Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 01/21/2007 5:56:10 AM PST by NJRighty
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Thirty years after it began as just another quirky movement in Berkeley, Calif., the push to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and other public places has reached a national milestone.
For the first time in the nation's history, more than half of Americans live in a city or state with laws mandating that workplaces, restaurants or bars be smoke-free, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.
''The movement for smoke-free air has gone from being a California oddity to the nationwide norm,'' said Bronson Frick, the group's associate director. ''We think 100 percent of Americans will live in smoke-free jurisdictions within a few years.''
Seven states and 116 communities enacted tough smoke-free laws last year, bringing the total number to 22 states and 577 municipalities, according to the group. Nevada's ban, which went into effect Dec. 8, increased the total U.S. population covered by any type of smokefree law to 50.2 percent.
It was the most successful year for anti-smoking advocates in the U.S., said Frick, and advocates are now working with local and state officials from across the nation on how to bring the other half of the country around.
In a sign of the changing climate, new U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor this month, and the District of Columbia recently barred it in public areas. Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana and New Jersey also passed sweeping anti-smoking measures last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at kpic.com ...
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Then you know that in epidemiological studies a RR of 2.00 is required to even give a casual relationship, not causal, and a RR of 3.00 is preferred before assigning a link.
Websites are kinda like statistics, you can make them say what you want them to say, no matter what the evidence points to.
There sure is a significant body of work done after the EPA study, much of it based upon that study, or using that study as a starting point.
And in that body, the studies run about 80% to 20% against there being any statistically significant harm done by ETS on an otherwise healthy human.
I also know Dave Hitt's website. On the other hand I actually read the studies.
It might help.
Any restaurant not run by a governmental entity is a privately-owned facility.
You must have missed that day in civics class.
The Constitution limits the power of government. It does not grant rights to individuals.
I look forward to the FReeper celebrations about this (select members of course) and hope that they also supported the Kelo decision.
Here's a 69-page document (http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf) listing studies about secondhand smoke. Do you mean to tell me that 80% of these find that secondhand smoke is harmless? Common sense and my own personal experience tells me that either smokers and families of smokers sure have bad luck when it comes to health (and conversely, nonsmokers and families of nonsmokers sure have good luck) or smoking causes problems for those who do it and those who are around it.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf
I have to assume that they're all government stooges out to grab your cigarettes.
JUST WONDERING DO YOU RENT TO ILLEGAL ALIENS?
Please see my post # 147.
"...but I would be perfectly fine with a public smoking ban."
Why? In your post you make the case that the free market is working just fine, why the need to utilize government force to enact a ban?
I'll have to take a look at the list on a study by study basis and get back to you.
Common sense and my own personal experience tells me that either smokers and families of smokers sure have bad luck when it comes to health (and conversely, nonsmokers and families of nonsmokers sure have good luck) or smoking causes problems for those who do it and those who are around it.
So now we are to take anecdotal evidence?
Please don't try to mix muscrats and geese. They don't go well together.
You have to rely on one or the other so tell me which you will take.
I have to assume that they're all government stooges out to grab your cigarettes.
I don't really care if they grab my cigarettes or not. I routinely go for 4 or 5 days at a time without a cigarette.
I do, however, hate the taking of liberties on false pretenses.
Does it make you feel better to tell yourself I'm agitated?
Hell, I'm happy. I'm in fantastic health and I don't pour thousands of dollars yearly into an addiction that shortens my life. It would be mean of me to poke fun at the weak-minded, but I've never been interested in being polite.
Go on and tell yourself that I'm angry, or that I'm misinformed. The man who devotes his energy to justifying his vice is still way behind the man who was smart enough to avoid the vice in the first place.
Now, light 'em if you got 'em!
I don't support a ban. My own personal disgust with cigarettes as well as my allergies means I certainly wouldn't miss them if they were gone.
I do, however, hate the taking of liberties on false pretenses.
As do I, but I don't see this as a false pretense.
You're about 170 posts behind. Read up if you're going to try to contribute to this.
You didn't answer my question. What do you have to do to open an eating establishment to the pubic?
I stand by what I said. You apparently didn't get it.
The sight of a wounded animal never does.
I mean, the weight of all that self-congratulation can be seriously debiitating after a while.
You'd be surprised - it never gets old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.