What is the law re: smoking in Pgh area?

[greg42]

Smoking is good for overpopulation.

[gg]

Originally Posted by greg42

Smoking is good for overpopulation.

My apologies. You are correct Greg, there is a plus to smoking.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Greg wrote, "Sitting here on the forum for a city you don't live in and haven't been to just to respond to every anti-smoking rant is not exactly productive.... "

Fairly true, but not completely so Greg. You have to remember that for the most part Free Choice advocates have no funding while we're up against hundreds or even thousands of full time paid professionals, lavishly funded advertising agencies and suchlike. The Internet provides a voice for those without funding to get their side of the story as well as good information out to the general public -- even if it's just a small segment.

In terms of going to other cities, I happen to be the director of PASAN: Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network, so I'm obviously going to be involved with PIttsburgh. I'm active in many other places as well though: when the antismoking machine rolls into town they're like a well-oiled and supported tank battalion facing down a few farmers with pitchforks. I try to provide the "farmers" with at least some degree of weaponry to help them in their fights. You can see an example of that in "The Battle of Findlay" at

PASAN - Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network - The Battle Of Findlay

In terms of the funding we're up against, the last American Medical Association "Tobacco Control Report" that gave figures on it several years ago pegged just the state-taxpayer funded "Tobacco Control" spending efforts at over 880 MILLION dollars a year. I believe that's probably come down a bit now, but when you add in the Big Pharma money as well as the advertising budgets of all the ACS "charity" type organizations that play off the smoking issue by waving pics of "suffocating children" in the eyes of donors the total figure is probably still up around that. See Lie #2 at:

The Truth Is A Lie

for a bit more on how they use that funding, and then if you have a better suggestion as to how I can be more effective than by writing books and posting on boards I'd be happy to hear it.

To hCurtis: Yes, I know you do "believe what (you) wrote." That's the sad part.

[greg42]

It's still not productive. What is your aim? Change people's minds? How? The activity is something that damages the health of innocent bystanders. Any advocacy that doesn't recognize this is doomed to fail.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Greg, the idea is to encourage people to read a little more, and to read beyond news stories based on advocacy press releases. If people begin to realize how much they've been lied to about the "deadly threat" of secondhand smoke they'll get angry enough to do something like push for reasonable air quality laws rather than go for the expensive, destructive, and sometimes even dangerous "easy fix" of smoking bans. I don't think you were here in the thread earlier when I suggested that people could read "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

"Lies" is quite openly an advocacy piece (The title kind of gives it away, right?) but there's nothing wrong with advocacy pieces as long as they are open about it and as long as their statements are accurate and their facts are true. "Lies" doesn't have the 600 references of "Brains" but it's a lot shorter and easier to read (It's largely designed for reading by "the bar crowd" in dim light and surrounded by distractions.) and it's free for the reading. I'll extend the same invitation to you as I have to others: Read through it and if you have any specific, substantive criticisms of any of the material in it, feel free to share them here. It's quite relevant to the Pittsburgh bar ban thread here since the ban was largely based on the studies referenced and examined in that booklet (Well, the studies and their numerous copycats.)

I think you'll find that the "damages the health of innocent bystanders" is somewhat overblown to put it mildly (and in any event is largely irrelevant when it comes to having Free Choice between places that allow smoking and those that don't.) See if that addresses your question adequately.

[beaumecpdx]

Originally Posted by greg42

It's still not productive. What is your aim? Change people's minds? How? The activity is something that damages the health of innocent bystanders. Any advocacy that doesn't recognize this is doomed to fail.

Just like drinking injures innocent bystanders on the road and at home, as does gambling away what you should be saving for a childs education. As does living in the the suburbs commuting 40 miles round trip is bad for the air of pedestrians and bus riders. Get off your high horses.

It is relevant to me, although I dont live in Pgh, because I am looking for a city to invest in that has not succumbed to the demonization of smokers, as Pittsburgh hasn't with the exception of some random posters on city data.

I do not go to Washington state, Hawaii or Philadelphia for that matter, because of the strictness in their laws. If I can't enjoy a cigg and a drink together, not gonna waste my money in your town.
\
The foul stench of some of your attitudes only compels me to want to smoke more.

[greg42]

We do in fact restrict quite a bit where and how one may drink, gamble and drive. But we shouldn't restrict where and how one may smoke? Seriously? Not to mention that the simple act of drinking around non-drinkers or simple act of gambling amongst non-gamblers does not in and of itself endanger anyone. Driving, yes, but we restrict many things about driving as well (and often not well enough).

I'm not at all interested in completely prohibiting smoking; we all know that kind of thing doesn't actually work. My only point was just what I said: that whatever advocacy has to take in the realities. The agenda of Mr McFadden in fact appears to be to actually suggest that smoking is not as dangerous to the rest of us nonsmokers in the vicinity as we have been led to believe. This does not on its face sound like a good plan to be pursuing, but I haven't really looked at the supposed supporting info yet.

[hornet67]

Originally Posted by beaumecpdx

Just like drinking injures innocent bystanders on the road and at home, as does gambling away what you should be saving for a childs education. As does living in the the suburbs commuting 40 miles round trip is bad for the air of pedestrians and bus riders. Get off your high horses.

It is relevant to me, although I dont live in Pgh, because I am looking for a city to invest in that has not succumbed to the demonization of smokers, as Pittsburgh hasn't with the exception of some random posters on city data.

I do not go to Washington state, Hawaii or Philadelphia for that matter, because of the strictness in their laws. If I can't enjoy a cigg and a drink together, not gonna waste my money in your town.
\
The foul stench of some of your attitudes only compels me to want to smoke more.

The foul stench of your revolting, disgusting, unhealthy, poisonous, and stupid habit compels me to say....use your brain and QUIT SMOKING!!!

[Michael J. McFadden]

Greg, you should look at the supporting info I've posted. How else can you criticize it or my arguments based on it or see what's wrong with it. I strongly recommend the "Lies" booklet to start off with since it should provide you a wealth of material to attack, criticize, or question.

Re this: "Not to mention that the simple act of drinking around non-drinkers or simple act of gambling amongst non-gamblers does not in and of itself endanger anyone"

Now stop a moment and think. Do you believe in the "No Safe Level" concept for carcinogens (that's the argument always used to refuse any option of smoking with ventilation/filtration being allowed)?

If you DO believe in that, then are you aware that ethyl alcohol is both highly volatile AND a Class A Carcinogen? Pour about 2 ounces (48 grams) of grain alcohol in a martini glass and put it out of the reach of the kiddies, the maid, and the cat. Come back in two days. It'll be gone. That's a full gram of pure Class A Carcinogen bubbling into the air every hour: unseen, unscented, but very real and totally ignored.

Meanwhile, a standard cigarette emits about ten pure Class A Carcinogens for a total, per cigarette, of about 1/2 of a milligram. It would take 2,000 cigarettes to put out the same amount as that one Martini style drink would in a single hour.

So do you still want to say your drink "does not endanger anyone" outside of yourself?

Actually, you'd be correct: carcinogens in such low levels are, in any practical sense, harmless. It's only propagandists that make them seem different. "No Safe Level" is a scientific term that is meaningless when applied to normal life.

P.S. To be fair, I should add that different carcinogens are thought to have different relative potencies. Ethyl alcohol is a milder carcinogen than the ones noted in cigarette smoke -- but I doubt it's 2,000 times milder.

[toobusytoday]

Closed for mod review.