Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Philadelphia, Indiana: attorney, lawsuit, dangerous)

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by harleyrider1978

the path to repeal smoking prohibition is on the way..........

Sorry, smoking is going the way of the dinosaur...its becoming more and more socially unacceptable by the day. A few years from now, we'll all think its ridiculous that people used to sit in restaurants and smoke. Think a few years back when people used to walk through supermarkets and malls while smoking? That was the norm then, but even most smokers would think that would be strange these days.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by herefreeman

You are ignoring science. You prefer to go with the opinions of tainted "experts".

Every single major health organization is "tainted?"

Originally Posted by herefreeman

You are absolutely correct. Applying science the studies would "reveal glaring inconsistencies, half-truths, and unanswered questions". You are correct again, "people are "sheep"." You have amply demonstrated that.

Applying science would change the overwhelming scientific consensus among experts in the field.

Based on your pet conspiracy theory that scientists are all in cahoots to keep people from the truth!*

*Except the ones bought and paid for by the tobacco industry!

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

The Commish wrote, "Well, every major health organization out there disagrees with you, so, you're ignoring science."

Commish, visit the British Medical Journal's Response area to the Helena Study... and then tell me who's ignoring science.

bmj.com Rapid Responses for Sargent et al., 0 (2004) 380557156 (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1 - broken link)

Or, just try reading the "health" pages of the Stiletto at

The Smoker's Club, Inc. Encyclopedia 257

and find even a single flaw in my criticisms of those studies.

No, I'm not going to play this junior detective research game.

I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to be.

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

The health organizations you cite aren't promoting science: they are promoting the "public health" through politics. They believe they are "doing the right thing" by lying. I disagree.

They "believe?"

They're "lying?"

I'm going to trust their expert scientific opinion before I trust you, amateur armchair internet poster. I can only make that point so many times. You and several others just imagine some sort of ridiculous conspiracy theory.

If there really was a solid challenge to the consensus it would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; not among laypersons on an internet forum. But the journals are all in on the take, too, right?

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

But you'll note that I don't try to discredit their research just by saying that: I read the studies and show how they're deliberately biased to give slanted results. THAT is how scientific criticism is supposed to work.

Silly me; i thought it was done by scientists.

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Do you have any idea how much money Tobacco Control spends every year to promote its agenda? Would you believe $880 million dollars? Don't take my word for it: take the AMA's at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/upload/mm/hod_ibot14_doc.doc (broken link) (page 14). Note that that figure does NOT include the hundreds of millions poured into tobacco control by the NicoGummyPatchy people at Robert Wood Johnson foundation, nor the expenditures by groups like the AMA, ACS, AHA etc in their publicity and fundraising drives. (Remember: when you see that poster with the innocent little child being attacked by the big demon smoke... a great percentage of the purpose of that poster is to remind you to donate to the group sponsoring it.)

But... as I noted, I prefer to criticise the bought-and-paid-for researchers on grounds of their bad science rather than just their funding.

Okay, just get that research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll be more than happy to admit its legitimacy.

Originally Posted by the mailman

Actually, PA IS a state. Why do you think we are called the "United States"?. . Commonwealth's would be places like "virgin islands" "Puerto Rico". See, My teacher though I was sleeping in geography.. *****!

Nope, it's a commonwealth that has statehood.

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are commonwealths that don't have statehood. There are technical names for it that I don't know. Puerto Rico is probably something like "self-governing unincorporated territory" from what I can gather on Wikipedia.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

Sorry, smoking is going the way of the dinosaur...its becoming more and more socially unacceptable by the day. A few years from now, we'll all think its ridiculous that people used to sit in restaurants and smoke. Think a few years back when people used to walk through supermarkets and malls while smoking? That was the norm then, but even most smokers would think that would be strange these days.

I agree wholeheartedly. Let's not forget that it was only as recently as in our parents' generation that nearly every star in movies and sitcoms would smoke feverishly in order to make a social statement (and in some cases promote that brand of cigarettes for the manufacturer). Now I very, very rarely see a character on a television show or movie light up. Smoking is becoming a very frowned-upon habit, whether smokers would like to admit that or not.

[Michael J. McFadden]

The Commish wrote, "No, I'm not going to play this junior detective research game. I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to be."

You should still be able to read and understand a single page from the British medical journal, or criticize a few pages of writing an "amateur armchair internet poster." And, as I believe I have pointed out before, I do not promote any grand "conspiracy theory" beyond whatever de-facto conspiracy elements might arise out of semi-annual ten million dollar conferences that bring together 5,000 tobacco control folks to plan the years foci ahead.



Commish also wrote, "If there really was a solid challenge to the consensus it would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal..."

Sorry Commish, the journals, or at least the British Medical Journal, feel there's "no need" to publish such criticism beyond their Rapid Response pages. Note their grounds for rejecting our unfunded but quite extensive study on post-ban heart attack rates at:

ACSH > Facts & Fears > Archives

Btw... do you consider Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and the American Council on Science and Health to be "bought and paid for by the tobacco industry!" ?

And you wrote, "But the journals are all in on the take, too, right?"

Actually, a number of researchers feel that way. That's one of the reasons for the new journals developing over the past few years that refuse to take pharmaceutical support funding. See e.g. the efforts of the Public Library of Science at: Public Library of Science



Commish, you then referred to my figures from the American Medical Association and said, "Okay, just get that research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll be more than happy to admit its legitimacy."

If you don't accept a publication from the AMA as valid, I don't know what I can offer that will satisfy you.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Commish, if 3/4 of the public wanted bans, then why would all the restaurants want to cater to smokers? I think the answer lies in the fact that most of the public is quite happy with a mix of smoking and nonsmoking establishments and is content with avoiding places that they consider too smoky. You'll note that smoking bans are never argued with personal preference as the main motivator: they're always built on the health scare scams around ETS.

I think the answer to your question is that it is the powerful tobacco lobby along with its addicted customers that keeps smoking in restaurants.

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

I agree wholeheartedly. Let's not forget that it was only as recently as in our parents' generation that nearly every star in movies and sitcoms would smoke feverishly in order to make a social statement (and in some cases promote that brand of cigarettes for the manufacturer). Now I very, very rarely see a character on a television show or movie light up. Smoking is becoming a very frowned-upon habit, whether smokers would like to admit that or not.

You obviously don't watch "Sex and the City". The character Carrie is always smoking. I always thought that was awful and my DD would get angry at me for saying so. Then she took a "Biology of Cancer" course at the U of Colo and learned the stats on women's smoking, plus her professor specifically mentioned that show (which I hate for other reasons, lol) as being a terrible role model for young women. Granted, they did almost a whole season on her quitting, but that dreck will be in reruns when I am in the nursing home, and she'll still be smoking! Then there's good ole Leonardo Di Caprio, who is always puffing away on screen.

[memoriesbre]

I can't believe all the bickering on here about this subject. It was passed and that's that.
It's a good think weather some people think otherwise. Smoking is bad for the smoker and also those who have to breath it in even though they do not smoke.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Memories wrote, "I can't believe all the bickering on here about this subject. It was passed and that's that."

Heh... I always find it funny the way Antismokers "bickered" constantly, for years on end, when their bans were defeated time after time after time after time.... but as soon as a ban gets passed they say, "Well, that's it. Pointless to have any further discussion. Game over." Two weeks ago the Senate defeated the smoking ban. Within hours the antismoking faction was calling for a "do-over" vote on the same bill! Has anyone here *ever* heard of the law being twisted in that way for any other issue?

It's almost as funny as the way they'll push for a uniform state law while waving the "level playing field" flag and decrying "a mess of patchwork laws," but as soon as state law is passed that they consider too weak they'll suddenly support "the rights of communities" to pass their own little patchwork laws.

Consistency has never been their forte despite their cranial volume.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Katiana, you claim that "the powerful tobacco lobby" keeps smoking in restaurants. Could you explain exactly how it pressures restaurant owners against their will and how so many have defied them and still walk the streets unscathed?

[Katarina Witt]

Advertising, continuing to get people hooked (they are always looking for new customers b/c the old ones keep dying or quitting), free cigarette give-a-ways in bars that cater to college students, etc, etc. Also, campaign contributions to those who actually have to vote on these bans. Publishing "junk science" reports on the internet that its customers (addicts) believe b/c they want to believe it, and try to pressure everyone to see it their way. Among other methods.

Before the ban in Colorado, every restaurant in a tobacco-permitting city (there were some local bans) had a smoking section, even though we have one of the lowest cigarette smoking rates in the country. There were no "non-smoking" restaurants in any of these cities that I know of.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

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.

See above. The owners didn't ban smoking as long as it was legal, for whatever reason.