Across the River may be bad for your health

Shawn you are living in a 1950s mindset....

really? i really don't get your train of thought?

the world we live in is a dangerous one, if you're frightened of second hand smoke and think it is really a more serious threat to your health than the quality of air in this region, do not patronize establishments that allow smoking - that is very simple

why continually attempt to regulate and control every aspect of the lives of other people, use your own better judgment

actually, the world YOU live in is quite safe, statistically speaking, and that fact is largely due to the safety regulations and laws that you would replace with "better judgment". These regulations keep planes from flying into each other over airports, make sure that childrens' pajamas are not flammable, that industrial machines don't kill the workers that use them, and that people survive inevitable car wrecks by simply wearing their seatbelt. From the medical standards of practice that greatly reduced the chances that you would die during birth to the traffic lights and speed limits that keep you from getting killed on your way to work each day, your world is full of regulations, standards, laws, ordinances, protocols, and codes that greatly increase the chances that you will live to see another sunrise and enjoy another good quality beer. and that is a good thing.

while it may sound fun to live in a world where no one tells anyone else what to do or how to do it, survival of the fittest is not really all it's cracked up to be.

I wonder if she gets hassled in customs the same we amateurs do any time our flight arrives in the U.S. from the Netherlands.

I once tried to explain to a customs official in Cincinnati that smuggling marijuana into Kentucky was the equivalent of smuggling rosary beads into the Vatican. There's just not much point in it. His lack of a sense of humor almost led to a layover of another kind.

When I started my beer travels years ago AMS was a cheap round-trip. From the 'Dam I could get to Belgium, Germany, and beyond fairly efficiently via train. The downside is my passport has so many Schipol stamps I always have endure the extra screening even prior to 9/11. I've had the immigration person scan my passport and hand it back to me only to pull it from my hand and say "Mr. Pierce, would you step over to the holding area". Big fun!

wow, ron
i thought robert was pretty off, but comparing second hand smoking regulations to those used to insure safety in air travel is pretty ridiculous

tobacco should be illegal by the standards that you and robert would impose to insure public safety, yet again i'll remind you of the success of prohibition and the "wars against poverty and drugs" in this nation

first, i should preface the following statements by saying, that i'm not for anarchy and i see the value of many rules and regulations that keep our day to day lives relatively safe

but we're not talking about our drive to work, or our ability to travel, eat safe food, or work in a safe environment

individuals of their own free will, work at and patronize establishments that allow smoking, many of these persons are smokers themselves
and the "anti-smoking" lobby seeks to restrict them from gathering in a place specifically designated for smokers

these free wheeling anarchist are not walking into hospitals and blowing their smoke on the patients, they are not clouding the air with their smoke so that stop lights aren't visible, they are not posing any threat to the public with their actions

yet, you would seek to restrict their behavior so that they can be safe

why can't a business be allowed to cater to a perfectly legal activity?

additionally, neither of you spoke to my initial points regarding this "study" ??

the world we live in being "safe" is all a matter of perspective?
whether we're talking traffic accidents or prescription medication side effects or global warming?

Our little pizzeria in Charlestown is non-smoking by choice, not by law.

wow, ron
i thought robert was pretty off, but comparing second hand smoking regulations to those used to insure safety in air travel is pretty ridiculous

tobacco should be illegal by the standards that you and robert would impose to insure public safety, yet again i'll remind you of the success of prohibition and the "wars against poverty and drugs" in this nation

first, i should preface the following statements by saying, that i'm not for anarchy and i see the value of many rules and regulations that keep our day to day lives relatively safe

but we're not talking about our drive to work, or our ability to travel, eat safe food, or work in a safe environment

individuals of their own free will, work at and patronize establishments that allow smoking, many of these persons are smokers themselves
and the "anti-smoking" lobby seeks to restrict them from gathering in a place specifically designated for smokers

these free wheeling anarchist are not walking into hospitals and blowing their smoke on the patients, they are not clouding the air with their smoke so that stop lights aren't visible, they are not posing any threat to the public with their actions

yet, you would seek to restrict their behavior so that they can be safe

why can't a business be allowed to cater to a perfectly legal activity?

additionally, neither of you spoke to my initial points regarding this "study" ??

the world we live in being "safe" is all a matter of perspective?
whether we're talking traffic accidents or prescription medication side effects or global warming?

Our little pizzeria in Charlestown is non-smoking by choice, not by law.

I wasn't comparing smoking regulations to anything Shawn. Re-read my post. I never mentioned smoking.

actually, the world YOU live in is quite safe, statistically speaking, and that fact is largely due to the safety regulations and laws that you would replace with "better judgment". These regulations keep planes from flying into each other over airports, make sure that childrens' pajamas are not flammable, that industrial machines don't kill the workers that use them, and that people survive inevitable car wrecks by simply wearing their seatbelt. From the medical standards of practice that greatly reduced the chances that you would die during birth to the traffic lights and speed limits that keep you from getting killed on your way to work each day, your world is full of regulations, standards, laws, ordinances, protocols, and codes that greatly increase the chances that you will live to see another sunrise and enjoy another good quality beer. and that is a good thing.

my apologies Ron, but i was speaking of anti-smoking laws when i spoke of using "better judgment", so i made the mistake of assuming that you were also addressing this topic

since that has been cleared up

i never mentioned replacing useful safety regulations and laws with "better judgment"

and i'd wager that only a small percentage of total cancer patients developed cancer as a result of second hand smoke exposure

"Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:

an estimated 35,000 deaths from heart disease in non-smokers who live with smokers
about 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
other breathing problems in non-smokers, including coughing, mucus, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
150,000 to 300,000 lung infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million children who have asthma
more than 750,000 middle ear infections in children"

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/conte ... or_Air.asp

They dont want to hear that...they just want to harp about how we are taking rights away....and freedom of choice...

excuse me, but i never argued that second hand smoke was not dangerous (although i do have serious questions about the validity and reliability of many of these "sceond hand smoke studies" (for instance do they take into account the level of air pollution in an individual's environment)

additionally, neither of you (ron or robert) have responded to any of my initial points regarding how this study (the indiana may be bad for your health study) was conducted

excuse me, but i never argued that second hand smoke was not dangerous (although i do have serious questions about the validity and reliability of many of these "sceond hand smoke studies" (for instance do they take into account the level of air pollution in an individual's environment)

additionally, neither of you (ron or robert) have responded to any of my initial points regarding how this study (the indiana may be bad for your health study) was conducted

Why do you question their validity and reliability? Why would serious researchers not take into account levels of air pollution?

excuse me, but i never argued that second hand smoke was not dangerous (although i do have serious questions about the validity and reliability of many of these "sceond hand smoke studies" (for instance do they take into account the level of air pollution in an individual's environment)

additionally, neither of you (ron or robert) have responded to any of my initial points regarding how this study (the indiana may be bad for your health study) was conducted

Why do you question their validity and reliability? Why would serious researchers not take into account levels of air pollution?

for instance, if a study or a research group states that X number of persons die from second hand smoke exposure (or X number of persons develop lung cancer due to second hand smoke exposure)
we as the public, rarely get to see the many other factors that may have influenced the results claimed by these studies

from a scientific standpoint, it is not valid to claim causation if other factors could have contributed to the the results (the development of lung cancer)

why would a study be conducted this way - ask the researcher or better yet, who is paying for the research - my best guess - pharmaceutical companies selling smoking cessation products

excuse me, but i never argued that second hand smoke was not dangerous (although i do have serious questions about the validity and reliability of many of these "sceond hand smoke studies" (for instance do they take into account the level of air pollution in an individual's environment)

additionally, neither of you (ron or robert) have responded to any of my initial points regarding how this study (the indiana may be bad for your health study) was conducted

Why do you question their validity and reliability? Why would serious researchers not take into account levels of air pollution?

for instance, if a study or a research group states that X number of persons die from second hand smoke exposure (or X number of persons develop lung cancer due to second hand smoke exposure)
we as the public, rarely get to see the many other factors that may have influenced the results claimed by these studies

from a scientific standpoint, it is not valid to claim causation if other factors could have contributed to the the results (the development of lung cancer)

why would a study be conducted this way - ask the researcher or better yet, who is paying for the research - my best guess - pharmaceutical companies selling smoking cessation products

Given the fact that the tobacco companies spent countless millions countering these claims for decades before grudingly accepting them, I'm not buying. Your questioning of the research suggests the researchers don't know research 101: isolating causes and not confusing correlation with causation.

Check this page out. It has pretty modest claims for second-hand smoking deaths (way less than radon, for instance): http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427

my problem with all of this research is the way it is used

"Many of the chemicals in tobacco smoke also affect the nonsmoker inhaling the smoke, making "secondhand smoking" another important cause of lung cancer. It is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually."

this statement comes from your last link and it is highly questionable

how is it responsible?, were these people forced to be in rooms full of second hand smoke or were they casual diners at smoking establishments??

how did they determine that second hand smoke was the only cause of the cancer? what type of lung cancer was it? did they live in rural or urban areas?

by placing a causal link directly to second hand smoke without noting the other factors that played a role in these results is in essence - propaganda, simple fear tactics (which i find to be offensive)

did the tobacco companies spend millions on first or second hand smoking defense?

most researchers do know research 101, which is part of the problem, anyone in the scientific community can sculpt a research study to suit their needs, then the media or a member of the safety police starts quoting the study as absolute fact (when the actual methodology of the study is unknown to almost everyone)

perhaps, second hand smoke is as dangerous as the media and the self-appointed safety police believe it to be,
but is it any more dangerous than smoking itself?
does it merit legislation?
must the legislation completely remove the rights of the user from engaging in this activity in a sanctioned environment?
shouldn't tobacco products be completely prohibited if the dangers from its byproducts merit such prohibitive legislation?
and is it any more dangerous than the polluted air we breathe in the louisville metro?

on a secondary note
it is possible to persuade without the use of fear

"Many of the chemicals in tobacco smoke also affect the nonsmoker inhaling the smoke, making "secondhand smoking" another important cause of lung cancer. It is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually."

this statement comes from your last link and it is highly questionable

All I've seen so far is that you want it to be highly questionable. You have questions, but nothing to back them up.

by placing a causal link directly to second hand smoke without noting the other factors that played a role in these results is in essence - propaganda, simple fear tactics (which i find to be offensive)

Why would it be fear tactics to determine causes of lung cancer and publish it? As I noted, second-hand smoke is considered to cause far fewer cancer deaths than radon. Are you filled with righteous indignation to defend radon from its zealous detractors?

did the tobacco companies spend millions on first or second hand smoking defense?

Both. They eventually conceded. But I suppose the tobacco companies are wrong on this, too.

most researchers do know research 101, which is part of the problem, anyone in the scientific community can sculpt a research study to suit their needs, then the media or a member of the safety police starts quoting the study as absolute fact (when the actual methodology of the study is unknown to almost everyone)

perhaps, second hand smoke is as dangerous as the media and the self-appointed safety police believe it to be,
but is it any more dangerous than smoking itself?

Are you really this suspicous of research, or this suspicious of research you don't like? I'd leave raw meat on the counter at your restaurant and not trust the research that says it will make people sick. No one I know of anywhere ways that second-hand smoking is more dangerous than smoking itself--the stats I linked to clearly indicate that smoking is way more dangerous in terms of lung cancer than second-hand smoke. With whom are you arguing at this point? Straw man anyone?

and is it any more dangerous than the polluted air we breathe in the louisville metro?

You've mentioned this several times. I don't think so, but it is worth asking. Let me ask two questions: 1) how dangerous is the air we breath in Louisville metro? What do you know? 2) If you concede that the air around Louisville is potentially toxic and could cause problems, why wouldn't you think that breathing in the fumes of a burning carcinogen in close quarters is toxic and dangerous?

hi charles
i think that we're both misunderstanding each other

i'm defending the rights of smokers who wish to gather together and i'm against legislation to force businesses to be non-smoking

do all questions have to have something to back them up??
(i do by the way, the main question is how were these 3000 deaths directly attributable to second hand smoking??)

Why would it be fear tactics to determine causes of lung cancer and publish it?

again, i ask how were these deaths directly linked to second hand smoking?
if you make a statement that X caused the death of 3000 people, we should at least know under what circumstances these results took place

for instance, e coli consumption causes X number of deaths every year, when persons consume contaminated produce or meat (we know how those deaths took place, someone ate a contaminated product) -

the tobacco companies did spend millions on each issue, i was just making the point that for "decades" they've worked to defend smoking, second hand smoke hasn't become a big issue until the last decade or so

Are you really this suspicous of research, or this suspicious of research you don't like? I'd leave raw meat on the counter at your restaurant and not trust the research that says it will make people sick. No one I know of anywhere ways that second-hand smoking is more dangerous than smoking itself--the stats I linked to clearly indicate that smoking is way more dangerous in terms of lung cancer than second-hand smoke. With whom are you arguing at this point? Straw man anyone?

i am always suspicious of research that is utilized to pass prohibitive legislation? especially legislation, which considered in the grand scheme of things, is merely a distraction from larger issues affecting the health and welfare of our society (and yes, I'm equally suspicious of research that supports my opinions - like that beer is good for your heart)

all of the "stats" say that smoking is more dangerous than second hand smoke, which is part of my argument -
if we're going to legislate where you can light up with other smokers, why aren't we making tobacco products illegal???
How can a product that is so dangerous be allowed to kill thousands upon thousands every year?


the raw meat comment is unfair -
i've already stated that my restaurant in NON-SMOKING by choice, additionally the safety/cleanliness standards of my restaurant far exceed those required by the department of health in Indiana (i'm also a certified food safety manager via the national registry of food safety professionals)
the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke do not even compare to the dangers of food born illness (additionally the research involved in food born illnesses is a bit more direct and easy to determine causation) - contaminated food can be tracked back to the source of the contamination, potential areas of contamination can be examined, and those nasty little viruses, parasites, and other micro-organisms can be tracked down and studied -

this is not the case with second hand smoke - it is very difficult if not impossible to state with absolute certainty that second hand smoke causes cancer when exposed to X amount of smoke in a particular situation, - but it is pretty easy to say that if you eat meat/produce contaminated with e coli, you will get sick and possibly die because of the e coli

You've mentioned this several times. I don't think so, but it is worth asking. Let me ask two questions: 1) how dangerous is the air we breath in Louisville metro? What do you know? 2) If you concede that the air around Louisville is potentially toxic and could cause problems, why wouldn't you think that breathing in the fumes of a burning carcinogen in close quarters is toxic and dangerous?

again, i think we're misunderstanding each other again

1st, look at the standard press coverage of our air quality in this region and you tell me if it is potentially harmful? or better yet, drive down to the south end with your windows down (Ralph ave, the Greenbelt) or take a trip to the industrial areas around Produce lane and you tell me if the air is clean?
2nd, i do concede that breathing in second hand smoke is harmful (conceded that point very early in this post) - BUT we have the choice to breathe in second hand smoke, if we want to in Indiana, - if smokers want to gather with other smokers and breathe in the poisonous air - it is their choice to do so

we do not have a lot of choice about the air we breathe in the Louisville metro (ask the citizens of the south end)

the point
is that legislation designed to prohibit smoking in all public venues because of the fear of the dangers of second hand smoke is flawed at its very foundation, because the air we breathe everyday may be more harmful than the relatively brief exposure to second hand smoke we may experience in a smoking venue (which we have the choice to patronize or not)
many citizens of our community do not have a choice about the air they breathe (they don't have the resources to move to the burbs or they can't afford medical grade oxygen)

legislation such as this is a placebo or a band aid, which distracts us from larger issues which may be impacting the health of our communities

i believe it is much more honest and effective to communicate to the general public that prolonged exposure to second hand smoke may increase one's risk for cancer and possible other ailments commonly associated with smoking
than to say that second hand smoke is responsible for x number of cancer cases, x number of deaths, x number of lung transplants.......
cars are responsible for X number of deaths every year - stop driving now, save a life