How will the smoking ban affect the "bar scene?" (Minneapolis: college, income)

[cardcr]

Well, when I say Liberal I generally mean it to infer Democrats that would like the government to control and determine what is good for you. Maryland is very Democrat. Big government is better here. Instead of republican which tends to be less governmental control. I would like the market to determine if smoking would hurt a business or not. But the excuse being used in this state is that bar and restaurant employees health is effected. You know before you accept a job that smoking is a possibility in a bar. I say permit each bar and make them choose either all smoking or not. Make their choice effective for one or two years then if it hurts them or helps the business they can change to smoking or non-smoking. But then we're back to the cry babies complaining again because the "cool" bars will be the smoking ones.

[sfw1979]

""But then we're back to the cry babies complaining again because the "cool" bars will be the smoking ones.""

Are you serious? Did you start smoking to be cool? That is crazy!

[Auntie Bob]

Originally Posted by sfw1979

Did you start smoking to be cool?

Yes. And so did most of the people I know.

[Auntie Bob]

Originally Posted by cardcr

Instead of republican which tends to be less governmental control. I would like the market to determine if smoking would hurt a business or not. But the excuse being used in this state is that bar and restaurant employees health is effected..

Back in the good old days I would have agreed with you on the Republican = less Government but these days, if you look around, Government involvement in our personal lives has grown by leaps and bounds under Republican leadership.

Here's a little 411 on the health aspects of smoking in bars.

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes
"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required.
Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible
"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."
Deja.com: Independent assessment

[music7lover]

Originally Posted by Auntie Bob

Back in the good old days I would have agreed with you on the Republican = less Government but these days, if you look around, Government involvement in our personal lives has grown by leaps and bounds under Republican leadership.

Here's a little 411 on the health aspects of smoking in bars.

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes
"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required.
Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible
"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."
Deja.com: Independent assessment

Defend smoking all you want, however I am a healthy person that doesn't smoke. Put me in a smoky bar and I will have a headache for about 2 days afterwards ( I don't drink either).......So the facts are that 2nd hand smoke is bad if I get that sick after being exposed to it.

For the person that thinks smoking is cool. You sure will look cool strapped to that ventilator in the hospital bed when you get older and cannot breathe anymore. Cancer doesn't sound very fun either.

[Auntie Bob]

Originally Posted by music7lover

Put me in a smoky bar and I will have a headache for about 2 days afterwards ( I don't drink either).......So the facts are that 2nd hand smoke is bad if I get that sick after being exposed to it.

But, you did have a choice as to whether or not you wanted to go into the bar, knowing full well what the results would be, right?

Most of us are well aware of what the so called 'risks' are with smoking.
Just as we were aware of how bad butter and eggs where supposed to be for our bodies at one time and, how much healthier we'd be if we ate margarine.

Since people do have a choice of where to go to spend their money, the 'no smoking' issue should be decided by the market place.

[music7lover]

Originally Posted by Auntie Bob

But, you did have a choice as to whether or not you wanted to go into the bar, knowing full well what the results would be, right?

Most of us are well aware of what the so called 'risks' are with smoking.
Just as we were aware of how bad butter and eggs where supposed to be for our bodies at one time and, how much healthier we'd be if we ate margarine.

Since people do have a choice of where to go to spend their money, the 'no smoking' issue should be decided by the market place.

I am a weekend rock musician and have worked many years at perfecting my craft. Why should I and my fellow musicians have to quit playing because smoke makes us sick?... Thank God for the smoking ban ( yes I also sent Mr. Pawlenty an email begging for this) Sure bars will close, but as far as I am concerned, playing smoky pits was not worth it for me anyhow. Lucky that I have a good paying day job and could make the choice of playing out less. Many musicians depend on having to play for money and they often had to suffer the consequences with breathing smoke on their jobs.

[Auntie Bob]

Originally Posted by music7lover

I am a weekend rock musician and have worked many years at perfecting my craft. Why should I and my fellow musicians have to quit playing because smoke makes us sick?...

You don't have to quit playing. You have the choice to play in venues that have smoke, and those that don't. The same way the people that work in bars have the choice to work there or not.
The better choice would have been for you all to refuse to play in bars that had smoking. That way, the bar owners might have decided on their own to go smoke free in order to have good entertainment.
As I said, this should have been a business decision all along and not a Government one.

[MidniteBreeze]

Originally Posted by sfw1979

""But then we're back to the cry babies complaining again because the "cool" bars will be the smoking ones.""

Are you serious? Did you start smoking to be cool? That is crazy!

I think what this statement was implying is that most of the "fun" bars are patronized by smokers. Back when there WAS a choice, the non-smoking bars tended to be kind of boring, yuppie type places.

[cardcr]

Originally Posted by music7lover

Defend smoking all you want, however I am a healthy person that doesn't smoke. Put me in a smoky bar and I will have a headache for about 2 days afterwards ( I don't drink either).......So the facts are that 2nd hand smoke is bad if I get that sick after being exposed to it.

For the person that thinks smoking is cool. You sure will look cool strapped to that ventilator in the hospital bed when you get older and cannot breathe anymore. Cancer doesn't sound very fun either.

Number one, I said the bars that the smokers went to were the cool bars. Smoking did not make them cool. And two, If you read all the posts you will see I have never smoked. I respect others people RIGHT to smoke. If I go in a bar and it is a smoking one that's my problem no one else's.
You don't drink? You want to ban that? You know it's bad for you! You know they have peanuts at the bar! Are you allergic?