Stop The Smoking Ban! [Archive] - The Stranger Forums

Smalan Ithee

January 29th, 2006, 07:26 PM

Nope. The point is that we don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, which is carcinogenic. Thus, we don't care if people smoke as long as they don't do it near us.

We don't hate the smoker; we hate the smoke. If they are "shamed," then it's the same shame we provide to other public nuisances: people who blast music out of a boombox, for example. They're not allowed in restaurants, either. Are you gonna fight for their rights, too?

Also, remember: Smokers ostracize themselves. They are more than welcome to enter civil society and enjoy restaurants and bars if they are considerate of others and put out their cigarette. If they CHOOSE not to, well, too bad for them. Likewise, people who like to blast music out of a boombox are welcome to enter the local French restaurant if they first turn off the boombox. If they CHOOSE not to, they ostracize themselves and no tears will be shed by those inside. Their banishment is well deserved and reasonable.

Wow, could that be more condescending? "They're more than welcome to enter civil society"? "We don't hate the smokers, we hate the smoke"? Sounds an awful lot like the church drivel I heard growing up - "We don't hate the sinner, we hate the sin". Smokers aren't poor heathen souls just waiting for a glorious savior to show them their evil ways with the savior looking down his/her nose and guilting them into quitting their addiction. When comments are made like the ones in your previous post, it just fosters that us vs. them mentality and makes a smoker want to exhale in the face of the holier-than-thou prophet.

And seriously, the boombox comparison is ridiculous. No I'm not going to "fight for their rights". However, in that unrealistic fantasy boom box scenario, I would encourage any bar owner who would like to, for whatever reason, cater to a certain segment of their patrons and allow them to blast a boom box to go all out.

We get it - you don't want secondhand smoke around you. You've made your point. I've noted at least a couple of times that I agree with you to the extent that secondhand smoke is dangerous, though I'm sure we disagree on the levels of exposure it takes to reach dangerous. But continuing to call for the banishment of smokers to the sewers, basements, and alleys of the world with our distorted faces, bad teeth, humped-backs and rolled up newspapers in hand (and yes I'm being sarcastic) is missing the point that I and several others have made here - I'm considerate enough to not blow smoke in your face. I keep my distance from passers-by when I'm outside. Before I901, I was considerate enough to not smoke in confined places, unless that place was a dive, the bartender smoked, and the other patrons did, too (not the kind of place the non-smokers are beating down the door to frequent). But how about allowing for the possibility that 1) For many people, the drink bone is connected to the smoke bone (including many people who call themselves non-smokers), and 2) maybe, just maybe, there could exist a place where one could have a beer and a smoke with others who are doing the same thing, and be served by a smoker who takes the risk of working in such an environment. All adult establishments don't have to be smoking venues, but it sure as hell would be nice if they were able to make that choice and let the patrons choose, too. It seemed to work great for non-smoking places like Seamonster, Watertown, ToSt and Nectar pre-901.

That's all I'm saying. And apparently it will continue to fall on deaf ears/blind eyes, so carry on.

Melle

January 30th, 2006, 08:04 AM

The problem is that ventilation systems, as I discussed in post 323, are ineffective.

But it gets worse. Apparently many who oppose reasonable smoking restrictions, such as 901, push ventilation even when they KNOW it's ineffective. I'm not saying anyone on this board is doing so. But here's the breaking news on the ventilation scam:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7535/227

"Newly released internal corporate documents from British American Tobacco (BAT) show that despite internal acknowledgment that ventilation and air filtration were ineffective at removing environmental tobacco smoke, BAT has extensively promoted these technologies to the hospitality industry since the mid-1990s. Documents also show that BAT's strategies to promote these initiatives worldwide were seen internally as viable solutions to circumvent smoking restrictions and to gain global marketing opportunities."

Wow. The word that's coming to mind to describe this turn of events is as follows: Busted.

Btw, this comes from the British Medical Journal, which Melle has described as "one of the world's most prestigious medical journals."

I certainly urge everyone to read the link. The "breaking news" reported there is as follows: In the 1990s, one tobacco company (British American Tobacco or "BAT") tested one air filtration unit (made by "Colt International") and found it inadequate; in spite of this they began touting it as a solution to secondhand smoke, and managed to get it installed in various locales. BAT behaved dishonestly and with great PR and fanfare, as is to be expected.

This tells us less than nothing about ventilation. Ventilation is not the same as air filtration. Quite the contrary: ventilation replenishes an air supply with fresh air, while filtration just re-circulates stale air. (Throughout this thread I've been supporting the former and denouncing the latter.) The link describes vents that "suck tobacco smoke down through a filter and recirculate the partially filtered smoke out into the room again." This (of course) is not ventilation. The article's authors pretend the two are the same, and conclude as if they've killed two birds with one stone, but they really offer no factual info on the subject of ventilation.

(Regarding the British Medical Journal, of course it's one of the leading journals. Of course they print things that oppose my position---they also print things that support my position. This is what happens when there is a controversy. Imagining that one brief article of comment could put a wide-ranging scientific question to rest is very wishful thinking.)

Gomezticator

January 30th, 2006, 09:04 AM

Matt's problem is that he assumes every argument he makes is undeniable fact and totally correct, and he keeps citing them whether or not they've been disproven.

The smoke eaters I previously mentioned actually work, at the absolute least in reasonably sized bar venues, because I patronized bars they were installed in and noticed firsthand, with the bar full of smokers, that they work. Two or three of the things could probably keep a sizeable club well ventilated.

That is all. Carry on.

Matt

January 30th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Wow, could that be more condescending?Yes.

Smokers aren't poor heathen souls just waiting for a glorious savior to show them their evil ways with the savior looking down his/her nose and guilting them into quitting their addiction.As I've mentioned, I don't care if they quit. They can suck on their cancer sticks all they want. Just not near me.

And seriously, the boombox comparison is ridiculous.No it's spot on.* It's an activity that is not permitted in restaurants, etc. because it disturbs patrons and employees. It's a gloriously appropriate analogy. But secondhand smoke is even worse: It doesn't just disturb; it also harms.

*Oh, look!! Another "four-word flat denial" from Matt!!!

We get it - you don't want secondhand smoke around you. You've made your point.Excellent. I accept your retraction of your statement that "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime."

Smalan Ithee

January 30th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Yes.

As I've mentioned, I don't care if they quit. They can suck on their cancer sticks all they want. Just not near me.

No it's spot on.* It's an activity that is not permitted in restaurants, etc. because it disturbs patrons and employees. It's a gloriously appropriate analogy. But secondhand smoke is even worse: It doesn't just disturb; it also harms.

*Oh, look!! Another "four-word flat denial" from Matt!!!

Excellent. I accept your retraction of your statement that "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime."

You'll get no retraction from me. The "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime" was in reference to the deeper desire of the rabid 901 fans that they won't admit to. As in: If I'm smoking on the porch of my home 26 feet away from the sidewalk and you or any other rabid 901 fan walks by, you would say that I'm invading your space, poisoning you, etc. THAT's what I mean by anyone, anytime, so don't go all classic-Matt on me.

And you're not going to suck me into an ongoing pissing match regarding your quotes of a quote of quotes. It's boring and I'm not going to clog the board attempting to prove a point to someone who obviously has no sense of compromise or desire to respectfully debate. You seem to be under the impression that your "four word flat denials" are quite witty and somehow true, or that you're putting the anonymous smackdown on someone, when the rest of us just see it as a bully who can yell louder. Just because you keep yelling, that doesn't mean you're right. I've been patient with people on this board who I respectfully disagree with, and now I can see why so many others on this board lose their patience with you and your alleged debating tactics. At times those tactics are tantamount to a preschooler teasing a classmate. I appreciate your links and your input when it's thoughtful and the few times it's been respectful, but you're not going to bait me into a size contest, all the while taunting and attempting to humiliate.

I wish you well and peace, brother/sister. Keep up the, um, "debate" - maybe there's a sensible resolution with compromise to be found, but obviously not in this crowd.

Matt

January 31st, 2006, 09:34 AM

You'll get no retraction from me. The "901 fans don't want anyone to smoke anywhere anytime" was in reference to the deeper desire of the rabid 901 fans that they won't admit to.Oh, then you didn't really "get it." So let me repeat: I don't care if they smoke, they just can't do it near me. Which makes your generalization false.

Matt

January 31st, 2006, 09:51 AM

The smoke eaters I previously mentioned actually work, at the absolute least in reasonably sized bar venues, because I patronized bars they were installed in and noticed firsthand, with the bar full of smokers, that they work.How do you know they work? What scientific tests did you conduct? None? Hmm, thought so. Thanks, anyway, dude, but I think I'll take the word of the British Medical Journal, which has demonstrated that ventilation doesn't work (and that Big Tobacco has lied about it):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7535/227

I'd also rather take the word of ventilation equipment manufacturers, who all admit that their equipment is ineffective when it comes to removing secondhand smoke:

Allergy Control Products, Inc.: "Allergy Control Products, Inc. does not claim that air cleaners offered in this catalog will protect people from potential health risks associated with secondhand smoke."

Allergy Buyers Club, Inc: "Improved ventilation and use of air purifiers may reduce, but will not completely eliminate, your exposure to secondhand smoke and the associated health risks."

Brookstone: "No air purifier can protect against the health hazards associated with secondhand tobacco smoke."

Espitech Air Products: "We make no medical or health claims whatsoever and it is not our intention to do so…. [The] goal or objective of [the] air purification systems that we sell, for use in a smoking environment, is to provide relief from the annoyance of the odour produced by tobacco smoke as well as some of the discomforts that the smoke (fumes) and odour causes. Espitech Air Products disclaims all warranties, implied or otherwise, that anyone (non-smoker or smoker) who installs our air purifiers, air cleaners, or air scrubbers as an alternative to seeking a smokefree environment will be protected from the health risks caused by exposure to second hand smoke."

Honeywell: "Honeywell has not in the past and does not make health hazard claims."

IQAir North America: "[Air filtration] doesn't remove the risk of secondhand smoke. It would reduce the amount of smoke in the air over an amount of time. In my opinion, air cleaners are not going to be a solution. Air cleaners can not reduce the initial exposure [to smoke] and that's where the risk is coming from."

Peak Pure Air: "Nowhere [sic] do we claim that our products eliminate all hazardous contaminants… No! … not any product on earth will eliminate health hazards cause by exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. After one has been exposed, the damage is done…. In a perfect world we would not need to worry about secondhand tobacco smoke."

Radio Shack: "We make no claims that this product will protect people from second-hand smoke….The Environizer electronic air purifiers do not eliminate such [health] hazards….The Environizer will not help remove gases that are found in tobacco smoke."

The Sharper Image: "No air cleaner can protect against the harmful effects of secondhand tobacco smoke. Clean air begins with a smoke-free environment."

United Air Specialists, Inc.: "No air filtration or purification system has been designed that can eliminate all indoor irritants and pollution associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. In addition, there are no proven safe levels of secondhand tobacco smoke. Because of this, UAS makes no claim that its filtration systems will reduce or eliminate the health risks caused by exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke."

Wein Products, Inc.: "No air filtration or air purification system has been designed that can eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. A reduction of the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness."

Smalan Ithee

January 31st, 2006, 11:15 AM

Oh, then you didn't really "get it." So let me repeat: I don't care if they smoke, they just can't do it near me. Which makes your generalization false.

And I guess you didn't really "get" the rest of my post. Scream as loud as you want. Peace and love backatcha, brother.

Matt

January 31st, 2006, 11:55 AM

And I guess you didn't really "get" the rest of my post. Scream as loud as you want. Peace and love backatcha, brother.Backers of 901 don't care if people smoke, as long as smokers don't smoke near us. 901 was a win-win for everyone. Smokers can still smoke, and nonsmokers no longer have to inhale secondhand smoke in public places and places of employment. Awesome!

On to the next state!! Pretty soon all 50. Then we work on parks, etc. Woo hoo!!!!!

Smalan Ithee

January 31st, 2006, 12:32 PM

Backers of 901 don't care if people smoke, as long as smokers don't smoke near us. 901 was a win-win for everyone. Smokers can still smoke, and nonsmokers no longer have to inhale secondhand smoke in public places and places of employment. Awesome!

On to the next state!! Pretty soon all 50. Then we work on parks, etc. Woo hoo!!!!!

Testify, brother! Are you not only going to New Hampshire? South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico? Going to California and Texas and New York? And going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan? And then going to Washington, D.C.? Whoo-haa!?!?

Peace and love, brother.

Ballardguy

January 31st, 2006, 01:04 PM

Smalan Ithee

January 31st, 2006, 01:24 PM

C'mon, lets admit it. Supporters and opponents of 901 will never agree, so why waste the time and space? "What about second hand smoke?", you say. "Shouldn't we debate over its safety or danger?" Please. Only lunatics truly believe second hand smoke is not harmful.

Let's get this back on track to what is really important. Smokie sob tales!! There's got to be a smokie MLK out there somewhere (I nominate Smokie the 75 yr old war vet). Stand up for your puffing rights!!

The SuperBowl is only 5 days away, so start typing smokies. Tell us all what bar you plan to watch the game from...outside....in the rain.....looking through the window (25 feet away)....due to your uncontrollable urge to light up. Oh yeah, and can you please stop littering?

To defend the smokies, we're not all litterbugs. Some of us seek out the closest trashcan after snuffing out. This smokie will be at home watching the game. Sunday is not only Super Bowl Sunday, but Smalan's D-Day to double the dosage and put on the patch, on the road to No-Smokieville (btw when I'm finally a non-smoker, I'll still be against 901). If D-Day doesn't go as planned, I'll be smoking on my porch, so no different than standing outside of a bar, except the beer will be cheaper. Not much of a sob story, I guess.

Ballardguy

January 31st, 2006, 02:02 PM

To defend the smokies, we're not all litterbugs. Some of us seek out the closest trashcan after snuffing out. This smokie will be at home watching the game. Sunday is not only Super Bowl Sunday, but Smalan's D-Day to double the dosage and put on the patch, on the road to No-Smokieville (btw when I'm finally a non-smoker, I'll still be against 901). If D-Day doesn't go as planned, I'll be smoking on my porch, so no different than standing outside of a bar, except the beer will be cheaper. Not much of a sob story, I guess.

Thanks for the post Smalan, and good catch on the littering issue. I didn't mean to imply that all smokies were litterbugs. My apologies. Good luck on your journey to non-smokieville!

How about the rest of you smokies out there? Let's hear from you!

Melle

January 31st, 2006, 03:00 PM

How do you know they work? What scientific tests did you conduct? None? Hmm, thought so. Thanks, anyway, dude, but I think I'll take the word of the British Medical Journal, which has demonstrated that ventilation doesn't work (and that Big Tobacco has lied about it):
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7535/227

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa ... Hold up. Let's get this clear: The British Medical Journal did NOT demonstrate that ventilation doesn't work. The British Medical Journal did not even publish scientific research demonstrating that ventilation doesn't work. What they published, in your link, was an "analysis and comment," which relates an instance of an air purifier not working. As has been previously pointed out, air purification/filtration is not the same thing as ventilation. But this point aside, there are 2 other things wrong with your statement: (1) the comments were not made by the BMJ, but by the authors of the commentary (they were published in the BMJ, which is different), and (2) a commentary does not constitute a demonstration.

I'd also rather take the word of ventilation equipment manufacturers, who all admit that their equipment is ineffective when it comes to removing secondhand smoke:

Allergy Control Products, Inc.: "Allergy Control Products, Inc. does not claim that air cleaners offered in this catalog will protect people from potential health risks associated with secondhand smoke."

Allergy Buyers Club, Inc: "Improved ventilation and use of air purifiers may reduce, but will not completely eliminate, your exposure to secondhand smoke and the associated health risks."

Brookstone: "No air purifier can protect against the health hazards associated with secondhand tobacco smoke."

Espitech Air Products: "We make no medical or health claims whatsoever and it is not our intention to do so…. [The] goal or objective of [the] air purification systems that we sell, for use in a smoking environment, is to provide relief from the annoyance of the odour produced by tobacco smoke as well as some of the discomforts that the smoke (fumes) and odour causes. Espitech Air Products disclaims all warranties, implied or otherwise, that anyone (non-smoker or smoker) who installs our air purifiers, air cleaners, or air scrubbers as an alternative to seeking a smokefree environment will be protected from the health risks caused by exposure to second hand smoke."

Honeywell: "Honeywell has not in the past and does not make health hazard claims."

IQAir North America: "[Air filtration] doesn't remove the risk of secondhand smoke. It would reduce the amount of smoke in the air over an amount of time. In my opinion, air cleaners are not going to be a solution. Air cleaners can not reduce the initial exposure [to smoke] and that's where the risk is coming from."

Peak Pure Air: "Nowhere [sic] do we claim that our products eliminate all hazardous contaminants… No! … not any product on earth will eliminate health hazards cause by exposure to second hand tobacco smoke. After one has been exposed, the damage is done…. In a perfect world we would not need to worry about secondhand tobacco smoke."

Radio Shack: "We make no claims that this product will protect people from second-hand smoke….The Environizer electronic air purifiers do not eliminate such [health] hazards….The Environizer will not help remove gases that are found in tobacco smoke."

The Sharper Image: "No air cleaner can protect against the harmful effects of secondhand tobacco smoke. Clean air begins with a smoke-free environment."

United Air Specialists, Inc.: "No air filtration or purification system has been designed that can eliminate all indoor irritants and pollution associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. In addition, there are no proven safe levels of secondhand tobacco smoke. Because of this, UAS makes no claim that its filtration systems will reduce or eliminate the health risks caused by exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke."

Wein Products, Inc.: "No air filtration or air purification system has been designed that can eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. A reduction of the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness."

I remember this list from last fall. It looks more & more bogus each time I see it.

I'm not saying the quotes aren't real---I'm sure they are---but (again) they pertain to air filters, not ventilators. Only one statement (from Allergy Buyers Club) refers to ventilation at all: the rest refer exclusively to "air cleaners," "air purifiers," and "air filtration or purification systems." Quite simply, these are not statements about ventilation equipment. "Purification and filtration," a bad alternative to ventilation, is a method for making stale air smell fresh. By re-circulating the same air supply instead of replacing it with fresh air, large property owners and chain business save a bundle on heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. But poor ventilation is unhealthy regardless of how the air smells, and regardless of whether anyone's smoking.

Ballardguy

January 31st, 2006, 04:12 PM

As enjoyable as it is to look at Canadian smokies in their glass cages, it probably is not feasible for most corner establishments to implement. Besides being costly, there is a matter of space.

I propose instead the development and implementation of individual "Cones of Smoking". Smokies can be self encased in their own private smoking suits, free to puff away as they please. Self-contained access tubes can be used to deliver refreshing drinks and remove waste. Walking canes can be provided by the establishments, since it may be difficult for smokies to maneuver around while enjoying the cloudy self-initiated second hand smoke environment. It appears that a prototype is already in production: http://www.ecrannoir.fr/dossiers/ete2001/opti/bubble01.jpg

Filters, smilters. No one cares. Let's move on to stories of smokie discrimination!

Melle

January 31st, 2006, 09:50 PM

As enjoyable as it is to look at Canadian smokies in their glass cages, it probably is not feasible for most corner establishments to implement. Besides being costly, there is a matter of space.

Well, I think those corner establishments are perfectly capable of making their own financial decisions. If they legally had a choice: either ventilate or prohibit smoking, they'd be able to decide what is & is not "feasible."

I propose instead the development and implementation of individual "Cones of Smoking". Smokies can be self encased in their own private smoking suits, free to puff away as they please. Self-contained access tubes can be used to deliver refreshing drinks and remove waste. Walking canes can be provided by the establishments, since it may be difficult for smokies to maneuver around while enjoying the cloudy self-initiated second hand smoke environment. It appears that a prototype is already in production: http://www.ecrannoir.fr/dossiers/ete2001/opti/bubble01.jpg

Filters, smilters. No one cares. Let's move on to stories of smokie discrimination!

Sorry, Ballardguy, you'll have to remind me ... who exactly died & made you dictator of what people care about?

Smokie

January 31st, 2006, 10:29 PM

Sorry, Ballardguy, you'll have to remind me ... who exactly died & made you dictator of what people care about?

Do you really think anyone cares about your filter bs? At least he is trying to get the topic away from your droll, inane rhetoric. (betcha you thought I didn't know such big words! Not bad for an old redneck).

Who died and put you in charge of labeling others?

breather

February 1st, 2006, 08:44 AM

Enough with the pseudo-arguments about ventilation, a smoking section in a bar is like a peeing section in a pool.

Ballard Guy is right, you people are hear to amuse us now that we won and I expect you to be as amusing as you were previously annoying. Yes, that's a tall order but rise to it smokies, if not you, then who? If not now, then when?
Let's hear some tales of persecution followed by a rousing, hacking rendtion of "We Shall Overcome."

I love the thought of smokies in glass cages, the downside is that you can't poke a stick through a glass cage. Think of the extra revenue bars could make selling sticks...

You guys could designate someone expendable (Slomezticator comes to mind) to self-immolate in front of the Blue Moon or something, but with your luck it would be raining too hard.

Maybe a bunch of you staging a hunger strike, although that works best from jail... hell, I'm not going to do your thinking for you, just entertain us!

Melle

February 1st, 2006, 12:37 PM

Do you really think anyone cares about your filter bs?

Yeah. And there's a real simple solution for people who don't.

At least he is trying to get the topic away from your droll, inane rhetoric. (betcha you thought I didn't know such big words! Not bad for an old redneck).

Aw shucks, Smokie, dang-nabbit t' tarnation. I was only funnin' you, I never did really take you fer a redneck. Way I reckon it yer a fake, as fake as the day is long.

"Pinko! Commie! Pervert! Look at me, everybody! I'm a homophobic, McCarthyist nut, who probably keeps an arsenal in my attic, & I'm against 901! Lookie what kinda creeps oppose 901!"

Who died and put you in charge of labeling others?

Ahem. Ballardguy keeps saying "no one cares" when he means that he doesn't care. I'm just giving him a hard time.

Melle

February 1st, 2006, 12:43 PM

Enough with the pseudo-arguments about ventilation, a smoking section in a bar is like a peeing section in a pool.

Sorry, but I'm sticking to the ventilation arguments. The instant chorus of "quit saying that right now!"---from certain people---is a clear sign of having hit a bulls-eye.

Shady_B_206

February 1st, 2006, 12:52 PM

Is there going to be a party when this thread hits 1000?

Ballardguy

February 1st, 2006, 12:58 PM

Is there going to be a party when this thread hits 1000?

Absolutely! Thunderbird Tavern in Ballard. But....uhmmm...no smoking allowed.

Shady_B_206

February 1st, 2006, 12:59 PM

Absolutely! Thunderbird Tavern in Ballard. But....uhmmm...no smoking allowed.
lol 38 to go

Ballardguy

February 1st, 2006, 01:00 PM

Sorry, but I'm sticking to the ventilation arguments. The instant chorus of "quit saying that right now!"---from certain people---is a clear sign of having hit a bulls-eye.

There's an argument on this? I thought it was the desparate cries of a disgruntled smoker....clinging to any shred of hope he can find...

Plllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssss ssssseeeeeeeeeeeeee let me smoke in the bars! I think you should run with the smoker suit idea.

Juneappal

February 1st, 2006, 01:01 PM

"Pinko! Commie! Pervert! Look at me, everybody! I'm a homophobic, McCarthyist nut, who probably keeps an arsenal in my attic, & I'm against 901! Lookie what kinda creeps oppose 901!"

Don't forget "I am a veteran too, but I don't know what 'thanks for your service' means."

Melle

February 1st, 2006, 01:07 PM

Don't forget "I am a veteran too, but I don't know what 'thanks for your service' means."

Oh yeah! ... or "I'm a 75-year-old vet, but I work all the time & that's why I stopped posting."

Smalan Ithee

February 1st, 2006, 03:26 PM

Let's hear some tales of persecution followed by a rousing, hacking rendtion of "We Shall Overcome."!
No no no, a thousand times no. When we sing, it's not hacking - we're just husky-voiced.

I love the thought of smokies in glass cages, the downside is that you can't poke a stick through a glass cage. Think of the extra revenue bars could make selling sticks...
Eh, maybe it will make up for the revenue lost when the smokers were banned, and Edmonds' chapter of Oprah's Book Club and the Bellevue Soccer Moms didn't come out as expected.

See? Give and take - we can all have a little fun!

And please don't construe this post as anything more than good-natured ribbing. Hard to see when it's text only, but that's all it is here.

Ballardguy

February 1st, 2006, 03:47 PM

your attention please: Ballardguy is currently running a signature in which he misquotes me. I said: "The instant chorus of 'quit saying that right now!'---from certain people---is a clear sign of having hit a bulls-eye." He removed the 5 words in single quotes & put them in sentence form ("Quit saying that right now."), & now he's attributing that sentence to me. Sad, desperate, dishonest, & typical.

Aww...now you hurt my feelings. :(. Sniff.

Hey - don't forget to watch X-Files tonight at 5! Smoking man is on! Huddle up in your basement apartment....they're watching you Melle.......

Is this signature line more to your liking?

Ballardguy

February 1st, 2006, 03:52 PM

And please don't construe this post as anything more than good-natured ribbing. Hard to see when it's text only, but that's all it is here.

Absolutely! This blog is, and should be fun. C'mon smokies.......more stories!

breather

February 1st, 2006, 04:25 PM

Right on Smalan, it is fun

And Ballard Guy, perhaps the "husky-voiced" is a more sensitive, PC moniker than "smokies"

What about it Smokie? Would you feel a little more affirmed?

Ballardguy

February 1st, 2006, 05:19 PM

Right on Smalan, it is fun

And Ballard Guy, perhaps the "husky-voiced" is a more sensitive, PC moniker than "smokies"

What about it Smokie? Would you feel a little more affirmed?

When I think of "husky voice"....I think of Fiona - she's hot.

I'm sticking with "smokie". :).

breather

February 1st, 2006, 05:33 PM

When I think of "husky voice"....I think of Fiona - she's hot.

I'm sticking with "smokie". :).

At the risk of sending Smokie completely over the edge I've wondered if those two were one and the same.

How about it Smokie? Are you really a chick?

Ballardguy

February 1st, 2006, 05:39 PM

At the risk of sending Smokie completely over the edge I've wondered if those two were one and the same.

How about it Smokie? Are you really a chick?

I'm thinking Smokie and Melle are one and the same.....

X-Files is over in about 20 minutes. Maybe Melle can enlighten us then.

Melle

February 2nd, 2006, 09:17 AM

Matt

February 2nd, 2006, 12:17 PM

Sheesh, I go away for two days and the conversation goes to hell in a handbasket. This demonstrates that my presence elevates the level of debate immeasurably and that I am, in essence, the heart and soul of this thread. As such, I have dibs on the 1,000th post.

First, I love the idea of the self-contained smoking suit. I'd also require the suit in homes and cars if children are present, as exposing children to secondhand smoke is a form of child abuse.

Enough with the pseudo-arguments about ventilation, a smoking section in a bar is like a peeing section in a pool.Beautiful analogy. Just goddamn beautiful. I'd only add that it's interesting how we've provided evidence that ventilation equipment is not effective, but the other side has yet to provide a report from BMJ or elsewhere that ventilation equipment removes 100% of cancer-causing secondhand smoke. And yet there's supposedly a "controversy." Yeah.

GOOD NEWS!!!!!
"In what may become a wave of the future, the City of Calabasas, California, voted unanimously to ban smoking in virtually all outdoor areas within the City, including all of its sidewalks and streets, and in what were previously restaurant outdoor smoking lounges, patios, etc. Smokers would, however, be permitted to smoke in small outdoor "smoker outposts" which businesses could establish in areas like parking lots, and also when no other persons were around or expected."

Smokers in WA should enjoy their ability to smoke on sidewalks while they can. And stop the whining, for Pete's sake.

Ballardguy

February 2nd, 2006, 03:31 PM

Smokers in WA should enjoy their ability to smoke on sidewalks while they can. And stop the whining, for Pete's sake.

Just a reminder - the preferred term is "smokies".

Ballardguy

February 2nd, 2006, 03:40 PM

In an effort to return to the discussion, I'm re-posting a few sentences from a few days ago. (Breather, Ballardguy, if you don't like it, just put me on "Ignore." Problem solved.)

[Most of the anti-smoking statements on "ventilation" don't actually discuss ventilation at all. They] refer exclusively to "air cleaners," "air purifiers," and "air filtration or purification systems." Quite simply, these are not statements about ventilation equipment. "Purification and filtration," a bad alternative to ventilation, is a method for making stale air smell fresh. By re-circulating the same air supply instead of replacing it with fresh air, large property owners and chain business save a bundle on heating in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. But poor ventilation is unhealthy regardless of how the air smells, and regardless of whether anyone's smoking.

"Hello darkness my old friend......"

Oops, sorry. Sometimes songs get in my head when thinking of things. I was thinking about Melle's "discussion", as described above. Somehow, The Sound of Silence popped up.

Scintillating topic...this ventilation idea. From the looks of things, it brought this blog to a standstill. Either some deep thought on the topic going on.....or disinterest. I vote the latter.

I do however, have one reminder on the topic. Smokies can take advantage of the Tobacco Frequent Smoker program and get their own ventilation kit. It's called an oxygen tank. As an added bonus, sign up now and you may be eligible for a complimentary tracheotomy.

Smalan Ithee

February 2nd, 2006, 04:50 PM

Scintillating topic...this ventilation idea. From the looks of things, it brought this blog to a standstill. Either some deep thought on the topic going on.....or disinterest. I vote the latter.

Eh, more like posts started getting really nasty in here, and not in the good-natured, ribbing sort of way. In the pious, bullyish way. And nobody likes a bully. Except cheerleaders. And rich people who need a bodyguard. And club owners who need security. And a parking enforcement dept. But otherwise, nobody.

I do however, have one reminder on the topic. Smokies can take advantage of the Tobacco Frequent Smoker program and get their own ventilation kit. It's called an oxygen tank. As an added bonus, sign up now and you may be eligible for a complimentary tracheotomy.

Sounds like a plan. I have a question: Do rabid 901ers get nosebleeds from the altitude waaaaaaaay up there on the soapboxes?

See? Good-natured ribbing without the personal attacks. Make love, not war.

Melle

February 2nd, 2006, 06:41 PM

"Hello darkness my old friend......"

Oops, sorry. Sometimes songs get in my head when thinking of things. I was thinking about Melle's "discussion", as described above. Somehow, The Sound of Silence popped up.

Scintillating topic...this ventilation idea. From the looks of things, it brought this blog to a standstill. Either some deep thought on the topic going on.....or disinterest. I vote the latter.

I do however, have one reminder on the topic. Smokies can take advantage of the Tobacco Frequent Smoker program and get their own ventilation kit. It's called an oxygen tank. As an added bonus, sign up now and you may be eligible for a complimentary tracheotomy.

Re. the contention that the ventilation topic "brought this blog to a standstill": let's check it out.

In the time since I brought the topic up (one week ago, January 26, post #922 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=10701&postcount=922)), there have been 56 posts. The average number of posts-per-week on this blog is 31.5. (I.e., the blog was started on July 1 and it's gotten 978 total responses). So the blog obviously hasn't come to any kind of standstill; it has actually exceeded its average by nearly 50%. As for the topic itself, Gomez, Matt, and WeGotTheNormals all voiced strong opinions, and then even you & Breather & Smokie felt compelled to express your impassioned apathy (not just once, but 2 or 3 times each. I must admit, when even "disinterest" makes such a valiant bid for my attention, I'm a little flattered).

I do have to ask you though, Ballardguy, would you really have a problem with this blog coming to a standstill? Isn't that what you wanted? If not, what did you mean when you said "Shut up ... Idiots." and "End of story." (post #844 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=10438&postcount=844)), and more recently, when you urged that discourse be replaced by "smokie sob stories" (posts 951 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=10937&postcount=951), 955 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=10946&postcount=955), & 969 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=11012&postcount=969))?

Speaking of which, that repeated request has generated how many responses? Fraid your "words like silent raindrops fell" with that one, eh? But hey, keep trying.

Ballardguy

February 2nd, 2006, 07:11 PM

Re. the contention that the ventilation topic "brought this blog to a standstill": let's check it out.

In the time since I brought the topic up (one week ago, January 26, post #922 (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=10701&postcount=922)), there have been 56 posts.

Uhmmm...I don't think 56 posts were in response to your ventilation theory Melle. I find very little, if any mention of it. As your logic goes... I could take the credit for those 56 posts just by saying it was in response to smoking suits. My comment was in response to this morning - 1 follow up to your "discussion" post in 6 hours, from Matt. Anyways, if it makes you feel better, go for it - take the credit. I won't even go into detail about your #844 comments, Melle - too easy.

I really do this in fun - if offense was taken, I do apologize. For all the postering going on around here (I am as guilty as anyone), there doesn't seem to be a point to this blog - smokies go on about vague "scientific" benefits of smoking, and non-smokers go on about "we won - you lost". I agree with Smalan - keep it good natured and focus on the real goal here- 1,000 posts and a party at the Thunderbird.

BTW - it may surprise you to know...I'm a smokie :). I just don't think it is right to share my bad habit with others, directly or indirectly.

Melle

February 2nd, 2006, 07:21 PM

Uhmmm...I don't think 56 posts were in response to your ventilation theory Melle. I find very little, if any mention of it.

It doesn't matter. The question is whether my post "brought the blog to a standstill," as you contended.

As your logic goes... I could take the credit for those 56 posts just by saying it was in response to smoking suits.

If someone accused you of bringing the blog to a standstill, pointing out those 56 posts would not mean you're taking credit for them ... it would just mean you're saying the blog isn't at a standstill. You'd be right.

My comment was in response to this morning - 1 follow up to your "discussion" post in 6 hours, from Matt. Anyways, if it makes you feel better, go for it - take the credit. I won't even go into detail about your #844 comments, Melle - too easy.

I really do this in fun - if offense was taken, I do apologize. For all the postering going on around here (I am as guilty as anyone), there doesn't seem to be a point to this blog - smokies go on about vague "scientific" benefits of smoking, and non-smokers go on about "we won - you lost". I agree with Smalan - keep it good natured and focus on the real goal here- 1,000 posts and a party at the Thunderbird.

BTW - it may surprise you to know...I'm a smokie :). I just don't think it is right to share my bad habit with others, directly or indirectly.

You're a self-loathing smoker! Judas!

Ballardguy

February 2nd, 2006, 07:48 PM

If someone accused you of bringing the blog to a standstill, pointing out those 56 posts would not mean you're taking credit for them ... it would just mean you're saying the blog isn't at a standstill. You'd be right.

You're a self-loathing smoker! Judas!

Two words ring true here...circular logic.

Ooops! I'm not a smoker (are you kidding me??). Never have been. It was just fun to post that I was.

Melle

February 2nd, 2006, 08:43 PM

Two words ring true here...circular logic.

Oh please. You said I brought the blog to a standstill & I didn't. There's nothing circular about it.

Smalan Ithee

February 2nd, 2006, 11:21 PM

I really do this in fun - if offense was taken, I do apologize. For all the postering going on around here (I am as guilty as anyone), there doesn't seem to be a point to this blog - smokies go on about vague "scientific" benefits of smoking, and non-smokers go on about "we won - you lost".This board has been a site for many insightful, informative posts, some intense disagreements, and odder still, some compromises. I know that whole compromise thing, though pleasant when it occurs, flies in the face of an unspoken point of message boards -there has to be a good argument going to keep it interesting. Kind of like when folks watch NASCAR - they're just sitting through the laps to get to the crashes. However, it can be really hard to see/read sarcasm and good-natured ribbing when you're dealing with a text-only form of communication. And I hate using those damn smileys, but sometimes that's the only way of indicating "I'm not serious, I'm just fucking with you in a friendly way".
I agree with Smalan - keep it good natured and focus on the real goal here- 1,000 posts and a party at the Thunderbird.
WHAAAA? Ballardguy agrees with Smalan? Oh, man, this is weird - my butt feels really odd right now. I think some monkeys just flew out of it. We should agree more often.

Melle

February 3rd, 2006, 07:36 AM

This board has been a site for many insightful, informative posts, some intense disagreements, and odder still, some compromises. I know that whole compromise thing, though pleasant when it occurs, flies in the face of an unspoken point of message boards -there has to be a good argument going to keep it interesting. Kind of like when folks watch NASCAR - they're just sitting through the laps to get to the crashes. However, it can be really hard to see/read sarcasm and good-natured ribbing when you're dealing with a text-only form of communication. And I hate using those damn smileys, but sometimes that's the only way of indicating "I'm not serious, I'm just fucking with you in a friendly way".

WHAAAA? Ballardguy agrees with Smalan? Oh, man, this is weird - my butt feels really odd right now. I think some monkeys just flew out of it. We should agree more often.

*sniff* I'm touched. So when's the wedding?

Smalan Ithee

February 3rd, 2006, 07:58 AM

*sniff* I'm touched. So when's the wedding?

Oh, Melle, you know I could never marry a non-smokie. And no self-respecting (or self-loathing) no-smokie would ever marry a dirty, nasty, stinky smokie like me. Besides - there wouldn't be room for an extra person in his mom's basement anyway. <damn smiley here>

Smalan Ithee

February 3rd, 2006, 01:47 PM

Well, apparently spreading the love instead of fighting can bring the board to a screeching halt. Oops. In an effort to get closer to post 1000, just wanted to mention the episode of "Penn & Teller Bullsh!t" on secondhand smoke (1st season, 2003) will be airing on Showtime next Thursday night. If you want to see it before then, it's on DVD as well.

We now return you to your regular programming.

Shady_B_206

February 3rd, 2006, 02:04 PM

almost there.....almost there.....

Melle

February 3rd, 2006, 04:07 PM

Matt

February 3rd, 2006, 07:32 PM

In an effort to get closer to post 1000, just wanted to mention the episode of "Penn & Teller Bullsh!t" on secondhand smoke (1st season, 2003) will be airing on Showtime next Thursday night.I love P&T but they were overzealous with the secondhand smoke issue. It has been determined that some of their claims in that episode were false. See:

http://home.houston.rr.com/skeptical/arc20030401.html
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html#retraction
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter50.html

Thus we all should continue to understand that secondhand smoke is indeed a carcinogen and that smoking bans are necessary.

Smalan Ithee

February 3rd, 2006, 08:49 PM

I love P&T but they were overzealous with the secondhand smoke issue. It has been determined that some of their claims in that episode were false. See:

http://home.houston.rr.com/skeptical/arc20030401.html
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html#retraction
http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter50.html
I haven't seen this episode before, so I'll check out the websites after viewing the showThus we all should continue to understand that secondhand smoke is indeed a carcinogen and that smoking bans are necessary.
Not going to argue with you on the last statement. Trying to stay with the peace and love. Of course that could be the medicine talking, which btw has not curbed my desire to smoke as my doctor claimed it would. Still hoping it will eventually.

Ballardguy

February 3rd, 2006, 09:24 PM

Besides - there wouldn't be room for an extra person in his mom's basement anyway. <damn smiley here>

I'll have you know there is plenty of room in my mom's basement, thank you very much.

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:33 PM

Smokie's back

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:34 PM

Smokie's back

For all of you who wanted to reach the 1000 mark...

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:34 PM

For all of you who wanted to reach the 1000 mark...

Too bad for you

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:34 PM

Too bad for you

Smokies revenge!!!

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:35 PM

Smokies revenge!!!

I'm going for itl

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:35 PM

I'm going for itl

So you can all kiss my ass

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:36 PM

I'm going for itl

Only one left

Smokie

February 3rd, 2006, 09:36 PM

Only one left

1000 is mine, you crackers.

maggie2

February 3rd, 2006, 10:03 PM

You bitch................

Smalan Ithee

February 3rd, 2006, 11:52 PM

I'll have you know there is plenty of room in my mom's basement, thank you very much.

Well there may be room, but it could never happen unless her curio full of Hummel and Precious Moments figurines goes. Oh, and say goodbye to your informal weekly Halo circle-jerk (or "tournament" as you call it). And the posters of Farrah Fawcett in the red bathing suit.

So is it a coincidence that Ballardguy, Smokie, and maggie2 all show up on the board at the same time? Just wondering. And congrats to the alleged "Smokie" for #1000.

Gomezticator

February 4th, 2006, 12:33 AM

I don't think spamming a thread should count. I mean, techically at the moment it does, but I'd guess that once the webmaster comes in on Monday several of those posts get wiped.

Even with that this thread probably passes 1000 without a problem. I'll admit I don't really mind that this thread continues like a fire in a room full of methane and simply won't die. If people want to jump in and discuss the issue, I say great. I've said my piece a few dozen times and I think most are clear on where I stand. Make new points or ask me any questions and I'll chime in, but otherwise, have at it!

Smalan Ithee

February 4th, 2006, 01:14 AM

Make new points or ask me any questions and I'll chime in, but otherwise, have at it!

I'm not sure if this counts as on-topic, so forgive me if it's not, but here goes. Let's pretend there's a business owner in Seattle. Said owner is a smoker, but goes outside, along with everyone else, to smoke. Let's pretend said owner goes to the private office and smokes some weed. People in the building are aware of this due to the sucky ventilation. If one were inclined to narc on said owner, which I in no way condone (and yes, I'm serious), would one call the health dept. or the police? And does the fact that it's weed and not those dirty, dirty, nasty legal cigarettes make any difference? I ask this in part because, according the an article here in The Stranger, "The measure (Seattle's I-75) mandated that arrests of adult marijuana users would become the lowest priority for law enforcement agencies in the city". If you were a betting man/woman, which would be the lower priority for law enforcement - handing out tickets for a 901 violation or arrests of adult marijuana users? Just a hypothetical.

Matt

February 4th, 2006, 09:14 AM

I don't think spamming a thread should count.I absolutely agree with Gomezticator. If we remove the intentional and shameful spamming, this post right here is actually the 1000th post. So congrats to me!

Here's the substance of said post: I just realized that this will be the first smokefree Super Bowl in WA. Boy, that's gotta suck for the smokIEs!

Also, we're coming up on the two-month anniversary of the enforcement of 901. Everything is going well. Compliance is 98% or better.

I think, in the end, we can all agree on one thing: 901 was a good idea.

Melle

February 4th, 2006, 10:03 AM

I think, in the end, we can all agree on one thing: 901 was a good idea.

??? If that were true (i.e., that we can all agree), this blog would not exist.

Melle

February 4th, 2006, 10:13 AM

So is it a coincidence that Ballardguy, Smokie, and maggie2 all show up on the board at the same time?

Naw, Maggie's OK, I think she's definitely a real person. A little too much espresso, maybe, but IMO she's OK.

Ballardguy

February 4th, 2006, 03:58 PM

Well there may be room, but it could never happen unless her curio full of Hummel and Precious Moments figurines goes. Oh, and say goodbye to your informal weekly Halo circle-jerk (or "tournament" as you call it). And the posters of Farrah Fawcett in the red bathing suit.

So is it a coincidence that Ballardguy, Smokie, and maggie2 all show up on the board at the same time? Just wondering. And congrats to the alleged "Smokie" for #1000.

Christ....another conspiracy nut. Join Melle in the X-Files marathons.

The patches must be getting to you, as you are turning into a crank, and quite frankly, a real ass. As far as your basement/circle jerk comments....sheesh. Is that the best you can do??

Feel better?

Ballardguy

February 4th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Smalan Ithee

February 4th, 2006, 04:56 PM

Christ....another conspiracy nut. No, it's not "conspiracy nut" - it's "skeptical investigator", and I'm neither. Just thought it was odd that three users, two of whom rarely post anymore, all just happened to be on the board at once on a Friday night, posting within minutes of each other. I asked if it was a coincidence. Apparently it was.

The patches must be getting to you, as you are turning into a crank, and quite frankly, a real ass. As far as your basement/circle jerk comments....sheesh. Is that the best you can do??I haven't started on the patch yet - that's tomorrow, and I'm not feeling cranky at all. That was just me attempting to joke around, and yeah, that's about the best I can do. Remember - I'm a lover, not a fighter (and obviously not a comic).Feel better?Eh, not so much.
Carry on!

Smalan Ithee

February 4th, 2006, 05:15 PM

??? If that were true (i.e., that we can all agree), this blog would not exist. Yep. Not to go all Forrest Gump, but My mom always said a difference of opinion makes a good horse race.

And no, obviously we cannot all agree 901 was a good idea. I'll agree that the majority of 901 (the parts unchanged from the previous RCW and some of the new indoor provisions) is good.

Melle

February 5th, 2006, 09:26 AM

Christ....another conspiracy nut. Join Melle in the X-Files marathons.

Yeah, Smalan, join me out on the lunatic fringe. Because nothing could be crazier than suggesting an anonymous blogger isn't what he pretends to be. Who ever heard of such a thing?! Oh, and of course, I'm the first & only one ever to have suggested it (none of Ballardguy's nonsmoking allies ever insisted, obsessively and repeatedly, that anyone was an agent of the Big Bad Tobacco Industry or anything ... nor did they keep it up for months ... right?), and it's so implausible, as far out as saying the moon landing was fake, or Bruce Lee & Princess Di are currently alive & fighting the Russian Mafia undercover..

But be aware of the pain, Smalan, cause this is no picnic, lemme tell ya. It hurts to be ostracized by a self-important windbag who no one likes except Smokie. And he will make you feel your exclusion as sharply as possible, with his not-witty barbs and constant references to your outsider status; and if, like me, you always sought the approval of Protestant Sunday-school teacher types anyway, rejection from program "Ballardguy" will really make you give 2 shits. REALLY. Count the cost, Smalan. You're flirting with excommunication from a vast and universal church---a church with 2, maybe 3 members---count the cost.

Ballardguy

February 5th, 2006, 10:34 AM

Yeah, Smalan, join me out on the lunatic fringe. Because nothing could be crazier than suggesting an anonymous blogger isn't what he pretends to be. Who ever heard of such a thing?! Oh, and of course, I'm the first & only one ever to have suggested it (none of Ballardguy's nonsmoking allies ever insisted, obsessively and repeatedly, that anyone was an agent of the Big Bad Tobacco Industry or anything ... nor did they keep it up for months ... right?), and it's so implausible, as far out as saying the moon landing was fake, or Bruce Lee & Princess Di are currently alive & fighting the Russian Mafia undercover..

But be aware of the pain, Smalan, cause this is no picnic, lemme tell ya. It hurts to be ostracized by a self-important windbag who no one likes except Smokie. And he will make you feel your exclusion as sharply as possible, with his not-witty barbs and constant references to your outsider status; and if, like me, you always sought the approval of Protestant Sunday-school teacher types anyway, rejection from program "Ballardguy" will really make you give 2 shits. REALLY. Count the cost, Smalan. You're flirting with excommunication from a vast and universal church---a church with 2, maybe 3 members---count the cost.

You lost. No more smoking.

Melle

February 5th, 2006, 12:11 PM

You lost. No more smoking.

BURN.

Oh, mercy, Ballardguy. Mercy!!!

gnossos

February 5th, 2006, 08:30 PM

Also, we're coming up on the two-month anniversary of the enforcement of 901. Everything is going well. Compliance is 98% or better.

I think, in the end, we can all agree on one thing: 901 was a good idea.

Said Tonto to the Lone Ranger: "what do you mean 'we' whiteman?"

Where do you get the 98% compliance figure? Does Roger Valdez come over and whisper sweet nothings in your ear? I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I'd like to know what it's based on.

Just curious how many 901 proponents here have suddenly become new regulars at the Comet, Blue Moon, Buckaroo, Tin Hat, Canterbury, Linda's, Mecca or any of the other notorious smoke dives. Certainly, not much of the general public has. On any given evening recently the majority of folks in several of these places are still smokers. And as I noted in a previous post, some bars are finding ways to co-exist (private smoking rooms in back anyone? smoking when non-regulars leave?).

Litter has already been identified as one unintended consequence of the ban.

I can come up with at least three more.

1. For bartenders: extra vigilance to make sure smokers don't walk outside with booze in hand. Liquor control regards this as a serious no-no.

2. Negative for pot-smokers: no longer do cig smokers provide you guys cover at larger events.

3. Positive for pot smokers: used to be obvious when folks would go outside to smoke pot...they'd leave their drinks behind and go out in a groups and come back five minutes later. Plus they'd have to be discreet when outside -- thus totally calling attention to themselves. Now know one can tell the dopers from regular smokies...and there's no reason to hide. As long as you're smoking a joint and hold it like a cig the cops will pass right on by. I was describing just this scenario a couple of nights ago when a cop drove by; the pot smoker next to me just took another drag and waved.

Ballardguy

February 5th, 2006, 09:40 PM

BURN.

Oh, mercy, Ballardguy. Mercy!!!

bored - you lost.

Ballardguy

February 5th, 2006, 09:41 PM

Said Tonto to the Lone Ranger: "what do you mean 'we' whiteman?"

Where do you get the 98% compliance figure? Does Roger Valdez come over and whisper sweet nothings in your ear? I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I'd like to know what it's based on.

Just curious how many 901 proponents here have suddenly become new regulars at the Comet, Blue Moon, Buckaroo, Tin Hat, Canterbury, Linda's, Mecca or any of the other notorious smoke dives. Certainly, not much of the general public has. On any given evening recently the majority of folks in several of these places are still smokers. And as I noted in a previous post, some bars are finding ways to co-exist (private smoking rooms in back anyone? smoking when non-regulars leave?).

Litter has already been identified as one unintended consequence of the ban.

I can come up with at least three more.

1. For bartenders: extra vigilance to make sure smokers don't walk outside with booze in hand. Liquor control regards this as a serious no-no.

2. Negative for pot-smokers: no longer do cig smokers provide you guys cover at larger events.

3. Positive for pot smokers: used to be obvious when folks would go outside to smoke pot...they'd leave their drinks behind and go out in a groups and come back five minutes later. Plus they'd have to be discreet when outside -- thus totally calling attention to themselves. Now know one can tell the dopers from regular smokies...and there's no reason to hide. As long as you're smoking a joint and hold it like a cig the cops will pass right on by. I was describing just this scenario a couple of nights ago when a cop drove by; the pot smoker next to me just took another drag and waved.

bored - you lost.

Shady_B_206

February 6th, 2006, 11:44 AM

1000 is mine, you crackers.
IMHO Maggie2 got it. It was the 1000 post, but she got the 1000th reply. I say Maggie2 owns 1k.

BridgeTroll

February 6th, 2006, 12:05 PM

Matt

February 6th, 2006, 12:39 PM

Where do you get the 98% compliance figure? Does Roger Valdez come over and whisper sweet nothings in your ear? I'm not necessarily doubting it, but I'd like to know what it's based on.Seattle Times, Dec 23:
"We are getting about what we expected — 95 [percent] to 99 percent compliance," said Roger Valdez, tobacco prevention program manager for Public Health — Seattle & King County.

Seattle Times, Jan 21:
But compliance with the law has been so overwhelming that it seems few such actions, if any, will be needed, [Valdez] said.

Just curious how many 901 proponents here have suddenly become new regulars at the Comet, Blue Moon, Buckaroo, Tin Hat, Canterbury, Linda's, Mecca or any of the other notorious smoke dives.Irrelevant. The goal of 901 wasn't to keep former smoke dives in business. It was to protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke. Goal accomplished.

Shady_B_206

February 6th, 2006, 01:00 PM

It was to protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke. Goal accomplished.

Because we know they are to stupid to protect themselves.

Smalan Ithee

February 6th, 2006, 02:13 PM

It will be denied….but I suspect Melle and Smalan are actually the same person.
It will be denied because it's not true. Nice try, though. Especially from someone who is not afraid to include "troll" in his/her screen name. At least you're honest! And BTW Melle's taken a lot of shit on this board as well. Works both ways.

What are you doing Melle, Smalan, Gnossos and all other smokies, outside of spouting off like a bad-tempered infants?Well, considering I'm not a lawyer nor a business owner, I'm not sure exactly what you expected me, or any of the other people you mentioned, to do. You're right, 901 did pass. Got it. And If you'd bother to read any of my posts, you'd see over and over that my opinion is 901 is a poorly written initiative, and those usually wind up in court. No, I'm not going to pull a Tim Eyman and spend my valuable time raising money and collecting signatures - some of us actually have a job instead of living off of what we've skimmed off the top of "donations". I'll do what I have done so far - watch and wait to see if a lawmaker or business owners take up this issue. Having an initiative to repeal an intiative is ridiculous, and I hope our legislature will continue to attempt a reform of the initative process. But that's neither here nor there. Peace, bridgetroll!

BridgeTroll

February 6th, 2006, 02:36 PM

And BTW Melle's taken a lot of shit on this board as well. Works both ways.

Doesn't really work both ways. She seems to enjoy causing disruptions, especially when confronted with the absurdity of her own arguments.

BridgeTroll

February 6th, 2006, 02:48 PM

Seattle, where we are tolerant of everyone except conservatives. They are uneducated, racist, bigoted assholes. How dare they disagree with us?!?

Nice try. 901 passed in every county in the State of Washington; in most cases by a wide majority. 901 was not a Seattle decision.

Shady_B_206

February 6th, 2006, 02:56 PM

Nice try. 901 passed in every county in the State of Washington; in most cases by a wide majority. 901 was not a Seattle decision.
Excuse me?

That is my signature, it has nothing to do with 901.

Melle

February 6th, 2006, 04:53 PM

Wow, what a bunch of whiners.

Smokers (or smokies) on this site spout off on all kinds of theories, tangents and obscure science about the impact of smoke – anything to not deal with the brutal truth that they can no longer smoke in bars. If challenged to address the outcome of 901, they claim that 901 is bogus, because it addressed worker health. That’s a load of crap – it passed because the majority of the population is fed up with dealing with your smoke.

Melle’s a bully, pseudo intellectual, and really quite an ass. I did not vote for 901, but am very glad now that it passed – if for any other reason to perhaps limit Melle’s time out of his hut and in the bars. Who the hell would want to actually interact with this clown? It will be denied….but I suspect Melle and Smalan are actually the same person.

BallardGuy and Matt can also be viewed as bullies, but not entirely without merit. Both at least interject some humor and also have stood up to some of the Melle’s bullshit claims (here it comes – Melle’s kneejerk “show me the bullshit claims” response).

The funniest part is when the smokies try to cloak this as a “rights” issue….yeah sure…you are all card carrying members of the ACLU. You really don’t give a shit about rights in context to smoking – only that you can no longer puff up in a public establishment. The last post is so absurd that I have to believe it was posted in jest. Mercy! Marijuana smokers and running bartenders. 901 has now resulted in criminal behavior!

Go ahead and take this apart smokies…and post your continued bs. 901 passed. You can no longer smoke in bars again. Too bad. Not only did 901 pass, it passed overwhelmingly – so much so that I doubt smokies can even gather enough initiative signatures to attempt to overturn it. Even if you did, there is no way the voters of this state will vote to do same.

How about it Melle? Are you starting any efforts to repeal 901? Even initiative king Ehman is not taking this one on. Maybe you can start a court challenge….based on…what? Your BS science about second hand smoke? Voter confusion? Your “rights”?

At least a restaurant owner in Bellingham actually looks like he is challenging the initiative. I disagree with him, and don’t think he will be successful; but I give him credit for at least trying to oppose something he disagrees with. What are you doing Melle, Smalan, Gnossos and all other smokies, outside of spouting off like a bad-tempered infants?

First of all, my biggest question right now is: if "spouting off like bad-tempered infants" (as you call it) is futile, why does it provoke such a strong reaction from people like you? The ban passed; smoking in bars is illegal; you won---I can't see why you're so freaked out by a few people with modems and some time to kill.

Second, as for me being a "bully," that's pretty funny coming from a poster who's attacked someone in all of his posts thus far, targeting me in all but one. I have nowhere near that kind of 1.000 average, let alone .889 against a single person. Bullies pick fights, right? I don't do that---that's what you did when you strapped on your six-guns and registered---but if you give me trouble I'll give it back (and I admit, it is a kick to watch you & your buddies cry "foul" every time that happens).

Third, no I'm not taking any efforts to repeal 901. I'm a Seattle native but I haven't lived in Washington for over a decade. However, I find the subject interesting and I find the dynamics of this blog interesting, which I guess is mainly why I post here.

Fourth, I don't know what you mean by the "challenge" to "address the outcome of 901." Speaking for myself, it's not clear where the challenge is, and the question doesn't particularly interest me.

Fifth, show me the bullshit.

Smalan Ithee

February 6th, 2006, 07:58 PM

Doesn't really work both ways. She seems to enjoy causing disruptions, especially when confronted with the absurdity of her own arguments.
I won't get into a Pee Wee Herman vs. Francis argument - "Nuh-uh, no way, cut it out, make me". It is my opinion that Melle has taken the brunt of insults and condescension on this forum. If you have time to tally the score, be my guest.
Irrelevant. The goal of 901 wasn't to keep former smoke dives in business. It was to protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke. Goal accomplished.I respectfully disagree that the question is irrelevant. The goal of 901 may have been what you say, but the question gnossos asked is most certainly legitimate. One of the possible ramifications of 901's passage was that some businesses may go tits up if the smokers' business isn't replaced with new customers. Specifically, a bar that was previously a "smoker's den" (in most cases, by the choice of the owners and employees) or a cigar store/lounge may experience a downturn in business or go out of business altogether. I think the point gnosssos was trying to make (and please correct me if I'm wrong, gnossos) concerns the "replacement business" or, in some cases, lack thereof. It's conceivable that someone who didn't visit any of the bars gnossos mentioned before 901 may still not be visiting those businesses. Part of the sell job by the sponsors of 901 was that proprietors didn't have to worry about losing business - there would always be more. If 901 supporters are still patronizing the same non-smoking joints they did before the initiative passed, and let's assume for the sake of this argument that the owners, employees and patrons of a "smoker's den" or tobacco store are smokers themselves, then what was the point of not including exemptions for tobacco stores/lounges, outdoor smoking areas, etc.? It's just a question and not meant to pick a fight, so let's keep in clean.

gnossos

February 6th, 2006, 08:58 PM

.
I respectfully disagree that the question is irrelevant. The goal of 901 may have been what you say, but the question gnossos asked is most certainly legitimate. One of the possible ramifications of 901's passage was that some businesses may go tits up if the smokers' business isn't replaced with new customers. Specifically, a bar that was previously a "smoker's den" (in most cases, by the choice of the owners and employees) or a cigar store/lounge may experience a downturn in business or go out of business altogether. I think the point gnosssos was trying to make (and please correct me if I'm wrong, gnossos) concerns the "replacement business" or, in some cases, lack thereof. It's conceivable that someone who didn't visit any of the bars gnossos mentioned before 901 may still not be visiting those businesses. Part of the sell job by the sponsors of 901 was that proprietors didn't have to worry about losing business - there would always be more. If 901 supporters are still patronizing the same non-smoking joints they did before the initiative passed, and let's assume for the sake of this argument that the owners, employees and patrons of a "smoker's den" or tobacco store are smokers themselves, then what was the point of not including exemptions for tobacco stores/lounges, outdoor smoking areas, etc.? It's just a question and not meant to pick a fight, so let's keep in clean.

Sorry Matt, you're not the one who gets to decide what's relevant.

Smalan has largely answered for me on this one.

Proponents of the ban argued (successfully) that it would not hurt business and cited evidence from other areas. What they didn't cite (and I don't think they can for most areas) was whether certain businesses gained, while others lost (keeping the average the same or even increasing it). This may be irrelevant to you, but is hardly irrelevant to businesses that might suffer or not gain.

Opponents argued (unsuccessfully), that non-smokers already had plenty of options and were unlikely to be patrons of the dives.

In my own experience, many of those in favor of the ban were a bunch of sandal wearing, granola munching, killjoys who wouldn't be caught dead in most of the places I mentioned. Not just because of the smoke, but beacuse the light is too dim to read by, or the music blares so loud that it causes hearing loss, or because the patrons are scurvy unwashed creatures who swear a lot. None of that has changed.

As Shady pointed out, the underlying paternalism of this bill was that people were too stupid to figure out how to protect themsleves.

Cantiloper

February 6th, 2006, 11:11 PM

The problem is that ventilation systems, as I discussed in post 323, are ineffective....

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7535/227

Wow. The word that's coming to mind to describe this turn of events is as follows: Busted."

Matt was so kind as to point folks to the BMJ, and I'd like to note that after reading the article there you might also enjoy reading an analysis of that article that the BMJ also accepted for online publication. See:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/elettershttp://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7535/227#127294

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

Matt

February 7th, 2006, 09:40 AM

I wrote that the goal of 901 "was to protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke. Goal accomplished." To which we received this lame response:Because we know they are to [sic] stupid to protect themselves.No, they were *smart* and protected themselves. They signed the 901 petitions and voted for 901. Won in a landslide.

BridgeTroll

February 7th, 2006, 10:07 AM

In my own experience, many of those in favor of the ban were a bunch of sandal wearing, granola munching, killjoys who wouldn't be caught dead in most of the places I mentioned. Not just because of the smoke, but beacuse the light is too dim to read by, or the music blares so loud that it causes hearing loss, or because the patrons are scurvy unwashed creatures who swear a lot. None of that has changed.

Must be alot of sandals out there. It passed in every county in the State...on average by a 2 to 1 majority.

Melle seems to think that any response to her posts is affirmation, or as she puts it - "strong reaction". Not going to bother.

BridgeTroll

February 7th, 2006, 11:03 AM

If 901 supporters are still patronizing the same non-smoking joints they did before the initiative passed, and let's assume for the sake of this argument that the owners, employees and patrons of a "smoker's den" or tobacco store are smokers themselves, then what was the point of not including exemptions for tobacco stores/lounges, outdoor smoking areas, etc.? It's just a question and not meant to pick a fight, so let's keep in clean.

Is that what this comes to? An assumption that non-smokers have always had special non-smoking places, and they continue only to patronize same? And that establishments that allowed smoking only had smokers as patrons? Please. Isn't that a little bit simplistic?

As far as keeping it clean, I find it ironic that the peaceman here is the same one who went off on a halo/circle jerk commentary.

Smalan Ithee

February 7th, 2006, 11:42 AM

Is that what this comes to? An assumption that non-smokers have always had special non-smoking places, and they continue only to patronize same? And that establishments that allowed smoking only had smokers as patrons? Please. Isn't that a little bit simplistic?There is no assumption that "non-smokers have always had special non-smoking places". It is fact, however, that more and more businesses in Seattle were choosing to go non-smoking before 901 passed. The question gnossos posed had everything to do with whether or not people in general, and specifically people who post on this board, were now visiting the places that had previously been off-limits to a generic non-smoker because that establishment was known as a "smoker's den". I did not say that "establishments that allowed smoking only had smokers as patrons". However, some establishments were previously known as a place to smoke and drink by the owners' choice, and most patrons of said establishment knew that going in. I did not say this is true for EVERY establishment, I said it in reference to the businesses noted by gnossos.
As far as keeping it clean, I find it ironic that the peaceman here is the same one who went off on a halo/circle jerk commentary. I will take this comment to mean that either you 1) didn't read the entire exchange in which I was attempting to engage in good-natured ribbing, or 2) can't read sarcasm in a post (which I previously noted was difficult to read in a text-only form of communication). The halo/circle-jerk thing was a joke, which I've already covered, and came after some give and take of poking fun between me, Ballardguy, and Melle. Apparently, those comments were seen as hitting below the belt or out of line - I don't know. What I do know is my intent was to continue a conversation that, for me, consisted of innocent jabs without malice. If you read it as anything different than that, well, not sure what to do about that short of including a disclaimer like I did the first time in post # 967- "And please don't construe this post as anything more than good-natured ribbing. Hard to see when it's text only, but that's all it is here." So yes, I stand by "let's try to keep it clean".

BridgeTroll

February 7th, 2006, 12:08 PM

The question gnossos posed had everything to do with whether or not people in general, and specifically people who post on this board, were now visiting the places that had previously been off-limits to a generic non-smoker because that establishment was known as a "smoker's den". I did not say that "establishments that allowed smoking only had smokers as patrons".

As a generic non-smoker, I can tell you that I have been visiting more establishments. I know not of these "dens" being referred to (was there a sign on the entrance?), or if any establishments visited qualify as same. An example was the Superbowl. In the past, I was more inclined not to visit bars for this (and dive bars are my favorite)- the idea of 4 hours in a smoke filled room was not appealing. The establishment benefited from 4 of us with a $100+ bar and food tab. It was the Superbowl of course, but they did not seem to be hurting for business.

Smalan Ithee

February 7th, 2006, 12:30 PM

As a generic non-smoker, I can tell you that I have been visiting more establishments. This is very useful information and, I wouldn't swear to it, but I think the kind of feedback that the person who originally posed the question was/is looking for.I know not of these "dens" being referred to (was there a sign on the entrance?), or if any establishments visited qualify as same. No signs on the entrance. Smokers or ex-smokers generally know what are, or were, the smoke-friendly places. That's all. You mentioned dives are your favorite, so if you're now visiting dives that you previously did not patronize, in my mind, you've answered the question that was originally asked. And I'm not being a smart-ass when I say thanks for the feedback.

Ballardguy

February 7th, 2006, 12:39 PM

This is very useful information and, I wouldn't swear to it, but I think the kind of feedback that the person who originally posed the question was/is looking for.No signs on the entrance. Smokers or ex-smokers generally know what are, or were, the smoke-friendly places. That's all. You mentioned dives are your favorite, so if you're now visiting dives that you previously did not patronize, in my mind, you've answered the question that was originally asked. And I'm not being a smart-ass when I say thanks for the feedback.

It is probably safe to assume that non-smokers are continuing to patronize or increasing patronage. What about the smokies? Are you no longer visiting your favorite haunts because of the smoking ban?

Melle

February 7th, 2006, 12:41 PM

She seems to enjoy causing disruptions, especially when confronted with the absurdity of her own arguments.

...

Melle seems to think that any response to her posts is affirmation, or as she puts it - "strong reaction". Not going to bother.

As far as I know, there are 2 contexts in which a male refers to another male as "she": (1) They are both very young kids & one is teasing the other, or (2) They are both gay.

It's mildly interesting that BridgeTroll is suggesting either of those things about himself and me, but I fail to see the point.

Smalan Ithee

February 7th, 2006, 01:42 PM

It is probably safe to assume that non-smokers are continuing to patronize or increasing patronage. Not really safe to assume when the assumption pertains to the question gnossos asked. An example: Let's say a non-smoker/supporter of 901 was a loyal customer of Bar A before 901. Let's pretend, for the sake of this example, that Bar A was non-smoking or very few patrons smoked pre-901. Then there's Bar B, which previously was known among smokers as a safe, albeit husky-voiced, haven for the smoking crowd (which included the owners). Bar B was a smoke-filled dive and that's the way the owners and patrons liked it. Do you (and that's a collective "you") still go to Bar A, but you go out more often because there's zero smoking compared to very little smoking? Or do you now split your time between Bar A and Bar B since they both are non-smoking?What about the smokies? Are you no longer visiting your favorite haunts because of the smoking ban?This was brought up on another thread, I think the "what bars are ignoring the ban" one. In general, I have become more selective about where and when I go out. I still visit most of the same places as before 901 to support friends in bands, DJ friends, etc., but the frequency has decreased. I'll admit I have a hard time not smoking when I drink. If I had to go outside a bar to smoke, I figured it was cheaper to do it on my porch, and I could still keep my drink in hand.

Ballardguy

February 7th, 2006, 02:54 PM

As far as I know, there are 2 contexts in which a male refers to another male as "she": (1) They are both very young kids & one is teasing the other, or (2) They are both gay.

It's mildly interesting that BridgeTroll is suggesting either of those things about himself and me, but I fail to see the point.

He may have just assumed you were a woman. Who knows.....

How does anyone know that Bridgetroll is a man?

Ballardguy

February 7th, 2006, 03:02 PM

Not really safe to assume when the assumption pertains to the question gnossos asked. An example: Let's say a non-smoker/supporter of 901 was a loyal customer of Bar A before 901. Let's pretend, for the sake of this example, that Bar A was non-smoking or very few patrons smoked pre-901. Then there's Bar B, which previously was known among smokers as a safe, albeit husky-voiced, haven for the smoking crowd (which included the owners). Bar B was a smoke-filled dive and that's the way the owners and patrons liked it. Do you (and that's a collective "you") still go to Bar A, but you go out more often because there's zero smoking compared to very little smoking? Or do you now split your time between Bar A and Bar B since they both are non-smoking?

I don't know if you can break down this question to a bar by bar situation. Probably too micro and too many variables involved. We can start pulling out studies, reports, etc.... but I don't have the energy for that, or the inevitable "yeah but" issues that come out of all that. On a more macro level, if non-smokers continues to go out to bars at the same or slightly higher level than before, and smokers stay relatively stable, than there should be no overall impact to business. Might a few smoking bars go out of business? Sure. But some others may also see a significant increase in business.

There - I said it. Let the carnage begin. :).

Melle

February 7th, 2006, 03:50 PM

He may have just assumed you were a woman. Who knows.....

BridgeTroll, 1/23: "I'm just a simple bridgetroll, but even I can see the inconsistencies in Melle's 'arguments'. He doesn't appear to have any relevant point to make....just alot of noise."

BridgeTroll, 1/24: "That's all I want from Melle....what is his point? All his previous posting seem to be filled with questions or comments that seem only to 'cloud' the issue ... What is he trying to say?"

It's obvious what BridgeTroll "assumed." Of course, I doubt he had to assume anything: there are references to me as he and him all over this blog.

How does anyone know that Bridgetroll is a man?

Who hasn't seen the Fremont Troll? The beard gives it away.

Smalan Ithee

February 7th, 2006, 06:10 PM

I don't know if you can break down this question to a bar by bar situation. Probably too micro and too many variables involved. We can start pulling out studies, reports, etc.... but I don't have the energy for that, or the inevitable "yeah but" issues that come out of all that.You may be right, since everyone posting here may not live in Seattle, which is where all the bars gnossos mentioned are. However I think it's a little more general than bar by bar. Most towns have the equivalent of a traditionally non-smoking bar or bars, and then there are the dives where the sole purpose is/was to pickle your liver and pollute your lungs. I think it's more of a straw poll here - Is it your experience that you visit the pre 901 non-smoking establishments or the pre-901 liver-pickler-lung-polluter joints? That's all.

Matt

February 12th, 2006, 01:16 PM

I've decided that this will be the last post on this thread. I'm honored to have been selected for this occasion.

This has been a great thread. I want to thank my fellow pro-clean-air posters, especially the eloquent Maggie, the wise JohnR, the cogent segal, the witty godfree, and others who shall remain unnmentioned. The pro-901 forces made excellent arguments and won the day. True, there wasn't much competition, but it's hard to be in favor of dirty air and sound intelligent.

In the end, 901 was a very well written law and compliance has been above 95%. Even smokers have come to realize the wisdom of the initiative: Cancer-causing secondhand smoke does not belong in workplaces or any public place.

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

Up next: Indoor smoking bans in all 50 states. (I estimate that this will occur by 2020.) Also we'll start working on smokefree parks and sidewalks, which has occurred already in some progressive locales.

The future is looking bright. There's nothing like fresh air!!!

Thanks.

Melle

February 12th, 2006, 01:48 PM

Fuzed

February 12th, 2006, 02:40 PM

I so want to stay out of this but Matt makes it so easy to want to post due to his delusions.

Compliance of 901 in Seattle, indoors, is better than I though. Not 95%, but I would say at the bars I went go to about 1 in 6 are not complying, with the INDOOR part of the ban. With the 25' rule, I have seen 100% non-compliance, having yet to see it enforced anywhere. Outside every bar and restaurant I have been to since 901 passed, people are smoking within 25' of the doorway, in fact I would say within 5' of the doorway usually. Outdoor patios have become smoking lounges where customers can still drink and smoke.

So if you are looking at the whole of 901, non-compliance would be near 0%. If you are just looking at indoor smoking, it is of course much higher, though I think 95% is a large exageration, at least at the bars I go to.

One thing for sure, is that bars with happy hours are seeing a huge decrease in business, some over 50%. The promised rise in business is so far vapor.

So if the goal of the 901 people was to hurt workers and business owners, they have been successful. Good work.

If they goal was to create a law that would be unenforced, good work.

We'll see what the other results are.

To be fair, one great success of 901 that will make people who don't think deeply about political philosphy, business impact, or workers incomes, is that going inside a bar is much more pleasant than it was before 901.

gnossos

February 13th, 2006, 06:45 PM

breather

February 13th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Fuzed wrote:

Compliance of 901 in Seattle, indoors, is better than I though. Not 95%, but I would say at the bars I went go to about 1 in 6 are not complying, with the INDOOR part of the ban. With the 25' rule, I have seen 100% non-compliance, having yet to see it enforced anywhere. Outside every bar and restaurant I have been to since 901 passed, people are smoking within 25' of the doorway, in fact I would say within 5' of the doorway usually. Outdoor patios have become smoking lounges where customers can still drink and smoke.

We're working on decks, my friend. I've had a few long conversations with the health dep't. and they're going to do some education about patios and decks before the nice weather kicks in. Places like the Red Door, the Ballroom, etc. are going to be talked to. Part of the problem is that a lot of people actually think that it's still legal to smoke on a deck or patio, look for some public service announcements and pr on this topic in the next few months. When they get the talking to that Linda's on Capitol Hill got they'll comply.
My experience is that in N. Seattle, about 99% of bars are complying with the indoor part though a few needed a friendly reminder that they could lose their licenses. I'm going to try to make a S Seattle / Tukwila run this week and see if any budweiser bars need their cages rattled.

Cantiloper

February 13th, 2006, 08:52 PM

Someone (no disrespect, just lost track of the name while logging in to the posting screen) wrote: "My experience is that in N. Seattle, about 99% of bars are complying with the indoor part though a few needed a friendly reminder that they could lose their licenses."

Two interesting points here: one was the earlier, seemingly very honest, who stated about 1 in 6 were not complying (in their experience) and that 100% were not complying with the 25' rule.

The second is that from what I understand of the law, this "loss of license" thing is pretty silly at this point: I believe there would have to be a good number of violations before it came to that, and even after such a number the question is still pretty fuzzy since the law does not specify just what an establishment has to do.

If I wanted to be a hard ass resister I'd let my regulars know the "story" and simply make it a point to always tell any smoking customer I was interacting with that under the law I had to ask them to stop smoking. That action, and the sign on the wall, should then protect me from any legal action, and I could then serve them.

If I wanted to cover my ass a bit more, I could refuse to serve any customer while they were smoking, and maybe even demand a verbal promise that they would not "break the law" again while in my bar. I'd then repeat that process any time they came up for a drink with a cigarette in their hand.

Want more ass-covering? Well, I could refuse to serve ANYONE who I saw smoking. Of course if their friends ordered drinks for them there wouldn't be much I could do.

Still more? I could hang up a sign saying that as soon as I saw anyone smoking I would refuse further service to them or to anyone who bought them a drink. Of course if they bought several drinks beforehand I'd have to let them finish what they'd ordered before they left.

I believe all of the above approaches would put a bar owner on safe legal ground. The parallels the Antis like to draw with drug use and rowdiness are red herrings: drug use is a crime that merits calling the police... smoking while in a bar is not. Rowdiness presents an imminent threat of blood and death: smoking, despite the fantasies of the more neurotic Antis, does not.

The bar ban in Washington will only stand up if the bar owners allow it to. If they do, and if they lose business because of it, it's their own fault and they deserve what they get for not banding together and standing up for their rights as citizens and business owners. The health arguments around secondary smoke exposure are a pile of dung as anyone who's read any of the main links I've posted here has seen (If you're a newbie, try going to:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#123038

and read that response and the ones following it. Then try www.TheTruthIsALie.com for more fun.) and bar owners should print out and distribute that sort of information for their staff and customers.

When people become aware of the basis of lies that the ban is based on, the ban will become, literally, unenforceable and will fall. Despite Matt dancing around in a funny shirt making squeeking noises.

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

DrOctopu5

February 14th, 2006, 03:22 AM

If I wanted to be a hard ass resister I'd let my regulars know the "story" and simply make it a point to always tell any smoking customer I was interacting with that under the law I had to ask them to stop smoking. That action, and the sign on the wall, should then protect me from any legal action, and I could then serve them.

If I wanted to cover my ass a bit more, I could refuse to serve any customer while they were smoking, and maybe even demand a verbal promise that they would not "break the law" again while in my bar. I'd then repeat that process any time they came up for a drink with a cigarette in their hand.

Want more ass-covering? Well, I could refuse to serve ANYONE who I saw smoking. Of course if their friends ordered drinks for them there wouldn't be much I could do.

Still more? I could hang up a sign saying that as soon as I saw anyone smoking I would refuse further service to them or to anyone who bought them a drink. Of course if they bought several drinks beforehand I'd have to let them finish what they'd ordered before they left.

How far down does the rabbit hole go?

DrOctopu5

February 14th, 2006, 03:23 AM

Fuzed wrote:

We're working on decks, my friend.

Ah, the faux nobility of the social engineer. How cute.

Shady_B_206

February 14th, 2006, 10:19 AM

Can we kill this thread already? How is it possible that everything that could be said has not already been said about this topic. With so many issues at hand, why is smoking so important to so many people?

BridgeTroll

February 14th, 2006, 04:36 PM

Cancel your travel plans smokies!

England just implemented a country wide smoking ban in all public places, including pubs (public and private). Ban will take place in summer of 2007.

Scotland has instituted a similar ban, effective this spring.

I don't think there are any big words here....maybe "implemented".

Beth D

February 14th, 2006, 05:53 PM

Breather, Fuzed,

I don't know where you're seeing these big compliance rates with the indoor part of our ban. Cruise Lake City Way in N. Seattle and it's 50% at best. Smokies are doing the dirty deed at the Shanty, The Rimrock, the BackDoor and at the Rose Garden

breather

February 14th, 2006, 06:09 PM

If anyone wants to join me on a weekly pub crawl of different ares to check for compliance then leave me a personal message (click on my name to do so)
Citizen complaints have helped wack a number of places into line including the Buckaroo, the Mecca, 5-Spot, Al's in Wallingford that I know of.

DrOctopu5

February 14th, 2006, 06:20 PM

breather

February 14th, 2006, 06:51 PM

Melle

February 15th, 2006, 08:04 AM

a bunch of radicals who think that we should be able to walk into any business out there and know that the food and drink have been stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions, that the building itself has met codes that ensure we won't fall through the floor, be electrocuted or have the roof come down on our heads, that we won't be denied service based on creed, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation and that we won't be subjected to the many and varied toxins in second hand smoke.

But why do you WANT to walk into a place like the Blue Moon? What's the point? You're not welcome there, you're not wanted there, and of course the feeling is mutual ... live and let live.

(Your comparisons break down as follows, BTW: Negligence in sanitation & construction are (1) very likely to harm you and (2) not identifiable by the mere sight & smell of a place. Prejudicial discrimination is targeted at the despised group; it is not a by-product of some kind of pleasure seeking. If you go into bars where everyone smokes, yet you hate smoke, something is wrong with you & yes, you're a busybody.)

breather

February 15th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Actually Melle I've long been a patron of some really divey, smoky joints, the Blue Moon being one of them. I now get to enjoy them without the harmful and annoying as hell smoke.
And there's nothing wrong with someone who can't stand smoke, though I do find you people amusing as hell in your willingness to inhale that stuff, your willingness to stand in the rain to do so if necessary and your audacity in insisting that you have a right to do it in others presence.

This will brighten your day. The following states are considering smoking bans in bars: Maryland, New Hampshire, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado, Utah and Hawaii. Arizona and Ohio will take it directly to the voters in November.

The plan is to herd you people down into Texas and then begin negotiating with Mexico to take it back.

BridgeTroll

February 15th, 2006, 02:05 PM

Prejudicial discrimination is targeted at the despised group; it is not a by-product of some kind of pleasure seeking.

Sigh. Can we shut up with the discrimination claims? No one cares if you smoke. We just don't want to share it with you.
But why do you WANT to walk into a place like the Blue Moon? What's the point? You're not welcome there, you're not wanted there, and of course the feeling is mutual ... live and let live.
When did you take over ownership of the Blue Moon? Regardless, the line of logic used here is absurd. If the Blue Moon was an opium den, should it stay in business? Stay away...you non-opium discriminating people....away from me, the despised group! Discriminators!

Is opium use illegal? Yes. Is smoking cigarettes illegal? No, but it is illegal in public places (see Initiative 901). If you want to be in a business that serves to the public, then you need to abide by the laws of same. That's not discrimination.

Let's use that same line of logic for other situations. You stink of smoke, your clothes stink of smoke. Why do you WANT to eat in this restaurant...get on this bus....go to this movie theatre? You stink. No one wants to sit by you. Live and let live.

Melle

February 15th, 2006, 04:37 PM

And there's nothing wrong with someone who can't stand smoke

Of course not, and I never said there was. But there's something a little nutty about someone who can't stand smoke going on a "weekly pub crawl" to smokey establishments. I also find these statements of yours to be a little nutty:

"Ballard Guy is right, you people are hear to amuse us now that we won and I expect you to be as amusing as you were previously annoying. Yes, that's a tall order but rise to it smokies, if not you, then who? If not now, then when?
Let's hear some tales of persecution followed by a rousing, hacking rendtion of 'We Shall Overcome.'

"I love the thought of smokies in glass cages, the downside is that you can't poke a stick through a glass cage. Think of the extra revenue bars could make selling sticks...

"You guys could designate someone expendable (Slomezticator comes to mind) to self-immolate in front of the Blue Moon or something, but with your luck it would be raining too hard.

"Maybe a bunch of you staging a hunger strike, although that works best from jail... hell, I'm not going to do your thinking for you, just entertain us!"

"The plan is to herd you people down into Texas and then begin negotiating with Mexico to take it back."

Melle

February 15th, 2006, 04:39 PM

Sigh. Can we shut up with the discrimination claims? No one cares if you smoke. We just don't want to share it with you.

You really ought to pay better attention to what's been posted. I made no "discrimination claims." Breather compared smoke-friendly establishments to ones that discriminate, and I was responding to his comparison.

This & subsequent references to "discrimination" in your post have nothing to do with what I said.

id you take over ownership of the Blue Moon? Regardless, the line of logic used here is absurd. If the Blue Moon was an opium den, should it stay in business? Stay away...you non-opium discriminating people....away from me, the despised group! Discriminators!

That's totally beside the point. Regardless of whether opium is legal, someone who hated its smell, yet went out of his way to go to opium dens, would be exhibiting odd behavior.

Is opium use illegal? Yes. Is smoking cigarettes illegal? No, but it is illegal in public places (see Initiative 901). If you want to be in a business that serves to the public, then you need to abide by the laws of same. That's not discrimination.

Let's use that same line of logic for other situations. You stink of smoke, your clothes stink of smoke. Why do you WANT to eat in this restaurant...get on this bus....go to this movie theatre? You stink. No one wants to sit by you. Live and let live.

You've completely misapplied the line of logic. Restaurants, buses, & movie theaters are used for their own purposes. I wouldn't enter a restaurant with an atmosphere I hated, or a movie theater showing a film I didn't want to see, or a bus headed for somewhere I didn't want to go. And if I found out there was a bar somewhere full of anti-smokers, I'd stay away. In each case there are many alternatives. Yeah, live and let live.

breather

February 16th, 2006, 12:28 AM

Of course not, and I never said there was. But there's something a little nutty about someone who can't stand smoke going on a "weekly pub crawl" to smokey establishments.

My Dear Melle, let me try to explain this to you. I'll go slowly. Very, very slowly. I'm not trying to do a pub crawl to experience the smoke. I'm trying to eliminate it.

I also find these statements of yours to be a little nutty:

"Ballard Guy is right, you people are hear to amuse us now that we won and I expect you to be as amusing as you were previously annoying. Yes, that's a tall order but rise to it smokies, if not you, then who? If not now, then when?
Let's hear some tales of persecution followed by a rousing, hacking rendtion of 'We Shall Overcome.'

"I love the thought of smokies in glass cages, the downside is that you can't poke a stick through a glass cage. Think of the extra revenue bars could make selling sticks...

"You guys could designate someone expendable (Slomezticator comes to mind) to self-immolate in front of the Blue Moon or something, but with your luck it would be raining too hard.

"Maybe a bunch of you staging a hunger strike, although that works best from jail... hell, I'm not going to do your thinking for you, just entertain us!"

"The plan is to herd you people down into Texas and then begin negotiating with Mexico to take it back."

I do realize, Melle, that I may not be as witty as I think I am but I'm increasingly open to the possibility that even the thickest sarcasm is too subtle for you to detect and/or that Ballrd Guy is right and that you find it hard to concentrate with the incessant buzzing of those black helicopters. And yes, for chrissakes, I know he didn't actually mention black helicopters on this board.

Melle

February 16th, 2006, 07:45 AM

I do realize, Melle, that I may not be as witty as I think I am but I'm increasingly open to the possibility that even the thickest sarcasm is too subtle for you to detect and/or that Ballrd Guy is right and that you find it hard to concentrate with the incessant buzzing of those black helicopters. And yes, for chrissakes, I know he didn't actually mention black helicopters on this board.

I get the sarcasm. And it's still nutty.

BridgeTroll

February 16th, 2006, 01:01 PM

And if I found out there was a bar somewhere full of anti-smokers, I'd stay away.

Hate to break the news to you.......but since 901 passed by a 2-1 margin......oh well, you figure it out.

smokemifyougotem

February 16th, 2006, 04:29 PM

I just wanted to thank each of you that supported this law. You have helped the janitorial staff throughout this state have more security in their jobs. What do I mean you say? You have managed to have every designated smoking section removed from a workplace and other outside areas. This has caused the removal of every outside ashtray to be removed. This has caused countless amounts of work for them to pick up all the cigarette butts that are put out on the ground and that are placed in the beautiful flower planters in front of buildings. The result of what you have done is to turn EVERY one of us that smoke to leave our prisons of smoking and re-enter into society and pollute it even further. Stop your bitching now and let me have my ashtray back outside so that we no longer have to litter. I am sure you would rather see us out of the public eye rather than see the results of your not thinking of the big picture before voting for this dumb law. You can breathe even easier that way believe me.

Matt

February 16th, 2006, 06:45 PM

So if the goal of the 901 people was to hurt workers and business owners, they have been successful. Good work.That wasn't the goal. Besides, there's no non-anecdotal evidence that any such thing has happened.

If they [sic] goal was to create a law that would be unenforced, good work.That wasn't the goal, either. Besides, the law is being enforced. Several counties have issued warnings. Compliance is above 95% according to King County. 901 has been extremely successful.

To clarify for you, the goal of 901 was to protect the public and workers from cancer-causing secondhand smoke while inside any public place or workplace. Goal achieved with flying colors and massive public support!!!

Good work indeed!!!

Matt

February 16th, 2006, 06:56 PM

The health arguments around secondary smoke exposure are a pile of dungThat's false. You know it, I know, it, the American people know it. The EPA declared secondhand smoke to be a Group A carcinogen. In addition, California declared secondhand smoke to be a toxic air pollutant last month. Please stop lying, Mike, or I'll put Pennsylvania (where Mike is posting from, the outsider) at the top of my list for the next smoking ban.

When people become aware of the basis of lies that the ban is based on, the ban will become, literally, unenforceable and will fall. Despite Matt dancing around in a funny shirt making squeeking noises.Trust me: When a smoker in violation of 901 sees my "901 Enforcement" shirt, they don't think it's funny. Their general reaction is one of fear and guilt. Then they start coughing uncontrollably because of the emphysema.

Matt

February 16th, 2006, 07:06 PM

[We are] a bunch of radicals who think that we should be able to walk into any business out there and know that the food and drink have been stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions, that the building itself has met codes that ensure we won't fall through the floor, be electrocuted or have the roof come down on our heads, that we won't be denied service based on creed, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation and that we won't be subjected to the many and varied toxins in second hand smoke.Holy crap!!! That is simply the most beautiful post on this entire thread (not counting my posts)!!! Wow. Well written. Irrefutable logic.

But the simps just don't get it. They understand that it's reasonable to expect clean food and clean water, but when it comes to clean AIR they start losing their brain cells. "Duhhhh, I don't want clean air duhhhhh and stuff!!! I want, like, to inhale bad air!!! Privacy rights duhhhhh!!!! Cops are racist!!! Duhhh!!!"

How incredibly stupid can these people be?? Oh, right, they smoke. Nuf said.

Bravisimo, breather!!!

Jimmy Flame

February 16th, 2006, 07:14 PM

Trust me: When a smoker in violation of 901 sees my "901 Enforcement" shirt, they don't think it's funny. Their general reaction is one of fear and guilt. Then they start coughing uncontrollably because of the emphysema.

Hahahahaaaaa... How the hell are you gonna' enforce anything? And where are you wearing that stupid shirt? I would fall to the ground laughing if I saw you coming down the street. Besides, I smoke, and I run 5 miles a day. I'm in better shape than any granola out there! And I smoke a pack and a half per day!! Sometimes I smoke while doing push ups! I bet you can't even do 10! The next friggin' Seattle marathon that happens, I just might have to run the damn thing while chain smoking my Marlboro Reds! MMmmmmm... They taste soooo good!!!

Gomezticator

February 16th, 2006, 07:27 PM

Matt would make an awesome sketch comedy character. Seriously.

DrOctopu5

February 17th, 2006, 07:55 AM

Matt would make an awesome sketch comedy character. Seriously.
I keep picturing Chris Farley's "van down by the river" sweaty motivational speaker screaming at smokers. With balloons.

Melle

February 17th, 2006, 08:03 AM

Hate to break the news to you.......but since 901 passed by a 2-1 margin......oh well, you figure it out.

No, no, no. You assume that voting Yes on 901 automatically makes someone an anti-smoker. I don't think that's the case. I know plenty of people who voted Yes on 901 but none that I would call anti-smokers. The anti-smoker, that petulant crusader with his slogans and slurs, seems to be a rare bird indeed (except in the media and on web forums). I've never met one face-to-face. I don't think they frequent bars too often anyway, despite their periodic tactical claims to the contrary. I suspect they are to be found in other places entirely, places such as Volvos, rope tows, tabernacle choirs, and University Village, but I wouldn't know firsthand.

Melle

February 17th, 2006, 08:21 AM

I keep picturing Chris Farley's "van down by the river" sweaty motivational speaker screaming at smokers. With balloons.

"901 Enforcer" would be a great weekend afternoon Chuck Norris drama too. I can see Chuck pulling his pickup over just off Lake City Way, entering a smokey bar with steely determination wearing his "901 Enforcer" T-shirt, at the sight of which the pasty-faced smokers cower in fear and guilt, then fighting the smokers, who cough and get winded of course, then reuniting the child who's forced outside by the smoke with his bartender mother or whatever.

Matt

February 17th, 2006, 03:31 PM

But why do you WANT to walk into a place like the Blue Moon? What's the point? You're not welcome there, you're not wanted thereFirst, we are under no obligation to explain to you why we want to do anything. Here's the nutshell: We expect to be free from secondhand smoke anytime we walk into a workplace or public place. It's just that simple. Maybe I'll never enter the Blue Moon. However, if I'm over in that area 20 years from now and decide to enter the Blue Moon to use the restroom, I will expect it to be completely smokefree. JUST IN CASE I EVER WALK IN THERE. With 901, our expectations have been codified into law. Every citizen can be confident that any public place they enter will be free of cancer-causing secondhand smoke. And that rocks!!

Second, how do you know breather isn't welcome at the Blue Moon? Did Gustav tell that to you personally? If so, he'd have to be even stupider than he looks. Turning away money from a customer? Besides, Gustav doesn't have a choice anymore: He either welcomes nonsmokers or he has zero customers. (Melle: That's because 901 passed, making nonsmokers the only possible legal customers.) One secondary pleasure about 901 is that Hellthaler lost his cancer sanctuary. Haaa haaa!!!! Love it.

(Your comparisons break down as follows, BTW: Negligence in sanitation & construction are (1) very likely to harm you and (2) not identifiable by the mere sight & smell of a placeHey Melle, (1) secondhand smoke harms; and (2) we expect to be protected from visible dangers as well as invisible ones. Thanks for your concern, though.

Melle

February 17th, 2006, 06:53 PM

First, we are under no obligation to explain to you why we want to do anything.

Of course not. I was just asking a question.

Second, how do you know breather isn't welcome at the Blue Moon? Did Gustav tell that to you personally?

Oh, come on.

Hey Melle, (1) secondhand smoke harms; and (2) we expect to be protected from visible dangers as well as invisible ones. Thanks for your concern, though.

The dangers Breather mentioned, such as bad sanitation, are almost certain to harm you, which is why they're regulated. Breathing secondhand smoke for a few minutes while using the Blue Moon bathroom is almost certain NOT to harm you. There are plenty of pollutants far more harmful than secondhand smoke, such as car exhaust, which are either not regulated or are dealt with via ventilation. The reason your side keeps mentioning sanitation is that it's one of the dangers the government DOES regulate---but this only shows the weakness of your argument.

It's as if the police department were to create an "assault-with-fresh-fruit" division (in addition to its homocide division, narcotics division etc.). Produce afficionados would complain: "How come they have a fresh-fruit division when they don't have, say, a baseball-bat division?" And your side would say: "Keep to the issue! If you want to start a campaign against assaults with baseball bats, go away & do that!" And then you'd turn around and say, "The government must protect us from fresh fruit just as it protects us from homocide and violent narcotics dealers."

Tunanator

February 17th, 2006, 07:38 PM

Sigh. Can we shut up with the discrimination claims? No one cares if you smoke. We just don't want to share it with you.

*SIgh*. If you're having breathing problems, go take a Yoga class or something.

*Sigh*. No, we can't shut up the discrimination claims. This is an obvious case of a majority trying to squash the rights of a minority. You're not avoiding the places people go who want to smoke, you're going there, probably for the first and only time, just to cause trouble.

This stupid fookin law ... must. go. down.

Tunanator

February 17th, 2006, 07:45 PM

That wasn't the goal. Besides, there's no non-anecdotal evidence that any such thing has happened.

Therefore there's also no evidence that you haven't hurt businesses. THANK YOU!

But Income tax filings are due in 2 months. We'll see how the bar owners have done compared to last year.

901 has been extremely successful.

At being a stupid pain-in-the-ass, like most of its supporters.

the goal of 901 was to protect the public and workers from cancer-causing secondhand smoke

The goal is to hound a minority because you're impotent to do anything substantial in this community. So, church ladies and bluenosed arrogant busybodies that you are, you waltz into places you've never been and whine and cry. "Oh the humanity! Ve must safe dem from demselfs!"

As for the 2nd-hand cancer thing, you've no proof of that, any more than you do that 901 hasn't hurt business.

breather

February 18th, 2006, 11:43 AM

Melle actually wrote:

It's as if the police department were to create an "assault-with-fresh-fruit" division (in addition to its homocide division, narcotics division etc.). Produce afficionados would complain: "How come they have a fresh-fruit division when they don't have, say, a baseball-bat division?" And your side would say: "Keep to the issue! If you want to start a campaign against assaults with baseball bats, go away & do that!" And then you'd turn around and say, "The government must protect us from fresh fruit just as it protects us from homocide and violent narcotics dealers."[/QUOTE]

You've made a good point in your own special way Melle.

Assault with fresh fruit has long been just as illegal as any other kind of assault and now exposing your patrons to smoke is just as illegal as exposing them to sanitary or structural hazards.

breather

February 18th, 2006, 12:03 PM

Therefore there's also no evidence that you haven't hurt businesses. THANK YOU!

But Income tax filings are due in 2 months. We'll see how the bar owners have done compared to last year.

Sales tax receipts are the measure to look for here. That tells what an establishment grosses. Net income is affected by too many variables (rent, payroll, etc) to be useful. Every other state that's banned the smokies has seen an increase in sales tax receipts from restaurants and bars in the following fiscal year. Different states may start their fiscal years in different months but it will likely be sometime in 2007 before these figures will be available for WA.
Rhode Island just released figures showing an 8.2% increase in sales tax collections on meals and beverages from the same period the previous year before the ban went into effect. This is big, most states have shown a 4 - 5% increase.
Click here to subscribe to an excellent email list on smokefree issues, which is where I got the figures above.
JoeCherner-announce-subscribe@lists.smokefree.net

[QUOTE]As for the 2nd-hand cancer thing, you've no proof of that, any more than you do that 901 hasn't hurt business

Dude, nicotine is addictive, 2nd hand smoke can cause cancer, global warming is real, the earth is actually round and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are just things that your parents made up.

Smalan Ithee

February 19th, 2006, 12:36 AM

Dude, nicotine is addictive, 2nd hand smoke can cause cancer, global warming is real, the earth is actually round and Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are just things that your parents made up.Jesus, breather - that last part? You really need to put a spoiler alert on info like this.

As for the "2nd hand smoke can cause cancer" part - (and no, I don't have a tinfoil hat) The statement "can cause cancer" is different from "does always cause cancer". Of course if you live or work with smokers who light up all day in a non-ventilated indoor area, the chances are much greater you'll get cancer. On the other hand, and using a very personal example, my mother died of lung cancer even though she was a non-smoker all of her life, and did not work nor live with smokers. In her case, it started as breast cancer and, after 4 years, radiation, 3 rounds of chemotherapy, 2 mastectomies (and a partridge..ok, not really a partridge), the cancer kept coming back and finally spread to her lungs. It happens, and it's not always about smoking.

The difference between the anti-smoker and smoke-friendly/smoker opinions about the toxicity of 2nd hand smoke seem to fall into the camps of "Any amount is too much", "err on the side of safety" or "a little bit won't kill you", with a bit of "it's not dangerous at all" (which I don't buy). Until we know exactly how much 2nd hand smoke it takes to cause cancer and all other variables are factored out, well, I guess we'll have opinions varied enough to keep on debating smoking bans.

Melle

February 19th, 2006, 09:30 AM

Assault with fresh fruit has long been just as illegal as any other kind of assault

There's no SPD fresh-fruit task force, so thus far my point stands; anyway, my argument doesn't live or die by the exactitude of the Monty Python analogy.

and now exposing your patrons to smoke is just as illegal as exposing them to sanitary or structural hazards.

Yes, exposure to smoke is now "just as illegal" as exposure to sanitary or structural hazards---and far MORE illegal than exposure to vehicular exhaust (which is much more dangerous). Yes, this is absurd. The three hazard levels can be split into categories as follows:

Category A (e.g., bad sanitation, bad construction): Likely to immediately hurt people.
Category B (e.g., vehicular exhaust, radon, benzene): Likely to immediately hurt people under ordinary conditions, but manageable via ventillation, emissions controls, etc.
Category C (e.g., secondhand smoke, incense, mesquite barbeque): Does not immediately hurt people, and unlikely to hurt them long-term (secondhand smoke arguabley causes disease in about 0.2% of those chronically exposed for 20 years).

Now, how can you ban one of the hazards in category C without banning the ones in category B? It's crazy.

By the way, I notice that you & Matt are trying to sneak in the idea that 901 was crafted to protect "restaurant patrons" or "the public." This is totally specious. It was crafted to protect the workforce. A bar patronage's expectation of smoke-free air was never part of the law or its scientific justification (such as it was).

Melle

February 19th, 2006, 09:49 AM

Sales tax receipts are the measure to look for here. That tells what an establishment grosses. Net income is affected by too many variables (rent, payroll, etc) to be useful. Every other state that's banned the smokies has seen an increase in sales tax receipts from restaurants and bars in the following fiscal year. Different states may start their fiscal years in different months but it will likely be sometime in 2007 before these figures will be available for WA.
Rhode Island just released figures showing an 8.2% increase in sales tax collections on meals and beverages from the same period the previous year before the ban went into effect. This is big, most states have shown a 4 - 5% increase.
Click here to subscribe to an excellent email list on smokefree issues, which is where I got the figures above.
JoeCherner-announce-subscribe@lists.smokefree.net

Yeah right, Breather, sales tax receipts are the thing to look for. "Food and beverage" sales tax receipts. Income tax is only what the business prepares under penalty of a federal reaming; sales taxes are ... well, of course, they're liable to fluctuate every time McDonald's changes its prices. But I see the advantage of measuring bar business according to food & beverage sales tax.

This way, the grosses from every Starbucks and Subway are counted, and revenues from the huge growth industry of chain foodservice are dumped in the mix with bar sales. This way, as Generica invades Seattle, Breather can claim that bar/restaurant business is up. The Olive Garden is packed---who cares that Beth's is gone? The T.G.I.Friday's (where Tin Hat used to be) is hopping on weekends, with a great convention business! This is what has happened in Boston and New York and everybody knows it.

Ballardguy

February 20th, 2006, 01:33 AM

Been out skiing for the past week or so in Winthrop....

Took a look at this blog tonight and saw that the pro-smoking/anti 901 crusade is being led by a crazed janitor, some guy named Tuna spouting off on the old discrimination line...and some bizarre sidestring about fruit police.

Good job guys, keep it up.

placid_panic

February 20th, 2006, 10:16 AM

i think of this thread every time i go out for a smoke break at work, walk a little way so the people next door won't hassle me, and on the way compare my cigarette to the pipe spewing a delivery truck's exhaust not ten feet from the front door.

Matt

February 20th, 2006, 02:49 PM

The three hazard levels can be split into categories as follows:Your categorizations are crap, as is your fantasy-land and broken-record claim about the harmlessness of secondhand smoke. I've already proved that there is evidence that secondhand smoke causes damage in less than 30 minutes.

Here's an analogy to Melle's "category" logic in a nutshell: Cancer X is the biggest killer in America. Cancer Y is the second biggest killer. There's a scientist who works to cure Cancer Y. Melle's reaction: "That's just crazy!! You can't work on #2 until #1 has been solved!!! Waaaa!!!!" Matt's reaction to Melle's reaction: "What a simp."

By the way, I notice that you & Matt are trying to sneak in the idea that 901 was crafted to protect "restaurant patrons" or "the public." This is totally specious. It was crafted to protect the workforce. A bar patronage's expectation of smoke-free air was never part of the law or its scientific justification (such as it was).Never said it protected ONLY patrons. Simply said 901 was meant to *also* protect patrons. Which is, of course, the truth.

From section 1: "In order to protect the health and welfare of all citizens, including workers in their places of employment, it is necessary to prohibit smoking in public places and workplaces."

Notice those two big words "ALL CITIZENS"? Yeah, I think you do. Workers are just a subset. Busted much?

But wait, there's more. Now let's go to the home page of the 901 initiative http://www.healthyindoorairwa.org/ and read at the top: "Initiative 901 in Washington State: protecting our right to breathe clean indoor air where we eat, work and socialize."

My goodness, see that part about eating and socializing IN ADDITION to working? Yeah, you do see it.

And from the FAQ: "I-901 will protect families, children, workers and the elderly from secondhand smoke, which is associated with a number of illnesses, including asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, lung cancer, and heart disease."

Hmm. Families. Children. *And* workers.

Thus, for the umpteenth time, you have experienced bustation, Melle. You have got to be the biggest masochist on this planet.

Matt

February 20th, 2006, 03:00 PM

The goal is to hound a minority because you're impotent to do anything substantial in this community.Impotent? Bwahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!!

901 was very potent and substantial. Changed the lives of millions of nicotine addicts. Oh, the power!!

So, church ladies and bluenosed arrogant busybodies that you are, you waltz into places you've never been and whine and cry. "Oh the humanity! Ve must safe dem from demselfs!"I've said this repeatedly but I'll say it again for the slow ones: We don't give a rat's ass about smokers, especially placid_panic. 901 wasn't done to keep *smokers* safe. It was done to keep us *nonsmokers* safe.

See? That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?

Hey, it's kinda hard to call us "busybodies" when we're protecting our *own* bodies, hmmm?

Yeah, I think so.

Melle

February 20th, 2006, 04:33 PM

Your categorizations are crap, as is your fantasy-land and broken-record claim about the harmlessness of secondhand smoke. I've already proved that there is evidence that secondhand smoke causes damage in less than 30 minutes.

Yeah, and me and a ton of other people have disproven that ridiculous "30 minute" claim. No one seriously buys that shit, not on my side or yours.

Here's an analogy to Melle's "category" logic in a nutshell: Cancer X is the biggest killer in America. Cancer Y is the second biggest killer. There's a scientist who works to cure Cancer Y. Melle's reaction: "That's just crazy!! You can't work on #2 until #1 has been solved!!! Waaaa!!!!" Matt's reaction to Melle's reaction: "What a simp."

It's obvious that you're re-writing my post as something overly simple & stupid, because you can't answer what I actually said.

Never said it protected ONLY patrons. Simply said 901 was meant to *also* protect patrons. Which is, of course, the truth.

From section 1: "In order to protect the health and welfare of all citizens, including workers in their places of employment, it is necessary to prohibit smoking in public places and workplaces."

Notice those two big words "ALL CITIZENS"? Yeah, I think you do. Workers are just a subset. Busted much?

But wait, there's more. Now let's go to the home page of the 901 initiative http://www.healthyindoorairwa.org/ and read at the top: "Initiative 901 in Washington State: protecting our right to breathe clean indoor air where we eat, work and socialize."

My goodness, see that part about eating and socializing IN ADDITION to working? Yeah, you do see it.

And from the FAQ: "I-901 will protect families, children, workers and the elderly from secondhand smoke, which is associated with a number of illnesses, including asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, lung cancer, and heart disease."

Hmm. Families. Children. *And* workers.

Thus, for the umpteenth time, you have experienced bustation, Melle. You have got to be the biggest masochist on this planet.

Who are you trying to fool? We've been through all this before. 901 was packaged & sold as a worker-safety measure, plain and simple. I'm not denying there were appeals to the non-smoker's dislike of smoke, but the worker-safety issue was the deciding issue.

Your campaigns to ban smoking were around since at least the early 90s, and they never got anywhere until you hit on the worker-safety tactic. Before that, everyone just laughed at you. "Don't go into the bar then you idiots!"---your side had no good answer to that. (There IS no good answer to that.) But people do care about employee health, and that's why 901 passed. That's what The Stranger wrote in its coverage, and that was the anti-smoking trump card everywhere, including on this forum. Don't try to rewrite history.

DrOctopu5

February 20th, 2006, 04:58 PM

Maybe I'll never enter the Blue Moon. However, if I'm over in that area 20 years from now and decide to enter the Blue Moon to use the restroom, I will expect it to be completely smokefree. JUST IN CASE I EVER WALK IN THERE.

Can't you read?

RESTROOMS ARE FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY

Matt

February 20th, 2006, 07:05 PM

Yeah, and me and a ton of other people have disproven that ridiculous "30 minute" claim. No one seriously buys that shit, not on my side or yours.
That's patently false. Lots--if not most--of the people on my side seriously accept it, including me. Sheesh, where have you been?

It's obvious that you're re-writing my post as something overly simple & stupid, because you can't answer what I actually said.No, I did answer, by demonstrating that your logic is simple and stupid. You ignore the analogy because you know it tears your argument to shreds.

Who are you trying to fool? We've been through all this before. 901 was packaged & sold as a worker-safety measure, plain and simple. I'm not denying there were appeals to the non-smoker's dislike of smoke, but the worker-safety issue was the deciding issue.Oooohhhh, now it's the *deciding* issue. Before you said patrons were *never* part of the equation. Look at Melle backpedal!! Doin the ole moonwalk as good as Michael Jackson!

Don't try to rewrite history.The links and references I mentioned (901 web site, the INITIATIVE itself, etc.) have been around SINCE DAY ONE. As I demonstrated, they ALL have mentioned protecting non-workers (in addition to workers) SINCE DAY ONE. Now Melle is trying to say breather and I are "sneaking" in the protection of the general public. Ha! Who's trying to re-write history, bud? Yeah, tell me all about it.

Umpteenth + 1

Melle

February 20th, 2006, 10:25 PM

That's patently false. Lots--if not most--of the people on my side seriously accept it, including me. Sheesh, where have you been?

You might buy it---but then, you're not what I would call serious, either in grounding your beliefs or expressing them.

Michael Siegel, anti-smoking activist and Harvard scientific researcher, put it aptly here (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/01/action-on-smoking-and-health-promoting.html), where he dismissed these fraudulent conclusions when they were touted by ASH (a huge anti-smoking group). A sampling: "I cannot over-emphasize the fact that ASH's claim is completely fallacious. [emphasis in original.] It's not like ASH is distorting the truth here. In my opinion, they are just completely making this up, or at least, misinterpreting the data so badly that it has the appearance of coming out of nowhere. You simply aren't going to get atherosclerosis and clogged coronary arteries in 30 minutes!!!"

Here's a bit of my own response to the "30 minute" claims (a response you completely evaded): "If exposure did real damage within half an hour, surely the magnitude of damage over years and decades would be incontestable. Instead it's a trifling 1.25 risk in those studies where a risk even turns up. Besides, if ETS did major damage in a half hour, there would be no need to sell I-901 as a worker safety measure---customers would be keeling over in bars, clutching their chests, on a nightly basis."

And Cantiloper (http://forums.thestranger.com/showpost.php?p=7817&postcount=546) pointed out four major flaws in the study. Surprise, surprise---you didn't offer any argument at all.

No, I did answer, by demonstrating that your logic is simple and stupid. You ignore the analogy because you know it tears your argument to shreds.

Your analogy is a mess & has nothing to do with anything I said.

Oooohhhh, now it's the *deciding* issue. Before you said patrons were *never* part of the equation. Look at Melle backpedal!! Doin the ole moonwalk as good as Michael Jackson!

What I said was: "A bar patronage's expectation of smoke-free air was never part of the law or its scientific justification (such as it was)." Show me again where the law mentions "patronage's expectation of smoke-free air"? I must have missed it. In particular, please show me where 901 protects shrill busybodies who wind up off the 45th Street exit & need to take a piss? Until then I'll continue to pedal---FORWARD---thank you much.

The links and references I mentioned (901 web site, the INITIATIVE itself, etc.) have been around SINCE DAY ONE. As I demonstrated, they ALL have mentioned protecting non-workers (in addition to workers) SINCE DAY ONE. Now Melle is trying to say breather and I are "sneaking" in the protection of the general public. Ha! Who's trying to re-write history, bud? Yeah, tell me all about it.

Umpteenth + 1

No, it's not "the protection of the general public" that you're trying to sneak in. It's the idea that the public voted based on an expectation of smoke-free air everywhere ... because they believe, for instance, that taking a piss in a smokey bar is a legitimate health hazard (one that can only be dealt with by passing heavy-handed laws). You HAVE tried to say this & you HAVE started pretending retroactively that the 901 passed solely on public distaste for the smell of smoke.

I just checked---before December you were constantly raving about worker safety---every other post, "all workers should be protected," like a mynah bird. But since December 8, until today, you've only mentioned "workers" twice (on January 10th and February 16th), "places of employment" once (January 31st), the "workplace" twice (February 12th and February 17th), and "protect[ing] employees" once (February 6th---twice if you count quoting yourself). On the other hand, during that same period, you: (1) had a stretch that consisted almost entirely of obsessive attacks on me; (2) entered your "you can smoke, just not near me" phase; and (3) started saying things like "[s]mokers in WA should enjoy their ability to smoke on sidewalks while they can", and that smoking should be banned at outdoor golf course because "no nonsmoker should have to inhale the crap" (just for a sampling). You've obviously been on an anti-smoker and anti-outdoor-smoking jag, pushing the idea that people should flip out if they ever even smell a lit cigarette anywhere.

(To use your preferred diction: Like God, Heather, busted much?)

windjammer547

February 21st, 2006, 04:00 AM

O boy. What a topic, and some interesting comments. So let me begin by dismissing some obvious lies about smoking! Number one, they knew even in the 40s that smoking caused lung disease among other things, and I'm sure much further back than that. Just ask my Dad and mom. They were from the WW2 generation. I think its not just me that is annoyed that smokers always justify their habits with nonsense like, "theres no proof that smoking causes disease" LOL>.

Number 2. (This is my favorite). That its okay for employees of smoking establishments to breath in smoke. Then you say "Gee if they dont like it, get another job." LOL.. Often times people take what jobs they can get. Its not always a choice. I'm also tired of the double standard of things. I bet there are alot of smokers that work in non smoking environments who would run faster than an olympian to human resources if somebody was to spend their days chewing and spitting in the cube next to them. But boy o boy, if the law LET THEM LIGHT UP, THEY WOULD BE ALL OVER THAT!

So case in point, its obvious that smoking is an addiction. Things are only a right until you affect somebody else, and trust me there are alot more people than just me. Do it at home and away from others.

Clearly smokers dont care about their own health, so why should they care about others? Well now we are down to a level of truth. THEY DONT CARE And hense, the goverment (THE PEOPLE) got together and said NO!.

Oh yes, I would like to know the gentleman that recommended that business fork out the money to build special smoking rooms? LOL.. Whos gonna pay for it first off? OH let me guess, we need Gregoire to pass a special tax that helps fund this nonsense.

If the real truth be told, I actually wished that the goverment would mandate that each smoker half to smoke at least ten packs a day. And yes I would support a tax that would pay for it. It could only bring on more parking very soon for the rest of the world. How Ironic though, as many people that die each day from natural causes, war, famine and disease, I can never seem to find a lousy parking spot in downtown.

placid_panic

February 21st, 2006, 10:08 PM

We don't give a rat's ass about smokers, especially placid_panic.

any reason why me in particular?

breather

February 22nd, 2006, 12:12 AM

Melle wrote:
Yeah right, Breather, sales tax receipts are the thing to look for. "Food and beverage" sales tax receipts. Income tax is only what the business prepares under penalty of a federal reaming; sales taxes are ... well, of course, they're liable to fluctuate every time McDonald's changes its prices. But I see the advantage of measuring bar business according to food & beverage sales tax.

This way, the grosses from every Starbucks and Subway are counted, and revenues from the huge growth industry of chain foodservice are dumped in the mix with bar sales. This way, as Generica invades Seattle, Breather can claim that bar/restaurant business is up. The Olive Garden is packed---who cares that Beth's is gone? The T.G.I.Friday's (where Tin Hat used to be) is hopping on weekends, with a great convention business! QUOTE]

Melle, here's a very interesting link to a report from the Illinois PIRG detailing the positive impacts on bar and restaurant revenue around the country in places that have kicked smokies to the curb.

Melle wrote
[QUOTE]This is what has happened in Boston and New York and everybody knows it.

Umm, no Melle, everyone doesn't know this. What people who have looked at the numbers know is that New York City's bars and restaurants added 10,600 jobs and seen an 8.7 percent increase in sales tax receipts since the ban went into effect. There were no negative effects in Boston or MA. What's really interesting is the sections of the study that looked at the smallest bars in California, they showed slight gains as well.
It's easy to separate out the Starbucks and Subways, most of these studies looked at tax receipts for alcoholic beverages.

The Olive Garden is packed---who cares that Beth's is gone? The T.G.I.Friday's (where Tin Hat used to be) is hopping on weekends

Both the Tin Hat and Beth's seem to be going strong, although they were trying to sell Beth's for the longest time a couple of years ago.

breather

February 22nd, 2006, 12:16 AM

Sorry for the mangled quote brackets folks, heres the link to the study cited in the previous post.
http://www.illinoispirg.org/reports/econimpactssmokefree.pdf

fiona

February 22nd, 2006, 12:28 AM

There are still bars with guts to fight the unconstitutional ban!
The Rimrock, Rose Garden and Back Door on Lake City Way are standing their ground and fighting. They are ignoring the ban late night. If everyone diod this the nazis would just have to throw in the bag. Are you reading this Gus Heller? I thought you would close the Bluemoon out of principal if they did a ban. And Buckaroo owner? You dropped your draws and bent over almost as fast as they did. If we all stood together they could not touch us.

Melle

February 22nd, 2006, 09:16 AM

Umm, no Melle, everyone doesn't know this.

Well, maybe Joe Cherner doesn't---but doesn't he live in France?

What people who have looked at the numbers know is that New York City's bars and restaurants added 10,600 jobs and seen an 8.7 percent increase in sales tax receipts since the ban went into effect.

Other "people who have looked at the numbers" tell a very different story:

"Groups representing New York state bar owners contend the statewide smoking ban has cost their industry about 2,000 jobs. A study released Tuesday by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association said the ban that went into effect in July has also led to $28.5 million in lost wages and $37 million in lost gross state product. Affiliated businesses lost another 650 jobs and $56 million in wages and production, the study by Ridgewood Economic Associates said." (http://www.wroctv.com/news/story.asp?id=13785&r=l)

The food & beverage industry as a whole tends to grow & has been growing steadily for years. New York's 8.7% increase lagged behind the trend. (And that increase is in food & beverage figures, remember: unless you demonstrate otherwise, that includes fast-food, ice cream trucks, etc. and is a stupid way to measure bar business.)

What SHOULD have answered the question once & for all was the near-unanimous opinion of bar owners. Anti-smoking's wholesale invalidation of them belongs the bullshit-PR hall of fame, it was so brilliant in that "ice-cubes-to-eskimos" way. The idea that bar owners, of all people, don't know what's good for business---their business---is preposterous, & is topped only by the idea that anti-smoking Puritans do know. (But I guess Joe Camel went around & paid off all the bar owners to lie, right?)

There were no negative effects in Boston or MA. What's really interesting is the sections of the study that looked at the smallest bars in California, they showed slight gains as well.

Again, an area showing "no negative effects" or "small gains," when the trend had been substantial gains and surrounding areas still show substantial gains, is misleading.

It's easy to separate out the Starbucks and Subways, most of these studies looked at tax receipts for alcoholic beverages.

Source, please? (And no, a link to an e-mail list is not a source.)

BridgeTroll

February 22nd, 2006, 01:40 PM

[I]"Groups representing New York state bar owners contend the statewide smoking ban has cost their industry about 2,000 jobs. A study released Tuesday by the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association said the ban that went into effect in July has also led to $28.5 million in lost wages and $37 million in lost gross state product. Affiliated businesses lost another 650 jobs and $56 million in wages and production, the study by Ridgewood Economic Associates said.

God Melle, is it ever possible for you to find some source data that is not dry humping the tobacco industry?

A good example of a typical tobacco industry study is seen in an analysis of New York state’s smokefree air law on bars done by Ridgewood Economic Associates for the New York Nightlife Association and the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association. The study claimed that the statewide smokefree air law had cost New York 2,650 jobs and $71.5 million in worker earnings in one year.

However, when two researchers at the University of California San Francisco tried to replicate the study they found the law actually created 1,500 jobs and worker earnings increased by $29 million using the same data.

Both groups that funded the Ridgewood Economic Associates study were the main opponents of New York state’s smokefree air law in 2003,and have a long record of past collaboration with the tobacco industry.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:dD3RLmxjB6cJ:www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%257B7A8D42C2-FCCA-4604-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%257D/FUZZYMATH.PDF+Ridgewood+Economic+Associates+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Ballardguy

February 22nd, 2006, 01:45 PM

Melle

February 22nd, 2006, 05:17 PM

God Melle, is it ever possible for you to find some source data that is not dry humping the tobacco industry?

Let me make sure I have this right ... the Tobacco Industry, which did not fight the NY city or state smoking bans, decided to mastermind a study after the fact---for no reason except to make the ban look bad? Cue the black helicopters.

However, when two researchers at the University of California San Francisco tried to replicate the study they found the law actually created 1,500 jobs and worker earnings increased by $29 million using the same data.

That's a mere anecdote. What a joke! Your website doesn't even claim that the "two researchers" published anything. Hey, 2 guys I know once tried to replicate the EPA study & wound up curing cancer by breathing ETS. (This is easy.)

Both groups that funded the Ridgewood Economic Associates study were the main opponents of New York state’s smokefree air law in 2003,

Of course they opposed the smoking ban. They were the bar owners I was talking about.

and have a long record of past collaboration with the tobacco industry.

What exactly is meant by "past collaberation with the tobacco industry"? That at some time or other, both these restaurant associations & the tobacco industry found themselves on the same side of some issues? Oh my God! Alert Lyndon LaRouche.

BridgeTroll

February 22nd, 2006, 07:20 PM

Sigh...this again. Ok - it is simple enough to break down text. Of course, you neatly sidestepped the question...is it ever possible for you to find some source data that isn't dry humping the tobacco industry?

Let me make sure I have this right ... the Tobacco Industry, which did not fight the NY city or state smoking bans, decided to mastermind a study after the fact---for no reason except to make the ban look bad?

Uhmmmm....it didn't say it was masterminded by the tobacco industry. It said the two groups had a long history with the tobacco industry.

Cue the black helicopters.

This puzzled me until I saw that you posted this at 5:17 pm. You're watching X-Files again, aren't you?

That's a mere anecdote. What a joke! Your website doesn't even claim that the "two researchers" published anything.

Do you really need the article to spell that out for you? Of course they do - look it up.

Hey, 2 guys I know once tried to replicate the EPA study & wound up curing cancer by breathing ETS. (This is easy.)

This is exactly the problem with all of your source data (remember your Richard Doll claims?). You are either deceitful or lazy - crappy sources, highly questionable "data".

Of course they opposed the smoking ban. They were the bar owners I was talking about.

And...this is the same group that sponsored the "study". What did you expect their results to be?

What exactly is meant by "past collaberation with the tobacco industry"? That at some time or other, both these restaurant associations & the tobacco industry found themselves on the same side of some issues? Oh my God! Alert Lyndon LaRouche.

Not sure what collaberation is...but let's just assume you are trying to spell collaboration. C'mon, this relationship didn't give you pause to question the study results? Silly Melle.

Melle

February 23rd, 2006, 08:34 AM

Sigh...this again. Ok - it is simple enough to break down text. Of course, you neatly sidestepped the question...is it ever possible for you to find some source data that isn't dry humping the tobacco industry?

Uhmmmm....it didn't say it was masterminded by the tobacco industry. It said the two groups had a long history with the tobacco industry.

I don't even understand the question about "dry-humping." See below.

This puzzled me until I saw that you posted this at 5:17 pm. You're watching X-Files again, aren't you?

Whatever this means, it also went right over my head. Anyway, I posted it at 8:17 EST.

Your website doesn't even claim that the "two researchers" published anything.Do you really need the article to spell that out for you?

They definitely need to spell that out for me. Anti-smoking organizations cite unpublished, un-peer reviewed research, which is exactly the kind of source data problem you accuse me of later.

Of course they do - look it up.

I read your website & it does not make that claim. There is an annotated reference to a study co-authored by Stanton Glantz---the accompanying URL (http://www.nosmoke.org/NYRestaurants.pdf) brings up some kind of garbage page. In the text, they provide what looks like a link to their sources but turns out to be a brief page of pure propaganda (www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake)

This is exactly the problem with all of your source data (remember your Richard Doll claims?). You are either deceitful or lazy - crappy sources, highly questionable "data".

Re. "deceitful": Of course I remember my "Richard Doll claims." My claim was that Richard Doll said ETS was nothing to worry about. His exact words(which I had posted about a week previously, and was openly referring to): "The effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small it doesn't worry me." He said this on British national radio. If C. Everett Koop, or someone comparable, said this on American radio in a nationwide broadcast, it would be natural to assume he did not just mean himself---that he was speaking from a position of authority on his subject of expertise, offering his personal opinion as an example for the public. Ballardguy disagreed with this; we still disagree; however, Ballardguy posted another, separate quote by Doll in which Doll said ETS was dangerous; and I conceded the point. I didn't concede because of having "deceived" and been "caught"; I conceded because I was made aware of further information. (Compare this to, say, Matt, who responds to questioning of his accuracy/honesty with complete evasion.)

Re. "lazy": That's just bullshit. You're the ones with the anti-smoking websites with ready-made responses to studies. What did YOU type in your last post---the part about dry-humping? All the rest was cut & pasted in from an ALA page. You didn't even do your own thinking. Yeah, right, I'm lazy.

And...this is the same group that sponsored the "study". What did you expect their results to be?

Hey, look, you're so used to rendering a guilty verdict by association that it's a reflex. I guess we should let anti-smoking do all the studies---they don't have any bias, of course.

Not sure what collaberation is...but let's just assume you are trying to spell collaboration.

AMAZING you could figure that out.

C'mon, this relationship didn't give you pause to question the study results? Silly Melle.

I still don't know the nature of this relationship. What does "a long history with the tobacco industry" mean? What does research which "dry-humps" the tobacco industry mean?

Ballardguy

February 23rd, 2006, 10:58 AM

Anyway, I posted it at 8:17 EST.

Eastern Standard Time? Where are you from Melle? Why all the hot and bothered concern over a Washington State initiative?

breather

February 23rd, 2006, 12:03 PM

Nice to see you out and about Ballard Guy, we figured you were locked in your bathroom with a printout of the lovely Fiona's latest screed!!

Ballardguy

February 23rd, 2006, 12:05 PM

Nice to see you out and about Ballard Guy, we figured you were locked in your bathroom with a printout of the lovely Fiona's latest screed!!

Dang....you caught me. She's so hot....

I need a cigarette.

Melle

February 23rd, 2006, 05:55 PM

Eastern Standard Time? Where are you from Melle?

I'm from Seattle; I live in New York (as I've said numerous times).

Why all the hot and bothered concern over a Washington State initiative?

I'm not all that concerned about it, but I do find it, & the dynamics of this blog, interesting (as I've said recently).

Ballardguy

February 24th, 2006, 03:00 PM

Gomezticator

February 24th, 2006, 07:22 PM

You don't give a shit, but you just wrote a lengthy post about it. Someone's not being honest.

Nice work.

Melle

February 24th, 2006, 09:16 PM

I saw the sickest thing today in downtown Seattle. A 20 something yr. old smokie, well dressed...possibly a college student, was digging in an outside ashtray looking for butts. He had about a dozen in his hand, when sure enough, he lit one of them up. Disgusting. The complete hold that cigarettes had on him to do something like this made me realize:

I don't give a shit.

I don't give a shit about second hand smoke studies, either pro or con smoking. They are all bullshit. Smoking stinks, smoking kills. There's an enlightening study for you.

I don't give a shit about smokies taking posts apart and screaming "prove it". I don't need to prove anything to you. It's all a ploy to mask the real issue. You're an addict who had his playground taken away. Too bad.

I don't give a shit about desperate smokies clinging to the delusional beliefs of "rights" or even better, the belief that second hand smoke is not harmful. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

I don't give a shit about smokies pretending to be intellectuals, and wrapping themselves around beliefs such as the only reason the initiative passed was due to worker health. Bullshit. It passed because people hate your smoke. It could have been worded to protect kittens, and it still would have passed. And what is it about cigarettes that make people think they're smart? You give an ape a cigarette and the next thing you know, he's claiming to be a poet or a philosopher. So fucking delusional.

I really don't give a shit about smokies not being able to smoke in bars. Why should I care? Take your asses outside. I used to think the 25 ft rule was absurd. Screw that. Make it 50 feet....100 even. Let's take it even further. No smokies allowed on public transportation. You ever have a smokie sit down next to you on the bus? They STINK.

I don't give a shit if bars shut down due to the initiative. If smoking was their main draw for being in business, then it was a shitty bar in the first place. They deserve to shut down.

Smokies haven't given a shit for years. They never gave a shit about lighting up, no matter who was around them. You could have a bar of 9 people not smoking and a smokie would just light one up. And then another...and then another...ect... They blatantly flick cigarette butts outside car windows. And what is it with the bullshit claim that smoking is a "habit"? Smoking is an ADDICTION. Providing any ability for smokies to light up in public settings is supporting this addiction and has the absurd effect of having others indirectly sharing the poison of cigarette smoke.

Have a nice weekend. :).

Hey, now I have an opportunity to quote Mark Twain (http://www.hannibal.net/twain/works/jumping_frog_1867/answer_correspondent_pp.html):

"I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc., etc., etc. ... You never see but one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime, (and which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone,) nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from NOT smoking."

why-knot

February 24th, 2006, 10:31 PM

This post has been edited for obvious reasons

Ballardguy

February 24th, 2006, 11:44 PM

Hey, now I have an opportunity to quote Mark Twain (http://www.hannibal.net/twain/works/jumping_frog_1867/answer_correspondent_pp.html):

"I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc., etc., etc. ... You never see but one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime, (and which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone,) nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from NOT smoking."

Like I said before, give an ape a cigarette and he thinks he is a poet or a philosopher.

Another thing to add to the I don't give a shit list. I don't give a shit how much pleasure you or Mark Twain get off on from a cigarette.

And to Gomez - I wrote what I don't give a shit about. That was honest. Why don't you be honest and admit that it is over - you will never be legally able to smoke in bars again.

Smalan Ithee

February 25th, 2006, 03:12 AM

I don't give a shit about smokies pretending to be intellectuals, and wrapping themselves around beliefs such as the only reason the initiative passed was due to worker health. Bullshit. It passed because people hate your smoke....
Let's take it even further. No smokies allowed on public transportation. You ever have a smokie sit down next to you on the bus? They STINK.I appreciate your honesty, and I think it applies to many others who voted for 901 - because to many, smoking stinks. Disregard all the 2nd hand smoke debates, the fight over someone's "rights" - it passed because smoke is stinky.

I don't give a shit if bars shut down due to the initiative. If smoking was their main draw for being in business, then it was a shitty bar in the first place. They deserve to shut down.And smokers are the ones who are selfish?

Smokies haven't given a shit for years. They never gave a shit about lighting up, no matter who was around them. You could have a bar of 9 people not smoking and a smokie would just light one up. And then another...and then another...ect... .As a former smoker (as of 2 weeks ago), I can say that anyone who lit up in the presence of 90% non-smokers was a lameass for doing so. Regardless of all the "I've had so many smokers flick their butts and blow their smoke in my face" hysteria, most smokers I've come into contact with are relatively considerate. i.e. they went outside or only smoked in a smoke-friendly place.They blatantly flick cigarette butts outside car windows.Flicking a lit cigarette out of a car window is ridiculous, and is littering, plain and simple. No different from someone throwing a bag of garbage out of the window. Again - don't paint all smokers as litterbugs.And what is it with the bullshit claim that smoking is a "habit"? Smoking is an ADDICTION. Providing any ability for smokies to light up in public settings is supporting this addiction and has the absurd effect of having others indirectly sharing the poison of cigarette smoke.Pre 901 and in my smoking days, I can tell you that any time I went out for a beer, I was asked for a cigarette from a "non-smoker" who supposedly only smoked when they drank. Yes, it most certainly is an addiction for most, but it is also a habit for quite a few others.
Have a nice weekend. :).Backatcha big daddy! And I'm not being a smartass when I say, again, I appreciate your honesty. And I agree Fiona is hot.

maggie2

February 25th, 2006, 11:16 AM

Please check out my slog entry "Big Tobacco loves The Stranger" and respond there if you wish.
Thanx

DrOctopu5

February 25th, 2006, 04:30 PM

Please check out my slog entry "Big Tobacco loves The Stranger" and respond there if you wish.
Thanx
No, don't.

Same shit, different day. Someone slap her, she's stuck in a loop.

BridgeTroll

February 27th, 2006, 11:29 AM

I had to read this twice....is this the straw you're clinging to now? Quoting Mark Twain? Good for you.

Sniff. I'm all emotional now. I didn't realize that smoking is such a sentimental experience. Golly gee...I guess we can't second guess the wisdom of Samuel Clemens. Our bad. Go ahead in light up in bars...buses..restaurants....hospitals. Wherever you want. Pass out the cigarettes in grade school. Why not? It's an American tradition.

Of course, you are quoting someone who was such an addict, he smoked up to 22 cigars a day - some reports list it up to 40. Started smoking at age 9, after trying chewing tobacco at age 7.

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking
Agree. It is fatal. I don’t care if you indulge. I just don’t want to indulge with you via second hand smoke.

and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc., etc., etc. ...
Please. Are we really trying to lump in smoking as equivalent to drinking coffee or playing billiards? I’m not aware of any “second hand” health risks associated with coffee, billiards or wine. I would even question how fatal these indulgences are…possibly a DUI risk, jittery nerves or cue ball anger....but that’s another blog.

You never see but one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time.
Good for them. No one is saying you can’t smoke. God forbid anyone tell you to give up coffee.

And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime, (and which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone,) nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from NOT smoking."
I don’t care. Get off on it…relax…enjoy to your hearts content. Just stop sharing it with others via your smoke.

Cantiloper

February 28th, 2006, 01:26 PM

Cantiloper

February 28th, 2006, 01:33 PM

BridgeTroll

February 28th, 2006, 01:54 PM

Breather wrote:

"What people who have looked at the numbers know is that New York City's bars and restaurants added 10,600 jobs and seen an 8.7 percent increase in sales tax receipts since the ban went into effect. There were no negative effects in Boston or MA."

Sorry Breather. Those numbers were corrected and updated. See:

http://www.audreysilkfornycmayor.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=13

And, if you look around to various places where it's been cited on the web you'll find no one has criticized it for accuracy.

As for a ban in MA having "no negative effect" Sheeesh... did you miss Dr. Siegel's analysis (Mike Siegel, well known general antismoking researcher for years) that indicated Massachusetts' heart attack rates have climbed at a rate of something like 300% the national average since it started banning smoking everywhere? The Helena clowns claimed a positive effect for a 40% drop and people like you and matt fawned all over them, but a 300% increase isn't notable?

A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but a TOTAL LACK of consistency seems to be the albatross of the Antismokers' mind.

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

Attributing a 300% increase in heart attacks to a smoking ban? That's ingenius. Maybe it's due to all the smokies anxiety about not being able to smoke in bars.

As Ballardguy said, give an ape a cigarette.....what other stats can you pull out of your ass? Maybe...high school testing scores went up or down lately...or perhaps pigeon's shitting on shoulders...or maybe an increase in pasta consumption. Would all those also be associated with a smoking ban?

Such bullshit pseudo science.

BridgeTroll
Author of "Bullshit Smokie Claims"

BridgeTroll

February 28th, 2006, 02:09 PM

Troll wrote: "I’m not aware of any “second hand” health risks associated with coffee, billiards or wine."

Really Troll? Never heard of volatile polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons? They're one of the nasties that antismokers like James Repace like to point to in smoke... but they're also in coffee and that little word "volatile" becomes quite significant at 160 degrees F.

Oooooh......scary. So...let me get this straight. Second hand coffee is dangerous to society? If I am sitting next to a coffee drinker....these nasty poly aroma hydro...whatevers.....leap onto me? Do I get the jitters?

Smoking is a choice. Coffee is a choice. More accurately, smoking is an addiction, and coffee is probably not far behind. The initiative, and others like it do not ban smoking. They ban it in public places (BTW, bus stops got defined today as non-smoking areas). If you are of the belief that second hand coffee is a danger to society, please (and I really hope you do) start an initiative to ban coffee in public places. And no coffee drinking within 25 feet of a doorway. If it passes, I will support it with all my heart.

Breathing in second hand smoke is NOT a choice. It is imposed upon you by others. Smokie kneejerk reaction? "Don't go to places where smokers are". Bullshit. By a 2-1 margin, the answer is......drumroll......don't smoke in public places.

Keep grasping straws. Please though, in all seriousness, take care of your heart. Did you know that smoking bans result in a 300% increase in heart attacks?

Cantiloper

February 28th, 2006, 02:20 PM

BridgeTroll

February 28th, 2006, 02:52 PM

Well, at least the Troll can recognize nonsense SOME of the time when he sees it, though it's pretty funny how Helena's 40% based on about 20 cases gets taken seriously while Massachusetts' 300% based on thousands of cases gets ignored as an artifact.

Too bad he doesn't seem to understand what the word volatile means however.

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

LOL. Good one. :)

I do know what volatile means. Like you, it's the nonsense that drives me nuts (makes me bump my head on the bridge bottom). Pseudo-science on both sides of this (but I do think smokies use it more).

Let's all go out for fish - for the sake of our soon-to-be exploding hearts.

Cantiloper

February 28th, 2006, 03:09 PM

Bridge Troll wrote: "Let's all go out for fish - for the sake of our soon-to-be exploding hearts."

I'd agree on fish being healthy, particularly given the health of Japanese heavy smokers, but even there you'll find some disagreement. Check out the interesting results and discussion of a dietary study I just ran across today at:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022306B

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

raymondrna

February 28th, 2006, 03:27 PM

when you guys reach page 50 there needs to be some sort of milestone marking celebration. all the non-smokers can party indoors and all the smokers can party out side, then they mix and mingle. fuckin' hot shit. there can be a yelling match where the loudest pointless diatribe gets an awesome party favor??? maybe we can get an oorsome dj?? huh??

5 pages to go!! yeah!!! you can do it!!

Melle

February 28th, 2006, 06:24 PM

So, the (recent) tally thus far: Ballardguy posts a shitload of pure drivel about how little he cares (his M.O. is to preach apathy and practice zealotry)---yet he's about to deride me for not saying anything relevant. The cojones on these losers. Oh, and he compared Mark Twain to a pretentious ape. Tastes vary, I guess ....

Meanwhile BridgeTroll says I'm grasping at a straw. Right, BridgeTroll, I just whooped your ass & grasped a straw! (BridgeTroll was trying to argue with me about restaurant associations and "ties to Big Tobacco"; I questioned his flimsy sources and crap accusations and he ran away.) I quoted Twain, in response to Ballardguy's tantrum, because it fit. What's funny is that Bridgetroll started actually arguing with Twain---I guess you're safe from ass-whoopings if you argue with someone who's been dead for a century.

Anyway ... here we are:

Bridge Troll wrote: "Let's all go out for fish - for the sake of our soon-to-be exploding hearts."

I'd agree on fish being healthy, particularly given the health of Japanese heavy smokers, but even there you'll find some disagreement. Check out the interesting results and discussion of a dietary study I just ran across today at:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022306B

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

The idea that smoking is the only environmental toxin people are exposed to involuntarily, or that it's the worst one, or that it's anywhere close to the worst one, is so ludicrous it calls the sincerity of the entire anti-smoking movement into question. Fish is a good starting point for addressing the argument that "there's no such thing as secondhand eating, etc."

Take the example of mercury in tuna fish: a toxin is emitted by industry, it builds up as it works its way up the ocean food chain to albacore tuna, and it is finally ingested by unsuspecting diners (who presumabley die, are buried, & begin saturating the soil with mercury---thus contaminating agriculture). The diner (not to mention the rest of the world) is exposed to a toxin without having had any choice in the matter.

That's just one example though. Many of the complex chemicals engineered by the corporate food industry are not broken down by human digestion. Part of their chemical-compound stew remains in the body, but some of it passes through and enters the environment, until it's all over the planet and in everyone's body. Again, people are exposed to chemicals when the decision to create them, and eat them, were made by other people.

Lung cancer was almost unheard-of prior to World War I and cannot be plausibly traced to "First World" tobacco smoking (which began in the sixteenth century). It can, however, be plausibly traced to the automobile. The rise of the internal combustion engine was just about simultaneous with the rise of lung cancer. Additionally (in case anyone is still unaware of it) the Greenland ice cap has been melting into the sea at an unforeseen rate lately due to global warming. This could easily be the sign a near-worst-case scenario involving worldwide floods and an arctic climate in Europe. People around the world, who have never driven a car in their lives, can thank the lifestyle embraced by the Western United States for the threat of dirty air and rising water---an ever-present threat to every human being alive, and one they certainly didn't choose for themselves.

I know the stock response to this is, "sure there are other problems besides tobacco---but just as we should do something to fix those, we should stamp out tobacco." And I know Matt is dying to tell me that I only want to cure "disease A" and ignore "disease B." But I'm not talking about what I want. I'm talking about the motivations of a self-proclaimed "public health" movement. And their argument is a smoke screen if ever there was one. A cigarette is a few cubic centimeters of dried leaves, and the burning of it (even by millions of smokers simultaneously) is the sort of thing the earth got used to long ago. Dried plant matter has burned, as a matter of nature's course, regularly & in tremendous volume, for billions of years. Meanwhile, industry started belching out tons of fossil-fuel byproduct relatively recently, and we have lung cancer, poison fish, and global warming to show for it, so how could any conscientious advocate of public health go after the dried leaves?

Any movement truly motivated by public health concerns would treat secondhand smoke as a footnote of a footnote. On the contrary---to take just one example---the EPA (whose authority anti-smoking bloggers love to cite) was doing something very interesting in the early 2000's, while it was helping to ban smoking in New York. According to a recent expose in the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0608,lombardi,72258,6.html), "Within days of the World Trade Center collapse, someone ordered Environmental Protection Agency administrators to tell New Yorkers the air was safe. Reopen Wall Street, and bring back its thousands of workers. Reopen Stuyvesant High School, which Orkin's son attended. Ignore Brooklyn, where residents like her vacuumed inches-deep white ash from their windowsills. No matter that private tests showed the air remained full of lead, asbestos, mercury, benzene. No matter that, according to documents forced out of the EPA by a Freedom of Information request, the agency's own tests agreed that the air in Lower Manhattan—who wanted to bother with Brooklyn?—wasn't fit to breathe."

Yes, the glorious EPA ... green-lighting the exposure America's largest workforce to ultra-hazardous air. But hey, they helped ban tobacco smoking! Whatever the motivation behind the anti-smoking movement may be, it is not a passion for public health. Admit it: you just don't like the smell.

Ballardguy

February 28th, 2006, 10:44 PM

The idea that smoking is the only environmental toxin people are exposed to involuntarily, or that it's the worst one, or that it's anywhere close to the worst one, is so ludicrous it calls the sincerity of the entire anti-smoking movement into question. Fish is a good starting point for addressing the argument that "there's no such thing as secondhand eating, etc." ....blah blah blah blah blah

Do you even have a relevant point to make anymore?

BridgeTroll

March 1st, 2006, 10:03 AM

I think this bitch keeps repeating words that other people use and then tries to pawn them off as his own words - his own brain farts (look for this one down the road from the Ballrd-bitch too, folks!). He should change his moniker to Brainfartguy

He can eat my tin foil underwear and come back for seconds on that like you would expect from the bitch!!

Freedom to Bitch and bitch slap is a good thang folks!

I'm lov'in it!

I imagine everyone has used the words "do", "you", "even", "have", "a", "relevant", "point", "to", "make", and "anymore" at some point in their lives, so technically WK is correct........

See what smoking does to your brain? The above insanity alone should give any smoker pause to think. :).

Ballardguy

March 3rd, 2006, 09:14 AM

Is this blog dead (please)? I have to believe there are no original thoughts left for this topic.

Can anyone write an obituary for this?

stapuft

March 3rd, 2006, 12:39 PM

After reading the last few entries in this thread, I think I've determined-- and I think I'm right-- that why_nuts is actually Wm.™ Steven Humphrey.

Shady_B_206

March 3rd, 2006, 01:33 PM

why knot is really annoying because he never makes any points

breather

March 3rd, 2006, 03:58 PM

QUOTE=Cantiloper]Breather wrote:

"What people who have looked at the numbers know is that New York City's bars and restaurants added 10,600 jobs and seen an 8.7 percent increase in sales tax receipts since the ban went into effect. There were no negative effects in Boston or MA."

Sorry Breather. Those numbers were corrected and updated. See:

http://www.audreysilkfornycmayor.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=13

And, if you look around to various places where it's been cited on the web you'll find no one has criticized it for accuracy.[/QUOTE]

Hey Cantiloper!

Sorry to take so long responding, I do look forward to your missives.
I'll see your mayoral candidate with a special one of our own:
http://www.angelfire.com/wa3/richardlee/
He frequently runs for mayor of seattle, wears a dress and is sure that Kurt Cobain was murdered. What's not to like about the guy? He's something of a fruit too and like your mayoral candidate, no one really bothers to refute anything he says.

As for a ban in MA having "no negative effect" Sheeesh... did you miss Dr. Siegel's analysis (Mike Siegel, well known general antismoking researcher for years) that indicated Massachusetts' heart attack rates have climbed at a rate of something like 300% the national average since it started banning smoking everywhere? The Helena clowns claimed a positive effect for a 40% drop and people like you and matt fawned all over them, but a 300% increase isn't notable?

Now I'm really suspicious about this. I haven't seen any smokies keel over yet. Yeah, they still lose their breath periodically and I've seen them turn some cool shades of purple trying to argue their cases but no coronaries, not yet anyway.
This brings up an interesting dilemma though. Would I try to resuscitate a fallen smokie and risk exposing myself to second hand smoke?

breather

March 3rd, 2006, 04:11 PM

Smokies have been '86ed from bars, etc., in Puerto Rico.

denny8448

March 20th, 2006, 01:47 AM

Some of you anti-smoking fanatics need to get a grip. You don't like smoking, fine. I don't like what you say and I want to ban it.

But smoke kills and words don't!

In the smokiest bar, if you spent 24 hours a day, there is absolutely no scientific proof that it would kill you.

Speach CAN lead to violence which kills.

Yes, some of you are just a step away from fascism. You want to make the world a perfect place for yourself and you don't care about anyone else. You want to put people in jail for peacefully assembling and doing something lawful.

There were many smoke-free bars and restaurants in Washington State before the ban. You had choice and I had choice. You took away my choice, not because you necessarily wanted to go to that smoky bar ("anyone who couldn't stay in business without catering to smokers DESERVES to go bankrupt") but because you wanted to excercise power over my life. You don't care how many have lost jobs or how many jobs are yet to be lost. You don't care about individual rights or freedoms. It's all about YOU.

There are many compromises which could be offered. Private clubs, apportionment of smoking and non-smoking places. These have no appeal to you because smoking is only part of it. You're the new Jerry Falwells--worse, you're the new Ayatolahs, the Taliban, enforcing your views on a cowering minority. I don't know how you sleep at night.

Denny,
Washington State Smokers Alliance
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WashStateSmokersAlliance/

ya_right

March 20th, 2006, 07:02 AM

( oh man, this is good ) *We* need to get a grip? Looks like you're the one ranting, friend. Take a deep breath. You've got a serious addiction. Dress that pig up any way you like, but it's one of the biggest killers in the US. The same ignorance that leads you to do something so stupid and unproductive, and in fact pay for the privilege, is the same ignorance that leads you to site meaningless statements of "scientific proof." Frankly, I don't much care what you do to yourself, it only hits my radar when you need me to become part of it, or breath it. Nobody stopped you from smoking, you just need to lift your pudgy ass up and go outside. You're either too lazy to walk a few feet, too fragile to be outside, or too addicted to be able to relax without a cigarette in your mouth; either way-deal with it. You mention lack of "scientific proof", actually, this "smoke in your own face, not mine" model has already been tested in cities such as San Francisco, and others, and there has been no loss of jobs, that is a fable, can you site any scientific proof? Better go out and have yourself a smoke. Draw it in, good and deep. Might as well speed the process along, death won't be so far away, and it should be welcome, now that you've become a citizen of a fascist state and all your freedom has been swept away. Oh god, it's like living in an Orwellian novel. The humanity.

Ballardguy

March 20th, 2006, 08:39 AM

Some of you anti-smoking fanatics need to get a grip. You don't like smoking, fine. I don't like what you say and I want to ban it.

But smoke kills and words don't!

Oops! Looks like a smokie let a little bit of truth slip in! You just destroyed your own argument.

Yes, some of you are just a step away from fascism. You want to make the world a perfect place for yourself and you don't care about anyone else. You want to put people in jail for peacefully assembling and doing something lawful.

It's so quaint describing a gaggle of smokies as "peacefully assembling and doing something lawful". Sniff. Who's gone to jail? Is smoking still allowed in jails?

I don't know how you sleep at night.
Pretty good, thanks for asking.

ya_right

March 20th, 2006, 05:26 PM

haaa, that was good. Come to think of it, I've been sleeping pretty well myself these days.

singinbill55

March 20th, 2006, 10:23 PM

What ever happened to the right of business owners to do business with whomever they choose? Who cares about whether you smoke or not. The issue at hand is there is no longer such a thing as private enterprise when it comes to a business that allowed smoking in the past. The right to decide who you want to do business with, or not do business with has been taken away. What about the revenue that has, and will be lost because of the ban? Believe it or not jobs have been lost, business has slowed down and establishments have closed. The four non smokers that were supposed to replace the one smoker have not materialized.
As far as all you people posting your sniveling, self centered, holier than thou comments about how bad, or not, smoking is...Get a grip! What it all boils down to is that somewhere, somehow the damage to the economy of Washington State is going to have to be made up. Are you ready to have your already over taxed asses taxed more. Maybe people should spend more time thinking about that than prolonging this meaningless pissing contest I have spent too much time reading since I have joined this group.

ya_right

March 21st, 2006, 08:12 AM

What ever happened to the right of business owners to do business with whomever they choose?Ummm..gee, it never existed, at least not an unfettered right. And it kills me too that business owners have been persecuted by not having the right to burn tires on their property, assemble peaceably to clean carburetors with toluene around the open fire pit, and of course the famed asbestos showers of ol'. It’s a cruel world.
Who cares about whether you smoke or not.
well...obviously you do.

The issue at hand is there is no longer such a thing as private enterprise
..god bless you for your tireless defense of freedom, so clearly your only objective..you've been working so hard to champion democracy, now take a break and have a smoke, you've earned it.

As far as all you people posting your sniveling, self centered, holier than thou comments about how bad, or not, smoking is...Get a grip!
You’re right, listen up non-smokers, quit sniveling about your massive victory and let the smokers rejoice their defeat in peace.

somehow the damage to the economy of Washington State is going to have to be made up.
so very true, it's like the great depression around here and I look terrible in knickers. The juice harps and banjos are driving me crazy, but at least you can get a $13 suit.

singinbill55

March 21st, 2006, 04:22 PM

Or were you just very difficult to potty train? Either way your anger toward everything under the sun is astonishing. Get a clue.

ya_right

March 21st, 2006, 05:11 PM

Or were you just very difficult to potty train? Either way your anger toward everything under the sun is astonishing. Get a clue.
you're kidding me, right? I just go in my pants. Oh man, this is far too easy, I'm feeling guilty. I'm not angry at you, see, here's a big bear hug and a kiss....MMMMMMMMMPPPHHA!!

singinbill55

March 21st, 2006, 08:01 PM

You rant on about how smokers are so bad yet you refuse to see the ramifications of the ban. It's a given that no one knows what the effects of second hand smoke truly are so there is no valid argument concerning it. Statictics are always skewed to make either side valid so anyone with a lick of knowledge about them should be able to take them for what they are worth. There is much information concerning second hand smoke from either side of the fence so, in reality, peoples' opinions are based soley on what they prefer to belive. Obviously you choose to believe that second hand smoke is detrimental to everyones health and that is your perogative. But please don't take it as gospel and delude yourself into believing that your ranting is going to persuade everybody else. In fact it seriously makes you appear juvenile. Maybe it is time to look at all sides of the issue and come up with a solution to the problems that have risen and the problems that are going to arise in the future. If you don't pay any taxes then I understand why you refuse to approach the subject of revenue needing to be made up somewhere. If you do pay taxes then don't you think it is about time you begin to concern yourself with rising property taxes, gas taxes and any other tax that could be raised to make up the difference? By the way, my last posting was uncalled for and I sincerely apologize for it. I should not have based my opinion about some one based on their opinions.

denny8448

March 21st, 2006, 11:54 PM

Frankly, I don't much care what you do to yourself, it only hits my radar when you need me to become part of it, or breath it. Nobody stopped you from smoking, you just need to lift your pudgy ass up and go outside. You're either too lazy to walk a few feet, too fragile to be outside, or too addicted to be able to relax without a cigarette in your mouth; either way-deal with it. You mention lack of "scientific proof", actually, this "smoke in your own face, not mine" model has already been tested in cities such as San Francisco, and others, and there has been no loss of jobs, that is a fable, can you site any scientific proof? Better go out and have yourself a smoke. Draw it in, good and deep. Might as well speed the process along, death won't be so far away, and it should be welcome, now that you've become a citizen of a fascist state and all your freedom has been swept away. Oh god, it's like living in an Orwellian novel. The humanity.

First lie is you say you don't care what I do to myself as long as you don't have to breath it. Then walk your lazy ass across the street to a non-smoking bar and let me have the one I like. Lie to yourself, pal, but don't lie to me.

Second lie is there are no loss of jobs in SF or anywhere else these bans have been put in place. The entire state of California has suffered. New York had hundreds of small pubs go out of business. Landmarks, places that had been open for 100 years. Hundreds of Taverns in THIS state have seen tremendous loses in business. Many of them will close. Along with certain restaurants. Lie to yourself, pal, but don't lie to the public. They've been lied to long enough.

denny8448

March 22nd, 2006, 12:08 AM

Oops! Looks like a smokie let a little bit of truth slip in! You just destroyed your own argument.

I've got a friend in England who says Americans are simply incapable of irony. I guess he's got a point. I was simply anticipating the fascist argument, not using it myself.

It's so quaint describing a gaggle of smokies as "peacefully assembling and doing something lawful". Sniff. Who's gone to jail? Is smoking still allowed in jails?

You need to do something about that runny nose. Unpaid fines will get you thrown in jail, in case you haven't heard, where indeed, smoking is not allowed. The truth is, you are taking away the right of a free people to decide for themselves how they wish to live their lives. If that isn't fascism I don't know what is.

Pretty good, thanks for asking.

The truly sick ones usually do.

denny8448

March 22nd, 2006, 12:27 AM

Ummm..gee, it never existed, at least not an unfettered right. And it kills me too that business owners have been persecuted by not having the right to burn tires on their property, assemble peaceably to clean carburetors with toluene around the open fire pit, and of course the famed asbestos showers of ol'. It’s a cruel world.

You're IQ is not handling the stress very well. I suggest you sit back, light a cigarette and try to think.

Burning tires emit millions of times more pollutants than cigarette smoking. Even an outdoor barbecue puts off 100 times more pollutants than a smoke-filled bar. Using that logic you would shut down every grill in every restaurant or backyard in the state. My goodness, lying comes so naturally to you.

The carburetor situation is also daft. You can clean carburetors all you want as long as you don't do it around a fire pit. Or do you want to take away that right? Why can't you smoke all you want if you're not around explosive chemicals then?

And there is absolutely no law against being in an asbestos lined room. There are many school children being taught in them as we speak. Not that 25% of the adult population of Washington State WANTS to play in asbestos.

You have put forth some of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard.

denny8448

March 22nd, 2006, 12:36 AM

BridgeTroll

March 22nd, 2006, 11:57 AM

The truth is, you are taking away the right of a free people to decide for themselves how they wish to live their lives. If that isn't fascism I don't know what is.

The free people did decide - see results of initiative 901.

And as far as your fantasy that dangers of second hand smoke is opinion based....sigh....get real. The only thing worse than a ranting smokie is one who continues to postulate that the dangers of second hand smoke are subjective.

I could go on and ask you where you get your figures for "tremendous losses" in CA, NY, and other states..but of course, there are none. All rhetoric. Running around like Chicken Little (the state economies are crashing because smokies cannot smoke in bars....cluck cluck cluck!) does not make it real.

This past posting sums up the feeling of the masses nicely. How do I know this? Because EVERY county in Washington past the initiative, most by a overwhelming majority. The ban is here, it will not go away. Get over it and move on. If you don't think so, then start an appeal initiative. See how far that goes.

I don't give a shit. (Posting 1106)

I don't give a shit about second hand smoke studies, either pro or con smoking. They are all bullshit. Smoking stinks, smoking kills. There's an enlightening study for you.

I don't give a shit about smokies taking posts apart and screaming "prove it". I don't need to prove anything to you. It's all a ploy to mask the real issue. You're an addict who had his playground taken away. Too bad.

I don't give a shit about desperate smokies clinging to the delusional beliefs of "rights" or even better, the belief that second hand smoke is not harmful. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

I don't give a shit about smokies pretending to be intellectuals, and wrapping themselves around beliefs such as the only reason the initiative passed was due to worker health. Bullshit. It passed because people hate your smoke. It could have been worded to protect kittens, and it still would have passed. And what is it about cigarettes that make people think they're smart? You give an ape a cigarette and the next thing you know, he's claiming to be a poet or a philosopher. So fucking delusional.

I really don't give a shit about smokies not being able to smoke in bars. Why should I care? Take your asses outside. I used to think the 25 ft rule was absurd. Screw that. Make it 50 feet....100 even. Let's take it even further. No smokies allowed on public transportation. You ever have a smokie sit down next to you on the bus? They STINK.

I don't give a shit if bars shut down due to the initiative. If smoking was their main draw for being in business, then it was a shitty bar in the first place. They deserve to shut down.

Smokies haven't given a shit for years. They never gave a shit about lighting up, no matter who was around them. You could have a bar of 9 people not smoking and a smokie would just light one up. And then another...and then another...ect... They blatantly flick cigarette butts outside car windows. And what is it with the bullshit claim that smoking is a "habit"? Smoking is an ADDICTION. Providing any ability for smokies to light up in public settings is supporting this addiction and has the absurd effect of having others indirectly sharing the poison of cigarette smoke.

ya_right

March 22nd, 2006, 12:52 PM

There are compromises which would allow people to enjoy a cigarette when they're out for an evening but these people are fascists at heart. They are so convinced of their moral superiority that compromise is out of the question. They want to tell you what car you can own, what color to paint your house, what tree you can cut on your own property. They're not terribly bright but they're determined. And dangerous.
Denny8448, this is something I rarely do, but you are truly a fool. You rant then complain about ranting. You make claims of studies and consequences, but site not a single source while claiming others are misleading with theirs. You scream fascism then cry about the result of a fair, democratic vote ( shouts out to BridgeTroll for this reminder, I almost forgot in all this sniveling ) You claim others are wielding some "moral superiority" as you label them as "liars". You speak of compromises but mention none. Mostly, you call others stupid when both the form and substance of your words point so clearly your profound ignorance. Brother, I actually feel for you, I mean that. If there is something I can do to help you beyond this smoking law issue, email me and I'll do what I can. I hope you forgive me for calling you names but if I perceived my own biological brother being so convoluted, I would say the same. It would be just so easy to laugh off your post.

ya_right

March 22nd, 2006, 01:00 PM

Folks, all of this about chemicals, fascism, freedom, liars, fools, democracy, rights, danger, economics, business, choice, studies and statistics; please, you smokers are simply addicted to one of earth's most addictive substances and are reacting as most addicts do when they are distanced in any way from their substance.

This entire thread is about nothing more, nor any larger issue. You'll get over it.

singinbill55

March 22nd, 2006, 06:20 PM

Am I correct in assuming, Ya Right, that you are not in business for yourself in a field that has direct connections with the bar business?
I am a business owner. I do not own a bar but I own a business that relies mostly on the bar business. Since the ban went into effect I have seen businesses close their doors. I have seen a major drop in revenue for alot of businesses I deal with which translates into a drop in revenue for my company. Need I mention all the other peripheral businnesses being affected by the ban? Take, for instance, pull tabs or alcohol or food. There are quite alot of establishments in the state that pay taxes. With the drop in business comes a drop in tax revenue. If you are not aware tax revenue is what pays for state and local services. The people who supported the ban were told that for every one smoker who quit going to bars four non-smokers would take their place. This has not happened. Many of the smokers have stopped going to bars and hence, less revenue. The ban has not made people quit smoking it just made them smoke somewhere else. My question is where is that lost revenue going to be made up? To equate it with the depression is just assinine. This is reality. Washington State is already one the highest taxed states in the country. I am afraid soon it will become the highest.

ya_right

March 22nd, 2006, 07:39 PM

Since the ban went into effect I have seen businesses close their doors.
NAME THEM! It's high time you people provide even one iota of fact. Name one business that has closed its doors due to the smoking ban.
Am I correct in assuming, Ya Right, that you are not in business for yourself in a field that has direct connections with the bar business?
Incorrect, in that I am a business owner. Correct that it has nothing to do with the bar business, but like ALL corporations we take hits and suffer through changing times, legalities, technology, economic climate, etc. We assume all this to be part of business and you are showing me how stoic we've been. I never realized this until I read the belly aching going on here.
The ban has not made people quit smoking it just made them smoke somewhere else. My question is where is that lost revenue going to be made up? To equate it with the depression is just asinine.
My comment about the depression was a joke, as I assumed your ranting about all this economic damage that nobody can point to or demonstrate. The only thing asinine is your expectation of prolonged business success with such a loose understanding of basic economics. You crone on about all the lost revenue. Unfortunately if you’d taken economics 101 you would've addressed the most important question, one any experienced economist, and most experienced business owners will ask-which is where the money is now going. You see, "revenue" is a product of assets ( with very few exceptions ) Assets don't appear or disappear from thin air, they shift from place to place. Have you never asked yourself what happens to the money you allege is no longer flowing to companies which you claim are going from solvent to loss? Or are you claiming that now that the poor, abused smokers need to step outside, they've been literally incinerating the rolls of money they previously spent in bars, being as it's now useless paper?

So just for kicks, I would really love to see you answer two simple questions, really the jackpot questions, one's that, after all this sniveling, deserve at least a bad answer. One; name the businesses that have gone under due to the smoking ban ( ie. were doing fine before that date of passage, then went under .) Two; share with us all what you suppose is happening to the money that was previously appointed to these companies.

Ballardguy

March 22nd, 2006, 10:38 PM

Seriously....

Can we get this blog back to its real purpose?

No more pseudo science (2nd hand smoke actually has been shown to cure shingles!) or economics (The town of Tolt went bankrupt because of the smoking ban!).

No more "serious" statements from bullshit organizations (we are the Washington State Smoker's Alliance. Yeah! Yes, yes we are. Me and my buddy Frank...and his son Karl...and some dude in Enumclaw).

Let's hear about the daring smokies braving the elements...walking 25 feet away from entrances on a cold March evening to undertake their God given right to light up! I don't know about you....but when I see these brave, courageous souls on a winter evening.....with their bright orange cigarette ends glowing with the color of freedom......I get all patriotic and emotional. Sometimes, I'm even moved enough to play my "Eye of the Tiger" cd.

Speak up, you Rosa Parks'...you Paul Reveres' of Nicotine. Tell us how you boldly walked away from your cans of PBR to make a statement for freedom. You're defending the rights of all of us! Let your stories be told and documented for all of history.

singinbill55

March 23rd, 2006, 04:48 PM

The Sage Bar and Grill is closing it's doors at the end of this month. Medley's in the Spokane Valley closed it's doors two months ago. Sam and Doms has lost 70 percent of it's business. PJ'S Pub is off 45 percent. Bobby D's is off 60 percent. Slicks is off almost 75 percent. Studio K is down 30 to 35 percent. I could go on. This is all due to the ban. Every establishment was doing well before the ban went into effect.
The revenue I speak of is tax revenue from sales. Obviously if the bars are not being patronized as much then the tax revenue goes down. As any economist worth anything will tell you. Are you trying to tell me that just because a person owns a business he or she is going to pay as much tax on sales of 100 dollars as he or she would if they had 1000 dollars in sales? Just because they own the business? As for your second question...you have a point there. But revenue lost from businesses closed will not be totally made up by consumers.
And Ballardguy....Please stop.

Ballardguy

March 23rd, 2006, 09:59 PM

Actually - no. I will not stop.

Do I go over the top sometimes? Yep. But only after reading multitudes of smokers go on with bizarre claims and hypocrisy.

The logic behind all these closure claims appears to be that the only reason smokers went to these bars was...well...to smoke. Take away that toy and the smokers no longer go (this will probably cause someone to wax nostalgically about smoke filled rooms..blah blah blah). If the only draw these places have is as a smoke haven, then maybe they should close.

Stop blaming any closures on the smoking ban. Blame yourselves. If you really cared at all, you would continue your patronage. Going on about your "concern" for bar closures (which still seems more myth than fact) is nothing more than another excuse to bitch about the ban. The real issue is still the same - you lost your playground.

singinbill55

March 23rd, 2006, 10:46 PM

Just what is it that you have against smokers?

Ballardguy

March 23rd, 2006, 11:23 PM

Just what is it that you have against smokers?

Nothing. I know lots of people who smoke. And I got nothing against you - in fact, you seem like a pretty reasonable guy.

I'm just tired of the whining, and the pompous attitude of having a "right" taken away. The majority of the 1100+ postings on this topic are amazing. Quotes of BS science, claims of prosecution, global economic crashes....etc.

All over a poisonous leaf wrapped in a piece of paper. Ridiculous.

Rights

March 24th, 2006, 06:14 AM

It baffles me that so many people don’t realize how severe all the new laws passed on smokers really are. It’s about more than your convenience, it is about our rights as Americans.
Lets just think about this for a moment. It starts by a certain percentage of the population wanting to create laws for things that they don’t like. For example the right to gay marriage, a ban on abortion, the right to bare arms, some types of free speech, smoking, and many more. Those people that enjoy the fact that they don’t have to smell smoke or watch a loving gay couple walk down the isle say “Great, democracy works in our favor” Well guess what you bunch of fouls, we don’t live in a fucking democracy, we live in a republic, contrary to what we are told. And guess what else, every right that is taken away because YOU don’t like it, because it turns YOUR stomach, is bringing us one step closer to fucking 1984. Whether that sounds paranoid to you, I could give a shit less. Pick up a book and educate yourself on history before opening you mouth and shouting about how you want your “morals” represented in everyone else’s life. What’s the next step? Are you going to tell my Pagan friends that they don’t have a right to their beliefs? You gonna tell your good ol’ boy W to start installing tracking chips in everyone so that you'll feel safer at night? Hell, you probably already told him it’s all right to bug your phone, you don’t have anything to hide. FUCK YOU!!!! I’m so sick and tired of people being so fucking stupid. Read the constitution; think about how all these laws that you want to place on other people will one day come back in your face. Is it going to take them coming to your house and taking away your precious Bud Light for you to get it? Because it wouldn't surprise me if prohibition came back and your precious Alcohol became illegal. Think about this people, it’s all grand and glorious until they come knocking on your door, ready to take away a right that you depend on.
It is your choice not to hang around or establish a place that allows smokers, it is your choice not to attend a gay marriage, it is your choice not to get an abortion and it is your choice to disagree with me. We should never try to control someone else’s choices. It’s their life and their choice. If you don’t want to be around smoke, don’t be around it. It’s as simple as that. This brings up one other point. It should be up to the business owner whether a place is smoking or not. It should NOT be YOURS. That is one of the things that pisses me off the most. Who gives you, or anyone else for that matter, a right to tell a business that they shouldn’t allow smoking (inside or out)? That business owner worked her/his ass off creating their dream. Why should someone be able to tell them how to run it? It should be their choice, not yours.
Remember people; this is about civil liberties, not your need to get what you want out of life.
Well, for now I still have my rights. For now I can still say what’s on my mind without being arrested. For now I still have a choice over my own body. For now I can still smoke a cigarette in SOME bars without being asked to leave.
If we all tired to make laws that represented what we wanted to see, can you imagine how much more fucked this country would be?
I’d like to end this overly extended rant with a quote by Oscar Wilde, which I feel explains my point perfectly.
Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live,
it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

Ballardguy

March 24th, 2006, 09:08 AM

It baffles me that so many people don’t realize how severe all the new laws passed on smokers really are. It’s about more than your convenience, it is about our rights as Americans....blah blah blah...
There you go Bill...this is what drives me nuts. Comparing smoking to "liberty and justice for all."

Rights

March 24th, 2006, 10:31 AM

It is about rights. Did you even read what I had to say in its entirety? I realize that it’s long; I had a lot to say. Can you please give me some logical arguments derived from my comments? I must be honest; I posted this on Criagslist and couldn’t get a single intelligent response. I would greatly appreciate hearing someone disagree with me rationally, in a manner that could be discussed like adults.

Ballardguy

March 24th, 2006, 11:30 AM

qwerty

March 24th, 2006, 11:47 AM

And I should be able to ride my motorcycle on the sidewalk without a helmet. The ZOG new world order is gonna turn us all into goody goody robots. Arggggg

Rights

March 24th, 2006, 11:56 AM

Man this sucks. I just joined in. Should I try another forum or what?
I tell you what, I really miss being able to carry on a civil argument with people. Like I said I tried to discuss things on Criagslist and all I got back were pee-brained rants about stink. At Big Time I could have a good conversation with people with vocabularies that expanded past 20 words. Now that I’m back in this hell-hole they call Florida, I have no one to talk to.

Bosco

March 24th, 2006, 12:24 PM

Man this sucks. I just joined in. Should I try another forum or what?

Yes, you should try another forum. This one's become a bad version of Ground Hog Day.

Rights

March 24th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Any suggestions?
I definitly have some things to say about S. Dakota, and the fact that new future governer of Florida wants to pass the same fucked up law.

qwerty

March 24th, 2006, 01:05 PM

silly, just because you channel an emotional rant through logic does not make you logical.

Civilization needs to create guide lines for people who are out-of-control.

90% of the earth has no regulations or very little regulations: there are no traffic signals, you can dump toxic waste wherever you want, and you can blow poison into peoples faces. in other words: PARADISE

denny8448

March 24th, 2006, 04:40 PM

The free people did decide - see results of initiative 901.

That's right--ignore my point about protecting minority rights, about the historical abuses of majority will.

And as far as your fantasy that dangers of second hand smoke is opinion based....sigh....get real. The only thing worse than a ranting smokie is one who continues to postulate that the dangers of second hand smoke are subjective.

As a matter of fact I could list dozens of studies which show no link between SHS and ANY diseases. I don't have time and it wouldn't make any difference to you. Here though, is from the Euro-Edition of the Wall Street Journal, commenting on one of the largest studies ever done:

Smoking Out Bad Science
By Lorraine Mooney
Copyright 1998 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Wall Street Journal - European Edition (March 12, 1998)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the past 15 years the anti-smoking lobby has pushed the view that cigarette smoking is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For having failed to persuade committed smokers to save themselves, finding proof that passive smoking harmed non-smoking wives, children or workmates meant smoking could be criminalized. Last week the science fell off the campaign wagon when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all.

But don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. smoking, like fox hunting, is something that certain factions want to ban simply because they don't like it. It has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one. Today, National No smoking Day in Britain will be marked by demagoguery from the Department of Health, which has already set its agenda to ban smoking. The U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco or Health (SCOTH) report on passive smoking, due out Thursday, is headed by a known anti-tobacco crusader, Professor Nicholas Wald of the Royal London School of Medicine.

However, it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.

I could go on and ask you where you get your figures for "tremendous losses" in CA, NY, and other states..but of course, there are none. All rhetoric. Running around like Chicken Little (the state economies are crashing because smokies cannot smoke in bars....cluck cluck cluck!) does not make it real.

The only people keeping track of these businesses, the only ones who have any sympathy are pro-smoking groups. Yes, they are biased, but they list each place and each city. You can verify each listing. If you bothered to do the research you would see what I see. And this is only the tip of the iceburg. At some point, even if you never change your mind about the ban, you should feel betrayed by all the bold-face lies you've been told. Anyway, here is one list: http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm

qwerty

March 24th, 2006, 05:19 PM

Yes I will ignore your goof ball point about minority rights. Some minorities like criminals (drug addicts, lepers, the criminally insane) need to be seperated from the rest of the population because they have a negative impact on the rest of the population.

Your studies that show that second hand smoke is great goes against common sense: if it smells like poison - its poison. plus fire fighters will tell you that smoke kills more people than fires. ask asthmatics if ambient cigarette smoke triggers attacks.

plus you reek like pig shtt. if you want to crp your pants and walk around FU.

I know its the chemicals talking - your brain architecture has been rewired and turned you into a monster. you are now an empty shell of a human controlled by a parasite.

ya_right

March 24th, 2006, 06:36 PM

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live,
it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde
i.e. demanding others literally inhale disgusting smoke just because you're addicted and too weak and ignorant to face it. Can you possibly be more hypocritical? Even though your addiction is the issue, so clearly not the constitution or you would have a better understanding of it, let me get that for you. The macro issue, which the smoking ban is only a micro part to, has already been thoroughly addressed by the supreme court. You idiots ramble about rights. Ever hear the critical finding expressed in a US Supreme Court ruling that states "..your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.." You see, even if cigarettes weren’t toxic, carcinogenic, and the product of an industry so corrupt that they've infected our political system and managed to exempt themselves from basic "ingredient" disclosures that have become law for everyone else, including far less controversial substances; the shit you're addicted to makes others nauseous. Do you think we would give a damb that you have no respect for your health if we didn't have to breath it? Do you feel any shame that most of you spent years subjecting others to your personal problem? As I read these posts, one thing seems dominant. The smokers are in denial, ranting about bogus studies when their issue is addiction. Could this be the same denial that causes them to poison themselves in the first place. The smokers are blindingly hypocritical as they cry about their right to do something while completely negating the right of others to not be forced to be part of it. The near universal disrespect of smokers is what caused these laws to be passed in the first place. You are the ones that have jeopardized the very rights you seem so apt at exploiting and now won’t stop whining after others have exercised a more basic right, to not have you interfere with their health.

Oh, and all the jive about us being able to just stay home; the voters have spoken clearly, not just here but across the nation, and have been doing so without relenting for over 25 years; we invite you to stay home, kill yourselves out of site, and for god’s sake, a bit more quietly.

BridgeTroll

March 24th, 2006, 08:34 PM

That's right--ignore my point about protecting minority rights, about the historical abuses of majority will.

Sigh....this old rag again. Smoking is not a right.
Is it legal to do? Absolutely. Smoke away. Just not in bars...or hospitals...or airplanes...etc....

Here's an idea. Start a blog about your "right" to smoke on airplanes.

And citing SmokerClub reports. Please. This blog has been there and done that. Smokerclub reports are a joke.

This really has become the Groundhog Day blog. Cmon...if you have nothing new, then just shut up.

singinbill55

March 24th, 2006, 11:56 PM

I forgot non-smokers are mandated by law to enter any place of business whether it allows smoking or not. They have no choice in the matter.

Ballardguy

March 25th, 2006, 01:53 PM

I forgot non-smokers are mandated by law to enter any place of business whether it allows smoking or not. They have no choice in the matter.

What is the point that smokers are trying to raise? I see lots of complaining, cries of discrimination...etc, but not much else.

Before going on about "rights", minority persecution, discrimination, etc....smoking does not even come close to passing the litmus test for the definition of a right under the Constitution. Discussion of this sort is not supporting democracy - it's supporting anarchy.

Are smokers proposing a repeal of the ban? Great. Go at it. I'll even sign the damn initiative - it will never pass anyways.

Unconstitutional? Take it to court. Hell, as a non-smoking attorney, I would take it to court if it had a chance in hell, just for grins and fees. Good luck though. If this is the "right" some smokers claim it to be, then why have none of the smoking bans been overturned.....or even faced a serious challenge in court?

Forecasting an economic crisis because of the ban? Again, good luck. The facts just don't add up.

Whatever the point is, it comes across as a whine and bitch session. That's great if it is - maybe start a blog called Smoker Whining and Bitching.

I seriously doubt we will ever see smoking allowed in bars again in our lifetime. And this is not just a local reaction. Bans are going up across the country and the world. I spend alot of time in Phoenix - probably one of the biggest smoking communities in this country. Bans are up in Tempe, Scottsdale, and I believe the municipality of Phoenix also. If it happens there, it really says something.

Society has moved on - the majority of people recognize smoking as a poison, an addiction, and yes, as a annoyance. The days of smoke filled rooms and bars are over. That's the reality.

denny8448

March 25th, 2006, 08:22 PM

I've quickly noticed that the anti-smoking nannies just like to bully and bullsh*t. It's not about reason, it's about power.

They would rather see a bar or restaurant shut down than to allow people who smoke to go there. Nothing to do with THEM, they just want to tell others what to do.

I cited one of the largest, most respected studies ever done on second hand smoke and the reply was "if it smells bad it must be poisoness." Real logic. Then someone else lumped it in with The Smokers Club, which had nothing to do with this study. In fact, THE largest study ever done came to the same conlusion: SHS found in normal quantities (in the home, in a smoky bar, etc, is NOT harmful to non-smokers. It simply isn't in large enough quantities to be harmful. Instead of reading what the extremists are shouting you can read the actual reports--there are hundreds of them. A report from about a year ago, a scientific study without ties to tacacco (as are the two mentioned above) suggested that the rise in childhood asthma is a direct result of the DECLINE in smoking around children. Cigarette smoke causes an immune response which protects AGAINST asthma. I don't want to get involved with defending this, I simply say it in passing.

But again, the answer is simply to segregate. Let the non-smokers go one way and the smokers go another. Freedom of choice. But allowing people to decide for themselves goes against everything nannies stand for.

I pointed anyone who cared to see toward a list of thousands of businesses that were either suffering great losses or who had been forced to shut their doors forever because of smoking bans. I warned that the lists were kept by pro-smoker's rights sites. Of course you jumped on that. The truth is that every single business is listed by name, city and state. It isn't subjective, it's absolute fact. You can find the ones that are still struggling but open and call there. A little research and you can find the moms and pops who owned the ones who had to close after 100 years in business.

So, you argued that SHS kills and I showed that is NOT what studies have found. You argued that businesses aren't being harmed and I showed that's another lie. That pretty much leaves you with the position of "I don't like it."

It's a sick mind that says "I don't like it, therefore you can't do it" when it doesn't affect the person. The compromise is that you don't have to go to smoke friendly bars or restaurants. You patronize yours and we patronize ours and everyone is happy.

Well, not the real busy-body nanny fascists. They want to control what everyone else does.

The consitutional issue isn't smoking per se. It's the right of people to gather and socialize, engaging in legal activities with other like-minded adults.

ALL of these bans have been passed for ONE reason and ONE reason only. Because the fanatics have convinced an unknowing, uncaring majority that SHS is killing people. This is the ONLY reason legal challenges generally fail. The state can do virtually ANYTHING in the name of health and safety. The one big lie and its consequences was something the anti-smoking zealots cooked up 30 years ago. Now they spout figures "53,000 people a year die from SHS!" "20,000 people a year die from SHS!" (these figures are both given by the Washington State Dept of Health and Human Services. They are getting these figures out of their butts, using whatever wild analysis they get from various anti-smoking zealots.) It's almost laughable.

The reason this ban passed in Washington is because the majority prefer non-smoking bars. Little old ladies who've never been in a bar in their lives voted for it. Nine million dollars spent promoting it and less than $100,000 opposing. Already, many, many people wish they hadn't voted for it. They weren't told the effect it would have on businesses. The American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association both lied straight faced. They even convinced a lot of bar owners to vote for it, spreading the same lie they have spread across the country "for every smoker you lose you'll get 4 new customers who don't smoke." Of course while 20-25% of adults smoke, 35-40% of tavern customers do. And they go in with friends who don't smoke but who don't mind the smoke.

In this particular case, the State of Washington used public money to influence the vote. This is illegal and if challenged in court it COULD overturn the outcome.

And don't be too smug there, nannies. Bans HAVE been overturned, and even more have been modified. Overturned by initiative and by legislatures. In Washington, the other side wasn't heard and the side with all the money lied big-time. This tends to tick fair and honest people off.

Despite how they voted, most people in Washington aren't really nazis and nannies. They voted like they did because they're not smokers and they didn't think about the consequences. A lot like the monorail project. Yeah, let's keep it. Until they realized the downside and then killed it in overwhelming numbers.

Yes, groups like Washinton State Smokers Alliance
( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WashStateSmokersAlliance/ ) are relatively small, but we are growing in leaps and bounds. It's not about numbers, it's about money and organization.

One thing this overly long discussion has pointed out are the motives behind the rhetoric and the name calling. It isn't protecting yourselves or the general public, it's all about forcing people to conform to your world view. That's why you spend thousands of words spouting off and shouting down. You're bullies, pure and simple. 13 yo schoolyard bullies.

BridgeTroll

March 25th, 2006, 11:20 PM

I've quickly noticed that the anti-smoking nannies just like to bully and bullsh*t. It's not about reason, it's about power. blah blah blah blah blah...

I bet you also believe in Peter Pan.

I think Ballard is right - this is just a bitch and moan session for you. If you think you can overturn things, go for it. Your strong and mighty group should start an initiative, or take it to court. At least that would be a constructive effort. Calling people bullies and nazis only makes you look like a buffoon.

singinbill55

March 26th, 2006, 12:43 PM

qwerty

March 26th, 2006, 07:51 PM

its sad to see a grown up cry like a little baby. its sad to see kook waste their life studying flat earth theory or other goofy topics. its not the 50s - when you could hide behind those fake tobacco industry studies. the whistle blowers killed that game.

if youre a smoker just keep it in your own little life like in your apt or car.

you should realize that by smoking in public you radiate poison and hostility - you impose your deadly gas on anyone and everyone in your radius. its worse than a loud radio that disturbs the peace - it actually kills people.

many people have had to suffer your attacks for years - so yes, non smokers are pissed off.

its one thing if your an idiot who didnt read all teh danger signs - or you dont have the guts to suicide. dont drag strangers into your death trip.

singinbill55

March 26th, 2006, 08:21 PM

If only it truly were a death trip.

Ballardguy

March 26th, 2006, 11:04 PM

For all you narrow minded one sided people who truly believe second hand smoke is harmful or not without looking at both sides of the issue check out Forces.org. There you will find all the information you need to bolster or refute any of your arguements.

Oh no...another Peter Panner.

No matter. So Bill, what are you going to do about the ban? Smokers never answer this question, so please be the first. Have you started an initiative, filed a court case, appealed to your legislator....anything? Or just sit back and reference weird science?

singinbill55

March 27th, 2006, 07:47 AM

Indeed I have. I have contacted every Rep. and Senator in the state. I found out that Eileen Cody, Rep. of the 34th district, is the chair of the Washington State Health Dept. When HB 2502, the bill to allow smoking if an establishment could show they had a 10% drop in revenue in a thirty day period, hit her desk she went public and stated she would not allow the bill to be voted on. Many Reps , and a few, senators have replied to my query which was how would they vote if HB 2502 was passed beyond Rep. Cody's office. I have to tell you 80% of those who replied said the would have voted for the bill stating they have a fiscal concern. The other 20% wanted to know where I lived so they would know if I was in their district. They didn't seem particularly concerned about anything else.
Let me explain something. I am not concerned about people being able to smoke inside public buildings. What I am concerned about is the fact that right of business owners has been taken away. I am concerned about which right will be the next to go. I am also concerned about the decline of revenue business owners are experiencing which directly effects my income. I have spent many years building my business only to see it decline because of a law enacted that was born out of fears of a society convinced to be paranoid of a non-existent entity. It's amazing what propaganda will get you. I also find it intriguing that people who know nothing about the effects of second hand smoke will invariably revert to the same old arguement that the facts are based on junk science. The science is the same as the science used to determine the detrimental effects of SHS only the numbers aren't tweaked the same way and the information is not cherry picked to suit the needs of the institution doing the study.
Here is another bit of information most people don't realize. Just under 45% of the registered voters in the State of Washington voted on this issue. 66% of that 45% voted for the ban. That means 55% of the registered voters didn't find the issue important enough to be concerned with it. So in reality it was not voted in by an overwhelming majority of Washington State voters. It was voted in by o majority of voters who bothered to vote on it. Just another example of what propaganda will convince people to believe. Speaking of Peter Panners.

ya_right

March 27th, 2006, 08:55 AM

which directly effects my income. I have spent many years building my business only to see it decline because of a law enacted that was born out of fears of a society convinced to be paranoid of a non-existent entity. It's amazing what propaganda will get you.
Finally, it took how many thousand posts, but the truth will surface sooner or later, like a rotten corpse. It's all about somebody's fucking income. You know SigningBill, I previously thought you were just ignorant, now I see you are in fact an asshole, excuse me, a fucking asshole. I would have respected you more if you were taking cover behind the curtain of addiction. Now you've made clear that it isn't about health, freedom, democracy, or society...it's about your fucking income. It's greedy assholes like you that have caused the voters to need to waste time and money dealing with the problem you've been part of creating. I actually respect the nearly maniacal selfishness, tiring childishness and the blinding hypocrisy of the smokers more than you. I consider people like you to be one of the lowest forms of life. In a different time and place, you'd be a Nazi business collaborator, a ruthless land owner or a slave driver. You are the same animal, putting something, usually money, above decency or common sense.

Listen, do you think we would feel so strongly if it were only a statistic or hypothetical that was affecting us. WE DON'T NEED THAT, WE'VE BEEN THERE AND BREATHED THAT, WE KNOW FUCKING WELL WHAT THE EFFECT OF CIGARRETS ARE ON US, IT MAKES US SICK, FEEL LIKE SHIT AND YOU ARE A GREEDY BASTARD TO ATTEMPT TO NEGATE ALL THE FACTS TO SUPPORT YOUR POCKET BOOK.

Something occurred last night at the Moore Theatre that was more than just a bit ironic. I went with friends to see the last show of Dame Edna ( or is it Etna ) During intermission we went down to the bottom lounge. For all of you that have been there, you will know that previously it was so dirt with smoke that you couldn't see the bar. God is my witness, I swear I have been down there with smokers that said, verbatim, "..I'm a smoker and this is disgusting to even me.." Anyone who's been there knows what I'm talking about. Yet, this time it was like never before. It was completely different. I was able to stand with friends, and talk to others, without gulping air and leaving queasy.

More importantly, SigningBullshit, the YOUNG LADY AND MAN OPERATING THE BAR DIDN'T NEED TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN WORKING ELSEWARE OR RISKING THEIR HEALTH. Now I know you'll go into the tired facade of claiming we are hypocritical to be drinking alcohol. However, this so well demonstrates why you've not seen a bill to ban that, CUZ I DON'T HAVE EVERY PATRON DUMP THEIR DRINK ON ME, SO WHEN WE DRINK WE'RE NOT AFFECTING OTHERS, WHEN FOLKS DO, BY DRIVNIG DRUNK OR FIGHTING, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO A SLEW OF PENAL CONCEQUENCES, but of course I'm sure you'll argue that this denies people's right to choose to drive drunk and fight, right?

By the way, there are people that don't drink, but want to have the "right" to be with others that may be. Previously at the Moore, that wasn't really possible, they only served alcohol for most shows at the bottom bar, and you couldn’t take drinks out.

It was so telling, and in fact, I mentioned this thread to the people I was with, one of whom smokes. All agreed, it was really better for everyone. Smokers could still smoke, they just had to go outside. Does it bother you at all SigningIdiot that you are desperately defending something so addictive that it not only causes people to consider it a major issue if they're not able to do it immediately, wherever they are, whatever the consequence to themselves and others; but in fact to be asked to walk a few feet away makes them so nervous about their access to it, that they engage in a nearly unbelievable tirade of bullshit as you and your fellow business creeps and smokers have treated us to here?

I, for one, welcome the loss of your business and tax money. I invite more smokers to stay home, greedy business owners aside, you’ve not been missed.

Ballardguy

March 27th, 2006, 09:01 AM

Indeed I have. I have contacted every Rep. and Senator in the state. I found out that Eileen Cody, Rep. of the 34th district, is the chair of the Washington State Health Dept.....

Excellent! Although I tend to disagree with you on most of this, I respect you for pursuing what you think is a faulty law. I think you might be the first "smokie" on this blog who is actually doing something outside of shouting at the wind.

As far as the voting totals, I don't know if it was necessarily indifference to the smoking initiative. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't those totals about the same for any election, except maybe ones with presidential candidates involved?

If you possibly could...please refrain from quoting pro-smoke resources. I think I know what you are trying to do, but most if not all of these sites are very biased, and none of them will change anyone's mind about smoking dangers. If your issue is the rights of business owners, then referencing these sites only dilutes your position, and could give the impression of you being on the fringe of the "loon" responses. Just my opinion.

I don't think you will get far, but good luck with the Legislature.

qwerty

March 27th, 2006, 09:08 AM

i wonder how the marginal business fluctuations of drug dealers (bar owners) compares to public health spending on smoking related illnesses.

karaokegal23

March 27th, 2006, 08:35 PM

You know SigningBill, I previously thought you were just ignorant, now I see you are in fact an asshole, excuse me, a fucking asshole. I would have respected you more if you were taking cover behind the curtain of addiction. Now you've made clear that it isn't about health, freedom, democracy, or society...it's about your fucking income. It's greedy assholes like you that have caused the voters to need to waste time and money dealing with the problem you've been part of creating. I actually respect the nearly maniacal selfishness, tiring childishness and the blinding hypocrisy of the smokers more than you. I consider people like you to be one of the lowest forms of life. In a different time and place, you'd be a Nazi business collaborator, a ruthless land owner or a slave driver. You are the same animal, putting something, usually money, above decency or common sense.

I don't even smoke, and yet, it is people like you, Ya Right, or should I say "Ya F###ING Right", that really make people sound stupid. I have been working in the bar business for several years, and have lost a lot of income recently because of the smoking ban. With this so called GREED I have been paying my bills and FEEDING MY CHILDREN, so when people as ignorant AS YOU, decide that a person like me or singingbeautifully are greedy assholes or ingnorant idiots, it just goes to show who is really who.

singinbill55

March 27th, 2006, 09:13 PM

Thankyou Ballardguy for your open mind. I appreciate the fact that you respect my opinion as I respect yours. I do believe that you are correct in assuming the vote totals are the same for just about every election but still I believe if the issue were that important to most of the voters there would have been more of a turnout. I will in the future attempt to stick with well known and provable facts. Thanks for your advise.
Now, Ya Right. What in the world is your problem. I have never conversed with someone so anal. Having an income is not considered being greedy. Apparently you do not have an income or are not quite sure what one is for. If you do have an income I suppose I could call you greedy but I prefer to consider it a blessing to be able to support my family. Just what is a nazi business collaborator? I do own land and slavery was abolished 150 years ago. As far as decency goes maybe you should take some of your income and buy a dictionary. Obviously you have no conception of the word. Common sense would dictate that a person would not attempt to sway anothers thinking by insulting them and appearing to put yourself in a position to appear superior. If you read more that three words of any of my posts you would know I have no concern whether people can smoke in bars or not. My concern is the rights of business owners and, yes, my income.
It's a sad day when a person wishes ill will on another or welcomes the inability for a parent to do well by his children. I sincerely hope you have not, and do not have plans to procreate because there are enough people who go through life attempting to make others as miserable as they are. You will be in my prayers.

ya_right

March 28th, 2006, 01:17 AM

Common sense would dictate that a person would not attempt to sway anothers thinking by insulting them and appearing to put yourself in a position to appear superior.

Who pissed in your corn flakes?
Or were you just very difficult to potty train? Either way your anger toward everything under the sun is astonishing. Get a clue.

You are, perhaps, one of the most hypocritical people I've seen in some time.

You set the tone with your personal attack, then bitch about insulting posts.

You yap about rights as you contact politicians in an attempt to undo a fair, democratic vote.

You groan on and on then charge others with ranting.

You speculate about my lack of income as you cry about the loss of your own.

You claim others are indulging a hype, as you banter about your needy children.

You are obsessed with the human anus, calling me anal and difficult to potty train; yet you are a breathing asshole.

But mostly, your entire livelihood is pinned to the continued practice of people smoking in bars, yet seem to cast yourself as a victim when your income succumbs to the inevitable.

You keep ranting in these forums, while, according to you, your losing the ability to "do right" by your children. Perhaps you should spend your time finding a personal solution or expand your occupational choices. The one you have is doomed, I promise that. Now that people have seen the difference, you'll find it harder and harder to be able to poison their air. You can talk all you want about how wonderful cigarette smoke is, you'll find your audience dwindling. Having said all this, I think you're a liar to claim all this economic damage. If people came only to your establishment to smoke, not for the company, not the music, service, food or drink, but only because somehow it was critical to their smoking, something they can do anywhere, perhaps you only had the illusion of a business. According to you, it is just a glorified ash tray.

ya_right

March 28th, 2006, 01:34 AM

I don't even smoke, and yet, it is people like you, Ya Right, or should I say "Ya F###ING Right", that really make people sound stupid. I have been working in the bar business for several years, and have lost a lot of income recently because of the smoking ban. With this so called GREED I have been paying my bills and FEEDING MY CHILDREN, so when people as ignorant AS YOU, decide that a person like me or singingbeautifully are greedy assholes or ingnorant idiots, it just goes to show who is really who.

Ya, you're right, not everyone can be as intellectually astute as bartenders. So, first it was about rights, then the constitution, then the economy, then your incomes and now, the ultimate diversionary ploy, it's all about the children. Of course you argue for something that is one of the biggest killers in the nation, I guess other peoples CHILDREN don't seem to matter.

I've lived in about 12 different cites and spent 8 months on the boarder of Lebanon. I've never, never seen such rude, disrespectful and downright unprofessional bartenders as in Seattle. In their defense, it isn't all, and isn't peculiar to just bartending, everyone who has lived outside this city has mentioned the poor state of the service industry. Google it yourself, it's somewhat legendary. If you people are losing all this business simply because people need to walk a few feet to smoke, you might want to take a look within ( gasp )

If your service or environment was worth a shit, they would remain for that, and brave stepping outside. It's an indictment of your establishments, actually voluntary testimony, that you claim to be losing patrons to your service because they have even the slightest hindrance to doing something totally unrelated.

Guess you don't have much to offer. At least nothing that can compete with sitting in a chair at home and smoking alone in front of the tube. I’m not sure what will become of our nation now that such a solid business model has been challenged. Again, you’ll be missed.

Rights

March 28th, 2006, 05:40 AM

I really don’t get how you (ya_right ) don’t respect the right for a business owner to decide him/herself whether they allow smoking in their OWN business. I just don’t get how you could feel confident in your opinion that YOU have a right to decide what they do in THEIR OWN business.
The only right you have is to not frequent THEIR establishment. Don’t go in, it’s that simple.
What is wrong with you people? If you don’t like smoky bars, don’t go inside. Stop trying to make the world fit to YOUR preferences.
Again, Oscar Wile ~ Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live,
it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.

singinbill55

March 28th, 2006, 08:14 AM

I see by the time your last posts were posted the bars were getting ready to shut down for the night. Did you get thrown out before it closed because you wanted to fight someone? Apparently, Ya Right you have an obsession with drinking. Maybe you should sober up enough to understand what is being said in these posts. Your unorganized ranting is proof that you are not quite sure about what to discuss so you try to cover it all. You must know you can't be taken seriously. It has been my experience that when some people have had too much to drink for too long of a period they tend to angrily rant on about things that are meaningless to others. Actually, now that I think about it, I am happy to be the one you vent on. Maybe at some time you will see that your ramblings will ultimately lead to your discovering who your deep seated anger is truly aimed at.
Ramble on!!!

ya_right

March 28th, 2006, 08:47 AM

may we add blinded intuition to your list of behavioral high points? First of all, just because you work for and spend your life with them, don't assume everyone to be an alcoholic. I can't remember the last time I entered a bar, unless you call the intermission lounge at the Moore, a bar. Listening to idiots like you and chief cryingRights has confirmed the caliber of people I've been avoiding.

As far as being taken seriously, if only I was blessed with the bizarre and biased info hotlist of flat earth scientist and holocaust deniers that you've been assembling, perhaps I could've been able to garner the legions of baited breath followers that you have...or is that chips and beer on their breath?

Anyway, I must leave you now, my possums, this really is becoming the Ground Hog day of threads. It's been said that if you argue with fools, you risk being assumed one. Honestly, as I've read through these posts, it seems clear to me that the nonsmokers have prevailed in both form and function and, of course, at the polls in paramont fashion, leaving the rest to snivel and banter ignorance. It was in that banter that I see the importance of having restrictions to business owners like yourself, and I am a business owner. Your ignorance points blatantly that fact, actually it screams it.

I do wish you luck though, and again, I hope you concentrate your time and efforts on finding a new business angle, enhancing your current service or expanding your occupational choices. As Princess Leah pleaded...it's (your) only hope..

singinbill55

March 28th, 2006, 08:58 AM

If this latest rant is to be believed I will certainly miss the comedic relief. Please, for your own sake and those around you, seek help. Try to weed out the demons that are causing you so much distress.Only then will you find happiness. Good luck.

Rights

March 28th, 2006, 09:00 AM

Thanks singinbill55, couldn't have said it better myself.

karaokegal23

March 28th, 2006, 09:16 AM

Ya Right, did it ever occur to you that judging people based on a few paragraphs might be foolish. I am not a bartender, I am a very successful business owner and I am in my final year of studies for my MBA. Maybe the next place of travel should be the psychiatrist’s office. I find your behavior to be crude, offensive, and downright sick. If you don’t even remember the last time you were in a bar, then you really have no place in this forum, as most people here feel that a bar owner should be able to allow smoking. Maybe you should go find a tree to hug, and while you’re at it take the bus, and save a whale. Or better yet GET A LIFE!

qwerty

March 28th, 2006, 09:31 AM

ya right sounds quite logical to me.

if smoking wasnt scientifically proven to kill people - and if smokers were not chemically addicted (something that goes beyond logic and emotion) - perhaps we wouldnt be having this conversation.

if smoking was merely like a really bad fart that sticks to peoples clothing - and these farters cant even smell it anymore but every one else has to wash their clothes to get the fart smell out after being in their vicinity (like people who live in a house infected with cat piss) - and these farters have a choice when and where to fart but fart in peoples faces all the time just for their own convenience - perhaps people would be more tolerant.

Rights

March 28th, 2006, 09:51 AM

Again, don't go into the smoky bar!!!! Or fart-filled bar as you put it.
Can someone please explain to me how people justify force fitting the world to their preferences? I don't understand.
Look, I understand the point about not enjoying smoke, yada yada yada. One of my closest friends has a lung disease and can’t be in a smoky bar. She and I have debated on this issue several times. She’s upset cause she cant’ hang out with her friends in the bars that they choose cause it to smoky. So guess what we did, WENT TO A NON-SMOKING BAR!!! This was before the whole bullshit law was passed in Seattle. Back in the day when a business owner still had a choice as to how to run his/her OWN establishment.
PLEASE!! Can someone give me a REAL reason that smoking should be banned besides the fact that YOU don’t want to be around it.
DON’T GO IN THE FUCKING BAR PEOPLE!!!
There have always been non-smoking bars as long as there have been smoking ones.
Thank God I don’t live in Seattle anymore. I can’t imagine, not only having to walk outside of a bar (one that was smoking cause it was THEIR choice) and having to walk 25 FUCKING FEET away from the door?
PLEASE!!!!!!