Smoking Ban

I have a right to go anywhere and eat anywhere

No, you don't. And that has nothing to do with smoking.

I have a right to go anywhere and eat anywhere

No, you don't. And that has nothing to do with smoking.

Stop being ridiculous. You know what I mean.... To eat and drink. Where am I not allowed to go that is public?

I'm guessing you're a smoker who doesn't give a damn about where you smoke? right?

Or are you a civil rights activist, I doubt it, I'll put money on it that you're the former.

Perhaps you think we should segregate too?

I have a right to go anywhere and eat anywhere

No, you don't. And that has nothing to do with smoking.

Stop being ridiculous. You know what I mean.... To eat and drink. Where am I not allowed to go?

I'm guessing you're a smoker who doesn't give a damn about where you smoke? right?

Or are you a civil rights activist, I doubt it, I'll put money on it that you're the former.

Perhaps you think we should segregate too?

I'm a smoker and a civil rights activist. It's difficult at times to figure out which is more frustrating.

What does either have to do, though, with the empirical, scientific evidence that should be used to decide the fate of a smoking ban (which, by the way, I've already made clear earlier in the thread that I'm not fighting)?

Should we try to talk rationally about that evidence or should I just make up wildly speculative stuff about you and pretend like I've proven something?

I have a right to go anywhere and eat anywhere

No, you don't. And that has nothing to do with smoking.

Stop being ridiculous. You know what I mean.... To eat and drink. Where am I not allowed to go?

I'm guessing you're a smoker who doesn't give a damn about where you smoke? right?

Or are you a civil rights activist, I doubt it, I'll put money on it that you're the former.

Perhaps you think we should segregate too?

I'm a smoker and a civil rights activist. It's difficult at times to figure out which is more frustrating.

What does either have to do, though, with the empirical, scientific evidence that should be used to decide the fate of a smoking ban (which, by the way, I've already made clear earlier in the thread that I'm not fighting)?

Should we try to talk rationally about that evidence or should I just make up wildly speculative stuff about you and pretend like I've proven something?

Jeff, Sir,

, I am a big believer in talking about things rationally but to say this is argument is based on empirical evidence is a crock. Are you talking about my call on you? Perhaps you can tell me what it is you are directly involved in as an activist? Smoking ban?

Second hand smoke kills people, this is not empirical but irrefutable. Do you not see where we are coming from?

There is nothing that you can say that will make me feel like you are justified smoking in a public restaurant. PERIOD!

I would never tell you to stop smoking, just stop imposing it on me.

It stinks!

I have a right to go anywhere and eat anywhere

No, you don't. And that has nothing to do with smoking.

Stop being ridiculous. You know what I mean.... To eat and drink. Where am I not allowed to go?

I'm guessing you're a smoker who doesn't give a damn about where you smoke? right?

Or are you a civil rights activist, I doubt it, I'll put money on it that you're the former.

Perhaps you think we should segregate too?

I'm a smoker and a civil rights activist. It's difficult at times to figure out which is more frustrating.

What does either have to do, though, with the empirical, scientific evidence that should be used to decide the fate of a smoking ban (which, by the way, I've already made clear earlier in the thread that I'm not fighting)?

Should we try to talk rationally about that evidence or should I just make up wildly speculative stuff about you and pretend like I've proven something?

Jeff, Sir,

, I am a big believer in talking about things rationally but to say this is argument is based on empirical evidence is a crock. Are you talking about my call on you? Perhaps you can tell me what it is you are directly involved in as an activist? Smoking ban?

Second hand smoke kills people, this is not empirical but irrefutable. Do you not see where we are coming from?

There is nothing that you can say that will make me feel like you are justified smoking in a public restaurant. PERIOD!

I would never tell you to stop smoking, just stop imposing it on me.

It stinks!

You've misunderstood, Christopher.

What I'm involved in as an activist has nothing to do with a smoking ban debate as my activism has never had anything to do with smoking, but thanks for another uninformed insinuation all the same. Perhaps you missed it in my previous post when I reminded that I'm not fighting the smoking ban.

But, to satisfy your curiosity, I've at various times advocated against environmental racism, for better regulation and enforcement against slumlordism in low income neighborhoods, against discrimination based on sexual orientation (including marriage rights for gays and lesbians), and against the inclusion of mandatory religion in public schools. I'm currently a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, suing New Albany's City Council in an effort to guarantee equal representation and fair elections. If it matters, we're winning thus far.

If the government using empirical, scientific evidence to make a decision about a public health concern is a crock, what should it be based on?

My point here is that after thirteen pages of all sorts of claims and pleas, including your own, no one has presented a solid argument in favor of the ban backed with scientific evidence pointing to secondhand smoke exposure as a health concern dangerous enough to warrant regulation. I'm not claiming that is isn't, just that presenting such an argument is the only way to objectively advocate for a ban.

On the flipside, Brett provided a seemingly well documented article that that poked holes in several claims made about secondhand smoke. It, too, should be met with skepticism and I've admittedly not done the research necessary to develop an informed opinion about it one way or the other.

Based on the the total absence of scientifically-based refutations of the article (or even an acknowledgment of its content) here on the board, though, one must consider the possibility that no one else has done the research, either. That seems odd to me, given the fervor the topic seems to engender.

Surely, someone like yourself who's claiming that there's ample, irrefutable evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke kills people could share some. After all, if you're not familiar enough with that evidence to share and explain it, you really shouldn't be preaching it as gospel, should you?

That's all I'm really asking- that you (or someone) provide credible evidence to support your claims rather than stooping to the type of character assassination and emotionalism that hinder all of our abilities to reach objective decisions.

You'll again note here that I'm not claiming secondhand smoke exposure does or does not kill. I don't know enough about it to have rendered that decision yet. Why not get over your case of the "gotchas" and educate me?

Jeff.

Jeff.

Next you will be telling me smoking doesn't make me stink and feel sick either.

You sound like a tabacco lobbiest. "Smoking isn't addictive" well I'd like them to try to explain the monkey on your back. Or would you like irrefutable evidence?

Just because you sue slumlords doesn't make you a civil rights activist either.

Google.... "Irrefutable evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke kills people" and it will bring up enough pages you keep you reading for weeks. However as you requested I will be happy to spend some time on this tomorrow because comon sense, again is lost here.

If you think it is ok to impose your smoke on me whether it kills me or not, then my point is lost on you sir.

Oh, Jeff.....I wish you had gone with me to the ENT who told me that my respiratory system was a mess because, as a musician, I had been exposed to so much smoke that the cilia in my bronchial tubes were paralyzed. I wish you had been there when they told Freddy H that he would have recovered more quickly from surgery had he not been a heavy smoker. He had never smoked. As a lifelong musician, he was a VICTIM of smokers. Same goes for Bobby Lanz and a boatload of local lifelong musicians. Here's the smoker's argument: You have a CHOICE where to work"

Let me tell you folks....musicians have never had a choice to work in clean air. So you diehards can tell us to find a different career, etc. I say.....let all people work in clean air. It's time to send those who don't care about their health or anybody's health OUTSIDE. Get over it. You don't have a right to pollute the indoor environment.

Oh, Jeff.....I wish you had gone with me to the ENT who told me that my respiratory system was a mess because, as a musician, I had been exposed to so much smoke that the cilia in my bronchial tubes were paralyzed. I wish you had been there when they told Freddy H that he would have recovered more quickly from surgery had he not been a heavy smoker. He had never smoked. As a lifelong musician, he was a VICTIM of smokers. Same goes for Bobby Lanz and a boatload of local lifelong musicians. Here's the smoker's argument: You have a CHOICE where to work"

Let me tell you folks....musicians have never had a choice to work in clean air. So you diehards can tell us to find a different career, etc. I say.....let all people work in clean air. It's time to send those who don't care about their health or anybody's health OUTSIDE. Get over it. You don't have a right to pollute the indoor environment.

Linda, your points are a large part of why I gave up playing in clubs at age 40. Both of my parents died of lung cancer (smokers) and I saw no reason to push the envelope any further by playing in really smoky bars or clubs.

Oh, Jeff.....I wish you had gone with me to the ENT who told me that my respiratory system was a mess because, as a musician, I had been exposed to so much smoke that the cilia in my bronchial tubes were paralyzed.

Sorry for your trouble, Linda, but I appreciate your comments. Arguments like the one you just made carry weight and should be considered as evidence.

Unfortunately, all too often citizens (and government) allow people like Christopher to represent such movements. As someone who's actively involved in community issues, I deal with people like him all the time, who would just as soon misconstrue and purposely misrepresent as long as it suits their purposes than to get to the information that really matters. He's made all sorts of inaccurate accusations about me and his "rights" while not providing a shred of objective evidence that actually supports his position. It's a waste of everyone's time.

By all means, ban advocates should plead their case and provide as much evidence in support of it as possible. Opponents should do the same. It's an issue that for me hinges on workplace protection as you mention to make it valid.

Either secondhand smoke poses a serious risk to employees or it doesn't. It's all the rest of the irrelevant stuff that gets attached to it that creates problems.

National Cancer Institute
U.S. National Institutes of Health
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... cco/ETS#r4

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers

Key Points

* Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke) is the combination of smoke given off by the burning end of a tobacco product and the smoke exhaled by the smoker (see Question 1).
* Of the chemicals identified in secondhand smoke, more than 50 have been found to cause cancer (see Question 3).
* Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers (see Question 4).
* Secondhand smoke causes heart disease in adults and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), ear infections, and asthma attacks in children (see Question 5).
* There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke (see Question 6).
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... cco/ETS#r4

Also:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/16496.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statist ... dSmoke.htm

Tobacco Scam: How Big Tobacco uses and abuses the restaurant industry:
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/Secondhand/Secondhand_ti.cfm

Thanks, Hank. You beat me to it. If you access the American Medical Association you can find over 20 years of empirical scientific studies about 2nd hand smoke.

I think Christopher is exactly right and he's not making stuff up. It's time for the people who have just stood by and taken it to finally be vocal about it: Smoking tobacco kills you. If you must kill yourself smoking then have at it, just don't take me or my family with you because we want to dine out. Take it outside, thats all we are asking you. It is your choice to smoke and it is mine to tell you to move it away from me.

Thanks from me, too, for the links, Hank. Christopher's insinuations aside, I actually am interested in real information.

I'm trying to read through them as I know how frustrating it can be to go to the trouble and then be ignored. Early indications seem to suggest that some of the claims made in the links will be refuted (by other scientists not tied to tobacco) and some won't.

One of the things that unfortunately seems to be happening is that anti-smoking forces are now using some of the same intellectually dishonest tactics that were once attributed only to tobacco lobbyists. I have no doubt that Big Tobacco lies as suggested by the site you provided. Doing the same thing in return and tarnishing the integrity of public health institutions doesn't help those of us who actually try to make well informed decisions, though, even if the latter has better intentions.

It's kind of like noise. Loud places overtime can damage hearing, "second hand loudness". So is there going to be a decibel ban soon.....well I think there used to be actually but I jest. It won't last, they will just get a new ban together and zoom it through. Honestly, I like that there is no smoke but I don't like that there is a smoking ban. When I go to a place I exercise my free right to turn around and walk out if there is too much smoke. I think of going out as a privilege not a right. I think owners of establishments have a right to say whether or not their patrons can smoke. I would be smart about it though, if you have a majority of non-smokers, then go non-smoking and of course if you get a majority of smokers you have smoking. Like I said, if the smoking bothers me, I leave. I couldn't care less if they aren't accommodating me so I don't give them money.

The discussion is academic at this point. The Metro Council is re-passing this ban on January 10. The majority has spoken.

I think of going out as a privilege not a right. I think owners of establishments have a right to say whether or not their patrons can smoke.

John, this ban does not exist because there is a belief that going out is a right.

Here is why we have the smoking ban:

The majority of Louisvillians do not smoke.
Those Louisvillians believe that exposure to secondhand smoke is either:
(1) Noxious and a cause of physical discomfort, or
(2) A cause of serious respiratory disease, or
(3) Both
Those Louisvillians believe that smoking should be prohibited in certain places of public accomodation, including restaurants.
Those Louisvillians voted for a mayor and council members who support their position.
The council passed such a ban, and the Mayor enacted it.
The ban was challenged on consitutional grounds because it excluded CHurchill Downs.
A judge found it unconstitutional.
A new ban was drafted that treats all businesses equally.

If you oppose the ban, you should make a concerted effort to support candidates for city council and mayor that share your position. Arguments about big government, whether secondhand smoke causes illness, and whose "rights" are being infringed upon are worthless because they mean nothing. This ban is the result of democracy in action. The only way to reverse it is to use democratic means.