How will the smoking ban affect the "bar scene?"

[Hal Evans]

The smoking ban was founded on the false notion of "second hand smoke." The so-called evidence was flimsy. It's the old idea of using a big lie to do good. The smoker is harmed. And it did cut down on smokers.

The main thing this ban did was cut down on drinking in bars. And that's what bars are all about in the first place: a place to meet friends who also enjoy an acoholic drink.

But again, the whole idea of "second hand smoke" is a lie!!! If you believe it, then you are a mushroom. You have been put in the dark and bed animal droppings.

[moving123456]

Originally Posted by Hal Evans

The smoking ban was founded on the false notion of "second hand smoke." The so-called evidence was flimsy. It's the old idea of using a big lie to do good. The smoker is harmed. And it did cut down on smokers.

The main thing this ban did was cut down on drinking in bars. And that's what bars are all about in the first place: a place to meet friends who also enjoy an acoholic drink.

But again, the whole idea of "second hand smoke" is a lie!!! If you believe it, then you are a mushroom. You have been put in the dark and bed animal droppings.

Interesting. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in the world, but you know better then them?

[Hal Evans]

Originally Posted by moving123456

Interesting. The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization in the world, but you know better then them?

You're not very up-to-date. It's been proven behind all doubt now that "second hand smoke" is a myth. Hey, I'll be you believe in "global warming," too?

Two fairy tales. What do we call people who believe in fairy tales?

[Castaway]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I just talked to some friends last night that own a bar/restaurant in town and they said their business has easily doubled since the smoking ban. They remodeled taking out the smelly stuff and updating the look and opened as a smoke free place and it has been PACKED in there.

I guess your friends have a lot of money. Renovations like that costs a mint. Not all businesses have that kind of money.
The fact they were packed could be because they were new and fresh, but in my experience that wears off in a hurry.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Hal Evans

You're not very up-to-date. It's been proven behind all doubt now that "second hand smoke" is a myth.

Can you provide a reputable source or study which confirms this?

[Auntie Bob]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Can you provide a reputable source or study which confirms this?

"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

======================


Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx.
CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

"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."

[golfgal]

You can take this debate over second hand smoke to the health board.