New smoking ban proposed for NOLA (Ama: sales, lawsuits, safer)

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Very few business owners would go back to allowing smoking. Which is an awesome argument for repealing the ban.

LOL! Agua, I had read Suzy's post and had highlighted her statement, "You vastly overestimate the number of business owners who would go back to allowing smoking. For every smoking customer gained, they could lose four non-smokers." with the express purpose in mind of saying what you just said! :> GMTA eh? And yet the only ban reversals offering such freedom that I've ever seen have been the ones that reversed because of the negative impact on businesses. If Suzy's numerical behaviour estimate was valid, you'd expect the reverse, no?

I wanted to add one further thing though. Suzy, you noted to ATX that "Not all smokers feel as you do." and I think you're quite correct in that. However, I think it would also be quite true for me to note to you that "Not all nonsmokers feel as you do." You may remember an earlier post on this or another thread where I spoke about the conscious effort made in the 1970s/80s by the organized extremist groups of that period (ASH/GASP/ANR) to try to enhance their microphone by always noting that they were not just speaking for their little groups, but as representatives of "All nonsmokers." And, particularly at that point in history, that was a fairly egregious lie!

[Michael J. McFadden]

Suzy quoted musician Moore as saying "'My primary concern is the health of those people who are the backbone, I'm tired of witnessing beloved artists dying from the effects of second hand smoke."

Now, it's possible that Mr. Moore has just had incredibly bad luck, or that he knows more than 2,000 "beloved artists" who played 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for forty years, but even according to the biased EPA Report figures, valid only at the 90% level and reaching that only by dint of cherry-picking among the available studies... even according to those figures, you'd only see ONE "beloved artist" out of every thousand get lung cancer from their forty years of constant smoke exposure. Of course you'd also see four others of that thousand get it, but those four would have gotten it anyhow according to the EPA figures. Soooo... to see plural, i.e. two or more, "beloved artists" die from secondary smoke exposure, Mr. Moore would, on average at least, have to have 2,000 such individuals in mind.

More likely, he's counting almost any musician he knows who died of any form of cancer or heart disease before 60 years of age as having their death being due to secondary smoke.... something which is clearly untrue.

Is it *possible* that some have died from such exposure? I would say yes, but then I'd also have to say that it's *possible* that some of them died from inhaling the fumes from highly volatile carcinogenic alcohol drinks or died from metastases of malignant melanoma incurred when they were "forced" to play at outdoor gigs under direct or indirect solar radiation.

[ATXIronHorse]

"'My primary concern is the health of those people who are the backbone, I'm tired of witnessing beloved artists dying from the effects of second hand smoke."

This quote has been my favorite of this whole ordeal. That this such obvious nonsense is published, disseminated, and latched on to by serious people simply to reach their goals is absolutely astonishing. This quote is reflective of how irrational their crusade is, backed by shoddy science and wholly out of wanting to dehumanize a particular lifestyle that they personally deem undesireable.

[ATXIronHorse]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

You are free to smoke all you want. The majority of us just do not want you to do it anywhere near us.

Then why are you still patronizing businesses that allow smoking? Just stop going there. Don't go!! Simple as that. Go to a nonsmoking bar or restaurant.

And if your complaint is that not enough of them exist, its because the market demand just isn't there yet. But vote with your dollar, and reward those businesses who cater to your tastes.

This is how freedom, free societies, and free economies work. I don't know how I can dumb it down any further for you people. These are the mechanisms which have made the American economy by far the strongest on earth.

Just look to the Soviet Union and North Korea to see where central planning and social engineering leads to.

[Jo48]

Missing the point here. It isn't only no smoking here, no smoking there. The goal is a totally smoke free society. Nobody smokes AT ALL. If you are smoking all alone in your own single family house, you will be targeted by the health police through your job, insurance, etc., etc. It matter not where you smoke but the sole fact that you do. If this works so well, we are going to see an obesity/overweight free society campaigan also.

How about scales at fast food restaurants? Sorry, I cannot serve you because you are over the weight limit? Skinny people will start shunning you too because you do not meet medicine's health criteria. Sorry, Mr. G. your BMI is over 30 so we are denying you employment with us. Don't think that won't happen? It has already at some hospitals. They won't hire smokers OR overweight people.

If it can happen with one "vice", it will with others.

[Chilly Gentilly]

...I can't believe this bicker-fest is still taking place. This entire discussion is simply a vague illustration of human adults' lack of understanding and ability to relate to differing opinions and lifestyles. Pointless.

[austinrebel]

I have to laugh at a smoking ban in NO. Alcohol is the problem in NO, not smoking. What are they trying to do, make healthier alcoholics?

Sorry to see NO get Californicated. One of the best things about NO is that it is NOT like San Francisco.

These anti-smokers are zealots. They don't care about the health of bartenders, they care about the lobbyist money. Behind the scenes there are professional anti-smokers who are getting PAID to push this ban.

It's zealotry. You can tell because they include e-cigs. There is NO evidence have danger from second hand water vapor, yet they included. Why? E-cigs threaten Big Pharma profits.

If the anti-smokers are so concerned about second hand smoke outside, in parks, why don't they ban BBQ's?

These bans do hurts some bars, don't kid yourself. If those bars can hold on long enough, business may come back.

The ban will probably pass because money talks, and there is lobbyist money behind it. When it passes, you can look forward to a plastic bag ban, and a soda ban in the future, among other bans. If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by Chilly Gentilly

...I can't believe this bicker-fest is still taking place. This entire discussion is simply a vague illustration of human adults' lack of understanding and ability to relate to differing opinions and lifestyles. Pointless.

Chilly, not pointless at all. It's mainly about one group of folks trying to control the lives of another group of folks through passing laws based on social engineering -- using either the unpleasant excuse of "It's for their own good." or the pretty much outright false excuse that "We need the laws to protect innocent people from serious harm." In passing those laws they are redefining how we view freedom in society, and in accepting those laws we open ourselves up to the passage of other laws, in other areas concerning behavior, that are even more unpleasant, poorly based, and unduly restrictive of our freedoms.

Not pointless at all.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

I have to laugh at a smoking ban in NO. Alcohol is the problem in NO, not smoking. What are they trying to do, make healthier alcoholics?

Sorry to see NO get Californicated. One of the best things about NO is that it is NOT like San Francisco.

These anti-smokers are zealots. They don't care about the health of bartenders, they care about the lobbyist money. Behind the scenes there are professional anti-smokers who are getting PAID to push this ban.

It's zealotry. You can tell because they include e-cigs. There is NO evidence have danger from second hand water vapor, yet they included. Why? E-cigs threaten Big Pharma profits.

If the anti-smokers are so concerned about second hand smoke outside, in parks, why don't they ban BBQ's?

These bans do hurts some bars, don't kid yourself. If those bars can hold on long enough, business may come back.

The ban will probably pass because money talks, and there is lobbyist money behind it. When it passes, you can look forward to a plastic bag ban, and a soda ban in the future, among other bans. If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.

If they pass this, they will soon go after sidewalks and patios as well.
They should continue to allow smoking indoors, where it can be confined.
Some bars have decided to be non-smoking bars.
The nonsmokers should support them and let well enough alone.

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I am not against free enterprise. I just think you are deluded about how many members you would have.



However, there are some potential medical benefits to moderate consumption of alcohol, and there is medical benefit to exposure to sunlight.

Moderate alcohol consumption for men is defined as two drinks per day and for women one drink per day. Since your "fumes" are going to be less than that, they are below a defined level of safety. Exposure to sunlight results in production of Vitamin D in the skin, and it is possible to reduce the risk of melanoma by using sunscreen, so your theory about melanoma in restaurant workers collapses as well.

Since a defined safe level of alcohol consumption does not exist for pregnancy, abstinence is recommended. That is the situation most closely analogous to smoking. In addition, alcoholics are advised to abstain because there is no safe level for them.

Those studies on alcohol consumption are based on drinking at home. They do not apply to drinking in public because the higher accident rate of drinkers would skew the results.