|smoking bansPage 5 of 16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)|
|How does a smoking bans not prohibit smoking. If it did not then there would not be smoking bans. they were designed so non smokers could breah cleaner air. Damm they live in smog filled cities. |
If you think the smoking rates went down in Alberta. I can not remember the numbers exactly.
Posted in one of the smoking bann forums.
In 2003 the smoking rate was 25% which was about 500,00 smokers. In 2007 it was 19% about 620,000
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:51:51 PM
|The rate may be down. from 25% to 19%. It does sound like it is down. But you need to know what the actual figure they are working with on any percentage.|
Even with a lower percentage in 2007. With Alberta's population increasing. There are more smokers now than in 2003.
Let just reveres the figures. for Alberta
2003 19% smoked. About 620,000 2007 25% about 500,000 smoked.
Did the rate go up? Even though there are less smokers.
There plan years ago was to stop smoking in puplic places, So to be in your own home also.
It takes years to get aa agenda through. How many times have any city council shot down a smoking ban? Many times. When new city councils get elected every 4 years. You get enouhg people who will vote for the bill. It will get passed.
Just watch in the next 20 years mary jane will be legal.
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:53:46 PM
their designed to marginalize it so more people quit.
A higher number of people quit after tobacco taxes are raised as to smoking bans
Posted: 2/1/2009 9:19:24 PM
PASSIVE SMOKE: AN INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM
Fabricated risks attributed to passive smoke
The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is mainly based on statements that it causes lung cancer or cardiovascular disease in non-smokers. This short analysis examines what is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. What follows applies equally to the risk for cardiovascular disease and for any other disease attributed to ETS, as the methodologies of the studies
are essentially the same.
The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the frequency of lung cancer is greater in non-smokers exposed to ETS. Because it is impossible to find persons never exposed to ETS, the only real possibility is to observe if the frequency of lung cancer is higher or lower in non-smokers that are more or less exposed. A study would then require a reliable measurement of both the extent of individual exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different groups of non-smokers. Because there are many other proven risks for lung cancer, a study also must find whether individual lung cancers in non-smokers might be linked to other risks and not to ETS.
The following analysis reveals that no study of ETS and lung cancer has met these simple requirements, and therefore was not capable of determining risk.
1. Nonexistent Measurements - Because lung cancer is a disease that develops slowly and manifests itself for the most part at an advanced age, the exposure to ETS needs to be measured over the lifetime of non-smokers. This is what ETS studies claim to have done, even though it could not have been a measure of exposure starting from any person’s birth through the 60-70 years needed for lung cancer to develop, nor a backwards reconstruction of a person’s exposure from old age to birth, both tasks being obviously impossible.
So impossible, in fact, that ETS exposure has never been measured at all. Instead of an independently objective measure, 60-to-70-year-old non-smokers have been asked to recall what their personal exposure to ETS might have been during their lifetimes . Typically, such people were asked to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes had been smoked in their presence since early childhood. Their reveries– elicited in a few minutes usually over the phone, or even provided by proxy recalls of the relatives of deceased persons -- were recorded by the studies as precise numbers devoid of error and uncertainty.It is well known how difficult it is to remember what one ate one week ago, never mind 20 years ago or during childhood; how could it be possible to remember, with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to smoke over the 50-60 years of a prior lifetime? The only compelling conclusion is that without dependable measures of exposures, the ETS studies produced statistical estimates of risk that are illusory.
2. Fatal Flaws -According to summaries conducted by groups that have an interest in finding elevated risks for ETS, the average of all studies on lung cancer and passive smoke published up to May 2006 (about 75) claims a risk elevation of some 20 per cent. Such a relatively low elevation is not credible because the studies have not accounted for a whole series of other known risks of lung cancer, and prejudices and biases that are inevitably present. Here a few examples.It is known that people with lung cancer are more prone to amplify their recall of exposure (recall bias) than those who are not so affected, and for obvious emotional reasons. Another example is that some
declare of being non-smokers without saying they have been smokers, and therefore contaminate and bias the results (misclassification bias). Yet another one: there are over 30 risk factors for lung cancer reported in the professional literature – over 300 of them for cardiovascular diseases – and their very likely interference in ETS studies has never been credibly measured and corrected for. It is therefore exceedingly probable that the small risk elevation of 20 per cent is fictitious because of interferences that are not and cannot be calculated. Singly or combined, these considerations are sufficient to
explain the glaring inconsistencies of different studies, and erase the credibility of the claimed risk of ETS.
3. The Absurd Methodology - The overwhelming majority of ETS studies does not define risk on the necessary basis of higher or lower frequency of cancer in function of higher or lower exposures to ETS, as it should be done. Rather, self-declared non-smokers all with lung cancer and exposed to ETS have been compared to self-declared non-smokers without lung cancer, the latter also exposed to ETS
because it is impossible to find never exposed people. To illustrate, studies may have found that non-smokers without lung cancer recalled ETS exposure at a 100 rate, while non-smokers with lung cancer recalled exposure at a 120 rate. With an absurd logic, the studies presume that having remembered 20 per cent more represents 20 per cent more risk !
Such presumption also implies the equally absurd reasoning that a 20 per cent excess exposure – which is impossible to verify or measure in the first place – had been responsible for all the lung cancers of the non-smokers with the disease, while non-smokers who remember only a little less exposure remain
totally immune from lung cancer.
Conclusion - No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible and accurate measurement of ETS exposure. The overwhelming majority of the studies has not measured different frequencies of lung cancer in different groups. Lacking reliable measurements, the statistical analysis of the studies are illusory. No study can guarantee that some of the non-smo k ers studied were in fact smokers or had been smokers. No study could exclude that the lung cancers observed might have been caused by other risks and not by ETS. The overwhelming majority of studies adopted improper and absurd methods of risk calculations. The majority of studies did not report differences of risk, and many claimed a reduction ofrisk. Independently or combined, these considerations negate the credibility of claimed ETS risk for lung cancer, and are equally applicable to ETS studies of cardiovascular and other diseases.
The statement of the US Surgeron General is based solely on the studies discussed above. All smoking bans are also based solely on this body of evidence.
-- The FORCES International Board Of Directors
Posted: 2/1/2009 9:26:34 PM
|I also want to point out businesses here saw a large loss in businesses after the smoking ban and even cigar bars and hooka lounges which cater to the smokers and have been in the area for a long time were forced out of business. I honestly feel this is a violation of the constitutional right, freedom of assembly. I think its also a violation of the right of the business owners to determine whether or not they want the ban to effect the property they have paid for. I do think the ban should be voluntary, there are plenty of establishments that will equalize the ratio of businesses that allow smokers and those that want to keep the ban in effect. I dont we who enjoy smoking and a beer or wine etc should pay the price for the others to enjoy the air. I also want to point up the information above shows that the bans which have based its argument on health reason have built its "house" on sand and has only played on the ignorance of the public and also added to the demonizing of the smoker.|
To this day there is no conclusive evidence that smoking causes cancer.
Posted: 2/2/2009 5:18:35 PM
|I believe in smoking bans in restaurants, bars, and other privately owned establishments. I believe in smoking bans on campus except for designated smoking areas. I feel the same about public or state buildings. |
As far as smokers who visit me etc., I support their right to smoke outside. Smokers should always be entitled to at least fire up outside anywhere, in designated smoking areas.
Smokers should not be prevented from smoking. There shouldn't be some kind of ban on smoking. I can definitely understand it being relegated to out of doors, designated smoking areas; this seems more than reasonable and it should be up to privately owned establishments to do as they please in this regard.
Posted: 2/2/2009 6:07:06 PM
|C'mon "lass" ... you gotta choose ... |
I believe in smoking bans in restaurants, bars, and other privately owned establishments.Here the poster is saying she believes in the ban in privately-owned establishments ... so the privately-owned establishments should have to go along with a smoking ban and allow smoking to be banned ... right?
... and it should be up to privately owned establishments to do as they please in this regard.But wait ... here she is now saying that it should be up to the privately-owned establishments. And this all in one post.
It's okay "lass" ... you're a woman and entitled to change your mind whenever you want ... even in the same post ...
Personally ... I don't think we should be allowed to ban smoking in privately-owned clubs. I can understand in publicly-owned buildings, but in my opinion if a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his own building, his own business ... I do not think the law should be allowed to say he can't. That would be like the law saying he can't smoke in his own home ... eh? I mean he owns the building and he is not forcing anyone to enter ... so why should he have to ban smoking? Even if he doesn't actually own the building ... he should have the right to allow smoking in his establishment.
In publicly-owned buildings, people have to enter to do business ... but not a private bar.
Posted: 2/2/2009 8:12:45 PM
|Gee, sorry, Cotter. I didn't mean to confuse. What I meant to say is that I support privately owned establishments doing what they please about the ban; meaning if they want to ban it in their establishment, more power to them, and if they don't? Why should some outside governmental source dictate to privately owned establishments? It's up to the owner of said establishment to ban or not to ban, period.|
I'm a non smoker after quitting a couple years ago, but I don't like people tampering around with America's freedoms. Governmental bans on private property are out of line.
Posted: 2/2/2009 8:42:21 PM
Governmental bans on private property are out of line.I'm with you on that one.
What is very disturbing to me is the number of small bars/bar owners who are now out of business because of the forced ban on privately-owned establishments. I just don't think it's right for the government to ride herd on us like that. No one forces anyone to go into a bar and inhale anything they don't want to inhale.
Likewise, as far as the staff is concerned ... no one forces them to apply for a job there. If they do not want to inhale smoke as they work then they should not apply for a job where smoking is present.
Down here in Florida ... they're still allowed to smoke in bars if no more than 10-percent gross revenues are derived from food consumed on the premises. I no longer smoke, but I am not a smoke Nazi either. I sing Karaoke and I admit that I do avoid the bars where they smoke. I just don't like the smell on my clothes. I end up coming home and walking straight to the washer and undress there. Good that I live alone ...
Posted: 2/2/2009 10:09:12 PM
|Southerlass thanks for clearing that up, I was confused. |
Here in WA state, the ban is the harshest. Private and public areas dont not allow smokers with in 30 feet, and that is sometimes out on the street for crying out loud. I'll find the article but a new article posted after the ban took effect took note of the effects of the ban on smoking. Many bars and bartenders lost alot of money on business, also tips some bartenders and servers reported losses up to 90 dollars a day! Even the smoking bar and hooka lounges were forced out of business and how on earth is they considered a treat to the public health in that sort of establishment thrives on smoking? Even non smokers were quick to agree that its not the ban that is wrong, but the severity of the ban. Hotels and a private club to this day still retain smoking rights but from what I have heard even hotels are moving to being 100 percent smoke free, as their establishments are probably getting fined for continuing to allow indoor smoking in the rooms which can still be detected in the hallways. This club I know of is most likely following some other bars around seattle in what they call shutter night protests in which they close the window shutters and distribute ash trays and say light up. This was happening shortly after the ban and I dont know if the bars still do the protest or have bowed out to fines.
Posted: 2/2/2009 10:51:08 PM
Government sets standards for businesses that cater to the public, and if you want to open your doors to the public you must follow them, like it or not.
I don't like Government intruding in my life anymore than anyone else does, but complaining that a private business should be able to do what they like doesn't hold water IMO.
I agree to some extent, but when an establishment relies on smokers for a large percentage of it's business, rules can be modified. In my town 3 bars went out of business due to the stupid smoking ban. The ones still around have built heated rooms outside for smokers, opened up back rooms to sneak into, or just defiently let people smoke. One had a sign up for two months before it went under saying "Where the hell are all you non-smokers now?" Seems 95% percent of their clientelle were smokers. Wow. Think about it, what is the one time when even many non-smokers smoke? When they drink. We had 2 different bars open that were non-smoking before the ban, and guess what, they both died quickly. That should have told those idiots something then and there.
Why is it that some people can't be happy unless they are dictating rules for everybody? Why can't there be a happy medium somewhere? It's gotten so ridiculous.
I agree non-smokers outnumber smokers and their health should be taken into consideration, but why does their freedom to patronize any business outweight that business' right to be able to survive? Why can't smoker's have a few places to be comfortable too?
Posted: 2/2/2009 11:18:57 PM
|"Government sets standards for businesses that cater to the public, and if you want to open your doors to the public you must follow them, like it or not."|
What if I open a private club? Membership only? Agree to the rules of the establishment before entering? For example, So CA has some of the most stringent rules. I've lived through several of my karaoke bars having to abide by the no smoking laws - after the first fine the next is too high to keep avoiding it. Only fined if someone goes to the bar and then files a complaint. One of them is still staying smoking ... and such bars are now called 'dives' in our area. The others have smoking in the parking lot... but they aren't in the cities that have banned smoking in public.
I am all for non-smokers having smoke free environments. I was for it when I was a smoker. Cost of cigs got too high for my thrifty nature. I quit when it got so very socially unacceptable and expensive. However, I have a smoking room for the women in my sober home. this includes a rule of non-smokers not objecting to them smoking in their space. (private facility not public and no children). Because, I am concurrently all for smokers having the right to smoke ... on one condition ... don't ask me to pay the medical bills. You want to damage your health - ok. You want me to pay for it --- nope. That just made it my business.
oh... and studies? come on people! Sheeeeeeeesh ... it doesn't take a study. Suck toxic crap into the sensitive cells of the lungs and you are lucky as all get out if it doesn't do damage to the systems. I've always thought it was the height of stupidity to think it took any studies to know that smoke was bad for the lungs. Stupid to think exhaust needs a study to know it is bad.
ps. I was lucky as h*ll.... they found no evidence of any impact of 40 years of smoking on my lungs ... or of growing up with 2 smokers. I do know it was not due to lack of likelihood of the crap damaging.
Posted: 2/2/2009 11:27:51 PM
|boatswapper hold on just a minute:|
Lets take a look at your posting
"Because they are open to the public. Should a private establishment be allowed to insulate with asbestos if they feel like it? How about fire alarms and sprinklers? "
What sort of person wouldn't have that sort of protection and insulation for their establishment. You actually SAVE MONEY in the long run having those systems protect aginst damage rather than waiting 20 minutes for a fire truck to arrive while the fire eats away your business. Its called common sense.
"They're expensive so why put them in if they don't want to? His and her bathrooms, who needs them! It's a private establishment, so they should be able to what they like by your line of reasoning."
Any club or establishment has to have a restroom for men and women to acquire a liquor license. The government controls that my friend. That is a state law for any establishment wanting to serve hard drinks. Without that license I doubt the club would make money as it can serve booze or beer or wine. Check the laws and you'll see why and again its common sense.
"I don't like Government intruding in my life anymore than anyone else does, but complaining that a private business should be able to do what they like doesn't hold water IMO."
You just said only public owners have to abide by laws and rules that are stated by the government but now are saying that even private owners also have to abide by these rules and also conform to public rules and laws? Wow we might as well do away with the concept of private ownership.
Do you know what the difference is between public and private. Your quote here isnt show you do. Lets break it down. A public area is where ALL PEOPLE are invited free or charge or with a fee but dont have to pay any extra fees or taxes to enjoy the establishment. Like a public golf course, anyone and everyone is welcome.
Private property is someone who owns this property and have made it closed off to most of the population unless the person pays a fee or a certain amount and is granted membership to that establishment. That person also have to follow certain rules and certain guidelines that are not found in public property. One good example is that you will tell the people who want this membership to that private club that they will be in a smoked filled environment or you have to dress a certain way. Without that, your entry will be barred.
The government is treading into a gray area that is telling private owners that they cannot have their people smoking in that bar or club even though it is closed to the public. I dare say that a violation of freedom of assembly.
Non smokers still can have their way, even if the ban was made voluntarily its not like it will be the 1980s again when 60% of the population smoked.
Posted: 2/3/2009 3:41:01 AM
|I used to smoke alot. Now once in awhile. I don't think you should smoke in resturants or public places and I didn't even before bans. It's a nasty stinky habit. You should not inflict it on someone else.|
Posted: 2/3/2009 5:17:45 AM
|I was years ago a smoker,and have been quit for a very long time and I believe a business owner should be able to be a smoking establishment if they feel like it.There are establishments already I don't go to,its freedom of choice,if you don't like smokers then go to a non smoking establishment.Some city on the news a few nights ago outlawed smoking in ones own personal apartment and or condos saying the second hand smoke is harmful to the apartment next door and even as the mayor said in her own words is,even if you breath second hand smoke for a few seconds its dangerous and as for the lady complaining that she can't smoke in her house,the mayor said she had no idea how to help the woman,hopefully she'll move some place else,gee thanks "MOM"....................wow,its like a mild form of communism .|
Posted: 2/3/2009 6:39:50 AM
|Think about it.|
I don't have to guess if someone is smoking--I can smell it. Which means I'm breathing it. If I wanted to, I would light up and smoke my own. Which I don't.
Smoking stinks. Period. It doesn't all just float out the window. And, if it does, someone outside is breathing it.
Smoking in public is seriously rude and it's dangerous to people who are allergic to the poisons in tobacco. My father was severely allergic. Me? I'm just cranky about having to breath in someone else's addiction.
Smoking in a car with children is abusive. And disrespectful.
Posted: 2/3/2009 12:35:56 PM
|"because smoking is banned in most states, this does not mean that breathing, seeing, talking or another freedom will also be banned. In my opinion these are weak arguments."|
Really? It already has. Perfumes now have to have restricted access in some areas. We are back to restricting sugar heavy products in schools. Restricting some forms of abortion would be a partial ban not a full ban. Killing a healthy baby at birth when it is not necessary to save the life of the mother ... partial birth abortion ... may soon follow. I happen to think it should. But, if the argument works one way it also works the other. Restricting smoking does lead to restricting but not fully banning abortions.
We also have in CA restrictions on the bar on how liable they are fo r the person who drank those 22 beers. By the way, as a light drinker I can assure you ... beer and alcohol breath really and truly stinks as much as cigs ..... cigs smell offends my nose and makes me want to sneeze .... alcohol breath makes me want to vomit.
Posted: 2/3/2009 1:04:19 PM
|Alomost every day I see under age childrren on the side walks near schools smoking, we need to enforce the laws, they can not sell cigarettes to minors but these kids are getting them some where|
The police should issue them a summons that involves a substanial fine
Smoking should be banned in all public places
Posted: 2/3/2009 11:09:09 PM
Smoking in public is seriously rude and it's dangerous to people who are allergic to the poisons in tobacco.
Then you better not go to L.A. You will shrivel up and die there.
Posted: 2/3/2009 11:13:04 PM
|"Smoking in public is seriously rude and it's dangerous to people who are allergic to the poisons in tobacco."|
"Then you better not go to L.A. You will shrivel up and die there"
Steel is right. We might have the strictest of smoking bans... but the same toxins in cigs are in the exhaust in most of our horrid traffic and manufacturing and oil processing businesses. We no longer kill you with cigs.... but we still kill you with our smog... even though it is less than it was at its worst.
I am campaigning for the solar and wind money and alternative fuel cars to clearn our air.
Posted: 2/4/2009 5:44:00 AM
|When I was a smoker I was a courteous smoker,so dislike immensely the how rude we were to everyone lines how we're killing people.years ago we had a smoking room for smoker breaks,then the laws outlawed that and made us stand in the entrance to the building,now we were in the face of all and made them aware there even were smokers at the building.In Disneyland 20 yrs ago I went to the back corner of the outdoor eatery and had a no one there for 60 tables and wind blowing away from them,woman and kids come all the way over to me sits 2 tables away,and starts flapping her hands and coughing then stands up and gives me the how dare you I have kids,well I told how dare she,she saw me smoking on the way over,I didn't say anything about how obnoxious and offensive her perfume was.|
Local restaurant had a glass sealed smoking room,air exhausted out of ceiling,air filtration the help clean the air and smoke sucks away from door when open by the pressure and a special air system at door,I had eaten there many times even next to the room and did not realize smokers were in there,well when they banned public place smoking there went the owners $200,000 room.Seems he was a shining example of how you can cater to both sides,yet he was forced to shut.
If someone is so sensitive to pollutants its they that should move to a more safe place,like the country side or a private house never an apartment,some of these others are right,pollution,car exhaust,perfume,pollen,a dairy,they all smell so sensitive people can't move next to a dairy say,and then complain it smells,thats whats happening here,people building next to 100 year old dairy and wanting the dairy removed,building next to horses in our famous horse owner area and complaining the manure smells and there are too many flys,building next to the local airport and protesting to reduce noise ,some people have a ton of nerve.
Can you just picture what type of dictator they'd be if they ruled a kingdom a few hundred years ago,thats one reason we hate communism, its that when one person is given ultimate power over everyone and we have to tolerate his or her unreasonable "its all about them" ways and demands.Well I wish people didn't drink so much,but I will never say that to them I will offer them a glass if they come over,"one cube or two",freedom of speech,freedom of choice as long as your not a child.
Posted: 5/29/2009 9:17:18 AM
|The claim that ETS or sidestream smoke is almost if not as deadly as first hand is a claim made on inconsistent and unreiable evidence. Now with cigarettes I think there is an arugment as cigarettes are pumped up with chemicals and other sythetetic material to keep the tobacco fresh, burning constantly and also burning evenly. Infact one lab reported that ETS might even reduce you chance of getting lung cancer at all, thats how off the board research has been.|
16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)