Minnesota Smoking Ban moves forward: Is there any limit to the actions of these power-hungry nannies?
Wisconsin has some lessons to learn from watching the mess unfold in Minnesota right now. This smoking ban is becoming an absolute nightmare, and it is going to get worse before it gets better.
Currently, the House and the Senate are at odds with each other over various versions of the State smoking ban in Minnesota. The Senate stops just short of completely criminalizing smoking in the State while the House version provides some various useful exceptions to the ban. Personally, I don’t agree with either one of the bills, but the nanny-state liberals are moving relentlessly to criminalize everything they can.
What I find particularly amusing is that these legislators are entirely out of line and are proving once again that they have an absolute desire to run everybody’s lives with blatant disregard for if they should. This has also extended to jurisdiction that they cannot control, yet for some reason they think that they can. I’m just an avid policy enthusiast, not a political official, and even I can spend ten minutes doing some research that finds that some of their actions are not legal, and they have no place to even be voting for them. Even some of the more moderate DFLers are backing away from some of this legislation because of its excess, but the number of extremists in the Minnesota legislature exceeds the number of moderates.
For one thing, the smoking ban will extend to private clubs. The Senate version is all inclusive whereas the House bill allows for smoking in private clubs without employees. Bullcrap! So either way, say good bye to smoking in the VFW or American Legion. I don’t want to be the one who gets to tell the vets that they cannot smoke in their club. Hell, the guys fought for this country and now they’re being regulated by a bunch of nannies. What’s the point of having a private club if you have your rights stripped away there too? Private property rights aside, these are private, exclusive organizations, chartered by the Federal Government, for veterans who have served in wars and conflicts for their country to get together and enjoy time together. If that isn’t the ultimate insult to veterans, I don’t know what is. If people pay dues to belong to a private organization, whether the VFW or a private country club, they should have the right to smoke if they please. If other members don’t like it, too bad. It’s a choice to belong. It’s not a public facility.
To make matters worse, these freedom limiting extremists had the audacity to vote to extend the state-wide smoking ban to Indian lands. WHAT? Do these a-holes know no limits to their desire for power, or are they all just mentally ill? I won’t get into the concept of Sovereign Land, but I will get into the legal jurisdiction of Public Law 280 (PL280), which Minnesota falls under. See, what these nannies fail to realize is that they have no jurisdiction over Indian Lands in a matter like this, so for them to have even voted on this is absolute insanity and the Supreme Court would have slapped them down so fast they wouldn’t have known what to do. I am just thankful that they didn’t pass it, but there were still 56 voters who don’t understand this. Of course, this stems back to many of my previous arguments regarding the fact that our elected officials don’t have the appropriate understanding of the laws they are put in place to uphold, regulate and create! What’s worse is that I don’t know if it’s ego or ignorance that keeps them from admitting that they don’t know and asking for help on topics. Hell, my little bit of research this morning turned up enough information on PL280 to make me realize that it wouldn’t have been legal for them to impose their ban on Indian Land… According to the Tribal Law and Policy Institute:
“Public Law 280 gave states only law enforcement and civil judicial authority, not regulatory power… The United States Supreme Court has interpreted Public law 280 as a statute designed to open state courts to civil and criminal actions involving reservation Indians, not to subject reservations to the full range of state regulation.”
So to me that seems pretty clear-cut. The Tribes have the right to govern their own lands, and for the State legislators to come in and try to tell them that they can’t smoke on their own lands would have been a massive violation of their sovereign rights. Yet, these boobs tried to go down that avenue anyway.
It amazes me that people elect these people to represent them. I would be embarrassed to live under the jurisdiction of these people, and I don’t understand why there isn’t more outrage by the citizens of Minnesota when these self-serving nannies try to extend their reach and tell you how to live your lives. What ever happened to the ability to choose? Where is free will? I mean, if these Democrats have their way, you will no longer have the freedom to live your life as you choose on your own property.
Put it this way, while working to amend this bill, a vote was even made regarding whether or not to criminalize all smoking across the State of Minnesota. It was voted down, of course, but the simple fact that it was even addressed is a massive insult to the freedom of the citizens of Minnesota. An action like that should send chills down the spines of every last citizen as the reality of the desires of some of these elected officials come to light.
They want your freedom so they can tell you how to live and what to do. Smoking bans, social programs, gun control, wickedly progressive taxes and ability to pay taxes, socialized medicine… They’re all things that work to strip away individual freedoms and put more control of YOUR lives in the hands of the leftists in the government. They know no bounds, which is evident by their attempt to reign in sovereign tribal lands.
Be afraid, Minnesota. Be very afraid.
on August 22, 2007 on 11:57 pm
I have read your article and agree totally with everything you have said!!! I think these idiots in office don’t realize what the hell they are doing! I own a small bar and grill outside the city limits and the fools should not be able to tell me what I can or cannot do inside my bar! It is no damn different then the house I own! How can they? What gives them the right? Where are our rights? Why didn’t the citizens get to vote on this? I am so enraged but what can I do? Wisconsin has an organization that fights things like this for the bars– Why doesnt Minnesota? I am also Indian and not only is it discrimination against the tribes its also against the smokers! If people don’t want to be around smoke then don’t go to a bar! If the person who applies for a job doesn’t like smoke then don’t apply! Help!!!!!!!!! What can we do??? You can publish this if you like I hate this COMMUNIST STATE!! As far as I am concerned –when the wall came down freedom went their way and communism has come this way!
on August 23, 2007 on 12:52 am
I wrote a letter to Pawlenty and will be copy and paste it to my bar website! Please feel free to check it out! http://www.rassetbarandgrill.net
Thanks for your story and again I agree with it!!!
on August 23, 2007 on 6:58 am
Kory, thanks for sharing your views! I like hearing from people who are directly affected, and I think more people do. Pawlenty only seems to hear the public health crowd and the anti-smoking Nazis, but I don’t think he hears from the people who will be hurt by this sort of thing.
Since the damned bill has already passed, all we can do it fight to repeal it in the future. Call, write, and stir up the troops. The more people who fight for it, the more they will have to listen. Wisconsin wants to pass a smoking ban, but they have quite an opposition force that are willing to fight back against the anti-smoking boobs. Minnesota bar and restaurant owners need to do the same thing.
on October 3, 2007 on 3:32 pm
I sooo agree with everything you guys are saying!!!This really fires me UP!!! I was so happy to find this website.
on October 4, 2007 on 5:27 am
Who ever you are, I thank you very much for some support. I am very concerned for the American people. With the exception of the communistic liberals, I can not find a person who agrees with this ban on smoking.
But, when I ask people how they feel about it, they have this blank look in there eyes and say, “What can I do about it?”. What is scarey is that they do not agree with the law, but they are not angry. They just except it.
This whole thing about not being able to smoke in public is feeling really creeping. What’s next?
These half-witted liberals say, “It’s for the people”.
Sound familiar? Is’nt that what Hitler and Stalin use to say in their speeches?
The goverment says it’s for our own health that they have these communistic laws on smoking. They do not care about the American people’s health! If they did they would stop putting cancerous chemicals in our food and water.
I think the goverment is testing the American people to see just how far they can go to control them. And guess what? They are winning! Americans are numb to their rights slowing being taken from them.
Please tell me what I can do to help fight this lack of American freedom?
on October 6, 2007 on 7:09 am
I agree with your article,especially about the veterans. But Pawlenty is a republican not a democrat. It is the republicans that are ruining Minnesota.
on October 6, 2007 on 8:34 am
True except Pawlenty is no Republican. He is simply working the people and seeking votes. He is doing the bidding of the state’s blue base. That is why he banned smoking and why he is pushing so much green legislation. He is a traitor and a liar and has no business calling himself a Republican or a Conservative.
on November 5, 2007 on 9:07 pm
What ever happened to personal accountability?
If you don’t want to smell smoke or be by smokers for crying out loud do NOT enter the door!
If I choose to enter a non smoking establishment I certainly would not light up a cigarette.
Legislators made the issue too complicated. It is as previously stated: “If you don’t want the smoke, don’t come in!”
One more freedom down the drain!
on November 5, 2007 on 9:08 pm
Oh, one more thought!
Vote anyone in office out next election
on November 6, 2007 on 9:55 am
Hi Judy, thanks for stopping by!
I agree with you 100%. What did happen to personal accountability?? These people want to make decisions for everybody so that nobody can claim that somebody else is infringing on their rights… Of course, that means that the government is infringing on rights, but apparently that is ok. Apparently it is acceptable for the government to take away the rights of some people in lieu of other people’s supposed rights.
You’re right throuh. If you don’t want to smell smoke, don’t walk through the door!
on November 19, 2007 on 1:02 pm
While I agree that government should not have the right to arbitrarily step on peoples’ rights, I do believe that government is necessary and has the power to enact certain laws.
What you have to look at is the larger picture here. No one is saying you can’t smoke, just take it outside where you can only hurt yourself. I think this law is a no-brainer for restaurants considering that “smoking sections” never really worked. Invariably I am always sitting next to the most inconsiderate smoker who insists on blowing smoke over to the non-smoking area.
Now, as far as bars, pubs, taverns go, they were intended for drinking originally not smoking. Smoking, as a part of American culture was just along for the ride but as people became more aware of the dangers the glamour started to fade. Personally, I would rather go belly up to the bar and have a drink and not have to worry about the person next to me blowing smoke in my face.
Think of this ban the in a different light. Government is not trying to take away your right to smoke, though it might seem as such, but rather it’s just limiting where you can smoke. By doing so, everyone can enjoy the different establishments in the state. Prior to the ban I, like so many of you pointed out, would not step foot in a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking. Now I can enjoy finding new and entertaining places to eat and drink. Wouldn’t you expect that to help business rather than hurt it? As a matter of fact, I was against the ban when it was county by county. I thought that would be completely unfair to certain businesses. If there was going to be a ban, like so many other states, it needed to be statewide to be fair.
on November 20, 2007 on 9:16 am
First off, read this comment from a bar owner on one of my other posts:
http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/smoke-em-if-you-got-em-minnesota-gets-set-to-go-smoke-free/#comment-7725
Of course government should have the power to enact certain laws. That is what government is for. But where do we draw the line? Should the government be in the business of enacting nanny state laws that take away our decision making processes?
But what about the places that are banning smoking outdoors too? How do you justify that? Besides, other than the annoyance, where is the proof that second-hand smoke harms anybody?
So you’re admitting that it’s a nuisance issue? If it bothers you that much, eat places that don’t allow smoking period. There are more smoke-free establishments than restaurants with smoking areas.
How do you figure? I would have thought that bars/pubs/taverns were there for people to relax and indulge – and smoking is an indulgence.
Then go to a wine bar or a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. There are plenty of very nice restaurant bars that don’t allow smoking. Why should your supposed right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a smoke free environment trump a smoker’s right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a beer and a cigarette?
But it’s a de facto ban. By continuing to put limits and absurd rules on smokers, the government is trying to take away the right to smoke via a back door. Remember, this is much less an issue of public health than it is an issue of personal agendas set forth by people who personally don’t like smoking. The people who push the bans would like to see smoking eradicated, period.
Is that their right? What about the rights of the bar and restaurant owners? Set aside smoker’s rights for a moment and just consider the rights of the business owners. You do not have the right to patronize them. They afford you the privilege to do so. Don’t ever think that you have greater rights than the business owners. To enjoy places is your choice, and to take away smoking rights in lieu of your own selfish feelings on the subject.
Do your homework. It is harming small businesses all over the state.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your arguments here are all flawed. You are fighting for your own personal agenda at the expense of other people’s rights. You are telling business owners that they should not have the right to run their own businesses on their own property as they see fit because you think that you have the right to go there and not have to deal with smoke. Sorry buddy, it just doesn’t work like that. Well, it shouldn’t anyway. The fact that it is just proves that the laws are agenda driven.
on November 20, 2007 on 2:17 pm
Excellent arguments, I apologize for not being more analytical in my opinion but it was an opinion rather than evidence.
That argument is somewhat circular in that it will always be there. For instance, setting the speed limit to xx infringes on my right to drive faster. Forget that studies show that driving xx saves lives, what next? Will the government take away my right to own that car or govern it’s speed to xx so that I can’t drive over the speed limit? There are so many examples of “where do we draw the line” that I can’t really deny the validity nor claim you have a point.
Well as far as I know those countries that do ban smoking outdoors is, currently, on a voluntary basis. As far as “evidence” for second hand smoking is concerned, well that’s an argument that makes no sense. For reference only http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking . Now whether you think the article is biased or not it raises food for thought. Please examine the following video http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/video-tar-extracted-from-400-cigarettes . While this is not, by any means, definitive proof it certainly will show that harmful chemicals exist in cigarette smoke and you can not tell me that those same chemicals are not in second hand smoke and are therefore dangerous. Of course this presumes you think that smoking is inherently dangerous in the first place. Now I’m no scientist but I used to be an EMT working in a hospital where I had the opportunity to help with an autopsy of an emphisema patient. It was fact that this person was a lifelong smoker and that it was a direct cause to his disease and subsequent death. I saw his lungs, disgusting to say the least.
Oh, by the way, I’m ashamed to admit that I don’t know how to properly quote each argument so hopefully this is readable. By all means this is a nuisance issue for me but it’s also somewhat personal as I have known people who are sick and dying from first hand smoke and who are chronically ill from second hand smoke. To redirect to the bar owner who wrote this forum. I do sympathize with the loss or perceived loss of business and hope that it picks up again as the initial shock wears off. As I previously stated I was only giving my money to establishments that did not allow smoking and was happy doing so. Now, though, I am pleased to say that I have no problem going to Anoka and spending money at some of the establishments known for their good wings and not having to worry about getting sick (it’s happened in the past, which is why I mention that).
Yes, you are correct but I guess it’s really more opinion based on historical evidence that makes me think that bars, pubs, etc… were originally designed for drinking. I guess considering all bars sell alcohol but not cigarettes (in general, there are always exceptions to the rule) that I make this judgement. Smoking is an indulgence – agreed, but not the original indulgence for bars….you know what, let’s not go into a historical debate on which came first the beer or the cigarette.
Well, as I already stated, I DID go only to bars and restaraunts that did not allow smoking. Believe me it was quite the effort to figure that out every time someone wanted to do happy hour. Let’s not “suppose” rights. Let’s say that it is my right to “belly up to the bar for a drink” and that it is not the right for a smoker to do the same with the addition of smoking. By that argument, and I hate to sound childish here, I should be allowed to spit my beer at the person next to me. There’s really no proof that second hand beer hurts anyone, aside from being wet and sticky (analogous to smelling like smoke). That’s really an absurd thing to imagine but no one would think twice about telling me I can only spit beer outside. Add that to the arguable fact that second hand smoke does cause health issues and you can start to understand the ease at which many states and countries are banning smoking.
Yes, I have to concede that the government and advocacy groups are trying their hardest to seemingly ban smoking altogether. That obviously equates to personal agendas but good or bad that’s government today, nothing but personal agendas. What ever happened to “for the people, by the people”? I still think that, if voted upon, that the ban would still exist. Now, personally, I could care less if smoking gets banned seeing that I don’t smoke but I do concede that that would be taking it too far. Besides, there are financial factors to consider. The tobacco industry is a huge economy unto itself and for better or worse I have no problem with that. Look how much money the governments around the US are making from taxation of cigarettes, do you really think they would completely ban that windfall of money? I think they might try to take it to the limits but as soon as the money starts drying up they will reconsider. As my names suggests I’m originally from Alaska where they have one of the largest taxes on cigarretes in the US. This is a huge amount of money that is being used for various other projects in the state.
Well, if you put the debate in this light, then it does become a public health issue and as such should be treated as health issue. I agree that business owners have given me the right to eat/drink/whatever at their establishments but that does not give them rights over and above my own. I would say we are equal when such establishments are public. Now, that being said, I’m not completely up on the wording of the law here in Minnesota but I do not think that the law prohibits private clubs from allowing smoking. Is that correct? I would think that if Utah can ban hard alcohol in bars and subsquently allow said bars to privatize and sell memberships (for like a dollar) then the same could be done here. This may have a detrimental affect though so I would be careful with that idea, if indeed it is allowed.
Do my homework? Hmm, let’s try to avoid antagonistic arguments and stick to the facts. From Wikipedia: According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city’s smoke-free policy.[58] A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review[59] of studies suggests that business may actually improve.[60] Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban .
Believe me, I’m all for idealistic government where we should vote on every issue but I have come to the realization that we just wouldn’t get anything done if that were the case. Can you imagine how long it would take to change anything? I applaud your beliefs and I agree with you at the fundamental level of civil liberties but some things (case by case) need to be evaluated and acted upon. I will be right there with you if they start putting cameras in everyone’s back yard hoping to catch a terrorist but in the same light I would welcome cameras on certain street corners to curb some of the violent crimes that happen in Minneapolis. Again, I apologize for not being clear earlier and hopefully the way I quoted you was acceptable. Oh and if my spelling was less than admirable, my bad.
By the way this debate can go on and on so I will accept your rebuttal and call it a day
.
[formatting edited for readability by Arclightzero. NO content was changed or edited]
on November 20, 2007 on 10:58 pm
Dang, not edit button. I noticed that some of the links I referrenced had periods on the end that cause them not to work but if you just take the period out it will work.
on November 21, 2007 on 9:59 am
One last thing about rights. The ability to do anything you want without regard to others is not freedom, that’s called anarchy. The fact of the matter is that the US Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to enact smoking bans and therefore it’s not your right to smoke in public enclosed spaces nor is it the right of the business owner to allow it.
on November 21, 2007 on 10:25 am
You are right, this debate could certailny go on and on. But I do have a few points I would like to make.
Regarding your first point: The speed limit issue is an interesting argument because it begs to ask if speed limits are simply another way of exerting control? Why can countries in Europe get away with roads without speed limits but here the government threatens to take away funding if states try going that route? While I agree that some roads need to be controlled for either safety or traffic flow reasons, other roads are excessively controlled (in my opinion anyway). But when it comes to drawing the line with the nanny state, let’s look at apples and apples. As far as I am concerned, alcohol is a bigger threat to public health than smoke. More innocent people are hurt or killed as the result of alcohol consumption than by second-hand smoke. So why assail smoking and not alcohol? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not endorsing prohibition, but why the selective targeting?
On to your second point, many counties are now enforcing mandatory bans (or at least severe limitations) on smoking outdoors. That aside, as for second-hand smoke, I question the studies because I have seen just as many studies that show that second-hand smoke isn’t nearly as dangerous as it is presented. I do accept that smoking is bad for you and will probably kill you. As such, I am not a smoker. But the evidence that shows that sitting in a smoky bar is bad for your health is just too flimsy for me to buy into.
You say:
You are actually wrong here. The business owner gives you the privilege to eat/drink/whatever at their establishment. You have no right to patronize an establishment, nor do you have any right to try to tell somebody how to run their own business. When you are on somebody else’s property, you have no right above theirs. On public property all rights are equal, but not on private property.
No, private clubs (even veteran’s organizations) are not exempt from the MN ban.
As for the successes of business arguments, again it’s all in who you believe. The reports that you read claim that smoking bans increase business while the reports that I read claim that smoking bans hurt business. Who do you believe? We can all pull out our “evidence” but in the end, who’s right? Personally, I listen to the bar and club owners who are actually in this mess. I have heard more reports of trouble brewing in the small business world than increased business.
What it all comes down to is that when there is this much doubt, I err on the side of more freedom rather than increased regulation.
on November 21, 2007 on 10:51 am
That’s not entirely true. I don’t believe that the smoking ban issue has ever made it to the US Supreme court; only to State Supreme Courts. As such, not all State Supreme Courts have upheld the smoking bans. Notably Iowa (in 2003) had it’s State Supreme Court strike down the smoking ban as being unconstitutional and Washington (in 2005) did the same thing.
on November 21, 2007 on 11:14 am
Let me restate the Supreme Court issue. The State Supreme Courts do rule independently from the US Supreme Court however the US Supreme Court has given complete jurisdiction of tobacco to the FDA via the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, therefore ruling that tobacco can and should be regulated. They don’t enforce a complete ban (think marijuana or prohibition) because it wouldn’t be prudent to do so. Thank you for pointing that out.
This article from ths US Supreme Court pretty much sums up their views on this subject, albeit indirectly. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/98-1152P.ZD It is 7 years old so it could have been overturned but I haven’t found anything about that.
on November 22, 2007 on 7:42 pm
suppose I wanted to open a restaurant that served only pork and beans. And the person who farted the loudest and smelliest would not have to pay his tab.
People like Alaskanspawn would probably want to eat there just to see if they could get away with changing my theme and policies.
They would probably claim that the government has the right to inact a law to prevent an unhealthy risk to themselves. Seeing as how the fumes from my stinky methane would clearly burst a number of brain cells in anyone sitting within a few feet. And then theres the smell that they would have to put up with while they were eating their beans.
Maybe if we all purchased a carbon credit or two after blowing out our asses they would let us off the hook ?
Alaska said;
“From Wikipedia: According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city’s smoke-free policy.[58] A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review[59] of studies suggests that business may actually improve.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source anymore, you could of put that in yourself.
And then theres always those tricky little words “suggest” and ” may”
The bottom line is this Alaska.
My restaurant is my property as much as my house is.
If I want to shit in the middle of my floor , its none of your business, you’re welcome to come in and sit next to me and crap away, if you dont like shitty friends then dont come inside.
on November 22, 2007 on 8:02 pm
By the way, I would, as most places do. Reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who does not smoke.
Private property, private club. The only requirement for membership is that you dont complain about the smoke.
on November 25, 2007 on 10:23 am
Hmm, well I don’t think I’m going to really respond to that directly because that’s just plain silly. Since you brought up Wiki though, I agree that you have to take what you read ANYWHERE on the internet with a grain of salt.
However, if you would like to go straight to the source, check out http://www.zagat.com/about/about.aspx?menu=PR18
Of particular importance are the lines in the first paragraph. Speaking of New York, “And the city’s recent smoking ban, far from curbing restaurant traffic, has given it a major lift. Meanwhile, openings are perking up, closings dropping, and service complaints continue to trend downward. And on the way is the best crop of new restaurants that the city has seen in many years. What’s not to feel good about?”
So DON’T trust me or Wiki but DO dig a little to find out if what Wiki is saying is true before posting that as an argument towards me. Oh btw, I have never posted anything on Wiki, heh I don’t presume to be smart enough to write something on that site.
One other thing, I would like you to prove that you have the same rights for your restaurant as you do at home. I don’t believe that a “private”/public restaurant has the same rights. In other words, because you serve the public you are required to follow a lot of different rules and regulations that are not followed at home. I have not looked into this so I’ll leave it up to you.
on November 26, 2007 on 10:52 pm
Unfortunately, there are those who wish to save us from our follies. More unfortunately, the employees they have used as the reason for the smoke ban are losing their jobs by the hundreds and eventually the thousands. Minnesota bars are closing at rates never even conceived possible. Those who’s contention was that a large number of non-smokers were going to begin patronizing the corner bar was a bad joke. They’re still at home sipping wine. For those few who have actually ventured out, do it soon, because most of the small ones, will not survive. Nice job. Whats next prohibition on beer? Oh, I bet, if we banned beer, more non smoking, wine sipping saviors, would head out to the corner bar. NOT, besides it will be too late…
on December 10, 2007 on 3:47 pm
Let me premise this by saying that the following is my opinion based on a recent experience. This is not an attack on anyone specifically and is not meant to be derogatory though parts of it may seem that way. Again, I’m not basing this on any facts other than my personal experience.
Those of you arguing that second-hand smoke has no detrimental effect are delusional. I just spent 6 hours in a VFW in Wisconsin that was benefitting my father-in-law who recently had a triple bypass surgery. Now, those of you that have read my previous posts understand my stand on smoking and smoking bans and I would never say that you are not allowed to smoke but the very visible haze and the obvious discomfort of non-smokers (and some smokers) has to be wake up call.
Of course I would never have put myself in that situation if I had not been participating in the benefit/auction. After 2 days of recovering from the dense smoke (ear ache, sinus issues, and eye irritation) I feel compelled to write this. My wife, who didn’t drink, said she felt like she had a hangover from the smoke. This was also expressed by several other family members and friends.
I think the point I’m trying to make is: if the state isn’t going to pass a smoking ban then at the very least they need to pass some kind of ventillation legislation. The fact of the matter is that most of these small to medium sized bars have little to no ventillation and you have to agree that long term exposure is not in the least beneficial to those that work there and is therefore detrimental.
I gotta tell ya that I hope I never have to go through that again. I will also mention that the people (a large majority) that smoked that day were very inconsiderate of those around. For crying out loud, this was a benefit for someone just out of open heart surgery…show a little heart (no pun intended).
on December 10, 2007 on 5:42 pm
I agree with you 100%. Ventilation should be required. I have read studies that show that god ventilation systems reduce second-hand smoke to almost nothing – leaving only the irritation of smell.
However, I will say this much: I question how much of the problem was smoke as opposed to simply overexposure to noxious fumes. Would the reaction be the same if you were overwhelmed with perfume or hairspray? I know that overexposure to any fumes make me feel ill. I’m just not rightly sure that the problems that you and your wife experienced were tobacco related.
Here’s an interesting study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory regarding environmental tobacco smoke.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00
It’s an interesting read if you consider the fact that they are using OSHA standards for inhaled particles.
Either way, I do agree that small areas should not be allowed to sit without adequate filtration and circulation. I’m not sure that it will give you lung disease, but the exposure will certainly make you sick if you’re not used to it. But as I said, that can be applied to any fumes – toxic or not.
And yes, there should be some consideration with smokers too. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should. There’s a time and a place for everything.
on December 10, 2007 on 7:44 pm
Well noxious fumes do bother me but not with the same symptoms as smoke. For instance, I worked in a room next to someone doing some industrial painting and the fumes made me dizzy but as soon as I went outside the feelings disapated. I think it’s important to note that since the smoking ban in MN I have lost my tolerance to smoke. I’ve always tried to avoid bars that are too smokey but I could tolerate it a few years back. The point is, I’ve technically reduced my tolerance to smoke to a lowest common denominator, if you get what I’m saying. By exposing myself to the amount of smoke I did on Saturday and with my tolerance at 0 I believe I gained better insight as to how more exposure would affect me. In other words, if I still had my previous tolerance I would not have been affected as much and would not have understood or felt the effects the next day. Tolerance does not equal immunity to the effects of environmental smoke.
I’m admittedly confused by the OSHA reports and the studies claiming numbers lower than OSHA limits. I just can’t imagine that the averages of that report you linked would be correct in Wisconsin bars…not just the VFW. I’ve visited many bars in small town Wisconsin (in-laws live there) and they are all the same…think with smoke. Let’s say that, for the sake of argument, the VFW was at the maximum recorded RSP level of 768. I think people would die on the spot if the level rose to OSHA’s limit of 5000. The smoke was so thick you could see the haze. My wife joked that she had to sit lower and lower in the chair to avoid the worst levels of smoke. You could have visibly seen a laser beam thru the room.
I’m wondering if OSHA’s limits are misinterpreted or just plain wrong. Anyway, simple ventilation would have made so much sense in there that I’m really confused why it wasn’t already installed. It must be REALLY expensive or something.
on December 12, 2007 on 7:35 pm
I’m not sure that I can buy the fact the illness was caused by secondhand smoke. I agree that you can be desensitized to smoke, but a single evening of being around smoke is hardly toxic any any way that would be different from being exposed to any other fumes you’re not used to. I admit that smoke is bad for you, but secondhand smoke is hardly toxic enough to have negative health effects over such a short period of time (the jury is still out on even long-term exposure has negative health effects).
I have worked in industrial environments all my life and am well versed on OSHA. Their permissible particle limits are simply based on what point they would require you to wear a filtered mask on a job site. I have actually always found that OSHA’s limits err on the conservative side too, since you could levy massive lawsuits against them if you abided by their rules and still had negative health effects.
Smoke being visible is deceptive. It can look much worse than it is simply due to what is being burned. More smoke does not necessarily mean more particles in the air (I know, it sounds pretty counter-intuitive). For instance, I smoke an occasional cigar, and while the smoke is much thicker and lingers more, it is far less noxious and irritating than cigarette smoke.
Either way, I agree. Ventilation should be required. For those of us who aren’t around smoke and get desensitized to it, good ventilation and filtration makes all the difference. Granted the really good ones are spendy, they are worth it for a business. I used to go to a cigar shop with a top of the line filtration system, and even when there were a dozedn or more people in their smoking cigars, you could not see the smoke and could hardly smell it. It was great, but very expensive.
on December 17, 2007 on 12:00 pm
So not to beat a dead horse here but there was a program on PBS last night titled “tobacco vs. Minnesota”. They cited a recent Surgeon General report http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm#highlights that clearly labels second hand smoke as dangerous at any level.
This is the most recent report I’ve found on this subject. I’m curious to hear your arguments against this report.
Correct me if I’m wrong but your 3 main arguments against smoking bans are:
1. unconstitutional
2. establishment owners should have the right to run their businesses as they see fit
3. second hand smoke is not really a health risk
Is this correct? If so then I offer these short rebuttals.
1. FDA has full regulatory power over tobacco via the US Supreme Court = constitutional to regulate tobacco
2. establishment owners must follow certail rules and regulations in order to serve the public. If they fail to follow these (again) FDA regulations then they get shut down.
3. 2006 Surgeon Generals report says second hand smoke is dangerous at any levels.
Very short rebuttals but I haven’t heard any good rebuttals for the first 2 (I expanded on them in previous posts) and the 3rd is new evidence to me.
on December 17, 2007 on 6:45 pm
Well, here’s how I look at it. There is no denying that secondhand smoke is a health risk. I mean, it’s certainly not healthy. But the question is just how much of a health risk is it? I mean, in the end there are lots of health risks out there that aren’t under such scrutiny as tobacco smoke. Breathing diesel fumes is probably none too healthy. Spray paint fumes will kill you if you’re not careful. Most household cleaners have highly toxic fumes. So is tobacco smoke worse? I don’t know. What I do know is that we have been exposed to second hand smoke for years and years… Much worse back decades ago when yo could smoke everywhere – including airplanes… And yet our life expectancy has never been greater. If environmental tobacco smoke is as toxic as its portrayed, I have yet to see any compelling empirical evidence.
As for your FDA argument, that hasn’t passed yet and has been dropped from the congressional agenda until next year. As for now, the bans are based solely on flimsy “public health” claims and politically correct rhetoric. If the FDA gains jurisdiction of tobacco, it will be a different story, but for now they’re still in a holding pattern.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4799
on December 17, 2007 on 6:49 pm
I don’t remember if I gave you the link to this study yet, but it’s worth a look. It’s just another example of being able to find studies that support both sides of the argument and makes you wonder just who to believe…
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
on December 17, 2007 on 7:21 pm
[...] The battle has been going on here if you would like to read up (it’s long though, so beware): http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/minnesota-smoking-ban-moves-forward-is-there-any-limit-…I would like some more input on this. Even if you don’t want to read the banter, I would like [...]
on December 19, 2007 on 12:19 pm
The following comments are my opinion and in no way reflect the opinion of the company or industry that I work for.
I would like to start out by saying that I appreciate honest and open debate like that in this blog. In too many instances, one side or the other jumps out there and says something stupid like “the debate is over”. The debate is never over. We must always strive for new evidence and always try to have our opinions expressed without the fear of being censored by over zealous and agenda driven dramatists.
I plan on addressing alaskaspawns comments in a future blog, but I first wanted to give him information on things that are and have happened right here in his hometown in Alaska. I will let you read the information below and let you decide for yourselves if the great state of Minnesota is falling for the same Gestapo tactics we fell for in Alaska.
Currently there is a war on tobacco. We are told over and over again that smoke kills smokers and all those around them. Children in school are told to call there parents on the carpet and make them smoke outside. They are told that if there parents care about them, they will do this. Bars are told to ban smoking in there own private businesses to improve the quality of life of workers and society as a whole. The general population is told that if you smoke, you will die. They say that the odds of this are 3 to 1. On the other side of this, they say the risk of dying in a car crash is only 6200 to 1. Finally, they tell us that all of the programs in place and all of the taxes are to help reduce smoking in children. Supposedly, it’s all about the kids.
Every one of the previous statements is a lie. I would like to say that they might be simple exaggerations, but when you look at the facts, there is no other conclusion that the anti smoking machine will use any method to control the lives of smokers.
Let’s start out by looking at the cost smoking causes to society. One of the reasons Alaska is looking at a smoking ban is to reduce the health risks and medical costs to the uninsured in the state. It is to unburden society with all of these exorbitant expenses the average citizen is forced to pay. The population of Anchorage is conservatively 265,000. 21% of the population smokes cigarettes. This equates to 55,650 smokers in Anchorage alone. If each one of these people smoke only one pack per day (at a minimum of 4$ per pack in taxes from city, state, federal and MSA payments) they are paying $222,600.00 per day in taxes. That comes out to $81.2 million per year in the city of Anchorage. If you expand outward and take in the entire state with an estimated population of 626,932 at that same 21% being smokers, you have 131,655 people using cigarettes. The statewide average on taxes is about $3.00 per pack. This comes out to $144.1 million dollars per year in taxes added to city, state, and federal coffers. Imagine how large this number is if you take it nation wide. The heavy tax burden mentioned here does not include pipe, cigar, loose tobacco, or chew. There is no way that, even if the death rates spouted by the anti tobacco industry are true, that the uninsured medical costs outweigh the punitive fees sucked from smokers.
The largest fallacy spouted by these groups is that second hand smoke kills. You have to throw out all of the created “factual” data from the tobacco industry and from the anti tobacco industry. Their data is biased and looking for specific results. If you take the independent studies, they will prove that second hand smoke has no more ill effects than cooking in your house. The British Medical Journal in 2003 reported on data collected by the American Cancer Society that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.” According to the EPA, the risk ratio for 40 years of exposure to second hand smoke is 1.19. Epidemiologists are skeptical of any risk of less than 3 and dismiss any results under 1.3. Quoting Natalie Sirkin from the EPA, “We presently know little about causes of lung cancer in persons who have never smoked.”
If you use logic, we should also be seeing an epidemic of emphysema and lung cancer in pets in homes that have smoking. I have never seen a dog with a smokers cough. The EPA goes on to say that the exposure to electromagnetic fields cause 10 times as great of a risk of causing cancer than second hand smoke. I have not heard of any plans to ban electromagnetic fields by any politicians.
Anti rights groups also quote statistics on deaths related to smoking. The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan and non-political think tank, estimates that the odds of dying before the age of 75 from smoking are 1 in 12. Anti smoking groups say this number is 1 in 3. In contrast, the Heartland Institute has estimated the odds of dying before the age of 75 in a car accident are 1 in 90. Anti smoking groups use the number 1 in 6200. How can two groups come up with such different numbers? Its simple, the American Lung Association is comparing apples to oranges. One number is based on yearly averages, and the other number is based on lifetime averages. They love to take the facts they make up and spout them as Dogma.
It’s all about the kids. When they say this statement, it really makes me angry. Not because of the statement itself, but because they are using children as tools in an agenda. Children are the most important asset any society has. We are seeing the teachers unions using them as weapons. We are seeing the anti smoking groups doing the same thing. Any person over the age of 6 knows the ills of smoking. They are taught this on radio, television, and at school at the earliest possible moments. Taxes have been increased to stop kids from smoking. 5% of all smokers are under the legal age. Most of them are not buying smokes. They are stealing them from parents or “bumming” them off of friends. The increases in taxes only hurt legal adults and have no effect on reducing youth smoking.
Another program in place in Alaska is sting operations. If a businessman makes a human error and sells to a minor, they are penalized by not being able to sell for 20 days on the first offence. There is no other penalty on the books that is this punitive. We are spending so much money on trying to trick honest businessmen instead of trying to fix the problem. I have spoken to enforcement officers here locally. I asked them why they didn’t go around to all of the high schools during the lunch break and writing tickets to all of the students out in the smoking section. They were told that they are not allowed to do this. There job is to penalize the stores, not the children buying cigarettes. I guarantee that if I received a copy in the mail of a citation of my 17 year old for smoking, I would correct that situation in a heartbeat. If a store is cited, the kids just try other venues or have their friends purchase for them.
The final point I will try to make is on the impending smoking ban imposed on business by nanny state politicians. Listening to Dan Coffee on the radio just blows my mind. He spouts phony facts and false comparisons to drive his agenda. In California from 1994 to 1999, the number of permits issued to restaurants and bars that serve liquor fell 3.3 percent. 59.3% experienced a decrease in business since the ban. The average decline in sales was 26.2%. Finally, 30% of businesses reported laying off employees or cutting hours or shifts. This was all due to not allowing smoking in private business establishments.
Many people say that it’s a smokers rights issue. This is not true. This issue is a business rights issue. This bill is an affront to business owners’ rights everywhere. In our great society, the American dream is to go out on your own and create something that is yours, that you can make a living from. This is of course, private ownership of a personal business. The reason for this ban is to protect the rights of the workers. What about the rights of the business owners? This is currently a lively and active market with jobless rates lower than they have been in years. Some jobs inherently have risks. As an employee, I decide if I am willing to take those risks. That is my personal choice. I know that if I take a position as a commercial crab fisherman, there is a health risk. I do not think the government should ban commercial fishing. Furthermore, if you factor in the previously proven fallacy of second hand smoke, a simple filtration system would bri9ng this risk even lower to less of a hazard than frying bacon in a restaurant. 79% of Alaska population is non-smoking. If they band together and do not patronize establishments that allow smoking, what anti smokers are hoping to legislate, will come naturally.
There are many other false facts and agendas out there on both sides of the argument. Someone once said that “the first thing to be lost in a war is the truth”. Look at independent research without bias and you will see that this one sided war is being waged and won by groups with socialist agendas. There is no cost to society that smokers aren’t already paying for. Second hand smoke does not kill, it doesn’t even make you sick. Small businessmen will be the first casualties of this war. Finally, the anti groups do not have the children in mind. If they did, they would find more efficient and effective ways to curb this habit. One of the greatest thinkers of our time said that he never created an invention without a cigar in hand. Thomas Edison smoked between 10 and 15 cigars per day. It helps the synaptic firing in the brain. Thomas Edison did not die of lung cancer.
on December 19, 2007 on 12:49 pm
If anyone would like further research materials, I suggest the following.
http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php
and
http://www.heartland.org/
(do a search for tobacco)
One final comment about the FDA…
“Legislation is necessary if FDA is to regulate tobacco, since in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled FDA lacks authority to regulate tobacco. FDA’s main concerns are keeping America’s food and prescription drugs safe. Tobacco is not a “drug” (for FDA regulatory purposes) as it offers no therapeutic benefits, nor is tobacco a food product.”
Sorry Alaskaspawn, it looks like the FDA is out of it for now.
on December 19, 2007 on 1:06 pm
Those of you in Minnesota who are serious about stopping the ban, please check out the following letter sent to the American Lung Association regarding the Illinois smoking ban. If you like it, use something similar to stomp your ban.
Illinois Smokers Rights
Post Office Box 408
Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044
December 12, 2007
Open Letter to the American Cancer Society Requesting Documentation for
Smoke Free Illinois Health Claims
Dear American Cancer Society, a.k.a. Smoke Free Illinois;
cc: Senators and Representative for Illinois General Assembly, Illinois News Media
The Smoke Free Illinois Act (SB500) for Illinois has been based upon health claims from
the American Cancer Society. On behalf of Illinois Smokers Rights, the two million eight
hundred thousand smokers and the thousands of small businesses who will be affected, I am
requesting clarification and validation for those health claims. To institute this invasive and
extreme smoking ban, the public needs to learn if any concrete evidence can be provided to
validate these claims. A law of this magnitude, with wide-spread social impact and based
upon ACS epidemiological studies, needs to be documented for public review and shared in
understandable format.
Reports containing computer generated statistics of mortalities and illness are not sufficient.
Also insufficient are the previous Surgeon General Carmona’s 2006 Press Release,
Executive Summary, or quotes which did not reflect the contents of his 700-plus page
smoking report. Dr. Carmona’s report simply rehashed previous Surgeon General claims
and republished previous Tobacco Control studies which had never been able to document
any conclusions more definite than finding a “casual relationship” between Environmental
Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and health threats.
One particular abuse example for this fully justifiable request to require accurate
documentation for Illinois tobacco-smoke-health-threats, claimed by the ACS, tobacco
control agencies and our Illinois elected representatives, is the currently distorted Sixteen
Cigarettes claim: Smoke Free Illinois at http://www.smokefreeillinois.net/info.php “One
eight hour shift in a smoky workplace is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes.” (In
actuality, the equivalent is approximately 1/5 cigarette.) Why the need to be deceptive?
An in-depth study analyzing the dangers from ETS was published to help fuel the
promotion of smoking bans in all enclosed establishments, including bars and restaurants.
That study proved that measurable amounts of n-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) could be
found in side stream smoke from cigarettes and was published, not identifying the offending
carcinogen or placing it in proportion with similar amounts also contained in our water,
food, and other common substances. “The poison is in the dose”!
The American Cancer Society has implied through incomplete references that breathing in
an environment containing (or that has contained) second hand smoke, is the same thing as
actively smoking. This leaves 98% of those who have listened to current ETS health dogma
misinformed. While the scientific community defends themselves by saying that even
Open Letter to ACS Requesting Documentation for Smoke Free Illinois Health Claims Page 1 of 8
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/acs_letter_07.html 12/17/2007
attempting to explain the epidemiology of second hand smoke would not be practical for
public consumption. (From Dr. Stanton Glantz [ANR]: “…We cannot include the caveats
because the public cannot understand them…” )
The bulk of blame still remains upon the manner in which ETS statistical findings have
been originally presented and manipulated. Most were intended to create smoking bans.
This distortion has been perpetrated by tobacco control with full intention of deceiving and
creating false health claims.
Until a public statement or press release making visible and crystal clear the distortions of
“16 cigarette” claims to laymen, elected officials and the news media, the intentionally
deceptive damage cannot even begin to be reversed. The public is being terrorized by phony
health claims, and needs clarification that n-Nitrosodimethylamine is the referenced element
for the “16 cigarette” media blitz, and that NDMA is another common carcinogen and
threatens us most seriously in our drinking water and food supply.
Solid proof is required for Illinois (or any other US governing body) to justify bending our
US Constitutional Republic’s governmental framework and dismissing the protected
liberties in several of its Amendments. The Smoke Free Illinois Act basically ignores our
First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Constitutional Amendments. Considering the
serious state-wide repercussions from this law, justification is required, not vague
interpretations of “casual association” health threats.
In addition, ACS financial ties with nicotine replacement products manufactured by the
pharmaceutical industry, who hope to increase sales because of this ban, should also be
published to avoid misrepresentation of charitable interests and to supply full and honest
disclosure to interested parties.
Therefore, Illinois Smokers Rights, Illinois residents and the Illinois news media need to be
supplied with actual documented identities of those injured or killed for The Smoke Free
Illinois Act to be legitimately recognized.
Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn Scheuer
Lake Bluff, Illinois 60044
on December 19, 2007 on 8:28 pm
Awesome, awesome information, Alaskancamel. You hit every point right on. It’s hard to argue with the hard facts which is why the general attacks against smoking are always based on soft facts and hearsay.
I’m not sure about Minnesota, but here in Wisconsin the smoking ban issue is raging as the governor is demanding it and the state legislature is saying no (at least for now). I am going to take the letter that you provided here and modify it and send it to our local ALA (already a thorn in my side over their factitious support of biofuels in the name of lung health) and see what comes of it. I am very interested to see what they say.
Thanks again and I hope your information here spawns some more debate. This issue is far from over, and I just hope that the anti’s (Alaskanspawn aside) are as willing to debate as we are. Please feel free to come by any time and join in any of the conversations. you’re a great addition to the blog!
on December 20, 2007 on 9:48 am
Alaskancamel is a punk…even if he is a friend of mine hehe.
on December 20, 2007 on 10:02 am
spoken like a true liberal….and I thought there was hope for you.
Hehe
on December 20, 2007 on 10:46 am
Well, whilst I don’t tend to label myself others find it necessary to do so, why is that?
Anyway, that was a well written letter and I’ll have to switch gears and look at this issue again. I’ll be back…
on December 20, 2007 on 11:21 am
Often times people who are afraid of the label they emulate tend not to label themselves.
I had an interesting thought this morning. While looking over what the surgeon general said about second hand smoke, I noticed that he said there is no safe level. What is interesting is that there is a safe level of plutonium. Is he saying that second hand smoke is deadlier than plutonium? I find that a little far fetched and question his motivations.
on December 20, 2007 on 11:47 am
Well you don’t see people throwing plutonium around restaurants or bars so I don’t see how it’s applicable. In any case, those that work with plutonium are well aware of the risks.
Anyway, I’m not afraid of being called a liberal but I don’t think I completely fall into any category…that’s all.
on December 20, 2007 on 12:03 pm
No one ever said they were throwing plutonium around in bars. (that rebuttal was akin to the gentleman above who wanted to crap in his bar) That is not the point. The point is that he said there was no safe level of second hand smoke and that is what the entire argument is based on. If he came out and said that plutonium is safer than tobacco, no one would be having this argument because it would be obvious that his thought process was flawed. Everything else flows from that.
on December 20, 2007 on 4:13 pm
Alaskanspawn stated:
In any case, those that work with plutonium are well aware of the risks.
This is surely the case with those who work around smoking. Every bartender or waiter has no doubt been bombarded with all the warnings we’ve all heard. Ignorance is impossible here.
Anyway, that, out of this whole debate so far, caught my attention. I’d like to put out some facts that I think are undeniable. They won’t rely on statistics or opinion. I will start with this:
Everyone in the world ought to live in freedom. The U.S.A. came closest to that ideal. We are one country on this planet. If you have an issue with something we do and can justify on the principle of freedom, there are plenty of places for you to go. Don’t try to alter this place. Maybe freedom isn’t for you. If America is not the right fit, try somewhere else. If you buy a sweater, and it won’t fit, you don’t sit down with a sewing kit and modify it. You return it for something different. Is it the wrong color? Don’t try to dye it in the sink! That’s foolish. You will have wasted time and probably ruined the garment. Do you see what I am getting at?
Consider that bars are not necessary. They do not satisfy a natural demand. They create a demand and subsequently satisfy it. The difference between a natural demand and created demand is the difference between need and want. I’d like you to realize that there is not much that we NEED. NOBODY ever needs to be at a bar. The owner doesn’t need to create it. the patrons need not go. Each person involved in the bar is there as a result of wanting. If you want to sit around people smoking or you want to smoke, then go to the smoking bar. If you don’t then DON’T. You must all realize that NOBODY has the right to say that a man cannot allow smoking in the little box that he has set up for human beings to drink and smoke in. Also, NOBODY has the right to be there. Therefore, it cannot be demanded that it be comfortable for you. One cannot even demand that it be SAFE, because you know what the bar entails. Is this making sense? If Alaskaspawn regrets not being able to enjoy a bar or restaurant because of the smoke, then that is a fact and should not be considered any further because IT DOES NOT MATTER if going to bars or restaurants sucks for him. Who cares? Look at it from another angle. I love the atmosphere of a bar and smoking with my friends, but darn it all, I hate drunk people. Can we just pass a law that makes it better for me? Not only that, but alcohol results in so many auto deaths and broken homes and liver disease and brain cell loss and rapes and blah blah blah, so It will be good to remove it from bars anyway. GET THE POINT?
You can’t close rollercoasters because they make people puke.
You can’t shut down highways because people die on them.
You can’t close beaches because people get skin cancer from sun!
WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS.
Let’s take some responsibility for our actions and admit that yes some of them will speed up the dying process that we all embark on at birth, but we do them anyway because they make life nice, and because nobody can tell us not too.
Now, people are telling us not to. It’s madness, and the only person responsible for your health is you. This is so much bigger than health stats or anything of the sort. Realize what’s really being given up.
on December 20, 2007 on 6:59 pm
Ugh, same old arguments. I think we’ve just about exhausted all the arguments for this issue. I honestly think you all have valid points which is why this debate could go on forever.
After reading some of the surgeon general’s report, I’m a little overwhelmed by the evidence presented. I have a hard time bringing it all together but what I do understand is that smoking has negative effects on the smoker and those around them. No one exposes me to plutonium radiation in a bar or restaurant or I’d think there would be legislation against that too. Point is: I don’t believe it’s stepping on anyone’s rights since we’re not telling anyone they can’t smoke just WHERE they can’t smoke. Bar and restaurant owners have to follow a ton of other regulations in order to keep their licenses so adding one more doesn’t seem out of the ordinary or against their rights. The loss of business is sad but understandable considering the apparent fickleness of smokers. Now I believe it’s the restaurant owners responsibilty to find a way to bring in business that doesn’t include smoking.
I really should have stuck to my original proposal of ending the debate with the first rebuttal hehe.
on December 21, 2007 on 7:14 am
Well, I look at it this way. There are always assumed risks in most anything we do. Hell, there are risks in eating or drinking things with artificial sweeteners, the “wrong” kinds of fats etc etc.
For those who are familiar with OSHA and their PEL (permissible exposure limits) standards, you understand that most toxins are really only harmful above the PEL. Until that point, they are just a nuisance. That’s where that Oakridge National Lab study was interesting, because they found that the exposure to toxins in secondhand smoke to bar employees was far below what would be considered “harmful” exposure. At no time do they say that there aren’t toxins – that was never in dispute – rather they look at it from the logical perspective of how much exposure is actually harmful as opposed to just irritating.
Of course, this is all based on “averages” too, since as with anything you will have people who have adverse reactions to even the smallest exposure. But the same can be said for bee stings or peanuts. But on average the PEL is the standard with which to base exposure.
Plutonium, ironically, is a really bad example to use because approx 2.5uG of inhaled PU239 only increases one’s lifetime chance of cancer by 3% and chemically it’s no different in toxicity than lead. It’s actually far more stable than Uranium and emits less radiation. TO date, there have been no reported deaths from plutonium inhalation or ingestion. The damage that plutonium causes is done when it is used in a bomb, as the radiological effects are far more severe than uranium-based bombs.
But that’s just the nerd in me. Plus I had radiological emergency training in the Navy. Again, it’s all about PEL. You can absorb a certain number of RADS (which is why reactor personnel wear personal dosimeters) and as long as they stay below the PEL, there are no adverse health risks to being around highly radioactive material.
Interestingly, botox is fatal in far smaller quantities than plutonium. Yet people pay big money to have it injected into them.
No thanks!
on December 26, 2007 on 12:22 am
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, but I wonder if there has ever been a study on truck drivers and the effects of exhaust during rush hour. I always hear that a cigarette is like breathing into a tailpipe of an automobile. It would only reason that if people in a bar can absorb second hand smoke, then truck drivers who drive through tunnels (Lowry tunnel) and sitting in rush hour traffic would experience similar if not greater exposure to second hand toxins from vehicles. It’s scary when I think like a liberal. Please stop me.
Are there any studies on this? Have a number of truck drivers been diagnosed with lung cancer?
on December 26, 2007 on 5:52 pm
Not to mention the irritation of diesel exhaust fumes which probably far exceed the health risks.
By that logic, diesel should be banned.
Of course, smoking bans are not logical. They are simply popular. Banning diesel wouldn’t be reasonable despite the fact that diesel exhaust coming in my car window while I’m trying to enjoy a summer day with my windows down is far more irritating and makes me nauseated in large doses.
Go figure, right? And who says this isn’t a vendetta against smokers?
Here’s an interesting look at diesel exhaust. I have seen less compelling studies used as a basis for smoking bans. Sadly, the smoking studies are far less objective than this diesel study yet they are upheld like gospel.
http://www.dieselnet.com/papers/9710nauss.html
on December 28, 2007 on 11:34 am
At the coffee shop the other morning I moved my cigerette out of the way so the smoke wouldnt go in the drive through. The coffee girl thanked me and said it was so rude that people didnt always do that because it was killing her. I asked her how many people she asked to turn off there cars in that same drive through, afterall, car exhaust has more carsonagens than cigerette smoke and she breathed that constantly.
She said she would never complain to the smokers again. Just food for thought.
on December 28, 2007 on 9:15 pm
you can’t argue with the facts! If we try to get rid of every potential health threat that could affect workers, we will either have no more workers, no more jobs or bankrupt from trying to institute protective controls…
The fact of the matter is that OSHA establishes PEL for exposure because it is unreasonable and unnecessary to protect everybody from any exposure whatsoever.
As far as most of the chemicals in cigarette smoke… It would be perfectly acceptable if I were regularly exposed to them at work… But since cigarettes are evil, wicked things it is made to sound as if even looking at a cigarette too long will kill you.
on January 1, 2008 on 12:42 pm
Well I should have read this first before posting on the other smoking blog. I referenced Alaskancamels exhaust story so thanks for explaining that one camel
. I didn’t want to put that in my words so I paraphrased it.
on January 1, 2008 on 12:46 pm
Oh, the Ryan vs. the Anti-smoking movement is the other blog I referenced in the previous post.
on January 7, 2008 on 9:44 am
Excellent and sensible article! Living 5 days in the new NO SMOKING LAW in Illinois has changed my life instantly. I am now a criminal and forced to not socialize as I have for the past 45 years. These people who make these laws should be put in orbit! This would get them closer to God and away from me.
on January 17, 2008 on 12:26 pm
A criminal? What did you do? Did you also ostracize your friends in the process? I’m confused. Heh, using extremes to describe your feelings on the ban only creates confusion
.
on January 17, 2008 on 5:55 pm
Well, consider it this way… Smoking bans makes common criminals out of anybody who would ordinarily exercise their right to choose what they do or do not do on their own private property.
I got to thinking, what is the harm in somebody smoking in their own private office? Say somebody is an independent salesperson or real estate agent. By MN state law, they would still not be able to smoke in their own office, even if they were the sole employee. Go figure.
on January 22, 2008 on 1:23 pm
A good point Ryan. I haven’t read the MN statute so I am unaware of the regulations around being the only employee/owner. I’m curious as to how they would even regulate that…you would have to turn yourself in hehe.
I’ll look into that. In my book, I could care less if you owned a company and were the sole employee and didn’t deal directly with the public and wanted to smoke(i.e. doors not open to the public).
on January 22, 2008 on 1:27 pm
Ok, real quick. The MN statute does allow you to smoke in your place of business if you are the only employee/owner and you do not open your doors to the public (really generalized but you can read the entire thing here http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/mciaa/ftb/mciaa.pdf).
If there are 2 or more employees you’re out of luck.
on November 28, 2008 on 10:51 am
“Bar and restaurant owners have to follow a ton of other regulations in order to keep their licenses so adding one more doesn’t seem out of the ordinary or against their rights.”
The Dept. of Public Health is in place to protect the public from unseen dangers. Last time I looked, I could see smoke from a cigarette. I wouldn’t know if there were rats in the basement and expect the DPH to make sure. I do not want them to “protect” me from something I can clearly see for myself and act accordingly!