Bars, clubs included in Austin smoke ban - ordinance allows tobacco in billiard halls, bingo parlors

Austin American-Statesman ^ | June 6, 2003 | By Stephen Scheibal

[kevao]

Until you get a new set of tactics the steam roller will keep in rolling town by town and state by state.

And behavior by behavior. Don't think they'll stop at smoking bans.

[Great Dane]

#5....... And what about the workers in Billiard and Bingo Halls....... What hypocrites.

[Hodar]

Regarding Second Hand Smoke

What can it do to me?

To be blunt - it can kill you.

Across Canada, over 3,000 non-smokers die each year from being exposed to second-hand smoke. Over one in ten of these people die from lung cancer. Most of the others die from heart disease and stroke.

And if it doesn’t kill you, it can make you sick. Second-hand smoke can:

Irritate your eyes, nose and throat
Give you a headache
Make you dizzy or nauseous
Make asthma worse
Increase your risk of respiratory infections, or make them worse. These include:
colds
bronchitis
pneumonia.
The more you are exposed to second-hand smoke, the greater your risk. For example, restaurant workers are exposed to almost twice the amount of second-hand smoke that is in offices where smoking is allowed. Bar workers are exposed to levels that are about 4 to 6 times higher than offices.

http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/faq-faq/tobacco-tabagisme/8e.html

[Great Dane]

"All the evidence points to the fact that business does not deteriorate."

Thats the biggest lie of all, just look at the official downturn in brewer and distiller sales.

[Gabz]

Oh good grief.

Do you know where they get those numbers from? Usually out of thin air.

There is a statistically insignificant elevated risk that SHS will do anything more than aggravate a pre-existing condition, such as asthma, or be annoying.

If you don't want to get wet you stay out of the rain, if you don't want to be exposed to SHS stay out of smoking-permitted establishments. It's called common sense.

[Great Dane]

And these businesses went out of business because a minoritiy of the US population (smokers) can't smoke there? Not because of the downturn in the economy and the massive Reduction In Force that major employers have done? Interesting....

We do not have a downturn in our economy, we have had a 100% ban for nearly two years, business went down with the intro of the ban, and has stayed down, first excuse...... I don't remember, second...... 911, third SARS, fourth will no doubt be mad cow disease.

[Just another Joe]

Ah, but non-smokers have increased their presence to counter the loss of yours.

Can you document that?

[kevao]

Across Canada, over 3,000 non-smokers die each year from being exposed to second-hand smoke.

How do they determine when someone dies of second-hand smoke? Anytime a non-smoker dies of an illness, the illness is attributed to second-hand smoke?

[VRWC_minion]

What effect? Prove your point or STFU.

To date, the arguments on the alledged effect of SHS on employees is trumping the argument on private property. This has happened in DE, NY, CT, Boston, CA and the above cities in Texas.

You may not agree that the argument is true but it is winning. Unless smokers get a new tactic they are creamed.

[Hodar]

Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year.
Secondhand Smoke is a Serious Health Risk to Children
The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke.

Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze.
Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation.

Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year.

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html#Secondhand%20smoke%20can%20cause%20lung%20cancer%20in%20nonsmokers.

See also:
http://www.oma.org/phealth/2ndsmoke.htm
http://www.fensende.com/Users/swnymph/refs/smoke.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/smoking_5-20.html
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/subabuse/tobacc06.htm

Now, I have shown you 5 sources documenting that Second Hand Smoke is harmful. Can you give me more than one reputable site that says that SHS is NOT harmful? Or is it just 'common sense'?

[Gabz]

You keep telling us to get a new tactic. Since you think you are all-knowing in reference to these bans, why don't you tell us what the new tactic should be.


The amazing thing is more of these type bans are being defeated than enacted - they just don't get the same media hype.

[VRWC_minion]

And behavior by behavior. Don't think they'll stop at smoking bans.

It could happen but your assuming that the anti's are only made up of a group that wants to control others. That isn't necessarily true. The group is more varied than that. It includes some folks who do want to control behaviors but these folks alone are not the majority. If they were the laws on other behaviors would also be evident.

In addition to controllers, the current bans are being pushed by true believers that SHS causes harm, folks who just want a smoke free environment and don't care whether SHS causes harm and private restaurants that want a level playing field.

The push for fatty food bans etc just aren't going to motivate the larger majority that are supporting these bans.

[Hodar]

How do they determine when someone dies of second-hand smoke? Anytime a non-smoker dies of an illness, the illness is attributed to second-hand smoke?

There exist a normal distribution of deaths from lung cancer for smokers and another for non-smokers; these life expectancy charts are the bread and butter of insurance companies; and a great deal of mathematics goes into them.

When there exists a disparity in these numbers, contributing factors are found. One of the primary candidates is SHS. Statistically speaking, the number of non-smokers who die of smoke related deaths is lower than that for smokers. (Duh!) The SHS group would be expected to be in the same number range as the Non-smoking group, however it isn't. The diffenence between deaths in the non-smoking group and the smoking group, for non-smokers is attributed to the only common link, SHS.

[VRWC_minion]

You keep telling us to get a new tactic. Since you think you are all-knowing in reference to these bans, why don't you tell us what the new tactic should be.

My best guess is a total makeover for the polite smoker who only rarely smokes in public.

amazing thing is more of these type bans are being defeated than enacted - they just don't get the same media hype.

While entire states go for a ban a few towns that were over zealous exceeded the authority they had or they didn'tike the folks smoking in the streets. These towns didn't change becuase the voters wanted smoking in restuarants or because they were honoring private property rights. Its just a matter of time that either the controlling state law will change to allow other towns to extend a ban and the towns that didin't want street smoking figure out a plan B. Either eay these wins are more strategic retreats.

[Hodar]

Ah, but non-smokers have increased their presence to counter the loss of yours.

Just another Joe: Can you document that?

Sure, no problem....

Retail growth explodes in Pearland area

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/chron10002/1410560

[Gabz]

The EPA was thrown out in court because the data they used was cherry picked to come up with a predeterminined designation - the rest of them use all of the same flawed data.

The WHO completed the largest ever, multinational study on SHS and the only statistically conclusive effect they found is that children exposed to SHS have a 22% less chance of getting lung cancer later in life.

2 weeks ago the British Medical Journal pubilshed a study from California that was based upon more than 30 years of following the same people started by the Cancer Society in the 60s. There is no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer even after 40 years of spousal and workplace exposure.

The Department of Energy, through it's Oak Ridge National Laboratory had bar and waitstaff where air monitoring devices and determined that working in a smoking-permitted environment exposes them to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

For a study to be epidemiologically significant the elevated risks should never cross parity (parity =1)and should show an elevated relative risk of at least 2 or better yet 3 to rule out any possibility of confounding factors.

Example. There is an elevated RR of 1.65 for lung cancer in drinkers of whole milk. Are you going to stop drinking whole milk because of this risk, of course not, it's way too low for it to prove drinking whole milk can cause lung cancer. Do you know what the RR for lung cancer is for exposure to SHS, even 20-30 years of daily exposure at home and work? 1.19 - 1.43...........in other words statistically INsignificant.

I am not at my own computer and therefore do not have the links at my finger tips - but believe me I am not pulling this info out of thin air. I'm sure one of the others has links for these and others closer at hand.

[Liberal Classic]

The private property argument is getting creamed in the political market place.

You're right, and this is not the only area in which private property rights are being eroded. Thanks for not helping.

[kevao]

When there exists a disparity in these numbers, contributing factors are found. One of the primary candidates is SHS.

I'm with you on the normal distribution of deaths from lung cancer. But I still don't understand how they determine how many deaths were caused specifically by SHS as opposed to other environmental factors that could contribute to lung cancer.

[Gabz]

Courts overturning bans is not exactly what I call strategic defeats.

[Hodar]

The investigation would be along the lines of: What did the people who did not smoke, but died from smoke-related illnesses have in common? Exposure to chlorine? Work in a bar? Spouse smoke? blah, blah, blah ... until a statistically significant number were found to have a link in common. The common link accepted by the AMA, and pretty much every medical, insurance and govermental agency in the world has been SHS.