a Mime blog", and I'll see about looking it up again.


I was referring to Hitt's posting as either being true or libelous.
Ok - thanks.

As for the Enstrom/Kabat study, we can discuss that at some point if you want, but it's a completely separate topic.
Not really. As mentioned above, the quote you used was in response to questions about this study.

[Melle]

Cmon Melle. The statement was made in response to the study. It was a weak attempt by the editor to justify why the skewed results were published in the first place.

The statement may have been occasioned by the study (or the controversy surrounding the study). But trying to deal with the statement by condemning the study is laughable.


No they didn't.
Oh, really?

They responded
Exactly.


I found a reference a few months back in response to Sonoma. Who cares? If you wish, start a "Was Dave Hitt a Mime blog", and I'll see about looking it up again.

Yup, that's about what I expected.

[Ballardguy]

The statement may have been occasioned by the study (or the controversy surrounding the study). But trying to deal with the statement by condemning the study is laughable.



Oh, really?


Exactly.




Yup, that's about what I expected.


Cmon Melle, you can do better than this. For a moment, I thought your moniker was hijacked by the directional confused Seattle guy.

And please....look at HIPAA. Medical privacy law prohibits releasing information. It was an absurd request to begin with.

[Melle]

And please....look at HIPAA. Medical privacy law prohibits releasing information. It was an absurd request to begin with.

What do you mean---that no one's cause of death, for any reason, is ever disclosed?

[Ballardguy]

What do you mean---that no one's cause of death, for any reason, is ever disclosed?

No one's name.

HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA.

[Melle]

No one's name.

HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA.

Talk about your red herrings. HIPAA was designed to protect the privacy of medical records. Does it apply to cause of death? Looks like the answer is "no," since some of Dave Hitt's correspondents did list names. (Apparently a few lawsuits were filed in an attempt to find SHS liable for cancer deaths. They failed.)

(According to what I could find online, cause of death can be discussed with the permission of the deceased's phsician and legal representative. "Information about the cause of death must come from the patient's physician, and a legal representative of the deceased must approve its release. This means that hospitals cannot share information with the media on the specifics about sudden, violent or accidental deaths, or deaths from natural causes without the permission of the decedent’s next-of-kin or other legal representative."---AHA (http://www.ihatoday.org/issues/legal/guidelines.pdf#search='The%20death%20of%20a%20pati ent%20may%20be%20reported%20to%20the%20authorities %20by%20the%20hospital%2C%20as%20required%20by%20l aw.').

Besides, anyone who's seen those lists of famous smokers "killed by tobacco" knows that, yes, you can name deceased people & say what killed them.)

[Ballardguy]

Talk about your red herrings. HIPAA was designed to protect the privacy of medical records. Does it apply to cause of death? Looks like the answer is "no," since some of Dave Hitt's correspondents did list names. (Apparently a few lawsuits were filed in an attempt to find SHS liable for cancer deaths. They failed.)

(According to what I could find online, cause of death can be discussed with the permission of the deceased's phsician and legal representative. "Information about the cause of death must come from the patient's physician, and a legal representative of the deceased must approve its release. This means that hospitals cannot share information with the media on the specifics about sudden, violent or accidental deaths, or deaths from natural causes without the permission of the decedent’s next-of-kin or other legal representative."---AHA (http://www.ihatoday.org/issues/legal/guidelines.pdf#search='The%20death%20of%20a%20pati ent%20may%20be%20reported%20to%20the%20authorities %20by%20the%20hospital%2C%20as%20required%20by%20l aw.').

Besides, anyone who's seen those lists of famous smokers "killed by tobacco" knows that, yes, you can name deceased people & say what killed them.)

That surgeon general report today must have hit you pretty hard. At the risk of starting a new blog, it is easy to say that you really don't know what you are talking about. To equate a list of famous dead smokies to HIPPA regs is absurd.

You look online - I deal with HIPAA professionally. There was no way that any health organization was going to "name" anyone - in fact, they probably did not even have a list of "names", since it is not easy for hospitals and/or health care providers to release same. Nor is there really any reason that the AHA should have personal names.

Move on Melle - the herring you are kicking around on this is your own.

[Ballardguy]

Talk about your red herrings. HIPAA was designed to protect the privacy of medical records. Does it apply to cause of death? Looks like the answer is "no," since some of Dave Hitt's correspondents did list names. (Apparently a few lawsuits were filed in an attempt to find SHS liable for cancer deaths. They failed.)

(According to what I could find online, cause of death can be discussed with the permission of the deceased's phsician and legal representative. "Information about the cause of death must come from the patient's physician, and a legal representative of the deceased must approve its release. This means that hospitals cannot share information with the media on the specifics about sudden, violent or accidental deaths, or deaths from natural causes without the permission of the decedent’s next-of-kin or other legal representative."---AHA (http://www.ihatoday.org/issues/legal/guidelines.pdf#search='The%20death%20of%20a%20pati ent%20may%20be%20reported%20to%20the%20authorities %20by%20the%20hospital%2C%20as%20required%20by%20l aw.').

Besides, anyone who's seen those lists of famous smokers "killed by tobacco" knows that, yes, you can name deceased people & say what killed them.)

One last thought on this silliness about the mime.

Do you think any death certificate states "Cause of Death - Second Hand Smoke?" Of course not. SHS increases the chances of cancer, heart disease, etc...these are the causes of death.

For more information, please refer to today's surgeon general's report.

[Jimmy Flame]

Shut the fuck up and get over it smokies. Spouting off about your claims of safe second hand smoke makes all of you look like the smart kid in a Downs Syndrome Summer Camp.

Idiots.

Why don't you just stop reading the thread? Aren't you supposed to be in bed soon anyway? I've actually volunteered at a downs syndrome camp before, so go fuck yourself.

[Jimmy Flame]

One last thought on this silliness about the mime.

Do you think any death certificate states "Cause of Death - Second Hand Smoke?" Of course not. SHS increases the chances of cancer, heart disease, etc...these are the causes of death.

For more information, please refer to today's surgeon general's report.

Too much red meat and eggs can kill you too. Too much second hand crack smoke can make you go into a fit of rage and destroy an entire neighborhood. Lets sue the fast food industry for serving bad food!

[BridgeTroll]

Too much red meat and eggs can kill you too. Too much second hand crack smoke can make you go into a fit of rage and destroy an entire neighborhood. Lets sue the fast food industry for serving bad food!

Idiot! Idiot! Idiot!

You are not even the smartest kid in the camp. Stuff your face with meat and eggs. Pig out at McDonalds. Who cares. No one has banned smoking, you twit. Smoke away.

The obvious flaw in your blather is the fact that no matter how much crap you eat, it doesn't physically impact anyone but you - discounting of course, the obvious body odor.....

Smoke does impact others. The ban passed.

PS - crack is illegal.

IDIOT!

[Jimmy Flame]

Idiot! Idiot! Idiot!

You are not even the smartest kid in the camp. Stuff your face with meat and eggs. Pig out at McDonalds. Who cares. No one has banned smoking, you twit. Smoke away.

The obvious flaw in your blather is the fact that no matter how much crap you eat, it doesn't physically impact anyone but you - discounting of course, the obvious body odor.....

Smoke does impact others. The ban passed.

PS - crack is illegal.

IDIOT!

Idiot? Who me? If being an idiot is calling bullshit on hypocrisy, then I guess I'm an idiot. You need to learn to live with others. This isn't just YOUR planet. You should try it sometime, then you may not be so angry all the time, and your nose might straighten out.

[qwerty]

the surgeon general was on TV tonight talking about involuntary smoking aka 2nd hand smoke. he stated that 500,000 americans die from smoking every year.

500,000 americans die from smoking every year

and theres no amount of healthy smoke. cells start to react chemically to tobacco smoke almost immediately. its toxic.

jimmy working at a camp is like hanibal lector working at a camp. i feel sorry for the kids.

[Matt]

Hmmm.. we have two conflicting positions.

First, Northbysoutheastseattle:

I'm arguing that inhaling small amounts of SHS now and then is not unhealthy and definitly [sic] will not kill you.And now let's hear from the U.S. Surgeon General:

"U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

"Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease."

"Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says."Boy, this is a tough decision. Should I go with Northbysoutheastseattle (probably a 13-year-old with a 2.7 GPA) or the U.S. Surgeon General? Hmmm. .. .boy this is a tough one....

You know, I think I'll go with Northbysoutheastseattle. He just sounds like he really knows what he's talking about.

[Matt]

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

Melle responded:
Just like smoking sections.Oh, but smoking sections do harm others:

"Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

Like always, you make it so easy.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Hmmm.. we have two conflicting positions.

First, Northbysoutheastseattle:

And now let's hear from the U.S. Surgeon General:

"U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

"Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease."

"Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says."Boy, this is a tough decision. Should I go with Northbysoutheastseattle (probably a 13-year-old with a 2.7 GPA) or the U.S. Surgeon General? Hmmm. .. .boy this is a tough one....

You know, I think I'll go with Northbysoutheastseattle. He just sounds like he really knows what he's talking about.

13 year old with a 2.7 GPA? Hmm.. you found out my secret! Just don't tell my boss that, he might flip out. I bought my UW alum license plate frame off eBay. You'll be suprised what you can find on there.

You might want to read my previous posts. I've gone over the snippits your squad continues to post already.

I guess I have to wait untill 6 pm or so for you to respond, working in the retail world you must not get many chances to get online.

[BridgeTroll]

Idiot? Who me?
Yes! Idiot you.

If being an idiot is calling bullshit on hypocrisy, then I guess I'm an idiot. You need to learn to live with others. This isn't just YOUR planet. You should try it sometime, then you may not be so angry all the time, and your nose might straighten out.

I can live with others, even idiots like you. Gasp, gasp....no argument left....I know! Compare smoking to fast food....and....and then....do an "uhnalogee" between a ban on smoking and a ban on fast food. And....and...then....uhmmmm........aaargh! I need a cigarette.

Idiot!

[Melle]

At the risk of starting a new blog, it is easy to say that you really don't know what you are talking about. To equate a list of famous dead smokies to HIPPA regs is absurd.

I agree---it's "easy to say" that I "don't know what talking about." Extremely easy ... to [I]say ... and it would be just as easy for me to say the same about you. But when it's all been said, a million or 2 million times, the arguments remain to be considered on their merits.

I don't see why it's "absurd" to suppose the existence of a list of dead waiters or bartenders from SHS. If active smokers who died of smoking-related disease can be listed, why can't passive smokers who died from SHS-related disease be listed?

You look online - I deal with HIPAA professionally.

That's real nice! You told me to "look at HIPAA." I did. You're welcome. Now you're gonna go on an authority trip?

There was no way that any health organization was going to "name" anyone - in fact, they probably did not even have a list of "names", since it is not easy for hospitals and/or health care providers to release same. Nor is there really any reason that the AHA should have personal names.


(Just out of curiosity, why are we putting the word "name" in quotes?)

The above begins to illustrate a point I've been trying to make all along---but it comes through more clearly in your next post, so I'll elaborate in response to that.

For now, let me just point out that Dave Hitt did not contact "health organizations" only---he also contacted 4 individuals, 2 of whom did provide names. Those names turned out to be bogus, but the point is that HIPAA clearly did not prevent them from naming names. So it's not a simple gag rule.

Are you saying that it's a gag rule when applied to organizations? (It sounds like that's your point, since you said: "The fact that he wanted names was a big giant clue that responding was not appropriate." In other words, AHA had the data to respond, but didn't, in compliance with HIPAA.) Well, according to your link (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/consumer_summary.pdf), HIPAA applies to "most doctors, nurses, pharmacies, hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and many other health care providers; health insurance companies, HMOs, most employer group health plans;" and "certain government programs that pay for health care, such as Medicare and Medicaid." Non-profit orgs like the AHA aren't on the list.

Or are you saying the AHA simply can't ever find names because the doctors & hospitals aren't allowed to tell them? (This could also be your point: "they probably did not even have a list of 'names', since it is not easy for hospitals and/or health care providers to release same.") But again, James Repace and Jeffrey Wigand named names. Obviously some names are bound to become public if 35,000 people are really dying from SHS yearly.

[Melle]

Do you think any death certificate states "Cause of Death - Second Hand Smoke?" Of course not. SHS increases the chances of cancer, heart disease, etc...these are the causes of death.



Hey! Very good point! Of course, I would add the important word "arguably" in there, thus: "SHS arguably increases the chances of cancer, heart disease, etc."---but that's a detail. The important thing to grasp is that SHS is, at worst, one of many small risk factors of which this world is full. The key to avoiding any possible danger is the overall lifestyle choice of the individual.

So, would you agree with me that anti-smoking's constant references to "cancer-causing secondhand smoke" are wrong?

[Jimmy Flame]

Yes! Idiot you.



I can live with others, even idiots like you. Gasp, gasp....no argument left....I know! Compare smoking to fast food....and....and then....do an "uhnalogee" between a ban on smoking and a ban on fast food. And....and...then....uhmmmm........aaargh! I need a cigarette.

Idiot!

Yup. And the world is full of em'. We're only here to make your life hard. Since it revolves around you. BTW- There is no "uhnalogee" between fast food and smoking. Well, making a choice would be the only comparison. Something you'd never want to do. Let me go get you a diaper. BRB...

[Melle]

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

Melle responded:
Oh, but smoking sections do harm others:

"Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

Like always, you make it so easy.

Hate to break it to you, but disagreeing with surgeon generals is nothing new for me. I've disagreed with them for quite some time, dating to when I first read the 1986 report. I know it's unorthodox. Maybe I should be burned at the stake?

As for this new claim, I honestly can't believe that it's impossible to construct a smoking section that keeps smoke away from nonsmokers. There are too many precedents (call them "red herrings" if it gives you kicks) that indicate otherwise. Read this article (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml98/98113.html) on charcoal grilling---it "kills people" (doesn't increase risk of disease in the long term, just plain kills people)---then ask yourself how it is that restaurants cook with charcoal indoors all the time ... without sealed kitchens, without dying chefs, without anything but a range hood over the grill ....

[Jimmy Flame]

Hate to break it to you, but disagreeing with surgeon generals is nothing new for me. I've disagreed with them for quite some time, dating to when I first read the 1986 report. I know it's unorthodox. Maybe I should be burned at the stake?

As for this new claim, I honestly can't believe that it's impossible to construct a smoking section that keeps smoke away from nonsmokers. There are too many precedents (call them "red herrings" if it gives you kicks) that indicate otherwise. Read this article (http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml98/98113.html) on charcoal grilling---it "kills people" (doesn't increase risk of disease in the long term, just plain kills people)---then ask yourself how it is that restaurants cook with charcoal indoors all the time ... without sealed kitchens, without dying chefs, without anything but a range hood over the grill ....

Yes Mr. Melle. As a cook, I've used just about every kind of grill there is. Strange that there hasn't been a complaint about that. I think it's because it doesn't include people drinking and having a good time. Those non-smokies don't have to walk by a window and see people enjoying themselves.

[Ballardguy]

Hey! Very good point! Of course, I would add the important word "arguably" in there, thus: "SHS arguably increases the chances of cancer, heart disease, etc."---but that's a detail. The important thing to grasp is that SHS is, at worst, one of many small risk factors of which this world is full. The key to avoiding any possible danger is the overall lifestyle choice of the individual.

So, would you agree with me that anti-smoking's constant references to "cancer-causing secondhand smoke" are wrong?

On one hand...it is a Very good point...on the other hand...smoke is not cancer causing?

No, I wouldn't agree with you.

Would you agree with me that exposure to SHS does increase the risk of cancer? Can we agree to disagree on that level of risk?

And please. Stop the HIPAA rambling. Without being insulting, (it really is not my intent), you really do not know what you are talking about.

[BridgeTroll]

Yes Mr. Melle. As a cook, I've used just about every kind of grill there is. Strange that there hasn't been a complaint about that. I think it's because it doesn't include people drinking and having a good time. Those non-smokies don't have to walk by a window and see people enjoying themselves.

Idiot!

So predictable. Now we are on the "non-smokies" are grumps theory. What a pompous ass! That's right Camper Jimmy! Everyone voted for the ban just because you were having a good time. Idiot, Idiot, Idiot!

BTW - Being the fry chef at McDonalds does not make you a cook. Idiot!

[Jimmy Flame]

Idiot!

So predictable. Now we are on the "non-smokies" are grumps theory. What a pompous ass! That's right Camper Jimmy! Everyone voted for the ban just because you were having a good time. Idiot, Idiot, Idiot!

BTW - Being the fry chef at McDonalds does not make you a cook. Idiot!

IDIOT! IDIOT! It's not the fry chef! It's the FRY GUY! IDIOT! And not everyone voted for the ban. Jeesh! And yes, I'm still having a good time. I'm not worried about what everybody else is doing. IDIOT!!

Anybody wanna' have a good time? Come to the Nectar in Fremont tommorow (June 29th) at 9pm. Killer rock bands! Booze! Outdoor patio! Fun people! And did I mention, some killer SEATTLE rock bands! OOwWWWw!!!
http://myspace-027.vo.llnwd.net/00863/72/09/863929027_l.jpg
http://myspace-861.vo.llnwd.net/00865/16/81/865201861_l.jpg

[Matt]

I guess I have to wait untill 6 pm or so for you to respond, working in the retail world you must not get many chances to get online.Ok, I have to admit that was pretty funny, even though you insulted me and hurt my feelings. You may not be smart, but at least you have a sense of humor. And that's why I like you so much.

Speaking of humor, how come nobody said how funny my joke about Forrest Gump and red herrings was? You know, I was thinking Melle would be Forrest and Cantiloper, would be, like, Bubba (because Cantiloper has big gums, too). And then, I was saying that, like, I'd switch the shrimp stuff with herring (herring scampi instead of shrimp scampi, for example), you know, for the red herring part of the joke. I mean, I spent a lot of time thinking of different herring recipes. But I got like zip in response. Sometimes I feel like I just give and give but don't get anything in return.

[fiona]

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.

Well you can live with it if you want you cowering toad but were all flipping you off at the rimrock the rimrock got caught once but paid the fine and said fuck you come fine us again. maybe those laim ass at the buckeroo and als should do this to. the ban won't work if we do not listen to it.

[scourge]

Well you can live with it if you want you cowering toad but were all flipping you off at the rimrock the rimrock got caught once but paid the fine and said fuck you come fine us again. maybe those laim ass at the buckeroo and als should do this to. the ban won't work if we do not listen to it.

What are you blathering about? I voted against the ban. I couldn't care less about your Rimjob, either.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Now we are on the "non-smokies" are grumps theory.

It's because it's the truth bud. I live in an apartment in downtown Bellevue where there is a courtyard in the middle of it, with windows facing the courtyard.

Three apartments' windows have stickers that say "No-smoking" despite the fact the courtyard was designed for it and has ashtrays all over the place.

One of the neighbors I have never, ever seen. He/she is probably a hermit crab type who volunteers at a liberal movement at night. The other two I have never seen smile. When they peak their head out the window they look pissed off as all hell to see someone smoking within 100 yards. When you pass them getting to your mail they look to the floor like they just witnessed a double suicide.

Just an unfriendly, unhappy group overall. I'm just a hell of a nice guy trying to enjoy his drag. I'm cool with all the other neighbors I've met, what's so different about these ones? OH yeah they're health fascists.

[BridgeTroll]

IDIOT! IDIOT! It's not the fry chef! It's the FRY GUY! IDIOT!

Sorry. My bad. :)

Idiot!

[qwerty]

what aholes. how dare they object to being poisoned. kranky fckers

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

When they live two floors and atleast 100 yards away, they aren't objecting 'to being poisioned' they're just being the average anti-smoker. Just not a friendly bunch.

[scourge]

Now, if you were smoking crack, you'd probably get them to give you some money.

[qwerty]

how do they even know youre smoking?

[fiona]

What are you blathering about? I voted against the ban. I couldn't care less about your Rimjob, either.

the Rimrock is a bar einstine, and we do not have to live with this ban, not at all. if we just defy it it is unenforceable. the problem is that no one,cept the Rimrock that I know of, is big enough to just stand up and defy it.

[Melle]

On one hand...it is a Very good point...on the other hand...smoke is not cancer causing?

No, I wouldn't agree with you.

OK. Just out of curiosity, do you work in the field of public health? The reason I ask is that they, like you, don't acknowledge the difference between "causes" and "risk factors."

Would you agree with me that exposure to SHS does increase the risk of cancer? Can we agree to disagree on that level of risk?

Of course, we can agree to disagree.

But I don't agree that "exposure to SHS does increase the risk of cancer." (It might. If it does, it only increases the risk very slightly and only after very long & persistant exposure. And that's as close as I can come to agreeing with you, based on my honest appraisal of the research I've seen.)

And please. Stop the HIPAA rambling. Without being insulting, (it really is not my intent), you really do not know what you are talking about.

With all due respect, it seems a little over-the-top for you to accuse me of "rambling." You're the one who's never even bothered to state your point about the HIPAA clearly, often not even in complete sentences. (Ballardguy: "The fact that he wanted names was a big giant clue that responding was not appropriate (HIPAA)." "HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA." "And please....look at HIPAA. Medical privacy law prohibits releasing information." "No one's name. HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA." "To equate a list of famous dead smokies to HIPPA regs is absurd." How is anyone supposed to glean from all this what your exact point concerning the act may be?)

If I "don't know what I'm talking about," as you keep telling me, surely an informed response to my questions would clear everything up. Are you saying the HIPAA prevents non-profits from naming names or that it prevents doctors & hospitals from providing them with names? Or are you saying neither of those 2 things but something entirely different? This is not rambling; this is asking you a direct question.

[BridgeTroll]

If I "don't know what I'm talking about," as you keep telling me, surely an informed response to my questions would clear everything up. Are you saying the HIPAA prevents non-profits from naming names or that it prevents doctors & hospitals from providing them with names? Or are you saying neither of those 2 things but something entirely different? This is not rambling; this is asking you a direct question.

What an IDIOT! Even a simple Bridgetroll like me can figure this out! Hospitals and doctors cannot release patient info without proper consent. And why the fuck would non-profits want names??

Start your own blog you idiot. Call it "Why the obvious confuses Melle".

You make Jimmy look like a genius.

[Melle]

Just wanted to post a link or 2 to Michael Siegel's blog, which has some very interesting things to say on the Surgeon General's report. (For those of you who don't know, Siegel is a Boston U. professor, scientist and anti-smoking advocate who recently became disenchanted with the anti-smoking movement---its distortions of science, its extremism, its alarmist press releases, etc. He started a blog about a year ago to express his concerns with the movement, and, predictably, many anti-smokers have been screaming bloody murder at the Judas in their midst. I've cited him a fair amount on this blog.)

Siegel states (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communications.html) flat-out that the various quotes regarding the report, from the Surgeon General himself as well as others, are not backed up by the report itself;

he explores (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-report-publicity.html) the reasons why these statements that there is "no safe level of SHS exposure" are wrong-headed;

and he suggests (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/misrepresentation-of-science-in.html) that the fallacious claims trumpeting the report are symptomatic of a problem affecting the entire tobacco-control movement.

If I may quote a few passages at length:

There are a number of reasons why I'm not so sure that the publicity focus on the absence of any safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke is entirely appropriate and effective as a public health message.

First, the message is not particularly meaningful. One can say that there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen. There is no safe level of exposure to car exhaust. There is no safe level of exposure to the sun's rays. There is no safe level of exposure to X-rays. There is no safe level of exposure to the benzene that is found in some sodas. There is no safe level of exposure to radon in homes. There is no safe level of exposure to arsenic that is found in many people's drinking water.

For that matter, there is no safe speed at which you can drive a car without risk of injury or death. There is no risk-free way to have sex with someone who has HIV infection. There is no safe method to travel from one place to another.

So stating that no amount of secondhand smoke is safe is not particularly meaningful.

* * *

[T]he Surgeon General's press release distorts the science presented in the report and ends up presenting misleading and inaccurate information to the public.

The press release claims that a significant finding of the Surgeon General's report is that: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer."

To re-phrase this for clarity, the Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer.

But there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such conclusion.

In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of common medical sense. How could it possibly be that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? It takes many years for heart disease to develop. It takes years of exposure to tobacco smoke even for a smoker to develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at least 25 years of exposure (based on the fact that very few smokers are diagnosed with heart disease before age 40).

[Melle]

What an IDIOT! Even a simple Bridgetroll like me can figure this out! Hospitals and doctors cannot release patient info without proper consent. And why the fuck would non-profits want names??


Right, that's what I think Ballardguy is saying. Or something like it. But he won't confirm or deny it.

[BridgeTroll]

Just wanted to post a link or 2 to Michael Siegel's blog, which has some very interesting things to say on the Surgeon General's report. (For those of you who don't know, Siegel is a Boston U. professor, scientist and anti-smoking advocate who recently became disenchanted with the anti-smoking movement---its distortions of science, its extremism, its alarmist press releases, etc. He started a blog about a year ago to express his concerns with the movement, and, predictably, many anti-smokers have been screaming bloody murder at the Judas in their midst. I've cited him a fair amount on this blog.)
[/I][/B]

No one cares. Like you, he's an idiot.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

But there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such conclusion.

In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of common medical sense. How could it possibly be that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? It takes many years for heart disease to develop. It takes years of exposure to tobacco smoke even for a smoker to develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at least 25 years of exposure (based on the fact that very few smokers are diagnosed with heart disease before age 40).
__________________


http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/historic/saint_vincent_church.gif

Church.

[Ballardguy]

OK. Just out of curiosity, do you work in the field of public health? .

Nope

The reason I ask is that they, like you, don't acknowledge the difference between "causes" and "risk factors."

Sounds like weasel language. Not a "cause"...but is a "risk factor". Do you write press for the White House?


Of course, we can agree to disagree.

But I don't agree that "exposure to SHS does increase the risk of cancer." (It might). If it does, it only increases the risk very slightly and only after very long & persistant exposure. And that's as close as I can come to agreeing with you, based on my honest appraisal of the research I've seen.).

More weasel language (I don't agree/it might, etc...)


With all due respect, it seems a little over-the-top for you to accuse me of "rambling." You're the one who's never even bothered to state your point about the HIPAA clearly, often not even in complete sentences. (Ballardguy: "The fact that he wanted names was a big giant clue that responding was not appropriate (HIPAA)." "HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA." "And please....look at HIPAA. Medical privacy law prohibits releasing information." "No one's name. HIPAA, HIPAA, HIPAA." "To equate a list of famous dead smokies to HIPPA regs is absurd." How is anyone supposed to glean from all this what your exact point concerning the act may be?) .)

Yes I did. Even Bridgetroll figured it out. :).

If I "don't know what I'm talking about," as you keep telling me, surely an informed response to my questions would clear everything up. Are you saying the HIPAA prevents non-profits from naming names or that it prevents doctors & hospitals from providing them with names? Or are you saying neither of those 2 things but something entirely different? This is not rambling; this is asking you a direct question.

Docs and hospitals without proper consent. Also agree with the troll - why would non-profits want names? Furthermore, even if they had names, why would they release same to a mime?

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Ballardguy, would you like to respond to Michael Siegel's opinion or are you just ignoring it as always?

It's a shot of common sense.

[Ballardguy]

Ballardguy, would you like to respond to Michael Siegel's opinion or are you just ignoring it as always?

It's a shot of common sense.

Ooooohhhhhhhh. Baiting!

Not interested. It's the same story - smoke ain't so bad, ban was wrong decision, blah blah blah.

Said it before and will say it again. This ban would have passed even if it was worded to protect the health of puppies.

Common sense already occurred - the ban was passed.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

I showed enough respect to read your articles; I suppose you don't have the class to read ours.

False hopes I guess.

[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.
==================================
THE RESULTS ARE IN!!!!!

I received 218 responses from smokers (aka smokies & smoketards). The results have been audited by the accounting firm of Pratt & Whitney. Here are the results:

0 - Yes, I am aware that I reek.

217 - 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.The reason that the number doesn't add up is because one respondent, whose name rhymes with Crappaloader, said that he has smoked for so long, that his lungs are completely black and all the smell receptors in his nose were long ago burned away by years of cancer-causing smoke. Therefore, he was unable to know whether he reeked. (I assured him that he did.)

In addition, many smokies, now aware of how much they reek, apologized for being inconsiderate, low-life, downright stanky losers for all these years and promised to either quit smoking or start taking showers.

I also received a message from a major smoketard, whose name -- appropriately enough -- rhymes with "smell." He wrote to me and said that he doesn't think that there is such a thing as smell. It's a conspiracy created by "health nazis" (his words). He thinks ventilation is the cure for everything, including acne and rust stains. (I explained that ventilation doesn't work (http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267).)

Thanks, everyone, for your participation!!!

[BridgeTroll]

I showed enough respect to read your articles; I suppose you don't have the class to read ours.

False hopes I guess.

IDIOT!

Your articles read like comic books, some even written by mimes.

Boo hoo. Go crawl away in a puff of smoke.

IDIOT!

[Ballardguy]

I showed enough respect to read your articles; I suppose you don't have the class to read ours.

False hopes I guess.

I give these editorials the same level of respect you showed towards the theory that bears were the number one threat to society.

[Jimmy Flame]

Sorry. My bad. :)

Idiot!

Do you know how hot, and dangerous it is to stand over a fry basket!? IDIOT! I could get cancer!!!

[Melle]

Sounds like weasel language. Not a "cause"...but is a "risk factor". Do you write press for the White House?

I'm sorry if it sounds like "weasel language." But there is a distinction between cause and a risk factor, and that isn't my fault. A risk factor is simply a characteristic that increases statistical risk.

A couple of famous examples: Knowing how to swim is a risk factor for drowning. Having a driver's license is a risk factor for being killed in a car crash. Would anyone in their right mind say "knowing how to swim is a proven cause of drowning" or "drivers' licenses cause fatal accidents"?

More weasel language (I don't agree/it might, etc...)

The discrepency is not "I don't agree" vs. "it might"; it's "it does" vs. "it might."

Sorry dood, "does" and "might" mean different things. Not to weasels, but to everyone who speaks English.

Yes I did. Even Bridgetroll figured it out. :).

Yeah, but my problem is, I'm just waaaay tooooo dumb. Help me out: it's still totally unclear whether you're saying that the AHA is prohibited from releasing information, or that others are prohibited from giving information to the AHA.

Docs and hospitals without proper consent.

35,000 deaths a year (supposedly)---and NOT ONE VICTIM has a family or lawyer willing to give proper consent?

Also agree with the troll - why would non-profits want names?

I think the main reason they would want a list of names is obvious: Names make alarming assertions plausible.

It reminds me of the LSD horror-stories we all heard as teenagers ("some hippies stared at the sun while on acid & went blind"). I was reading the urban-legend page Snopes.com recently, and found a skilfull debunking of those old chestnuts, which actually began life in the '60s as widely-circulated news items. After quoting the original news article, which named no names, Snopes makes this point:

"Do you recall the first of those six one-word interrogatives all good journalists are supposed to ask? Good. Now ask yourself, what the heck happened to the who in this story? Not a SINGLE NAME is mentioned anywhere in the article! ...The LSD horror story was picked up by the Associated Press and quickly spread all over the U.S., appearing in such prominent news publications such as The New York Times and Time magazine." (emphasis added) http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/lsdsun.asp

Furthermore, even if they had names, why would they release same to a mime?

You mean to Dave Hitt (I increasingly doubt he is a mime)---they would release names to Dave Hitt for the same reason James Repace and Jeffrey Wigand released names to Dave Hitt.

[Melle]

I give these editorials the same level of respect you showed towards the theory that bears were the number one threat to society.

Historically there have been very few bear maulings in America's public parks.

However, I'd bet that each & every victim has an actual name.

[Melle]

I also received a message from a major smoketard, whose name -- appropriately enough -- rhymes with "smell." He wrote to me and said that he doesn't think that there is such a thing as smell. It's a conspiracy created by "health nazis" (his words). He thinks ventilation is the cure for everything, including acne and rust stains. (I explained that ventilation doesn't work (http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=267).)

Although this is the not funniest thing I've ever read & all ... I should point out for the record that I have never written to Matt in any way, shape, or form (other than the public missives out here on the public blogs for all to see).

(Also for the record: filtration ain't ventilation (http://www.thestranger.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18496&postcount=1683).)

[Melle]

Yes Mr. Melle. As a cook, I've used just about every kind of grill there is. Strange that there hasn't been a complaint about that. I think it's because it doesn't include people drinking and having a good time. Those non-smokies don't have to walk by a window and see people enjoying themselves.

I know. I worked as a cook for years. I love how these people say, "But true ventilation is totally unheard-of and unfeasible!"---with no clue whatsoever that every range in every commercial kitchen in America has a hood over it with a duct leading to a powerful fan outside, that sucks up hazardous fumes every minute the cook is working.

[Melle]

I give these editorials the same level of respect you showed towards the theory that bears were the number one threat to society.

True to form. See my sig below \/ \/ \/

[Ballardguy]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Flame
Yes Mr. Melle. As a cook, I've used just about every kind of grill there is. Strange that there hasn't been a complaint about that. I think it's because it doesn't include people drinking and having a good time. Those non-smokies don't have to walk by a window and see people enjoying themselves.

I know. I worked as a cook for years. I love how these people say, "But true ventilation is totally unheard-of and unfeasible!"---with no clue whatsoever that every range in every commercial kitchen in America has a hood over it with a duct leading to a powerful fan outside, that sucks up hazardous fumes every minute the cook is working.

And folks, this is what the entire 901 blog boils down to. Two Hamburger flippers (plus one mime) disputing the surgeon general, medical industry and common sense.

No wonder the smoking bans are passing worldwide.

[Ballardguy]

True to form. See my sig below \/ \/ \/

Why don't you use this Chomsky quote as your signature line?

"If you go to McDonald's, you see kids smoking cigarettes, but I haven't seen a graduate student who smoked cigarettes for years."

[Jimmy Flame]

And folks, this is what the entire 901 blog boils down to. Two Hamburger flippers (plus one mime) disputing the surgeon general, medical industry and common sense.

No wonder the smoking bans are passing worldwide.

So the people who prepare your food have no rights to health. Shows how fucking ignorant you are.

[Mrt1212]

THE RESULTS ARE IN!!!!!

I received 218 responses from smokers (aka smokies & smoketards). The results have been audited by the accounting firm of Pratt & Whitney.

the airplane engine manufacturer does accounting now?

[Jimmy Flame]

BTW Ballard guy, I do many other things besides cook. Thats the least of my daily life that I concentrate on. Besides, it shouldn't matter what people are doing for work. I choose what I do, and I love just about every minute of it. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Well, obviously you have an opinion too. It's pretty lame, but an opinion nonetheless. It just sucks that people with your kind of attitude exist. I'm not even talking about the smoking ban, it's your generalization of calling someone "burger flippers", like it's a job for inferior people or something. Ohhhhhh, you so scary masta. Please don't insult me...

[Melle]

And folks, this is what the entire 901 blog boils down to. Two Hamburger flippers (plus one mime) disputing the surgeon general, medical industry and common sense.

No wonder the smoking bans are passing worldwide.

Hmmm ... how did you pay the rent when you were fresh out of high school, Ballardguy? Or did you just stay on the tit until you were 25?

[Melle]

Why don't you use this Chomsky quote as your signature line?

"If you go to McDonald's, you see kids smoking cigarettes, but I haven't seen a graduate student who smoked cigarettes for years."

Maybe I will. But if I do, I'll put it in context by including the sentences that came before and after it. Like this:

"Some legal historians have predicted that tobacco would be criminalized because it is associated with poorer and less-educated people. If you go to McDonald's, you see kids smoking cigarettes, but I haven't seen a graduate student who smoked cigarettes for years. We are now beginning to see punitive consequences related to smoking, and of course the industry [Big Tobacco] has seen this coming for years."

I hate to break the news, but Chomsky isn't helping you scoff at the plebians. He identifies the war on smoking as a part of the larger war on the less well-off.

[scourge]

Can't everyone agree that the issue is not the dangers of smoking, second-hand smoke, rights of smokers, or rights of non-smokers, but rather the rights of the voting public? One side always loses in a political race. Sorry.

And before I get flamed for being a nazi, I want to reitterate that I voted against the ban.

[Ballardguy]

Hmmm ... how did you pay the rent when you were fresh out of high school, Ballardguy? Or did you just stay on the tit until you were 25?

That's another blog topic. Anyways, the point being is who do you give more credibility to? The surgeon general, years of research and study, and a overwhelming majority of the voters.....or a couple of disgruntled cooks who are having a tantrum over not being able to smoke with their PBRs?

[Ballardguy]

Maybe I will. But if I do, I'll put it in context by including the sentences that came before and after it. Like this:

"Some legal historians have predicted that tobacco would be criminalized because it is associated with poorer and less-educated people. If you go to McDonald's, you see kids smoking cigarettes, but I haven't seen a graduate student who smoked cigarettes for years. We are now beginning to see punitive consequences related to smoking, and of course the industry [Big Tobacco] has seen this coming for years."

I hate to break the news, but Chomsky isn't helping you scoff at the plebians. He identifies the war on smoking as a part of the larger war on the less well-off.

Funny how the master of selective quotes finally has to come back and present a quote in the full context.

[Ballardguy]

BTW Ballard guy, I do many other things besides cook. Thats the least of my daily life that I concentrate on. Besides, it shouldn't matter what people are doing for work. I choose what I do, and I love just about every minute of it. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Well, obviously you have an opinion too. It's pretty lame, but an opinion nonetheless. It just sucks that people with your kind of attitude exist. I'm not even talking about the smoking ban, it's your generalization of calling someone "burger flippers", like it's a job for inferior people or something. Ohhhhhh, you so scary masta. Please don't insult me...

Point made Jimmy. My apologies.

[BridgeTroll]

BTW Ballard guy, I do many other things besides cook. Thats the least of my daily life that I concentrate on. Besides, it shouldn't matter what people are doing for work. I choose what I do, and I love just about every minute of it. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. Well, obviously you have an opinion too. It's pretty lame, but an opinion nonetheless. It just sucks that people with your kind of attitude exist. I'm not even talking about the smoking ban, it's your generalization of calling someone "burger flippers", like it's a job for inferior people or something. Ohhhhhh, you so scary masta. Please don't insult me...


Fry guy is a cool thing to do, but you a still an IDIOT! :).

Melle, I realized, is just a child.

[Jimmy Flame]

I was just flipping through a classic baseball book. Over half of the players in photos were smoking or chewing tobacco! Just thought that it was funny. Photos between 1890-1910. Now they use steroids. I wonder if in 50 years we'll see photos in Baseball books of players shooting up.......

[scourge]

I was just flipping through a classic baseball book. Over half of the players in photos were smoking or chewing tobacco! Just thought that it was funny. Photos between 1890-1910. Now they use steroids. I wonder if in 50 years we'll see photos in Baseball books of players shooting up.......

Smoking was cool back then. Baseball players endorsed cigarettes. Plus, check out the old interview shows where they're surrounded by cig smoke. Mike Wallace had one. That's some trippy shit.

[Jimmy Flame]

Smoking is still cool. Ay!

[Melle]

I asked Ballardguy how he supported himself when he was fresh out of high school & he said


That's another blog topic.

OK, then me having worked as a cook is also another blog topic. So I guess you can shut up about it now?

Anyways, the point being is who do you give more credibility to? The surgeon general, years of research and study, and a overwhelming majority of the voters.....or a couple of disgruntled cooks who are having a tantrum over not being able to smoke with their PBRs?

How about giving credibility to arguments that are credible, based on your own determination of what's credible? (Nah, easier to just use cheap insults and describe the others' argument as a "tantrum.")

[Melle]

Funny how the master of selective quotes finally has to come back and present a quote in the full context.

Yeah, that's definitely easier than dealing with what Chomsky said.

All you've been doing for at least several days is evading arguments, evading discussion, and trying to discredit people personally.

[BridgeTroll]

I asked Ballardguy how he supported himself when he was fresh out of high school & he said



OK, then me having worked as a cook is also another blog topic. So I guess you can shut up about it now?



How about giving credibility to arguments that are credible, based on your own determination of what's credible? (Nah, easier to just use cheap insults and describe the others' argument as a "tantrum.")

God Melle, Shut up. The tantrum is being thrown by you.

You haven't had any arguments. All you seem capable of doing is posting obscure science and present it as proof that smoke is harmless. I'm not even sure you have an original thought in your head.

Your rantings seems to be nothing but a diversion away from the surgeon general report. You even took it as far as trying to debate HIPAA - all the time pretending not to understand the basic concept. Only an idiot couldn't figure it out...

Wait a minute....IDIOT!

[Melle]

God Melle, Shut up. The tantrum is being thrown by you.

You haven't had any arguments. All you seem capable of doing is posting obscure science and present it as proof that smoke is harmless. I'm not even sure you have an original thought in your head.

Your rantings seems to be nothing but a diversion away from the surgeon general report. You even took it as far as trying to debate HIPAA - all the time pretending not to understand the basic concept. Only an idiot couldn't figure it out...

Wait a minute....IDIOT!

I know BridgeTroll. Really, I am trying to follow your shining example of how to contribute positively to this discussion. Really. Bear with me, not all of us are Einsteins like you.

[Ballardguy]

How about giving credibility to arguments that are credible, based on your own determination of what's credible? (Nah, easier to just use cheap insults and describe the others' argument as a "tantrum.")

Sure. When you present an argument instead of rhetoric and bs, I'll consider it. What I won't consider includes:


A British Medical Journal study that has holes in it big enough to drive a semi through.
The thoughts and opinions of a mime.
That smoke is ok because the American Cancer Society did not release names (this was stupid).
That's what is so pathetic - your source data is laughable, even to the point of moronic. But you blather on and on with it, and when challenged, resort to bizarre tactics such as:

the HIPAA "prove it" tangent.
is he or is he not a mime?
the ever popular "British Medical Journal study is just a point of view bs".
I'm a cook and I know ventilation.
anything else to sidetrack the conversation from what must drive you nuts - a mountain of evidence and reports that SHS is actually harmful.
And my favorite cause and effect theory - "Since no one gave the mime any names, SHS must be ok".
And about your use of Chomsky in your signature line. Quoting intellect does not make you one. In fact, it's rather sad.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

I'd join back into this arguement, but Melle has provided a good reason for leaving it:

All you've been doing for at least several days is evading arguments, evading discussion, and trying to discredit people personally.

Melle, I'd advise you left with me. They have no class, can't hold an arguement, and worst of all call us names like we're still on the playground.

[BridgeTroll]

I'd join back into this arguement, but Melle has provided a good reason for leaving it:

Melle, I'd advise you left with me. They have no class, can't hold an arguement, and worst of all call us names like we're still on the playground.


At least we can spell.

IDIOT!

[fawkes]

1810,1811,1812, Hurry Up!!

[placid_panic]

What I won't consider includes:


The thoughts and opinions of a mime.


what do you have against mimes?

[Melle]

Melle, I'd advise you left with me. They have no class, can't hold an arguement, and worst of all call us names like we're still on the playground.

I might leave. I mean, you're right, this is a pretty sorry spectacle, and I don't go online to play these dumb games. But first I'll at least defend myself and deconstruct a little of this garbage. To wit:

Sure. When you present an argument instead of rhetoric and bs, I'll consider it.

This is posturing, of course; the fact is Ballardguy has been arguing with me for weeks. His method is pretty obvious by now: first he says I'm weak, stupid, feeble, etc.; then, when I defend what I'm saying, he turns and runs.

To wit: three recent posts of mine that Ballardguy ignored: #1666 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=18412&postcount=1666), #1691 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=18552&postcount=1691), #1785 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=19167&postcount=1785). In all three I was speaking directly to him: an issue we were discussing was just coming to a point. But what's undeniable is that they, like the majority of my posts, constitute arguments.---not "rhetoric and bs." They have varying sources, they have varying methods; some are original, some are derivative; you may agree with them & you may not; but they are certainly arguments.

What I won't consider includes:

A British Medical Journal study that has holes in it big enough to drive a semi through.

I didn't ask him to consider a "British Medical Journal study."

I asked him to consider a statement of editorial position made by the BMJ's editor. (The study he refers to created the controversy that led, eventually, to the statement I refer to; that's as much as they have to do with each other.)

[I won't consider] the thoughts and opinions of a mime.

For the sake of argument, let's say OK, Dave Hitt is a mime, was a mime, haunts Ballardguy's nightmares dressed as a mime, whatever. And for the sake of argument, OK, it was Hitt's "thoughts and opinions" that were cited, not his factual account of a series of e-mail exchanges. Citing him is somehow unacceptable---Ballardguy "won't consider" anything Hitt wrote. (Never mind that Ballardguy did in fact "consider" it, made post after post on the topic, and still refers to it now.) OK. Fine.

The implication is that Ballardguy will consider "thoughts and opinions" from a more pedigreed source. OK, what about Michael Siegel, professor at a prestigious university's School of Public Health, anti-smoking researcher, key witness against Big Tobacco in numerous trials, etc.; most importantly, whose career is gloriously free of the ugly taint of pantomime? What does Ballardguy do when I quote the "thoughts and opinions" of someone like Siegel?

He does this (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=19142&postcount=1779). Like other arguments that challenge Ballardguy, Siegel's is dismissed without being addressed.

That smoke is ok because the American Cancer Society did not release names (this was stupid).
That's what is so pathetic - your source data is laughable, even to the point of moronic. But you blather on and on with it, and when challenged, resort to bizarre tactics such as:
the HIPAA "prove it" tangent.
is he or is he not a mime?
the ever popular "British Medical Journal study is just a point of view bs".
I'm a cook and I know ventilation.
anything else to sidetrack the conversation from what must drive you nuts - a mountain of evidence and reports that SHS is actually harmful.
And my favorite cause and effect theory - "Since no one gave the mime any names, SHS must be ok".

The misrepresentation is flying thick right about here.

What he calls my "bizarre tactics" are, in reality, ordinary requests that he support his claims. (He claimed the HIPAA prevents victims from being named: I asked him to support it. He claimed Dave Hitt wasn't credible because he was a mime: I asked him to support it. The alternative is to let people say anything they want, about anything or anyone, without bothering about whether it's true.)

"I'm a cook and I know ventilation"---well ... I was a cook; I worked with range hoods; I know that they work; and I did mention this ... not as an argument but as a response to something JimmyFlame wrote (Ballardguy is acting like it was a central statement of mine in argument with him). Anyway, it was Ballardguy who made a big deal out of the statement and turned it into a stunningly snotty personal attack: You were a cook, so you don't know anything.

As I said, the post about cooking was addresssed to Jimmy Flame. The post regarding Dave Hitt was addressed to Northbysoutheastseattle. Of course this is an open forum, and Ballardguy is free to comment on anything I post. But after he responded to these posts, which weren't part of my argument with him, he began pretending that they were central to my argument with him: this is demonstrably untrue, and totally dishonest. And most of his last post is based on this pretense.

And about your use of Chomsky in your signature line. Quoting intellect does not make you one. In fact, it's rather sad.

I used the Chomsky quote for the same simple reason anyone would quote anything: I agree with what it says. It applies nicely to this blog.

The idea that I'm trying to ride Chomsky's coattails to some kind of intellectual prestige is funny. If I thought about things like that, I'd be more worried that quoting Chomsky would suggest I was a dreadlocked white boy in a Che t-shirt. If I thought about things like that.

But here again we have a case where I'm quoting someone who's not a mime, who's an accomplished academic and a respected thinker. Does it matter? Nope. Just another occasion to deride me, this time as an intellectual poseur.

[Matt]

So the people who prepare your food have no rights to health.Yes, restaurant workers and bar workers do have a right to health and a healthy working environment. That's one of the main reasons why we passed 901.

[Jimmy Flame]

So why is it OK for a cook to breath in deadly chemicals but not a bartender? Especially since all of the bartenders and waitstaff I know were completely against such a ban. Because they smoke themselves. I'm not talking about your restaraunt/ cocktail lounges. I'm talking about places where people obviously go to drink AND smoke. Trust me, nobody who went to these places are non-smokers. If you can give me a civilized explanation without flaming me, I'm all ears.

[Ballardguy]

I might leave. I mean, you're right, this is a pretty sorry spectacle, and I don't go online to play these dumb games. But first I'll at least defend myself and deconstruct a little of this garbage. To wit:

This is posturing, of course; the fact is Ballardguy has been arguing with me for weeks.

Don't flatter yourself. I have never argued with you, because you still have not presented any argument.

His method is pretty obvious by now: first he says I'm weak, stupid, feeble, etc.; then, when I defend what I'm saying, he turns and runs. blah blah blah...

I never called you weak, feeble, stupid, etc.... I never had to. I seem to recall that Bridgetroll recently called you a child, so maybe you have us confused. I can only surmise this was done due to the possible perception of you being whiny and possibly throwing tantrums. But I won't judge - you can take that up with him or her.

Pulling a Melle here: show me exactly where I ever said that you were weak, feeble and stupid. And show me exactly where I turned and ran.

Of course, this provides nothing towards the blog topic at hand, but that has never really been an interest of Melle's.

[Ballardguy]

So why is it OK for a cook to breath in deadly chemicals but not a bartender? Especially since all of the bartenders and waitstaff I know were completely against such a ban. Because they smoke themselves. I'm not talking about your restaraunt/ cocktail lounges. I'm talking about places where people obviously go to drink AND smoke. Trust me, nobody who went to these places are non-smokers. If you can give me a civilized explanation without flaming me, I'm all ears.

Not to inflame you, but wasn't it your earlier position (along with someone who will remain nameless) that ventilation took care of any deadly chemicals?

[Jimmy Flame]

Not to inflame you, but wasn't it your earlier position (along with someone who will remain nameless) that ventilation took care of any deadly chemicals?

No, I don't beleive so. Thats not my stance. The stance took was to choose where you wanted to go. I hung out in places that people went to smoke and drink. I made a choice to do that. I have nothing against banning smoking from most establishments. But there are some out there that should have been left alone. Such as most places I hung out in where, and I pretty much guarantee, 100% of the staff and customers smoked. We like to drink and smoke. Ventilation took center stage for a minute and I questioned why a cook won't be protected, yet a bartender will. The whole thing about protecting workers is absolutley right. It's down right sellfish to NOT care. "Dive bars" should've been exempt from 901. Thats why I favored something more like the Arkansas ban.

[Ballardguy]

No, I don't beleive so. Thats not my stance. The stance took was to choose where you wanted to go. I hung out in places that people went to smoke and drink. I made a choice to do that. I have nothing against banning smoking from most establishments. But there are some out there that should have been left alone. Such as most places I hung out in where, and I pretty much guarantee, 100% of the staff and customers smoked. We like to drink and smoke. Ventilation took center stage for a minute and I questioned why a cook won't be protected, yet a bartender will. The whole thing about protecting workers is absolutley right. It's down right sellfish to NOT care. "Dive bars" should've been exempt from 901. Thats why I favored something more like the Arkansas ban.

You're right. My bad. The quote I was thinking of was this one:

I know. I worked as a cook for years. I love how these people say, "But true ventilation is totally unheard-of and unfeasible!"---with no clue whatsoever that every range in every commercial kitchen in America has a hood over it with a duct leading to a powerful fan outside, that sucks up hazardous fumes every minute the cook is working.

The above quote was from someone named Melon...or something like that. He is someone who I never called weak, feeble or stupid, but I think he was once called a child.

[Melle]

Don't flatter yourself. I have never argued with you, because you still have not presented any argument.

Yeah, OK, I'll stop flattering myself that I'VE BEEN ARGUING. (?!)

I never called you weak, feeble, stupid, etc.... I never had to. I seem to recall that Bridgetroll recently called you a child, so maybe you have us confused. I can only surmise this was done due to the possible perception of you being whiny and possibly throwing tantrums. But I won't judge - you can take that up with him or her.

Pulling a Melle here: show me exactly where I ever said that you were weak, feeble and stupid.

You know, I wondered how you were going to respond to this. I figured you would fixate on some triviality, misrepresent it, and blow it up into an orgy of misdirection; I just didn't know what it would be. So ...you've decided to pretend that a description of your insulting tone is a direct quote. Nice. You've already made 2 posts out of denying you called me "weak, feeble, stupid, etc." Much good may it do you.

Obviously, if I meant that weak, feeble, stupid, etc., were your exact words, I would have put them in quotes. I didn't. I was summarizing the way you address me. However, I'll quote your exact words now, and we can decide if it's an accurate description.

The most characteristic thing about your replies to me is the constant belittling tone. I'm "directional [sic] confused." I'm told that I "can do better than this." I'm subjected to the repeated refrains "cmon Melle," "you don't know what you are talking about"; and sometimes "you really don't know what you're talking about." In addition, according to you, I "drone on about unproven studies," "grasp at straws," peddle "red herrings," and employ "weasel language." My posts amount to "having a tantrum." My analogies are "absurd"; my posts are "absurd"; my attempts to argue are "rambling." I'm "disputing ... common sense." In place of argument, I offer "rhetoric and bs." And of course, despite my intentions I "have not presented any argument." The content of my posts is "stupid," "pathetic," "laughable," "moronic." From your perpsective, "it's rather sad."

So, have I misrepresented Ballardguy's tone towards me?


And show me exactly where I turned and ran.

I already did. #1666 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=18412&postcount=1666), #1691 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=18552&postcount=1691), #1785 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=19167&postcount=1785). These are recent posts from discussions I was having with you. You abandoned all three of these subjects at these points. (Then you responded to posts of mine addressed to other people. Then you pretended that those posts of mine comprised my argument with you.)

Of course, this provides nothing towards the blog topic at hand, but that has never really been an interest of Melle's.

As is so often the case, your statement is the opposite of the truth. The "blog topic at hand" is my only interest. I regret and resent this digression, and I'll leave the forum if this atmosphere remains the norm.

[fawkes]

yeah, BG, Melle's actually been a better guy than I would be if I had some asshole telling me my arguments are tantrums. Not saying I agree with everything he says, but at least he's presenting an argument.

[Melle]

Not to inflame you, but wasn't it your earlier position (along with someone who will remain nameless) that ventilation took care of any deadly chemicals?

You're right. My bad. The quote I was thinking of was this one:

I know. I worked as a cook for years. I love how these people say, "But true ventilation is totally unheard-of and unfeasible!"---with no clue whatsoever that every range in every commercial kitchen in America has a hood over it with a duct leading to a powerful fan outside, that sucks up hazardous fumes every minute the cook is working.

The above quote was from someone named Melon...or something like that. He is someone who I never called weak, feeble or stupid, but I think he was once called a child.

Yes, I think ventilation successfully protects cooks. You disagree?

[Ballardguy]

You know, I wondered how you were going to respond to this. I figured you would fixate on some triviality, misrepresent it, and blow it up into an orgy of misdirection; I just didn't know what it would be. So ...you've decided to pretend that a description of your insulting tone is a direct quote. Nice. You've already made 2 posts out of denying you called me "weak, feeble, stupid, etc." Much good may it do you.

As mentioned - I pulled a Melle. You frequently do this.


I already did. #1666 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=18412&postcount=1666), #1691 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=18552&postcount=1691), #1785 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=19167&postcount=1785). These are recent posts from discussions I was having with you. You abandoned all three of these subjects at these points. (Then you responded to posts of mine addressed to other people. Then you pretended that those posts of mine comprised my argument with you.).

No...these were all Melle's, not arguments.
Definition of a Melle:To fixate on some triviality, misrepresent it, and blow it up into an orgy of misdirection


As is so often the case, your statement is the opposite of the truth. The "blog topic at hand" is my only interest. I regret and resent this digression, and I'll leave the forum if this atmosphere remains the norm.

Big loss. I guess that would signal the end of Dave Hitt and BMJ insanity.

[Ballardguy]

Yes, I think ventilation successfully protects cooks. You disagree?

I was talking to Jimmy. You can take it up with him.

So why is it OK for a cook to breath in deadly chemicals but not a bartender?

Oh no! Is that running away?? What to do! What to do!

Or is it possibly pure boredom and recognition of another Melle? You could start another blog with this - it should be fascinating.

[BridgeTroll]

Thats why I favored something more like the Arkansas ban.

I'm all for any initiative that bans Arkansas. Where do I sign?

[Nan]

My forum user friends!
Things have gotten unpleasantly snippy again. For some reason, this debate gets people whipped into a froth more than any other. (You'd think we were talking about ABORTION or Ralph NADER or something...)
But, I'm going to get more heavy handed from now on. If your posts are merely meant to insult someone or if you say something inappropriately hurtful I'm going to start deleting. I don't like deleting. Please don't make me do it.
Play nice. You're more likely to win arguments or converts that way.
Love,
Mommy

[Matt]

Just in from the Washington Post:

"Bar and restaurant business has increased in Montgomery County [Maryland] since a ban on smoking went into effect two years ago"

"restaurant sales tax receipts have risen by 19 percent."

"The restaurants are doing well, and the air is safe,"

A win-win for everyone. Clean air. Healthy businesses.

Smoking bans are awesome!!! Thanks to everyone who helped pass 901 (which passed overwhelmingly in every county is this state)!!!!

[scourge]

Just in from the Washington Post:

"Bar and restaurant business has increased in Montgomery County [Maryland] since a ban on smoking went into effect two years ago"

"restaurant sales tax receipts have risen by 19 percent."

"The restaurants are doing well, and the air is safe,"

A win-win for everyone. Clean air. Healthy businesses.

Smoking bans are awesome!!! Thanks to everyone who helped pass 901 (which passed overwhelmingly in every county is this state)!!!!

Are there any exemptions in Maryland, such as Casinos?

[Jimmy Flame]

Yes, I think ventilation successfully protects cooks. You disagree?

I'm not a Doctor. I don't know. What I DO know is that if you smoke weed near one of these things, customers will never know because it sucks it all up and spits it outside. Even the smell!

[Jimmy Flame]

Just in from the Washington Post:

"Bar and restaurant business has increased in Montgomery County [Maryland] since a ban on smoking went into effect two years ago"

"restaurant sales tax receipts have risen by 19 percent."

"The restaurants are doing well, and the air is safe,"

A win-win for everyone. Clean air. Healthy businesses.

Smoking bans are awesome!!! Thanks to everyone who helped pass 901 (which passed overwhelmingly in every county is this state)!!!!

But there are STILL places to have a smoke and a drink. Some of my best freinds still live there and they let me know whats going on. They like to drink and smoke too. :)

[Smalan Ithee]

Just in from the Washington Post:
"Bar and restaurant business has increased in Montgomery County [Maryland] since a ban on smoking went into effect two years ago"
"restaurant sales tax receipts have risen by 19 percent."
"The restaurants are doing well, and the air is safe,"
A win-win for everyone. Clean air. Healthy businesses.
Smoking bans are awesome!!! Thanks to everyone who helped pass 901 (which passed overwhelmingly in every county is this state)!!!!Since the Washington Post requires registration to view the previous days' articles, here's the full text - not just a few select quotes.

Ban's Supporters Cite Boom in Business
By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 4, 2006; Page B05

Bar and restaurant business has increased in Montgomery County since a ban on smoking went into effect two years ago, according to data released yesterday by supporters of the law.

Council member Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) and former council member Isiah Leggett (D), who sponsored the anti-smoking bill, said restaurant sales tax receipts have risen by 19 percent.

In the year before the ban, which started in October 2003, receipts totaled $57.7 million. That climbed to $62.1 million during the first year and $68.8 million the second year of the ban, according to data Andrews and Leggett gathered from the Maryland Comptroller's Office.

"The restaurants are doing well, and the air is safe," Andrews said during a news conference in the County Council building.

"We now see the evidence and living proof of what we started to do many years ago," Leggett said.

Montgomery's smoking ban was fiercely opposed by the restaurant industry when the council approved it in 1999. But because of court challenges, the law did not take effect until 2003.

Opponents said the new data are flawed because they measure all restaurants, including fast food establishments that have long banned smoking.

The findings also provided an opportunity for sniping between the two leading candidates for county executive: Leggett and council member Steven A. Silverman (D).

Leggett noted yesterday that Silverman had threatened not to vote for the ban without the passage of an amendment delaying its implementation by two years.

Silverman said he voted for the ban in 1999 and again in 2003, but he acknowledged pushing for a longer transitional period. "The idea was to give small businesses the opportunity to transition out," he said.

Leggett's supporters provided reporters with a copy of a 1999 letter sent to Leggett by Douglas M. Bregman, then an attorney for the National Smokers Alliance, urging the council to vote against the ban. Bregman is now Silverman's campaign treasurer.

"I think he owes an explanation as to why he sought the delay," Leggett said. "I just find it curious that [Bregman] turns out to be his treasurer."
Silverman said his association with Bregman did not influence his position.

"There's no linkage there whatsoever," Silverman said. "He's my treasurer now, and he wasn't my treasurer at the time of the vote."

Four county municipalities, including Rockville and Gaithersburg, ban smoking in restaurants. Other counties, such as Howard, have followed Montgomery's lead. Several states have adopted similar laws, but efforts to impose a statewide ban in Maryland have failed.

A similar study by New York City, which instituted its smoking ban in 2003, found an increase in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments after the first year of its ban.

Melvin Thompson, vice president for government relations for the Restaurant Association of Maryland, called the data misleading. More than half the county's 1,200 restaurants had voluntarily prohibited smoking before the ban, he said. A better assessment of the law's effects would focus on the restaurants that changed their policies, he said.

"He's trying to credit himself," Thompson said of Andrews. "He sponsored the legislation. He's certainly not going to release data that shows the smoking ban has been bad for business."

The restaurant association released a study last year showing that business in establishments with liquor licenses was stagnant.

Claude Andersen, corporate operations manager for Clyde's Restaurant Group, said business has been down at the bar at Tower Oaks Lodge in Rockville and at Clyde's of Chevy Chase.

"I'm never going to build another restaurant in Maryland," Andersen said.

Andrews said the association is basing its conclusions on anecdotal evidence.

"They're grasping at straws at this point," he said. "But they never want to talk about the health impact of secondhand smoke."

[Matt]

It seems that not a day goes by that smoking bans are shown to not only help workers and customers, but also help businesses! Awesome! It must be so disheartening for the dirty-air-endorsing smoketards. They know they're fighting a losing battle.

Here's the latest, straight from the Irish Examiner:

A NEW study into the effects of the smoking ban has found that pub customer numbers increased by 11% after the ban was introduced.

“This shows that the ban has been good for people and it’s good for business, despite all the predictions of disaster.”
11%

Wow. If you owned a bar or restaurant, you'd have to be a moron not to support a reasonable and comprehensive smoking ban like 901.

[BridgeTroll]

It seems that not a day goes by that smoking bans are shown to not only help workers and customers, but also help businesses! Awesome! It must be so disheartening for the dirty-air-endorsing smoketards. They know they're fighting a losing battle.

Here's the latest, straight from the Irish Examiner:

A NEW study into the effects of the smoking ban has found that pub customer numbers increased by 11% after the ban was introduced.

“This shows that the ban has been good for people and it’s good for business, despite all the predictions of disaster.”
11%

Wow. If you owned a bar or restaurant, you'd have to be a moron not to support a reasonable and comprehensive smoking ban like 901.

I cannot agree this is a good thing until Dave Hitt tells me so.

[Smalan Ithee]

Here's the latest, straight from the Irish Examiner:

A NEW study into the effects of the smoking ban has found that pub customer numbers increased by 11% after the ban was introduced.

“This shows that the ban has been good for people and it’s good for business, despite all the predictions of disaster.”
11%

Wow. If you owned a bar or restaurant, you'd have to be a moron not to support a reasonable and comprehensive smoking ban like 901.Here's the entire story (http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=7514-qqqx=1.asp) from the Irish Examiner, and here's the study it references (http://www.ijms.ie/Portals/_IJMS/Documents/OP-Clancy.pdf) The study was funded in part by Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society (RIFTFS), the Office for Tobacco Control (OTC) Ireland and the RCDHospital Trust. The statistics were compiled by visiting 38 pubs in Dublin, where the average # of customers went from 59 to 66 in the two years since the ban.

Also in the Irish Examiner, Scottish smoking ban sees bingo takings fall. (http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=3992205&p=399zzzx&n=3992297) The Scottish ban is 13 weeks old vs. Ireland's 2+ year old ban.

[Matt]

Also in the Irish Examiner, Scottish smoking ban sees bingo takings fall.Let's not pick and choose our reports, shall we?

According to the Cambridge Evening News, "SCOTLAND'S smoking ban in pubs has not had the bottom line effect feared, as shown by results out today."

"Sales for the year ended April 30 were £818.6m, up 16%, with pre-tax profit up 25% to £119.6m."


Up 25%!!!

Wow. You've have to be dumber than a smoketard to ignore numbers like that.

We'll see similar results here in Washington.

Smoking bans are great for business, as every reputable study has shown.

[Smalan Ithee]

Let's not pick and choose our reports, shall we?Sweetie, we shall not pick and choose our reports - hence the full story posts following up your selected quotes, as well as additional stories from the same publication you quoted. Some of us occasionally research this stuff to read the full story when a post is just a copy/paste from ASH or any other advocacy website w/ no links provided. This isn't dueling banjos of smoking news - provide the link to the entire story and folks can read for themselves.

[Melle]

Let's not pick and choose our reports, shall we?

According to the Cambridge Evening News, "SCOTLAND'S smoking ban in pubs has not had the bottom line effect feared, as shown by results out today."

"Sales for the year ended April 30 were £818.6m, up 16%, with pre-tax profit up 25% to £119.6m."


Up 25%!!!

Wow. You've have to be dumber than a smoketard to ignore numbers like that.


I think I'll follow Smalan's lead and quote the entire article (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/news/2006/07/04/9f68bfb6-1ad0-48a2-bc3a-c41b1385be95.lpf):



"SCOTLAND'S smoking ban in pubs has not had the bottom line effect feared, as shown by results out today (Tuesday, 04 July) from Bury St Edmunds' brewer Greene King, which owns Belhaven group in Scotland.

"Rooney Anand, Greene King's chief executive, told the Newstoday (Tuesday, 04 July): 'We should wait until we have had a wet autumn and a frosty winter, but we are a little more positive than we might have dared expect, and even the male boozers and smokers in Glasgow have commented on how positive a difference it has made inside the pubs.

"'There have been significant developments across all areas of Greene King over the last year and this is reflected in these record results. The new financial year has started well and our pubs are also benefiting from the targeted plans that we put in place for the World Cup.' Sales for the year ended April 30 were £818.6m, up 16%, with pre-tax profit up 25% to £119.6m.

"Earnings per share are up 20% at 56p, and the dividend up 11% to 20.15p.

"Greene King bought Belhaven last October, with 282 pubs in Scotland, giving the brewery instant scale north of the border.

"Mr Anand said: 'The major challenge for Belhaven has been introduction of the Scottish smoking ban, and the management team has worked hard to minimise the threats and maximise the opportunities derived from this significant change in pub culture. Looking ahead to the English smoking ban expected here next year, owning Belhaven gives us very useful insights into the likely impact and best approach to adopt. Uniquely, we can see this across all the major sales channels and trading models.'

"In the first 12 weeks following the ban, which came into effect at the end of March, Belhaven trade was down 0.3%, with trade up 5% in the first month, down 3% in the second month, and 1% in the third."




You'll find 3 rather glaring surprises if you actually pay attention to this article.

1) The figures cited---16%, 25%, etc.---are not for Scotland as a whole (as Matt's quotes imply), but for one Scottish brewery ("Belhaven").

2) The sales figures cited are "for the year ended April 30." The ban went into effect "at the end of March." Therefore, eleven of these 12 months were pre-smoking ban; therefore these are not post-ban figures.

3) The only post-ban figure cited is at the tail end of the article---"In the first 12 weeks following the ban, which came into effect at the end of March, Belhaven trade was down 0.3%"---and this data blatantly contradicts the article's opening paragraph.

What the numbers actually show is that a 16% growth rate has reversed into a 0.3% decline since smoking was banned.

[Insert smart-alecky comment here ... I don't think it's even necessary.]





Sweetie, we shall not pick and choose our reports - hence the full story posts following up your selected quotes, as well as additional stories from the same publication you quoted. Some of us occasionally research this stuff to read the full story when a post is just a copy/paste from ASH or any other advocacy website w/ no links provided.
Yes indeed. Tell it.

[Jimmy Flame]

You should also consider the number of dive bars that have gone under. So those customers have to go elsewhere, thus putting more buisness somewhere else. I've seen it happening right here in Ballard.

[BridgeTroll]

What the numbers actually show is that the smoking ban reversed a 16% growth rate into a 0.3% decline.

Another glaring surprise was the equating of a April 0.3% decline to the smoke ban without anything to substantiate the correlation. Maybe....just maybe...it is due to the change of seasons, and a regular occurrence with the beginning of Spring. Ever been to Scotland in winter? I have.

The CEO was positive, and himself stated: We should wait until we have had a wet autumn and a frosty winter, but we are a little more positive than we might have dared expect, and even the male boozers and smokers in Glasgow have commented on how positive a difference it has made inside the pubs.

Whatttt?????? Scottish smokies making positive comments about the ban? That they can actually taste their beer now?? When will the madness end?


In the spirt of sharing, here is another news tidbit (http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=47&newsID=7345) from Scotland.

In addition a survey for the Scottish Executive found that support for the law had increased among non-smokers, those who have quit and even current smokers.

The research, carried out between March and May, found that overall 73% of people thought the law had been successful or very successful, while 35% of smokers said it had helped them cut down the amount they smoked.

However, 60% of smokers insisted the legislation would not effect the amount they smoked.

A separate study by Cancer Research UK contradicted fears from the licensed trade that the ban would lead to a slump in business.

The survey of more than 1,000 Scots found 24% were more likely to visit their local because of the ban, while 45% said they would go out just as frequently.

Only 10% said they were likely to go out less often as a consequence of the legislation.


Let's see.....24% more likely.....10% less likely....carry the one.....hmmm...looks like that nets out to a projected 14% increase in patronage. Even if you assume a +- 50% validity to it (extreme, even unheard of), it still would shake out to a 7% increase. Not bad.

Smokies appear to really be reaching now. There really is nothing out there to support the doom and gloom predictions. Next thing you know, they'll be going on about unsubstantiated claims about Ballard dive bar demise.

[BridgeTroll]

You should also consider the number of dive bars that have gone under. So those customers have to go elsewhere, thus putting more buisness somewhere else. I've seen it happening right here in Ballard.

Few thoughts....

What bars in Ballard? I live there, and haven't seen any "Out of Business" signs.

How long have you been in Ballard? Or alive? Ballard has been steadily losing bars for over 20 years. Ballard Avenue used to be full of them. Now it is full of restaurants, shops and galleries. What makes you think the ban changed anything?

Are you happy or complaining? You make mention that customers now have to go elsewhere, bringing more business to other establishments. Where? The Rimrock?

[Jimmy Flame]

I agree with you mostly. The "I've seen it happen in Ballard" comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek. We must have lost a few churches because The Copper Gate is gone. I've been alive since the day I was born, and I've been in Ballard since I moved to Ballard. I think that using excuses such as bars going out of buisness as some kind of strategic way to argue the ban is ridiculous. My only argument would be that the great American past time of smoking and drinking is dead. Hell, I'm not even defending smoking, or so called "smokers rights". That is pretty darn selfish. "I should be able to smoke where I want" sounds childish. Even though I've used that a few times. I can be sarcastic and plain. I can be serious. I can be rational. I can be drunk. But, not all at the same time. Ballard is changing, and it has nothing to do with a smoking ban. Simply put. I like to smoke when I drink. I think there should be a place for that. I don't need a scientific explanation telling me that smoke is bad. It is a personal habit. And yes, it's personal, meaning you shouldn't have to deal with it.

What are your thoughts on Tribal casinos? Why haven't they adopted the ban?

[BridgeTroll]

I agree with you mostly. The "I've seen it happen in Ballard" comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek. We must have lost a few churches because The Copper Gate is gone. I've been alive since the day I was born, and I've been in Ballard since I moved to Ballard. I think that using excuses such as bars going out of buisness as some kind of strategic way to argue the ban is ridiculous. My only argument would be that the great American past time of smoking and drinking is dead. Hell, I'm not even defending smoking, or so called "smokers rights". That is pretty darn selfish. "I should be able to smoke where I want" sounds childish. Even though I've used that a few times. I can be sarcastic and plain. I can be serious. I can be rational. I can be drunk. But, not all at the same time. Ballard is changing, and it has nothing to do with a smoking ban. Simply put. I like to smoke when I drink. I think there should be a place for that. I don't need a scientific explanation telling me that smoke is bad. It is a personal habit. And yes, it's personal, meaning you shouldn't have to deal with it.

What are your thoughts on Tribal casinos? Why haven't they adopted the ban?

The "how long have you been alive" comment only pertained to Ballard history. If you are 23, you may not know how much Ballard has actually changed over the past 20-25 years. Not personal.

Your words confuse me :). Are you now for or against the ban? On one hand you call smokies selfish and possibly childish, and on the other hand you want a place to smoke and drink. But...then you say your personal habit is something others should not have to deal with.

Are you converting Jimmy? Do you see the light?


As far as tribal casinos, I'll let the courts figure that one out. As far as the CopperGate, it will be missed. I never really went there, but did used to yell inside the door as a kid. Its closure had nothing to do with the smokie ban, but instead was a result of the landlord attempting to upscale the business.

[Melle]

Another glaring surprise was the equating of a April 0.3% decline to the smoke ban without anything to substantiate the correlation. Maybe....just maybe...it is due to the change of seasons, and a regular occurrence with the beginning of Spring. Ever been to Scotland in winter? I have.

The CEO was positive, and himself stated: We should wait until we have had a wet autumn and a frosty winter, but we are a little more positive than we might have dared expect, and even the male boozers and smokers in Glasgow have commented on how positive a difference it has made inside the pubs.

Whatttt?????? Scottish smokies making positive comments about the ban? That they can actually taste their beer now?? When will the madness end?


In the spirt of sharing, here is another news tidbit (http://www.24dash.com/content/news/viewNews.php?navID=47&newsID=7345) from Scotland.

In addition a survey for the Scottish Executive found that support for the law had increased among non-smokers, those who have quit and even current smokers.

The research, carried out between March and May, found that overall 73% of people thought the law had been successful or very successful, while 35% of smokers said it had helped them cut down the amount they smoked.

However, 60% of smokers insisted the legislation would not effect the amount they smoked.

A separate study by Cancer Research UK contradicted fears from the licensed trade that the ban would lead to a slump in business.

The survey of more than 1,000 Scots found 24% were more likely to visit their local because of the ban, while 45% said they would go out just as frequently.

Only 10% said they were likely to go out less often as a consequence of the legislation.


Let's see.....24% more likely.....10% less likely....carry the one.....hmmm...looks like that nets out to a projected 14% increase in patronage. Even if you assume a +- 50% validity to it (extreme, even unheard of), it still would shake out to a 7% increase. Not bad.

Smokies appear to really be reaching now. There really is nothing out there to support the doom and gloom predictions. Next thing you know, they'll be going on about unsubstantiated claims about Ballard dive bar demise.

We're "really reaching"? You're posting this stuff; all we're doing is responding to it. I like how you suddenly have to explain how the weather caused the decline in beverage sales, when yesterday you were touting a supposed increase in same. And now you're pushing opinion polls. What's next? Jeanne Dixon foretells increased bar business?

[Melle]

The "how long have you been alive" comment only pertained to Ballard history. If you are 23, you may not know how much Ballard has actually changed over the past 20-25 years. Not personal.

Your words confuse me :). Are you now for or against the ban? On one hand you call smokies selfish and possibly childish, and on the other hand you want a place to smoke and drink. But...then you say your personal habit is something others should not have to deal with.

Are you converting Jimmy? Do you see the light?


As far as tribal casinos, I'll let the courts figure that one out. As far as the CopperGate, it will be missed. I never really went there, but did used to yell inside the door as a kid. Its closure had nothing to do with the smokie ban, but instead was a result of the landlord attempting to upscale the business.

This is, in fact, a pretty confusing issue. Bars close all the time. They closed all the time before there was a smoking ban. Restaurants too; it's the nature of the business.

Anecdotal evidence can only go so far. Still, it would be interesting to see everyone's answer to this question: Do the bars seem more crowded or less since the ban passed? I haven't been home to Seattle since 901 so I haven't seen for myself. In New York the bars definitely seem emptier. Especially the music venues. They never really seemed anything but utterly PACKED before smoking was banned, and then once the ban was passed, right away the crowds were smaller. But that's just my impression.

Ballard HAS changed a lot. Seattle has changed a lot; actually, almost every American city has changed a lot. Carnivals converted into theme parks. Not all of us like this change.

[BridgeTroll]

This is in fact a pretty confusing issue. Bars close all the time. They closed all the time before there was a smoking ban. Restaurants too; it's the nature of the business. blah blah blah

We're "really reaching"? You're posting this stuff; all we're doing is responding to it. I like how you suddenly have to explain how the weather caused the decline in beverage sales, when yesterday you were touting a supposed increase in same. And now you're pushing opinion polls.

First of all, please stop calling me Matt.

I questioned your blanket statement that a decrease was associated with the ban (What the numbers actually show is that the smoking ban reversed a 16% growth rate into a 0.3% decline). What led you to assume that correlation?

I posted an alternative idea and said wait until a year is up before making such conclusions. What's wrong with that?

Finally, is quoting a poll the same as pushing them? Regardless, what do you have against opinion polls?

What's next? Jeanne Dixon foretells increased bar business?

That would be crazy. Almost as crazy as grasping at straws...like "hey everyone, are bars busier or quieter since the ban"?

Maybe Ballardguy is right. You really do not really have anything to back up your claim that the ban is a bad idea. Bars are staying open, people have adjusted, business goes on.

[Melle]

First of all, please stop calling me Matt.

OK. Can I call you Sock Puppet?

I questioned your blanket statement that a decrease was associated with the ban (What the numbers actually show is that the smoking ban reversed a 16% growth rate into a 0.3% decline). What led you to assume that correlation?

I'm sorry. I amend the statement. It should read "What the numbers actually show is that a 16% growth rate has reversed into a 0.3% decline since smoking was banned." I"ll edit the post right away to reflect this.

I posted an alternative idea and said wait until a year is up before making such conclusions. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, but you ... uh, I mean Matt ... were certainly not waiting a year before touting those 16%, 25%-in-big-type figures. And Matt ... dammit, sorry! I mean BridgeTroll ... was saying the weather reversed a 16% upward trend ... Listen, all this is fine; it's just a bit much for you to spin like this & then accuse your OPPONENTS of "really reaching."

Finally, what do you have against opinion polls?

Opinion polls are widely known as the least trustworthy and most easily manipulable source of statistics. I've read this assessment of them many times, most recently in the excellent book Off Center by the political scientists Hacker and Pierson. (Don't have my copy with me now, but I'll quote you a few passages when I do.)

Maybe Ballardguy is right. You really do not really have anything to back up your claim that the ban is a bad idea.

I've given many reasons why I think the ban isn't the right idea. My opinion is that Ballardguy's a bit hell-bent on invalidating these reasons without consideration.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Finally, is quoting a poll the same as pushing them? Regardless, what do you have against opinion polls?

Yes Sock Puppet, it's the excact same thing.

[BridgeTroll]

OK. Can I call you Sock Puppet?



I'm sorry. I amend the statement. It should read "What the numbers actually show is that a 16% growth rate has reversed into a 0.3% since smoking was banned." I"ll edit the post right away to reflect this.



Nothing, but you ... uh, I mean Matt ... were certainly not waiting a year before touting those 16%, 25%-in-big-type figures. And Matt ... dammit, sorry! I mean BridgeTroll ... was saying the weather reversed a 16% upward trend ... Listen, all this is fine; it's just a bit much for you to spin like this & then accuse your OPPONENTS of "really reaching."



Opinion polls are widely known as the least trustworthy and most easily manipulable source of statistics. I've read this assessment of them many times, most recently in the excellent book Off Center by the political scientists Hacker and Pierson. (Don't have my copy with me now, but I'll quote you a few passages when I do.)



I've given many reasons why I think the ban isn't the right idea. My opinion is Ballardguy's a bit hell-bent on invalidating these reasons without consideration.

Sheesh. At least I have the decency to self identify myself as a Troll. Unlike you.

[Melle]

Sheesh. At least I have the decency to self identify myself as a Troll. Unlike you.

Aw, relax. I've put up with a lot from you; now I'm gonna to have a laugh. I mean, this is funny. The screwup with the Scottish post was funny. Your explanation that Scottish people are staying home now that the weather is better was funny. Don't worry, I won't laugh forever. On that note, to more serious things ...

Opinion polls: To quote Hacker & Pierson (whose book Off Center: The Republican Revolution & the Erosion of American Democracy I highly recommend, BTW): "A single poll is usually of limited value. Instead, we need to consider a number of surveys asked over time and in different ways ... Even when Americans have strong views that potentially bear on specific debates, they may have such limited information that their opinions are largely ad hoc. Again, looking at questions asked several different ways and times helps weed out such 'non-opinions' from more stable views.
"A second limit of polling data is that the availability of polls ranges widely from issue to issue. On most high-profile issues, many surveys are done, and specific questions are usually repeated again and again. On many less prominent issues, by contrast, good polls are few and far between. This is a serious problem, because the low-profile issues on which polling is rare are precisely the issues on which we would expect politicians to have the most leeway to depart from public opinion. Indeed, politicians try to keep some issues low profile because they know that most Americans don't approve of what they are doing. This, of course, introduces a major bias into opinion research ... [A]ny examination of government responsiveness that uses opinion polls is 'setting the bar low.'
"A third crucial reason why opinion polls can only take us so far is that even the best polls do not somehow isolate Americans' 'unmeditated' views---that is, the views citizens might have if no politicians or interest groups were trying to shape their perceptions and attitudes. Instead, opinion polls measure a mix of what Americans believe and what they are led to believe by those who want them to believe certain things. As a result, it is generally difficult to know the degree to which the views of the public are shaping the activities of elites, on one hand, or the activities of elites are shaping the views of the public, on the other."

Also, I want to re-post what I wrote about personal impressions of bar crowdedness. I'm genuinely curious as to what people's experiences are. Mine are as I've written, but I realize that impressions like this are subject to a person's own bias and can reflect prejudices without the person really knowing it. To repeat my statement:

This is, in fact, a pretty confusing issue. Bars close all the time. They closed all the time before there was a smoking ban. Restaurants too; it's the nature of the business.

Anecdotal evidence can only go so far. Still, it would be interesting to see everyone's answer to this question: Do the bars seem more crowded or less since the ban passed? I haven't been home to Seattle since 901 so I haven't seen for myself. In New York the bars definitely seem emptier. Especially the music venues. They never really seemed anything but utterly PACKED before smoking was banned, and then once the ban was passed, right away the crowds were smaller. But that's just my impression.

[Jimmy Flame]

The "how long have you been alive" comment only pertained to Ballard history. If you are 23, you may not know how much Ballard has actually changed over the past 20-25 years. Not personal.

Your words confuse me :). Are you now for or against the ban? On one hand you call smokies selfish and possibly childish, and on the other hand you want a place to smoke and drink. But...then you say your personal habit is something others should not have to deal with.

Are you converting Jimmy? Do you see the light?


As far as tribal casinos, I'll let the courts figure that one out. As far as the CopperGate, it will be missed. I never really went there, but did used to yell inside the door as a kid. Its closure had nothing to do with the smokie ban, but instead was a result of the landlord attempting to upscale the business.

Converted? I never took a side. I enjoy smoking when I drink. Most places I hang out in are places that people didn't care if you were smoking because either (a) they smoked as well, or (b) they didn't give a shit either way. You said it yourself that you never hung out at the Copper Gate. Those are the kinds of places I prefer to go. Because nobody gave a shit besides getting shit faced. I have always been fairly considerate of other people. I would vote against this particular ban again.

[Ballardguy]

Aw, relax. I've put up with a lot from you; now I'm gonna to have a laugh. I mean, this is funny. The screwup with the Scottish post was funny. Your explanation that Scottish people are staying home now that the weather is better was funny. Don't worry, I won't laugh forever. On that note, to more serious things ...

Opinion polls: To quote Hacker & Pierson (whose book Off Center: The Republican Revolution & the Erosion of American Democracy I highly recommend, BTW): "A single poll is usually of limited value. Instead, we need to consider a number of surveys asked over time and in different ways ... Even when Americans have strong views that potentially bear on specific debates, they may have such limited information that their opinions are largely ad hoc. Again, looking at questions asked several different ways and times helps weed out such 'non-opinions' from more stable views.
"A second limit of polling data is that the availability of polls ranges widely from issue to issue. On most high-profile issues, many surveys are done, and specific questions are usually repeated again and again. On many less prominent issues, by contrast, good polls are few and far between. This is a serious problem, because the low-profile issues on which polling is rare are precisely the issues on which we would expect politicians to have the most leeway to depart from public opinion. Indeed, politicians try to keep some issues low profile because they know that most Americans don't approve of what they are doing. This, of course, introduces a major bias into opinion research ... [A]ny examination of government responsiveness that uses opinion polls is 'setting the bar low.'
"A third crucial reason why opinion polls can only take us so far is that even the best polls do not somehow isolate Americans' 'unmeditated' views---that is, the views citizens might have if no politicians or interest groups were trying to shape their perceptions and attitudes. Instead, opinion polls measure a mix of what Americans believe and what they are led to believe by those who want them to believe certain things. As a result, it is generally difficult to know the degree to which the views of the public are shaping the activities of elites, on one hand, or the activities of elites are shaping the views of the public, on the other."

Also, I want to re-post what I wrote about personal impressions of bar crowdedness. I'm genuinely curious as to what people's experiences are. Mine are as I've written, but I realize that impressions like this are subject to a person's own bias and can reflect prejudices without the person really knowing it. To repeat my statement:

This is, in fact, a pretty confusing issue. Bars close all the time. They closed all the time before there was a smoking ban. Restaurants too; it's the nature of the business.

Anecdotal evidence can only go so far. Still, it would be interesting to see everyone's answer to this question: Do the bars seem more crowded or less since the ban passed? I haven't been home to Seattle since 901 so I haven't seen for myself. In New York the bars definitely seem emptier. Especially the music venues. They never really seemed anything but utterly PACKED before smoking was banned, and then once the ban was passed, right away the crowds were smaller. But that's just my impression.

Christ. More Melle crap. Now he wants to blather on about polls. Of course, if it was a poll supporting the ban, he would go on about the merits of same.

The conclusion that a flat month (one third of one percent) can easily be attributed to weather, - much more feasible than immediately crying LOOK EVERYONE!!! SMOKING BAN HURT BUSINESS!!! There was no screwup except for the knee jerk reaction to conclude it was due to a smoking ban. And take a simple math course. It is not a drop from 16% to a loss of .3%. 16% is annualized over 12 months. .3% is one month. If you need more information to figure it out, I'll quote you a reasonable rate.

Do you even have a point anymore, or are you just here to go off on tangents? Maybe the bars you patronage in NY are emptier because people are tired of hearing your bullshit.

[Ballardguy]

Converted? I never took a side. I enjoy smoking when I drink. Most places I hang out in are places that people didn't care if you were smoking because either (a) they smoked as well, or (b) they didn't give a shit either way. You said it yourself that you never hung out at the Copper Gate. Those are the kinds of places I prefer to go. Because nobody gave a shit besides getting shit faced. I have always been fairly considerate of other people. I would vote against this particular ban again.

Ah hell. Let's just head over to Rocker Dave's house in Ravenna (previous owner of the Thunderbird, next to The Sands). He's having a kegger and the house will be filled with smoke. All are welcome.

See you there.

[Matt]

In New York the bars definitely seem emptier. Especially the music venues. They never really seemed anything but utterly PACKED before smoking was banned, and then once the ban was passed, right away the crowds were smaller.That's not the only thing that's smaller:

"[S]mokers had a 50 percent greater risk [to develop erectile disfunction] than non-smokers."Maybe those bars are not as packed because the male smokers are all at home wondering why their weiners don't work.

Oh, here's the full article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/07/impotence.risk.reut/index.html). I know that's important to you.

[Jimmy Flame]

Ah hell. Let's just head over to Rocker Dave's house in Ravenna (previous owner of the Thunderbird, next to The Sands). He's having a kegger and the house will be filled with smoke. All are welcome.

See you there.

What was the Thunderbird called before? I can't beleive I don't remember that. My band played there like 10 times or some shit. It was literally the hottest stage ever. I'd be sweating after a simple line check. I know Dave. He's cool.

[Jimmy Flame]

That's not the only thing that's smaller:

"[S]mokers had a 50 percent greater risk [to develop erectile disfunction] than non-smokers."Maybe those bars are not as packed because the male smokers are all at home wondering why their weiners don't work.

Oh, here's the full article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/07/impotence.risk.reut/index.html). I know that's important to you.

I'll have to give you that one. Thats some funny shit. I, on the other hand, do NOT have a problem with my weiner. Just ask the ladies.

[Ballardguy]

What was the Thunderbird called before? I can't beleive I don't remember that. My band played there like 10 times or some shit. It was literally the hottest stage ever. I'd be sweating after a simple line check. I know Dave. He's cool.

15th Avenue Bar and Grill. Dave and Ralph owned the place. They still have a band going - Betty Ford Falcons.

[Jimmy Flame]

15th Avenue Bar and Grill. Dave and Ralph owned the place. They still have a band going - Betty Ford Falcons.

I've totally played shows with them before. Thats some cool shit. They just played the Sunset about 2 months ago.

[Melle]

The conclusion that a flat month (one third of one percent) can easily be attributed to weather, - much more feasible than immediately crying LOOK EVERYONE!!! SMOKING BAN HURT BUSINESS!!! There was no screwup except for the knee jerk reaction to conclude it was due to a smoking ban. And take a simple math course. It is not a drop from 16% to a loss of .3%. 16% is annualized over 12 months. .3% is one month.

0.3% is three months. Read the article.

Do you even have a point anymore, or are you just here to go off on tangents? Maybe the bars you patronage in NY are emptier because people are tired of hearing your bullshit.

Undoubtedly.

Or---wait---come to think of it we had a mild winter this year. The weather was nice, so I guess everyone stayed home.

[Matt]

Thanks, all. It's been a great thread. But I've decided that this will be the last post.

Here's the summary:

901 passed. Overwhelmingly. A long time ago. It's a done deal. It's a reasonable and easily-enforced solution that protects customers and workers from cancer-causing cigarette smoke. It's also great for businesses, as all evidence indicates.

It's a win-win for everyone! At the very least, we can all agree that 901 was one of the best things that happened to Washington State.

Take care!

P.S. This weekend, I'm going to a restaurant that I avoided for years because it used to allow smoking. I will enjoy my dinner knowing that I can eat without cancer-causing cigarette smoke harming me (which can happen within seconds, as studies have shown) or harming the workers at the restaurant.

<end of thread>

[scourge]

I've decided that this will be the last post.


So there.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

<end of thread>

Nothing like killing a thread that's already dead. ;) Playing moderator is fun ain't it?

cancer-causing cigarette smoke harming me (which can happen within seconds)

http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/laughing/yelrotflmao.gif

I say; Why use guns in Iraq when we can kill them with one whif of SHS.

[breather]

It seems that that wacky Fiona is right, the smoking ban is not being enforced at the Rimrock, which is on Lake City Way between 120th and 125th Sts.
I was in there just after the 4th of July and they're smoking freely. They're under the impression that the Health Dep't folks have given up since they've been fined once and paid the fine. They apparently made some follow up visits and haven't caught anyone smoking. Perhaps these are the same folks who process absentee ballots??
It's time to get Tom Carr involved.
Another idea is to call the state liquor control board and find out when they're liquor license is up for renewal so that a bunch of us can write letters objecting to its renewal.

[Jimmy Flame]

Breather- The Rimrock and smoking? OMG! Thats so EVIL! How do you find time in your important life for that!?

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

I'm more suprised by the fact that an Anti-Smoker went to a bar. Probably went alone, left alone. Snarled at the smokers having a good time.

[qwerty]

smokers are so happy. theyre the happiest people on earth. thats why they need to smoke.

i always envy the smokers. i wish i had the guts to smoke but the idea of drowning in my own muccus in an oxygen tent or getting the chemo and having my face cut off. its just too hard core for me. god bless ya smokers!

[Matt]

It seems that that wacky Fiona is right, the smoking ban is not being enforced at the Rimrock, which is on Lake City Way between 120th and 125th Sts.Here you go:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/tobacco/smoking.htm

[Jimmy Flame]

Here you go:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/tobacco/smoking.htm

OowWWw!! Thanks for the info.! It's so funny to file false complaints! Well, not entirely false. Just stretching the truth. We'll get rid of those bastard smokers before you know it! My freind "Lucy" just filed one. Now the next time an establishment pisses me off, I'll file a smoking complaint! Thanks Matt!

[Jimmy Flame]

smokers are so happy. theyre the happiest people on earth. thats why they need to smoke.

i always envy the smokers. i wish i had the guts to smoke but the idea of drowning in my own muccus in an oxygen tent or getting the chemo and having my face cut off. its just too hard core for me. god bless ya smokers!

Could you even afford that kind of health care? Just wait until all that 2nd hand smoke gets you! Hey, file a COMPLAINT!!

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Could you even afford that kind of health care? Just wait until all that 2nd hand smoke gets you! Hey, file a COMPLAINT!!

The previous few posts reminds me of back on the playground... when someone was having a good time, those not included would do anything and everything they could to stop it.

Ahh, how juvenile.

[Ballardguy]

The previous few posts reminds me of back on the playground... when someone was having a good time, those not included would do anything and everything they could to stop it.

Ahh, how juvenile.

What is juvenile is the belief that the smoking ban was instituted to stop a "good time".

Smokies are so delusional :).

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

What is juvenile is the belief that the smoking ban was instituted to stop a "good time".

No, of course not. But repeated reporting of a bar on a website... is seriously juvenile.

I guess you missed the The previous few posts part of my short post. ;)

[Matt]

No, of course not. But repeated reporting of a bar on a website... is seriously juvenile.What is juvenile is believing that reporting of a lawbreaker on a website is juvenile.

[Mrt1212]

who voted for this on spite and spite alone?

[breather]

OowWWw!! Thanks for the info.! It's so funny to file false complaints! Well, not entirely false. Just stretching the truth. We'll get rid of those bastard smokers before you know it! My freind "Lucy" just filed one. Now the next time an establishment pisses me off, I'll file a smoking complaint! Thanks Matt!

Jimmy Boy,

If you don't believe me, go see for yourself. The staff at the Rimrock knows that the salaried gov't employees that are charged with enforcing the smoking ban are not going to work irregular hours now that the ban is no longer a novelty issue for the media. Once the bartender gives the ok (lights up her own cigarette) everyone else follows.

[Jimmy Flame]

Jimmy Boy,

If you don't believe me, go see for yourself. The staff at the Rimrock knows that the salaried gov't employees that are charged with enforcing the smoking ban are not going to work irregular hours now that the ban is no longer a novelty issue for the media. Once the bartender gives the ok (lights up her own cigarette) everyone else follows.

I don't think your telling the truth. I mean, who has the nuts to smoke while they are drinking in a bar!? Isn't it a felony or something?

[Smalan Ithee]

What is juvenile is believing that reporting of a lawbreaker of the smoking variety on a website is juvenile.Naw, reporting a lawbreaker of the smoking variety on a website is passive-aggressive. What's juvenile is saying "this is the last post." (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=15012#post15012)

Twice. (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=19611#post19611)

Matt, you little poop-stirrer, you.

[Matt]

What's juvenile is saying "this is the last post." (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=15012#post15012)

Twice. (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=19611#post19611)Actually, I did it three (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=11652&postcount=1043) times, you punk.

[Matt]

Enjoy your last smokes, you punk nicotine addicts!!! Your stench-filled world is getting smaller and smaller:

Wall Street Journal (7/19/06)

"Lodging giant Marriott International Inc. today will announce it is banning smoking in every room of its 2,300-plus hotels in the U.S. and Canada, in an effort to extinguish an increasingly common source of guest complaints -- the smell of lingering cigarette smoke.

[S]moking will be banned in not only the remaining rooms but also in public spaces, such as restaurants, bars, meeting rooms and employee work areas.

Marriott's new policy will apply to all 10 of its brands, from the luxurious Ritz-Carlton chain to the more economical Courtyard brand to the extended-stay Residence Inn."

Let me just say, "Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

[scourge]

That's just a private business changing policy to meet the wishes of their customers. Nobody should have a problem with that.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Naw, reporting a lawbreaker of the smoking variety on a website is passive-aggressive. What's juvenile is saying "this is the last post." (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=15012#post15012)

Twice. (http://forums.thestranger.com/showthread.php?p=19611#post19611)

Matt, you little poop-stirrer, you.

Matt's just got these power problems, Can't stop the smoking at the RimRock or various other bars where smoking is allowed, so he'd rather just try and stop the discussion on the smoking ban. Where, once again; he was unsuccessful.

Matt, you little fascismo, you.

[Smalan Ithee]

Actually, I did it three (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=11652&postcount=1043) times, you punk.Oooo, I missed that one, P.W. I forgot that you've been trying to end the thread since February. ~Love, Dottie

[Matt]

That's just a private business changing policy to meet the wishes of their customers. Nobody should have a problem with that.Yep, and nobody should have a problem with the government changing policy to meet the clear wishes of its citizens as reflected in the results of Initiative 901. Passed in every county. Overwhelmingly. Yeah. I totally agree with you.

[Matt]

Matt's just got these power problems, Can't stop the smoking at the RimRock or various other bars where smoking is allowed . . .I'll just do at the Rimrock what I've done previously at other lawbreaking locations: I walk in -- boldly -- with my "No smoking" t-shirt and "No Smoking" balloons and have a "chat" with anyone who's smoking.

Some pee in their pants in fear merely at my entrance. But they all immediately comply. I find that nicotine addicts tend to be sissy punks. Who cough a lot.

[fawkes]

can we hurry up and kill this thread already?

[Matt]

can we hurry up and kill this thread already?As my buddy Smalan Ithee has indicated, I have, quote, "been trying to end the thread since February." So you should all thank me for my efforts. I want this thread to end as much as everyone else.

Here's what I suggest: Let's end it right here. The thread was about 901. It passed. Overwhelmingly. It was a great idea. It's benefitting everyone, including businesses. Less secondhand smoke. Less stench. It's all good.

That's the summary. It's really that simple. So let's just end it right here. Me and my posse on the pro-health side won. You punk bitches on the losing side lost.

Thanks! Take care.

[scourge]

I just noticed this thread has been going for over a year. Damn, that's dedication on both sides. Well done, everyone.

[fawkes]

As my buddy Smalan Ithee has indicated, I have, quote, "been trying to end the thread since February." So you should all thank me for my efforts. I want this thread to end as much as everyone else.

Here's what I suggest: Let's end it right here. The thread was about 901. It passed. Overwhelmingly. It was a great idea. It's benefitting everyone, including businesses. Less secondhand smoke. Less stench. It's all good.

That's the summary. It's really that simple. So let's just end it right here. Me and my posse on the pro-health side won. You punk bitches on the losing side lost.

Thanks! Take care.



dude, i meant end it peacefully. NOT throw a sucker punch (punk bitches?) and then say its over. That's a bitch's way out. Plus, if people are still smoking in the bars, then how do you win? All you did was get a legal validation of your point of view, without actually stopping smoking in bars.

[fawkes]

Final results: Yes on 901: 63%. A landslide. The people have spoken.


Not to nitpick, but how is 63% a landslide? its only a 13% differential. Not that big of a deal.

[Rachael Valenti]

Not to nitpick, but how is 63% a landslide? its only a 13% differential. Not that big of a deal.

The 'new math' strikes again...

[Mrt1212]

Not to nitpick, but how is 63% a landslide? its only a 13% differential. Not that big of a deal.

so 63-37 is 13?

[Matt]

Plus, if people are still smoking in the bars, then how do you win? Yeah, smoking is still taking place in every single bar. Sure thing. Are you really that stupid?

Oh wait. You think 63-37 = 13. I guess you are that stupid.

<end of thread>

[scourge]

In Fawkes defense, he was probably saying that it was only 13% above being a tie. Kinda like when people say " the Mariners are only 20 games below .500"

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

dude, i meant end it peacefully. NOT throw a sucker punch (punk bitches?) and then say its over. That's a bitch's way out.

He just doesn't have any class.

[Matt]

He just doesn't have any class.Says the epitome of class (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=19968&postcount=7).

<giggle>

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Damn right, I don't like Bike Riders(especially the types who keep posting in I, anonymous). This is a completly different thread(In the Politics forum), and you have had zero class throughout the entire post.

[fawkes]

In Fawkes defense, he was probably saying that it was only 13% above being a tie. Kinda like when people say " the Mariners are only 20 games below .500"

thats exactly what i meant. I don't think 63-37=13. I wasn't using "new math", i just didn't say it clear enough.


Yeah, smoking is still taking place in every single bar. Sure thing. Are you really that stupid?

Oh wait. You think 63-37 = 13. I guess you are that stupid.

<end of thread>

Not end of thread. I didn't say that smoking is still taking place in every single bar. But if you really want to claim victory, maybe there shouldn't be a bunch of bars that are still smoke-happy.

I'm not stupid, I just didn't elaborate. I meant differential in the way that scourge's example uses it.

[scourge]

You're welcome.

[Mrt1212]

i think a good equilibrium has been met. the bars flouting the ban are small in number and the rest of those that comply are the vast majority. now only if this could have happened without a citizen enacted law...

[Matt]

Damn right, I don't like Bike Riders(especially the types who keep posting in I, anonymous). This is a completly different thread(In the Politics forum), and you have had zero class throughout the entire post.That's bullshit. I had class in early January and once or twice in March. So stick it, whore.

<end of thread>

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

That's bullshit. I had class in early January and once or twice in March. So stick it, whore.

<end of thread>

Vicious/Malicious Postings: Postings that do nothing but criticize or attack another poster without any contribution to the forum will be deleted. Anyone consistently attacking another member or members will be banned from the forums. Posts should not harass, embarrass or threaten other users. Name-calling posts will be sent packing.

Per forum rules, I believe Matt should be banned from the forums. Consistant ill-placed name-calling attacks in the politics forum should not be allowed.

[qwerty]

whatever. i think you should be kicked off for saying unicycle riders have no class. that was mean and uncalled for.

[Matt]

Per forum rules [Vicious/Malicious Postings: Postings that do nothing but criticize or attack another poster without any contribution to the forum will be deleted], I believe Matt should be banned from the forums. Consistant [sic] ill-placed name-calling attacks in the politics forum should not be allowed.Uh huh. Hey north, what contribution did this post (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=20222&postcount=1894) make? Looks like just an attack.

Oh, by the by, reporting of a person on a website... is seriously juvenile (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=20042&postcount=1872).

Wow, nailed you for hypocrisy twice in one post. Damn I'm good. I should get some kind of award.

<end of thread>

[Jimmy Flame]

<beginning of the end of thread>
So, how about them SONICS!!!

[fawkes]

matt, the thread is gonna end at 2000, thats apparent. So instead of looking like a jackass and putting <end of thread> in each of your posts, just shut up until #2000. Then you win, and the thread is over.

[am I or am I not]

I really believe that Bars have rights to allow smoking, if a person does not want to be around the smoke, don't go to the bar. This is a terrible law that has many consequences. Older bars that are in Ballard for example.. I use to love to have a Cigar and a brew or something, and I rarely smoke.. maybe 3-4 times a year..

Washington is becoming a place of too many laws.. No BBQ's on decks at apartments, yet how many fires did they have prior to that law?

Although I will at least say this - at least this law was approved by the people, which is more then many of the laws being created. Washington is not alone, in Oregon the 24 hour 7 days a week, 365 days a year school zone law passed without any consideration if the public would vote, would this bill have passed -- The answer is no.. so one year later they basically went back to the old law and wasted a ton of money in the whole process.

If you live in Redmond, please don't spit on the sidewalk, it is illegal.. Thanks...


Troy*

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Uh huh. Hey north, what contribution did this post make? Looks like just an attack.

Oh, by the by, reporting of a person on a website... is seriously juvenile.

Wow, nailed you for hypocrisy twice in one post. Damn I'm good. I should get some kind of award.

<end of thread>

That post was a comment on your posting patterns.

Your posts are baseless attacks on nothing more than someones stance, you don't respond to arguements, you just play childish games.

Hypocrisy? Well you might want to look up the definition of that one bud.

[Matt]

Hypocrisy? Well you might want to look up the definition of that one bud.No need. I can just look at your posts.

<end of thread>

[fawkes]

great, we get to listen to Matt and north bitch over hypocrisy. THis is going to be a fun final 91 posts.

<matts an ass>

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Sorry Fawkes, my stomach doesn't sit well with the misuse of the word.

[BridgeTroll]

I really believe that Bars have rights to allow smoking, if a person does not want to be around the smoke, don't go to the bar. This is a terrible law that has many consequences. Older bars that are in Ballard for example.. I use to love to have a Cigar and a brew or something, and I rarely smoke.. maybe 3-4 times a year.. blah...blah....blah....blah......

Troy*


Wow. Here's an original thought - not that it hasn't already been beaten to death in the last 1900+ posts.

[Smalan Ithee]

Who let these guys on the thread?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/StatlerAndWaldorf.jpg
I miss the haiku. BallardGuy? Bridgetroll? Wasn't that your thing?

In other news, here's a little research concerning a drinkbone/smokebone connection (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/125/115980.htm).

[Matt]

Who let these guys on the thread?
I miss the haiku. BallardGuy? Bridgetroll? Wasn't that your thing?

In other news, here's a little research concerning a drinkbone/smokebone connection (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/125/115980.htm).Smalan, you rarely post anything useful, however I think this last post by you is a stellar contribution. I think it would make a fitting final post for this thread. Well done!

<end of thread>

[Smalan Ithee]

Smalan, you rarely post anything useful, however I think this last post by you is a stellar contribution. I think it would make a fitting final post for this thread. Well done!

<end of thread>Oh Matt, how sweet. I do so live for your comments about me and other posters, in the hopes there will be a gem to boost my frail ego (which is, of course, based on the give and take of an anonymous thread). Please oh please, call me a punk again, big daddy. Mmmmmm......

One more link re: why smokers can drink non-smokers under the table (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5209990.stm). Not that that's a good thing.

[BridgeTroll]

Who let these guys on the thread?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/StatlerAndWaldorf.jpg
I miss the haiku. BallardGuy? Bridgetroll? Wasn't that your thing?

In other news, here's a little research concerning a drinkbone/smokebone connection (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/125/115980.htm).

Smoking safe, I believe
Overwhelming evidence, no believe
Cough, Cough, Gasp, Gasp, Wheeze

[Matt]

black lung ain't no fun
nor is cancer caused by smoke
901 kicks ass

<end of thread>

[Ballardguy]

In other news, here's a little research concerning a drinkbone/smokebone connection (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/125/115980.htm).

Interesting study, tying together the relationship between smoking and drinking. Furthermore, they used female rats as test subjects.

Well, that clears up the mystery of Fiona being allowed to smoke at the Rimrock Tavern. :).

Fiona is so hot.

[Smalan Ithee]

Smoking safe, I believe
Overwhelming evidence, no believe
Cough, Cough, Gasp, Gasp, Wheeze
black lung ain't no fun
nor is cancer caused by smoke
901 kicks assYea-uh, now that's what I'm talkin' bout. It's as easy as 5-7-5.Thanks for sharing the mad haiku skillz - we may be at #2000 in no time. :)

[fiona]

add el Chupacabra in Phinney Ridge to the huge list of bars that know the ban in totally uninforceable, there just arent enough nazis to go around I guess. we'll be smoking everywhere before this thing is a year old, they will not even have to overturn it

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

add el Chupacabra in Phinney Ridge to the huge list of bars that know the ban in totally uninforceable, there just arent enough nazis to go around I guess. we'll be smoking everywhere before this thing is a year old, they will not even have to overturn it

Fiona, as a fellow smoker, please refrain from reporting these bars on here. I know the urge to anger anti-smokers (such as matt) off, but I heard he got a warning for his juvenile namecalling, so in that department I think we're fine. They make a big enough fool of themselves for us to have to prove anything.

So if you do find a place, please share it with the smokers only, so they don't get reported :)

[Mrt1212]

Fiona, as a fellow smoker, please refrain from reporting these bars on here. I know the urge to anger anti-smokers (such as matt) off, but I heard he got a warning for his juvenile namecalling, so in that department I think we're fine. They make a big enough fool of themselves for us to have to prove anything.

So if you do find a place, please share it with the smokers only, so they don't get reported :)

the only anti smoking zealot is matt.

and also what are you proving?

id like to do a big survey of bars flouting vs. obeying. i bet it doesnt even near a 1:10 ratio.

[Matt]

add el Chupacabra in Phinney Ridge to the huge list of bars that know the ban in totally uninforceable, there just arent enough nazis to go around I guess. we'll be smoking everywhere before this thing is a year old, they will not even have to overturn itHi Fiona. This is my first post. I'm a smoker. I like Marlboros. They taste good. I don't notice how they make my clothes reek.

Can you send me your list of bars that allow smoking? I would like to go there and have fun and smoke. But please send me the list in private e-mail. That way those nazis can't get the list.

Thanks!

P.S. You sound hot.

<end of thread>

[Jimmy Flame]

Smoking makes your clothes stink Matt? You must be doing it wrong. They make body sprays these days that cover that shit up. Sheig Heil MATT!!

[Gres05]

the only anti smoking zealot is matt.

and also what are you proving?

id like to do a big survey of bars flouting vs. obeying. i bet it doesnt even near a 1:10 ratio.


The overwhelming majority of bars are complying with the ban. There are less than 5 that are openly defying the law. I am sure there are a number more who allow a small group of smokers to light up late at night. And there are probably a few craptastic dive bars that no one in their right mind would want to enter...but overall? over 95% compliance.

You might even notice that more and more bars and restaurants are complying with the ban in OUTDOOR seating areas. Oh, and Fiona, hate to tell you this but smoking bans get MORE popular as time passes. New Yorks started at 60% approval, one year later 70%, in year 3? over 80%.

WA started at 63%- pretty damn good. By Jan 1 it should be in the mid 70's and by the time the legislature can look at changing it, the law will be so popular they might just make it STRONGER! I would think that banning smoking in all multifamily housing would be a good start.

[Matt]

Fiona, as a fellow smoker, please refrain from reporting these bars on here. I know the urge to anger anti-smokers (such as matt) offYes, Fiona, please stop "angering me off."

but I heard he got a warning for his juvenile namecallingYou heard wrong, punk. They know better than to mess with Matt the 901 Enforcer.

Btw, I want to congratulate Fiona for writing a post that did not contain the word "Rimrock."

<end of thread>

[Gaines]

Anti smokers wouldn't care about smoking bans so much if:

A. They had real jobs

B. They had their cocks sucked on a regular basis by a member of the opposite sex.

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Come on Gaines, they have real jobs. Just not ones that pay anything. See, theres a reason why 90% of the anti-smokers posts are after 6 pm(or on the weekends). They have retail jobs. They either serve coffee, or clean floors. That's where the hate of smokers come from. They have to clean up our cigarette butts off the ground.

In Matt's case, well he's just unemployed.

[Matt]

Anti smokers wouldn't care about smoking bans so much if:
A. They had real jobs.In Matt's case, well he's just unemployed."Smokers tended to be less educated and were more likely to be unemployed than non-smokers." (http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/23/news/economy/smoking_tax/index.htm)

Anti smokers wouldn't care about smoking bans so much if:
B. They had their cocks sucked on a regular basis by a member of the opposite sex."Smokers are more likely to be dateless . . . . It was discovered that people who advertise on lonely-heart websites are more likely to smoke than those who don't." (http://in.news.yahoo.com/041213/139/2ifoq.html)

"Smokers had a 50 percent greater risk [to develop erectile dysfunction] than non-smokers." (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/07/impotence.risk.reut/index.html)

Thanks, Gaines and Northbysoutheastseattle, for allowing me to write the most crushing post yet on this thread. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

<end of thread>

[Jimmy Flame]

Way to generalize! Lets keep this thing going. Lets see... Hmmmm... In a case study by someone who's name is really hard to spell, people who smoke are 50% more likely to stand outside and stare at cars. While 50% of non-smokers had cock breath. And in other news, a small kitten was sacrificed by a group of Satan worshippers. 48% of them smoked on a regular basis. 29% didn't smoke at all, and the rest actually beleive in Satan.

THIS JUST IN! Bombs are exploding around the world. War has become the number one cause of death, over boredom, and SMOKING! Yeah!

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Matt, keep telling yourself that national numbers are still relative to Seattle, in any facet.

I'm sure you don't get many glimpses of the corporate world (I'm sure you just shat yourself by hearing it) but if you did, it might just open your eyes to what percentage of educated, highly paid workers smoke. You cant get a good example of smokers by national info, or by looking out your rusty studio apartment window- that's right next to the bus stop.

Oh- and matt, Yes sir; you did get warned for your immature trolling. No need to pretend otherwise.

[Gaines]

None of that surprises me. I worked in a restaurant and I can count on one hand how many service staff and cooks DIDN'T smoke.

[Matt]

Those have got to be the weakest three responses I've seen. Yikes, how lame. "I don't have a problem with my weiner!!! (sniffle). You stop saying that!! (snivel)."

Yeah, the truth hurts, doesn't it, you stupid jobless lonely impotent (and stanky!!!) losers? Yep. I feel bad for you.

Hey, why don't you snivel some more in response to this post, too. Tell us how you make LOTS of money, or something. Or drive a BIG car. We'll be so impressed. Too bad scientific studies indicate just how pathetic (and limp) smokers really are.

<end of thread>

[Gaines]

The question I want the answer to is - why are YOU so concerned about MY cock and MY employment status? Lookin for a date there brokeback? Can't help ya there - I prefer female prostitutes, not male ones. Especially not anti-smoking ones.

[Matt]

The question I want the answer to is - why are YOU so concerned about MY cock and MY employment status?Says the moron who showed the following concern about the cock and employment status of nonsmokers:

Anti smokers wouldn't care about smoking bans so much if:
A. They had real jobs
B. They had their cocks sucked on a regular basis by a member of the opposite sex.Boy are you stupid.

Hey, respond again. I love it when you stick your foot in your mouth.

<end of thread>

[Gaines]

Wow dicktree. 10 Minutes. I know you're just sitting there, cheetos in one hand, mouse in the other (constantly refreshing the screen) waiting to pounce back on my reply.

I didn't say nonsmokers - I said anti smokers. HUGE difference. If you don't know what it is, look at your pubes. They're shaved right? Got a nice little rainbow tattoo down there maybe? Have Franz and Hans had their breakfast yet, or are they staying for the day?

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Lookin for a date there brokeback?

Got a nice little rainbow tattoo down there maybe? Have Franz and Hans had their breakfast yet, or are they staying for the day?

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/sally/lol.gif

[Matt]

look at your pubes. They're shaved right? Got a nice little rainbow tattoo down there maybe? Have Franz and Hans had their breakfast yet, or are they staying for the day?Awesome comeback!!! And I see your boyfriend north is giggling immaturely in support. Wow, I may need to throw in the towel at your incredible display of intellectual power.

The links I provided clearly showed how stupid, jobless, lonely, and limp smokers are. I know that "angers you off" and made you cry. But facts are facts. Please stop denying who you are. Know thyself, dude. You, a smoker, are by definition a loser. I, OTOH, am a victorious 901 voter (and enforcer).

Here's my favorite:
"Smokers had a 50 percent greater risk [to develop erectile dysfunction] than non-smokers." That is a beauty.

P.S. Gaines, don't worry about failing the WASL. You get a few more chances to pass before 12th grade.

<end of thread>

[Northbysoutheastseattle]

Uht Oh Gaines, It looks like we've pissed him off.. Nothing like responding to gay accusations with more of them; Mr. Smooth.

[Gaines]

Matt, did you forget to take your meds? When did I ever say I was a smoker?

[Matt]

So not only are smokers more likely to be unemployed just based on lack of intelligence, but now they'll be even more likely to be unemployed for health-cost reasons:

The Snohomish Health District is considering a no-tobacco hiring policy.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2003171765_smoking03e.html

Bwaa Haaaaa!! Oh, lord. The dominoes keep falling at a faster and faster pace toward a smoke-free society. If good news like this keeps pouring in, my head might explode just from the sheer joy of it.

Sing with me!!! "Oh what a beautiful morning . . . oh what a beautiful day...."

<end of thread>