NJ: Federal court should rescind smoking ban

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 9, 2006

[SheLion]

Simplicity is illusive....government has no right to interfere with private business not allow smoking in ALL places. Very SIMPLE.......You do not want Smoking in your Tavern or Restaurant...put a sign that states No Smoking at the front door. You WANT Smoking at your establishment...post Smoking Allowed on your front door. How simple is that? One then has a choice to frequent or work at that establishment or not. This ALL or Nothing attitude is ignorant.

Like this:

                

[stone fortress]

MOST DEFINATELY! I feel like I am being Choked, livinig NY state...and it is certainly not from smoke!

[stone fortress]

Fine with me!

[SheLion]

Our disagreement comes from whether this is the nanny state telling us how to live or whether it is reasonable protection from people who would harm others.

Are you easily swayed or just believe something is HARMFUL to you just because you hate it?

Second hand smoke is NOT the killer the anti's made YOU believe it is.  I am tired of these forking lies you spit around this forum!

DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter.  This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

[stone fortress]

I DEFINATELY agree with you!

[gondramB]

I agree that second hand smoke has not been proven to cause cancer. But since some of the components in second hand smoke are known to cause cancer it is fair to consider second hand smoke as a possible carcinogen. It certainly is an irritant chemical.

[gondramB]

"Simplicity is illusive....government has no right to interfere with private business not allow smoking in ALL places."

what if 2nd hand smoke were shown to be harmful, would that change your opinion?

[Republicus2001]

I live in New York State...and there is no smoking of any kind in any restaurant or tavern...is that why they have social clubhouses?

[stone fortress]

Recently, I went into a Dollar type store...you could smell the man made material right away...after looking around for about 10 minuits, I had a sore throat.......and it is a PUBLIC store.....certainly irritant chemicals.

[stone fortress]

I personally do not know of any social clubhouses. Besides the one cigar bar...where they actually serve food, the only place that you can smoke is at the casinos...and thank heaven you can eat too.

[gondramB]

"Recently, I went into a Dollar type store...you could smell the man made material right away...after looking around for about 10 minuits, I had a sore throat.......and it is a PUBLIC store.....certainly irritant chemicals."

that's a good point... I'm only talking about smoking because that's the topic of the thread... there are plenty of other concerns. I would question the motives of anybody who spends too much time opposing smoking, especially in private areas.

[SheLion]

RESEARCHERS BLAST CALIFORNIA EPA REPORT: SECONDHAND SMOKE FINDINGS BIASED, FLAWED

01/30/2006-The American Cancer Society stated unequivocally, in a written comment,  that it did not agree with Cal-EPA's conclusion that secondhand smoke was a cause of breast cancer, and that published evidence did not support the requisite criteria for causation.

Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test

Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06

Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.

Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.

Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.

But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.

The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.

For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.

In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."

Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.

[SheLion]

I agree that second hand smoke has not been proven to cause cancer. But since some of the components in second hand smoke are known to cause cancer it is fair to consider second hand smoke as a possible carcinogen. It certainly is an irritant chemical.

You would never make it in northern Maine where we heat with big wood furnaces every winter.  It's a dirty heat but a good heat.  But if you ever had to live with the second hand smoke from wood heat, you would fall over in a faint!

I bet you sit up wind  at a camp fire, don't you.

What do you do when you are behind a big stinky truck on the interstate and its 85 degrees out and the traffic comes to a stop?  Do you pull out a mask?  I'm not being snarky, I just can't believe that "stuff" in life gets to some people so bad today.  We didn't grow up this way.

I'm just trying to figure out why the human race has weakened so badly.

I agree that second hand smoke has not been proven to cause cancer. But since some of the components in second hand smoke are known to cause cancer it is fair to consider second hand smoke as a possible carcinogen. It certainly is an irritant chemical.

You would never make it in northern Maine where we heat with big wood furnaces every winter.  It's a dirty heat but a good heat.  But if you ever had to live with the second hand smoke from wood heat, you would fall over in a faint!

I bet you sit up wind  at a camp fire, don't you.

What do you do when you are behind a big stinky truck on the interstate and its 85 degrees out and the traffic comes to a stop?  Do you pull out a mask?  I'm not being snarky, I just can't believe that "stuff" in life gets to some people so bad today.  We didn't grow up this way.

I'm just trying to figure out why the human race has weakened so badly.

[gondramB]

"
Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. "

There are other health issues besides cancer.

BTW, check this out, of course the source is probably biased.

>>Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.<<

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp

[SheLion]

what if 2nd hand smoke were shown to be harmful, would that change your opinion?

If tobacco and second hand smoke were that damn harmful, the government would have pulled it from the market YEARS ago! heh!

I've lived a lot of years on this earth, started smoking at age 16.  Grew up with smoke AND with second hand smoke.  Sure hasn't hurt me YET!  My gawd!  How did the gene pool weaken so badly???

[stone fortress]

For some reason...some people are so "ANTI" that they become Crazed and obsessed. As someone said earlier...people should respect each other and make reasonable changes, and to be adult about it.

I have come to the age that I can spend more money on entertainment....but unfortunately I now spend it at the restaurant at the Indian Casino intead of our local restaurant and tavern businesses. (cannot even rollerblade in one of our state parks...you may just hurt yourself...aughhh!)

[SheLion]

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp

I can't STAND Phillip Morris!  If anyone thinks that Big Tobacco sold us out, Phillip Morris is even worse.

They put these fancy stop smoking ads on TV and how they will help people quit, but have you noticed they are still producing cigarettes?  Talking out of both sides of their mouths.  I hate that corporation.  Bunch of idiots.

[SheLion]

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.<<

Let me tell you something:  like I said, I started smoking at age 16 (peer pressure).

Later in my mid 20's, I gave birth to a beautiful baby girl.  21.5 inches long and 8lb 12 oz!  Perfect health.

My hubby and I both smoked and our daughter never had any of the above sicknesses.  The only thing she ever had was German measles.  And you sure can't get German measles from smoking!

She joined with me in taking a good dose of vitamin c every day and she never even caught a cold. 

[MissouriConservative]

"Our disagreement comes from whether this is the nanny state telling us how to live or whether it is reasonable protection from people who would harm others."

That last part of your sentence is the definition of a nanny state. Can you not decide what is harmful to yourself and avoid it? The way you put it, the smokers are out to harm you on purpose. They are not stalking you, catching you, and forcing their smoke into your lungs by mouth to mouth contact. If you think smoking is harmful to you, then you simply avoid going to an establishment that allows smoking. The market will decide what is best, the shop keepers and store owners will go the way of the dollar, they are not stupid people.

"I'm pretty we are all in full agreement that it would be "reasonable protection" if we talking about one restaurant patron spraying anthrax into the air and the government intervening."

That is a horrible analogy. First off, anthrax is illegal for anyone to have, cigararettes are a legal product.

"Hopefully we all agree that it would be an unconstitutional nanny state that would "protect" us in pubic from political viewpoints we don't like or expressions of religious belief or bad perfume."

That is the same as smoking, which you want the government to protect you from. If you don't like a political viewpoint, religious belief, you don't associate with those who hold that belief. If someone has bad perfume, you avoid them. It's the same as avoiding an establish that has chosen to allow smoking.

"The question is "where in the middle is cigarette smoke." its nothing like anthrax but its not protected free speech either. I view it a a patron choosing to spray irritant and possibly cancer causing chemicals into the air. That strikes me as ok at home but not OK in a restaurant."

Why is not protected? It is a legal product sold in the United States. You said earlier in the post that bad perfume is something the government should not protect us from, but what if someone is allergic and dies from breathing it? And "possibly cancer causing chemicals" is a bad argument. Cars can possibly run you over on the road, should we ban them from being used as well?

[gondramB]

So your argument is that if one person doesn't get sick from cigarettes then it's safe for everybody?



Check this out from the American Council on Science and Health

http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.346/pub_detail.asp

>>In this report the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) evaluates the large body of evidence that exists regarding the health effects of ETS. ACSH's analysis yields the following conclusions:

* Irritation of the eyes, nose, and respiratory tract is the most common and firmly established adverse health effect associated with exposure to ETS.
* Exposed infants and children, in particular, are at increased risk of respiratory infections, middle-ear effusion (fluid inside the eardrum), and the exacerbation of asthma and other respiratory symptoms.
* Exposed adults are at increased risk for respiratory ailments; ETS may aggravate the symptoms of preexisting asthma and emphysema.
* Extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that ETS exposure is a weak risk factor in the development of lung cancer in nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.
* Epidemiological evidence also suggests that ETS is a weak risk factor for heart disease in nonsmoking spouses of smokers and in nonsmokers regularly exposed to ETS in the workplace and/or at home.
* Other reported links between ETS and chronic disease (breast cancer, cervical cancer, and leukemia, for example) have not been scientifically established and are not addressed in this report. <<