Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 01/19/2006 4:34:38 PM PST by qam1
Here is a thumbs-down to the Smokefree D.C. do-gooders and the D.C. Council, which voted 11-1 in favor of a smoking ban that begins next year.
I am thinking of starting a Do-Gooder-free D.C. because of the scientifically proven study that shows freedom-hating do-gooders cause high blood pressure in others.
There is nothing like a smug, arrogant, condescending know-it-all to get the eyes rolling up in the back of your head. The city, unfortunately, is awash in this character type.
These self-important nitwits seem to think they know what is best for the masses and then pat themselves on the head after they have achieved their mission.
"It is a great day for everyone who works in or patronizes a bar or restaurant in the District of Columbia," said one of the co-founders of the nut-job group after 11 morally superior council members imposed legislation that mocks the celebrated individual liberties of a nation.
Sorry. It did not come across as a great day. It came across as just another amusing day in the bluest of blue precincts.
Really, I would prefer to have a Carbon Monoxide-Free D.C.
Or a Rat-Free D.C.
Or a Gang-Free D.C.
Or a Lead-Free D.C.
Or a Cholesterol-Free D.C.
Or a Body Odor-Free D.C.
Or an Ice Cream-Free D.C.
Or a Starbucks-Free D.C.
I can think of all kinds of practices and things that could be eliminated before I would be concerned with a smoky bar stuffed with drunks at midnight.
I would argue it is the right of the smoking town drunk to be a smoking town drunk, just as it is the right of servers to work in an establishment that caters to smoking town drunks.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The hippies/Boomers used it as an affectation and just part of their "rebellion". And yes, it really was just a part of the drug scene, which they expanded. Before that time, ALL dope use was for prostitutes, the underclass, losers, and a few artsy fartsy dilettante "artist" types. The exception to this rule, were the poor souls, whom doctors got hooked on things such as heroin, because they didn't know enough about it and it was "new".
Uh - Uh - Stay angry and I'll get back to you. I promise.
I appreciate that bit of research and will do my best to help the longevity of my tobacco using friends.
Does DC's smoking ban apply to crack?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Rush, M.D. (1746-1813), was an early American physician. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Surgeon General under George Washington, and anti-tobacco activist).
Dr. Rush was "against the habitual use of tobacco" because it
(a) "led to a desire for strong drink ,"
(b) "was injurious both to health and morals ,"
(c) "is generally offensive to" nonsmokers,
(d) "produces a want of respect for" nonsmokers, and
(e) "always disposes to unkind and unjust behavior towards them." —James C. Coleman, Ph.D., Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life, 5th ed (Scott, Foresman & Co, 1976), pp 43 and 427.
"Nationwide, the [ratio] of smokers [to non-smokers] in prisons is 90 percent." McKinney, supra, 924 F2d 1507, affirmed and remanded, 509 US 25 , supra.
"In a survey of . . . incarcerated youths with an average age of 15.5 years, 94% were smokers. . . . Drivers who smoke are arrested for drunken driving more than three times as often as nonsmokers . . . receive 46% more traffic citations and are involved in 50% more automobile accidents than are nonsmokers, even when alcohol is taken into account." J. R. DiFranza, and M. P. Guerrera, "Alcoholism and Smoking," 51 J Studies Alcohol (#2) 130-135 (1990), p 134.
The underlying factor in crime is the single most-studied health risk factor in the history of medicine, in the history of mankind. What is that factor?
Tobacco Effects and Prevention Data
Sorry for the delay - The web page I quote is a most interesting place to visit.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"Instead of opening a smoke-free bar (if they believe it is such a wonderful idea), they force other people to accomodate them - and then they don't even go!"
Proof that the weakest in our society turn to government guns to enforce their preferences. If they had any fortitude what so ever, they would risk their own capital and sweat to open a business. Of course, that would mean that they prefer a capitalist society over a socialist one.
The sad part is the number of freepers that prefer the socialist dictation of the use of private property.
Very true.
There was very popular pub in my neighborhood which closed a few months after Florida's smoking ban took effect. Its regulars had all but disappeared and no new non-smoking customers replaced their seats at the bar.
A smokeless pub opened in its place and lasted all of 2 months.
Not one smoke nazi will ~ever~ admit that there is NO market for smoke-free bars. Or if one exists, it is so small as to be irrelevant to the bottom line of any business.
And they know it's true. Yet, they still don't care.
It's more important to show us nasty smokers who's boss. *rolls eyes*
A pox on all of them.
I appreciate that bit of research and will do my best to help the longevity of my tobacco using friends.
By doing what, exposing them to a contact high? How second-hand of you.
I don't get pot smokers who come on to smoking threads and start a smug-a-thon bashing smokers.
Back in the day, I did my share of pot-smoking, but stopped years ago. I've never held anything against anyone who wants to do it, it's none of my business. I've got a gut feeling that the majority of cigarette smokers feel the same way, but I can't claim to speak for others.
Here's the issue: Most of the people around in Harry Anslinger's heyday are long gone.
A conservative or libertarian bent of mind would suggest that the War on Tobacco is Anslinger's war by another name.
Yet some of the pot-smoking Schadenfreude posse seems more than willing to jump on the Anslinger Redux bandwagon.
As if the wrongful outlawing of one personal liberty and the demonization of one particular group justifies another.
It seems intellectually dishonest, at best.
I didn't say - Did I? Loosely, by not advocating restrictions to tobacco users (or any other adult) acquiring and responsibly using cannabis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't get pot smokers who come on to smoking threads and start a smug-a-thon bashing smokers.
It seems intellectually dishonest, at best.
I only wish equal rights to users of tobacco and cannabis. Loosely, the right to use either of those commodities in a way that does not contaminate the air needed for breath by other citizens.
Do you also wish private property owners retain their rights?
I know what you are alluding to and to me it would get around to an issue of any indoor establishment that serves the public be equipped with ventilation equipment effective enough at exhausting potential air borne pollutants to safe levels. Bottom line on that is that it seems to be prohibitably expensive. So - we have to resort to plan (b) not using smoke producing substances in indoor locations where other patrons are bothered by said pollutants.
(I suspect that -deep down- from a business profit point of view- owners of businesses will see an improvement to profit by not having tobacco tar clogging up cooling coils in A.C. equipment.)
Still private property. Please don't start on the "but the state regulates blah, blah, blah" stuff. Customers can't see what goes on in the kitchen, so there's a legitimate reason why these activities should be regulated. Only a complete moron wouldn't be able to discern at the front door whether or not smoking was permitted. An actual adult would then make the choice to enter or not.
So - we have to resort to plan (b) not using smoke producing substances in indoor locations where other patrons are bothered by said pollutants.
"We?" Who's this collectivist "we?" You and the owner of the establishment who've made equal contributions in time and money? Oh, wait......
Again, patrons who aren't complete and utter morons wouldn't have entered in the first place if they had an urgent need to be guaranteed "pollutant-free" air. Will you people ever grow up? Are you doomed forever to be Peter Pans? It'd be amusing if you weren't so dangerously stupid.
(I suspect that -deep down- from a business profit point of view- owners of businesses will see an improvement to profit by not having tobacco tar clogging up cooling coils in A.C. equipment.)
"Suspect" all you want, and that is the lamest "justification" I've ever read. The smoking Nazis must be running out of new angles.
Ah, the "smokers as filthy litterers" tactic.
You're just becoming way too tiresome and predictable.
A little self-awareness on your part wouldn't hurt.
It's been nice......
Bump.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calif. board links secondhand smoke to breast cancer By John Ritter, USA TODAY Posted 1/26/2006 4:30 PM
SACRAMENTO — California regulators ruled Thursday that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer in younger women, an unprecedented finding that could lead to tougher anti-smoking measures.
The state's powerful Air Resources Board, known nationally for ground-breaking rules limiting auto and diesel pollution, unanimously approved a 1,200-page report from state Environmental Protection Agency scientists that is the strongest indictment yet of secondhand smoke.
CalEPA's finding challenges conventional scientific thinking because most studies, until recently, had not even found a connection between female smokers and breast cancer.
"I think that if we don't embrace these new conclusions we're doing a disservice to younger women," says Andrew Hyland, a research scientist at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo. "My prediction is that in the months to come, people will see the evidence and change their opinion."
By accepting CalEPA's finding, the Air Resources Board officially lists secondhand smoke as a "toxic air contaminant" under state law, beginning a process that could lead to new restrictions in the state that already has the nation's toughest anti-smoking rules.
Those could include reducing exposures in vehicles carrying children or in rental buildings where smoke drifts from common areas and apartments with smokers to non-smokers' apartments.
Secondhand smoke concentrations in vehicles with smokers is 10 times higher than in the homes of smokers, the report found. Its key new finding is that women under 50 exposed to secondhand smoke had a 68% to 120% greater risk of breast cancer than women who weren't exposed. Women past menopause were not at significantly higher risk.
"There should be an even stronger effort to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure, particularly for our young girls," says Laura Esserman, a surgeon and researcher at the University of California-San Francisco.
Major cancer groups, including the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, said evidence that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer is inconclusive. The disease kills 40,000 women a year in the USA.
"We're not disputing there's a plausibility that secondhand smoke could cause breast cancer," says Harmon Eyre, the cancer society's chief medical officer. "All we're saying is that the evidence has just not reached that level."
Tobacco companies, in public comments filed with the board, said the report gave too little weight to studies that found no link to breast cancer.
I wish that you will always have all the tobacco you wish to smoke.
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.