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

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

[Gabz]

That should read:

strategic retreats.........not defeats.

[Hodar]

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.

Are you saying that exposure to SHS worked as a vaccine against cancer? That SHS is a healthy thing to expose children too?

[boop]

A couple of points: how many death certificates have ever been issued in history listing ETS as the "cause"? Answer: none. Because it CAN'T be proven. The only reason for smoking bans is that some people just "don't like" smoking. since smokers are a minority of the population, a majority will always vote to restrict their freedom. As to the band not wanting to "work" with smoke around them, I want them to not play their music loud. It IS true that loud music damages hearing. How dare they subject innocent people to this? The only fair thing to do is to BAN loud music everywhere.

[Bear_in_RoseBear]

Just a minor correction, but the title that Austin claims is "LIVE Music Capital of the World", referring to the number of venues for live music that are here.

[VRWC_minion]

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

These are courts that said a town overstepped its authority given to it by the state. The courts are not saying that a ban is impossible, just that the town didn't have the authority.

If you think its going to stop there your wrong. The next logical event is the state will do the ban.

[Just another Joe]

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?

Number 1. You cannot prove a negative.

Number 2. As for your five sites.
The first is the debunked EPA study. The federal courts already threw that one out.
The second site - It cites Stanton Glantz, one of the foremost anti-smokers and cites the debunked EPA study.
The third site - It cites no studies and if you look at the sentence, "Infants in the study will be followed for years to see if those exposed to the chemicals have a higher incidence of cancer than nonsmokers' babies.
The fourth site - Look at the next two sentences and tell me when you see the lie
DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: Yes. In fact, they answered the question about passive smoking at the beginning of the study in 1982, and their exposure status was self-reported.

DR. ICHIRO KAWACHI: Basically, we took advantage of a 20-year-long ongoing study of women, and about halfway through the study, we sent out a questionnaire asking them whether they were exposed to passive smoking in the home and in the workplace, and then we just sat and waited and saw what happened to them in terms of their heart attack rates.

so we're saying that virtually everything that we know active smoking does to the circulatory system probably the same thing is happening to the bodies of people who inhale second-hand smoke.

We weren't able to precisely estimate just how much of a dose and how long one would have to be exposed to in order to get into increased--situations of increased risk, such as we observed.
The fifth site - Approximately 2 percent of lung cancer deaths each year are thought to be caused by passive smoking.

Now then, when you find scientific proof, that hasn't been debunked, we can talk about the antis having a point.

[Protagoras]

"At issue here is not whether smoking tobacco is 'good' or 'bad.' What is at issue here is the extent to which the city may dictate to its citizens what is good or bad for them," wrote Jennifer Riggs, the association's lawyer. She added, "The issue here is over far more than smoking."

Finally someone attacking this crap at the correct level.

[Protagoras]

It's not unreasonable to expect to breathe clean air.

No it's not. When the sign on the door says "smoking allowed", you have no expectation. It's not unreasonable for you to depart.

What is unreasonable is for you to assert some right which does not exist.

[Protagoras]

I just question whether the smoking issue in resturants hurts them at all.

And they just question why you think it's any of your business.

[Hodar]

We agree that the chemicals released in smoke are not healthy. We do disagree on the levels of how toxic they are, I think SHS is bad; you do not.

However, can you think of any reasons why everyone should be forced to expose themselves to chemicals (at any level) that are known to be harmful, other than the convenience of the minority who enjoy using them? That is what the entire discussion boils down to. You want to fill the air with harmful chemicals (at levels YOU feel are safe) despite the majority's wish not to be exposed.

[kevao]

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 ...

I'm not trying to be difficult when I ask the following question; I'm quite serious. What you're describing sounds quite time consuming and expensive. How much time and money are spent in Canada, for instance, going around interviewing the friends, families and co-workers of all the many thousands of non-smokers who die each year in order to determine what type of exposure they had to all the environmental factors that can contribute to lung cancer? After all, a person's medical records don't tell whether he had a smoking spouse or co-worker, or whether and how often he frequented establishments where he might have been exposed to SHS, or whether he played poker every Friday night in a smoked-filled room, or whether he spent a lot of time cleaning his pool with chlorine, etc. Someone has to do a lot of leg work to find out this kind of information.

[Just another Joe]

Retail growth explodes in Pearland area

Thanks for the link but it seems like this is a result of more people moving to the area than nonsmokers taking up the slack.

I could be wrong but it hasn't happened throughout the rest of the nation in bars, restaurants and music venues.

[Protagoras]

Notice the poster didn't say your argument is wrong, only that busybody cowards are currently convincing politicions that they can garner power by violating the rights of a minority group.

[Hodar]

What is unreasonable is for you to assert some right which does not exist.

I think you are missing a key fact. The champions of the Smoke Ban in Austin are band members and waitstaff.

As a customer, I agree with you 100%. I have a choice on what resturant/bar I go to. I am free to go in, or leave. My choice.

However, the waitstaff and band does not. This is their job, they have no choice but to go to work. They are claiming the same protection at the bar, as is given 'at the office'. From THEIR perspective, I think they are correct. My argument has been (and continues to be, in this instance) from the waitstaff's point of view.

[Protagoras]

That is what the entire discussion boils down to. You want to fill the air with harmful chemicals (at levels YOU feel are safe) despite the majority's wish not to be exposed.

Incorrect. The entire argument boils down to people like you asserting that they have rights which do not exist. Like the right to force people to do what you want them to do on their own property. That is the crux, and "conservatives" like you are fascists on the issue.

[Hodar]

Someone has to do a lot of leg work to find out this kind of information.

You are 100%. That's why we have the CDC, EPA, AMA and the tons of other gov't agencies to do this. Also, the insurance agencies have huge mortality tables (spelling?) that deal with this. If you smoke, but your wife does not; your bill will reflect a smoking household, as the insurance's future stability depends on predicting the statistical odds of future claims.

[Just another Joe]

You want to fill the air with harmful chemicals (at levels YOU feel are safe) despite the majority's wish not to be exposed.

Putting words in my mouth won't work.

I want a business owner to be able to decide whether or not to allow a legal activity to be engaged upon in their business unless, and if, it is scientifically shown that this activity harms a significant minority of the general public.

[Protagoras]

The employees have no rights which you do not have. Despite your incorrect assertion that they "must" work there.

The employees can choose to work elsewhere. That is the key fact that you are missing/purposly ignoring.

[Hodar]

I'm a fascist, because I object you putting poison and toxins into the air I breathe? My, my, my aren't we emotional.

Below is a list of the amount of selected chemicals, emitted in sidestream smoke, that a
restaurant employee, weighing approximately 65 kg (140 lbs), would directly inhale (not the total
exposure amount) over an 8-hour shift in a 300m2 area.
All chemicals marked in bold type are carcinogens (they cause cancer). All of the chemicals
below cause adverse health effects.
These calculations assume 10 smokers per 300m2 each smoking 2 cigarettes per hour,1 totaling
160 cigarettes over the 8-hour time period, and take into account standard ventilation rates.2
Further information about these calculations can be found at: www.smokefree.
ca/eng_issues/etschems2.htm
Table 1: Amount of Chemicals Inhaled by A Restaurant Employee
CHEMICAL
amount
(ug) CHEMICAL
amount
(ug) CHEMICAL
amount
(ng)
carbon monoxide 5606 1,3-butadiene 25 resorcinol 123
tar 3128 hydroquinone 24 benzo[a]pyrene 18
nicotine 678 methyl ethyl ketone 23 cadmium 9.7
acetaldehyde 207 catechol 22 1-aminonaphthalene 8.5
nitric oxide 190 propionaldehyde 17 chromium 7.1
isoprene 151 cresols 15 lead 6.0
acetone 121 hydrogen cyanide 14 2-aminonaphtalene 5.2
toluene 66 styrene 13 nickel 4.2
formaldehyde 54 butyraldehyde 12 3-aminobiphenyl 2.4
phenol 44 acrylonitrile 11 4-aminobiphenyl 1.4
acrolein 40 crotonaldehyde 10
benzene 36 quinoline 1.3
pyridine 33
1 Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights: Questions and Answers Regarding Eliminating Smoking in
Restaurants. February 5, 1992.
2 ASHRAE Standard (62-1981) office ventilation rate of 10L/second per person (assuming 7 persons per
100 meters squared floor space). According to American’s for Nonsmoker’s Rights: Protecting Nonsmokers
from Secondhand Smoke (fact sheet), these ventilation rates would need to be improved 270 times, at
enormous cost, in order to reduce the carcinogenic risk from tobacco smoke to federal (US) accepted levels.
This would “create a virtual windstorm indoors”.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/factsheets/pdf/8%20hour%20shift%20fact%20sheet.PDF

[Just another Joe]

And guess what - Do YOU know how many of those chemicals can be found in the breath of a nonsmoker?
I can tell you if you want me to.