Smoking Ban bill as been passed (California, Luzerne: go bankrupt, asbestos, legally)

[Michael J. McFadden]

WHAT! wrote that smokers should leave a room rather than non-smokers "Because non-smokers are not emitting toxins into the air."

Actually What, they are. The human body has four means of getting rid of toxins: defication, urination, perspiration, and respiration. See:

National College for DUI Defense - Full Article

and you'll notice that normal exhaled human breath has a lot of the same nasty ingredients that Antismokers often complain about: acetone, acetaldehyde, etc etc.

And of course, neither human breath nor tobacco smoke emits chemicals in any sort of quantities that would normally be considered toxic. See the chart at the end of:

ETS Exposure

with figures based on the SG Reports and the 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study.

Of course cigarettes don't emit disease causing germs into the air, and human beings sometimes do. Being in a well ventilated room with a smoker might be "safer" than being in a poorly ventilated room with two or three nonsmokers.

[Michael J. McFadden]

What! wrote, "Are you actually gonna open a bar just to fight this law? It is not that serious, guy."

Tell that to some of the folks quoted in the economics section of the Stiletto referenced earlier.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Commish, do you honestly believe that a majority of Pennsylvanians would want to deny me, a smoker, from opening a smoking-allowed restaurant next year that would be worked in and patronized only by smokers and their friends? On what grounds would you justify such a denial?

Yes.

Grounds?

1. I've been through the legal aspects of it.

2. I've been through the public health concerns aspect of it.

3. I haven't said yet that having to breathe cigarette smoke is irritating on a personal level. So that's my personal preference (especially given the public health concerns) as a voting resident of the Commonwealth.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by The Commish

Yes.

Grounds?

1. I've been through the legal aspects of it.

2. I've been through the public health concerns aspect of it.

3. I haven't said yet that having to breathe cigarette smoke is irritating on a personal level. So that's my personal preference (especially given the public health concerns) as a voting resident of the Commonwealth.

Commish, if the law were passed just on the basis of irritation, I'd be a lot quieter in my criticism of it.

You indicate that you have justified, on public health grounds, a law that prevents a smoker from opening a business that would serve only smokers? May I ask how you did that?

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Commish, if the law were passed just on the basis of irritation, I'd be a lot quieter in my criticism of it.

You indicate that you have justified, on public health grounds, a law that prevents a smoker from opening a business that would serve only smokers? May I ask how you did that?

Well, I don't know why the law was passed specifically.

You would have to (1) read the record of the debates in the general assembly; or (2) maybe the act itself has something to indicate why the assembly acted the way it did (like what prompted it to pass the bill). Aside from that, we can all have our own reasons why we support the bill.

As far as why a smoking ban is justified on public health policy grounds, it's simple. Every major health organization says that second hand smoke is harmful in one way or another. Public smoking would remain unless the assembly did something about it. That's a problem for many people in this state. So, Pennsylvanians through their representatives in the general assembly did something about it.

[SteelCityRising]

As an aside to help ease the tension a bit I just wanted to let you know, Mr. McFadden, that I admire your bravado in revealing your true identity here on cyberspace for potentially thousands of people to see. I made that mistake in 2007 and paid for it dearly when a relative of mine was harassed for some politically unpopular comments that I had made (apparently it's a crime to be a Democrat in the Northeast). Just be very careful because you don't know just who may be checking up on you.

[Michael J. McFadden]

ScranBarre, thanks for the concern. I'm quite aware of the problem, having experienced it both online and off.

Commish, you wrote, "As far as why a smoking ban is justified on public health policy grounds, it's simple. Every major health organization says that second hand smoke is harmful in one way or another."

But that does not explain why I, as a smoker, should be forbidden to open up a smoking establishment that hires only smokers and caters to only smokers. Nonsmokers have that right from the "other side" of the aisle, so why shouldn't smokers?

As for "every" major health organization agreeing that ETS is harmful, they also all agreed that trans-fats were healthier than butter a few years ago. And given the utility of promoting the fear of ETS in terms of its expected effect on reducing smoking, what health organization in its right mind would choose to stick its neck out and question the belief? (Although actually I believe a few have done so to various degrees. Ever notice that the source usually cited for the 50,000 deaths from ETS via heart disease is the American CANCER Society rather than the American Heart Association?)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by What!

Why should I care? I'm not the owner of the store, nor have I really gone to any of those bars. Like I said, there are a lot of bars in Minnesota. If those bars closed down I wouldn't even notice.

If you cannont see the contradiction between calling smokers selfish and that statement then I'm not going to explain it to you.

Even still, the bar owners were okay with letting them in. A friend of mine worked as a bouncer at one of these bars and felt uncomfortable with letting these regulars w/o I.D. inside.

This is not your friends decision, he doesn't own the place. Maybe the bar owner knew they were of age? Most bar owners I know are religious about preventing underage patrons in their establishment. Not only are you putting your license at risk but you're also would be putting your livlihood at risk. Serving tyo the underage crowd simply isn't worth the risk.

I recently watched an old vid showing people being interviewed about their thoughts about making certain speed limits for highways.

Actually another great example of big government trying to run our lives where it isn't needed. The national 55 speed limit was originally enacted for fuel savings in the 70's which certainly has merit. However after the fuel crisis it took a full decade for it to be elevated to 65. It took another decade for it to be repealed and let the states to decide for themselves. If you ever have the chance to travel out west you'll realize how truly ridiculous it is to expect someone to drive 55 or even 65. Here's a dirty little secret most would not be aware of, the rural interstates when designed are made for safe travel in excess of 90mph. Much of the autobahn in Germany does not have a speed limit and its one of the safest roads on the planet. The difference is that laws such as a high minimum speed limit and no passing on the right are heavily enforced. Certainly you need restrictions in some areas such as heavily congested areas and city streets but it's not the high speed limit that kills but the idiots on the road that do not know how to drive at that speed or ignore the laws that cause accidents in the first place.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

If majority rules, then obviously the former will override the latter, will it not?

Yes but you don't need a law to do it, this can be done in the marketplace by voting with your wallet. If you have two competing restaurants across the road from each other and one institutes a no smoking policy and business goes through the roof then the other(s) will follow.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by The Commish

As I said before, "it's a conspiracy!"