County Office Spends A Year Forcing Private Veteran's Club to Cease Smoking

[Crazed Rabbit]

Recently in Washington state we passed a initiative banning smoking in public spaces, like bars and restaurants, even privately owned ( :wall: ). So much for property rights.

So Kitsap County gets the idea in their heads to force a private veteran's club to stop smoking. :dizzy2: And they've spent over a year trying to force these veterans to stop smoking in their private club, and the case is going to the State Supreme Court.

What a bunch of moronic government employees, and infringement of property rights. Sigh. Nanny-state here we come, it seems.

http://www.legion149wa.org/VeteransStillFighting.htm

The history:

*

5 September, 2007: The Washington State Supreme Court has decided to hear the Post's appeal as announced in this order.
*

3 August, 2007: The state attempts to file a corrected response to our initial brief after being in receipt of our reply to their original response.
*

1 August, 2007: The Post files its reply to the respondent's response to our appellant brief.
*

25 July, 2007: State Department of Health files its response to our initial Appellant Brief.
*

22 June, 2007: The Post files its initial Appellant Brief with the Washington State Supreme Court asking for review of the trial judge's decision.
*

19 March, 2007: During a combined meeting of the Post, Auxiliary, SAL, and Legion Riders, the members decided to fund the cost of the appeal. We continue to move forward.
*

9 March, 2007: The Post filed its Statement of Grounds for Direct Appeal with the Washington State Supreme Court.
*

5 March, 2007: The Executive Committee of the Post "weenies" out! After authorizing the filing of the appeal, the Executive Committee has backtracked. They now would like a combined meeting of the membership to decide whether or not to pay for the appeal, despite the vote to continue smoking at the last combined meeting.
*

23 February, 2007: Post files Notice of Appeal regarding the judgment handed down in Thurston County Superior Court. The appeal was filed with the Washington State Supreme Court.
*

19 February, 2007: During a combined meeting of the Post, Auxiliary, SAL, and Legion Riders Chapter, the members "overwhelmingly" decided to continue the fight for our rights to decide for ourselves what legal activity is acceptable in the Post Home we own. I say "overwhelmingly" because the percent of those who voted to continue smoking was about the same as the much touted "overwhelming" victory of the initiative to ban smoking in Washington State...62.3%. The Executive Committee has authorized the filing of our intent to appeal. The battle continues!
*

26 January, 2007: Judge Tabor denies our request for summary judgment and approves summary judgment requests from Kitsap County and the state Board of Health.
*

18 January, 2007: State files response to Post's combined opposition to its motion for summary judgment.
*

17 January, 2007: Post files Combined Response to State and County responses to our Motion for Summary Judgment.
*

14 January, 2007: Kitsap County files a combined State and County Response to our Motion for Summary Judgment.
*

5 January, 2007: Post files Combined Opposition to State and County Motions for Summary Judgment.
*

29 December, 2006: State of Washington files its Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.
*

28 December, 2006: Kitsap County files its Motion for Summary Judgment and a Declaration by Bonnie Latham.
*

20 December, 2006: Post files its Motion for Summary Judgment.
*

27 October, 2006: Status hearing held. Date for actual hearing set for January 26, 2007.
*

16 August, 2006: Washington State Board of Health files a response to our petition.
*

15 August, 2006: Kitsap County files a response to our petition.
*

4 August, 2006: State files its response to our request for restraining order and rebuttal to Kitsap County's response. Request for restraining order is denied in court by Judge Tabor.
*

2 August, 2006: Post files rebuttal to Kitsap County's response to our motion for a temporary restraining order.
*

1 August, 2006: Kitsap County files a response to our request for the restraining order.
*

27 July, 2006: Post files petition and complaint against Kitsap County Health District and state Department of Health along with a request for a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement of the act with the Thurston County Superior Court. Hearing on the temporary restraining order is set for 4 August, 2006.
*

30 June, 2006: Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney replies to our attorney declining to cancel order.
*

16 June, 2006: Attorney Newman replies to the Kitsap County Health District advising them of our position on the issue and requesting they cancel their order.
*

8 June, 2006: Post hires attorney Shawn T Newman to represent us in this issue.
*

30 May, 2006: Post receives Notice and Order to Correct Violation from Kitsap County Health District ordering us to stop allowing smoking in our Post Home.
*

4 April, 2006: The Kitsap County Board of Health enacts ordinance 2006-02: Clean Indoor Air Ordinance.
*

8 December, 2005: Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 70.160 (as amended by I-901) goes into effect.
*

8 November, 2005: Initiative 901 passes prohibiting smoking in public places or places of employment.


Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Didn't a place outside San Francisco pass/attempt to pass a law making the only places where it was still legal to smoke was in your own home, provided that it was at least 100m from the neighbors?

[Bellum]

It would likely to be more effective to ban private transportation.

[Tribesman]

What a bunch of moronic government employees, and infringement of property rights.
Does the smoking law cover private members clubs ?
Yes
Does the smoking law cover private members clubs that hold public events ?Yes
Does the smoking law cover private members clubs that run kids clubs and activities ?
Yes .
Why does the club feel that laws do not apply to it ?

Perhaps instead of writing moronic government employees , you should write moronic club board members thinking they are special and exempt from the law .

[Watchman]

So much for property rights.The gist of your concerns has been duly noted.

[woad&fangs]

Does the smoking law cover private members clubs ?
Yes
Does the smoking law cover private members clubs that hold public events ?Yes
Does the smoking law cover private members clubs that run kids clubs and activities ?
Yes .
Why does the club feel that laws do not apply to it ?

Perhaps instead of writing moronic government employees , you should write moronic club board members thinking they are special and exempt from the law .
It's a bad law and they are taking a stand against it. I personally hate smoking and can't understand why the idiots would do it in the first place, but the only people they are hurting are themselves. Laws are only in place because of the absence of common sense. Where common sense exists, it should trump the law every time.

[Tribesman]

It's a bad law and they are taking a stand against it.
Why is it a bad law ?

but the only people they are hurting are themselves
That isn't true is it .

Where common sense exists, it should trump the law every time.
Common sense.....smoking .
Smoking is a harmful chemical addiction , where does common sense come into it in this case ?


The gist of your concerns has been duly noted.
Not really , since it is a place of business and a government licenced establishment .
Should a factory be allowed to operate without regard for local health and safety legislation because it is privately owned ?

[woad&fangs]

That isn't true is it .

It's a private club, if you don't like cancer and lung disease then you don't have to go there.

[KukriKhan]

It's a private club, if you don't like cancer and lung disease then you don't have to go there.

Down here in Cali-stan, they got 'round that by pointing out that liquor licenses grant the State the right to impose health reg's on liquor vendors, and their employees. Second-hand smoke = bad (I'm told), and employees cannot waive their right to be protected from harm, even in Mom-and-Pop-run bars, or private clubs.

State license = mandatory compliance w/health reg's = no smoking indoors.

edit: Full disclosure: I smoke, and seldom frequent bars since the smoking ban.

[Productivity]

edit: Full disclosure: I smoke, and seldom frequent bars since the smoking ban.

This is probably taking this off on a tangent, but the economic impacts of smoking bans are an interesting topic for debate. Personally I don't smoke and find smoking to be such a major turnoff that I won't go out to places where there is smoking allowed. In light of recent smoking bans in Australia it appears that there is a similar view from many - however evidence is patchy with some pointing towards economic boon and some to economic curse.

Ref.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292479076.html?from=storyrhs

[Zaknafien]

No one should be allowed to smoke, period. But people think they have some "right" to it. The argument that "if they dont like it, they dont have to go" is bullocks, because there are still employees, delivery personnel, inspectors, etc who will have to visit the club and be subjected to poisonous fumes.

Government should either make all drugs legal, or ban them all uniformly. No special cases for cigarrettes or booze. Most people would throw a fit if people were smoking marijuana in public places, even if it were a private club, and its the same ideal.

[Watchman]

Not really , since it is a place of business and a government licenced establishment .
Should a factory be allowed to operate without regard for local health and safety legislation because it is privately owned ?Tribesy, you should know me better than that. I was merely making an observation as to what struck me as the apparent actual focus of Rabbit's righteous outrage.

I'm all for this master plan of making smoking so onerous and inconvenient, if still as such legal, that as few people as possible are willing to put up with the hassle and just don't do it in the first place. Something similar seems to have been the basic guideline of urban planning in the city I live in for years on in regards to private traffic, which is also something I applaud.

[Lemur]

No one should be allowed to smoke, period. But people think they have some "right" to it.
No one should be "allowed" to smoke? How very thoughtful of you to declare what you fellow citizens can and cannot do.

CR is right, this is nanny-statism run amok. People should have every right to booze, smoke, drug and generally destroy themselves as they like.

Remember what a success Prohibition was? Ever notice how the War on Drugs is lost? Now imagine what fun we'd have with a Down With Tobacco campaign.

Will you people never learn?

[Watchman]

Why do you think they're not actually criminalizing it ? Just making it as difficult as possible works far better.

[Productivity]

CR is right, this is nanny-statism run amok. People should have every right to booze, smoke, drug and generally destroy themselves as they like.

The difference is, smoking generally has significant impacts on those who do not engage in that action. Alcohol, most drugs etc. do not give me cancer if you indulge in them (I'll accept an argument that they do have potentially huge negative impacts on those close to those heavily addicted). The argument that I shouldn't go out if I don't want to deal with those impacts is negated by the fact that I am in a significant proportion of the population (perhaps an outright majority).

This isn't nanny-statism. It's a government responding to a populations wants/feelings in respect to a practice that has significant harmful impacts on that community in the abscence of drinking establishments respecting those wishes.

I tend to feel people should have the right to inflict upon themselves whatever evils they so choose - however activities that have significant potential to harm others who are innocent of that action should be prohibited. It's essentially the same argument as drink driving. If drink drivers only ever killed themselves I don't think anyone would particularly care, but they don't. They kill other road users, they kill pedestrians etc. In that sense, smoking in ones own home should be allowed, although I would argue if one has children it should be banned (as you are inflicting upon the child who has no choice in the matter a known carinogen).

Incidentally this is post 1,111 - random.

[Tribesman]

It's a private club, if you don't like cancer and lung disease then you don't have to go there.

And that responds to the bit you quoted ...how exactly ?
You were responding to the bit you quoted I take it , or did you quote the wrong bit ?


Tribesy, you should know me better than that. I was merely making an observation as to what struck me as the apparent actual focus of Rabbit's righteous outrage.

And I was just ponting out that the outrage didn't make much sense . If it was strictly private property then fair enough , but it isn't it is a business , a community centre and a licensed establishment .
Since each of those uses are regulated by law then crying "private property" is just a red-herring .

[Crazed Rabbit]

Does the smoking law cover private members clubs ?
Yes
No.

That's why I said it doesn't. But of course you can't resist trolling, even when obviously wrong:

The Act:

In order to protect the health and welfare of all citizens, including workers in their places of employment, it is necessary to prohibit smoking in public places and workplaces.


Does the smoking law cover private members clubs that hold public events ?Yes

And they're not arguing that.


Does the smoking law cover private members clubs that run kids clubs and activities ?
Yes .

Again, they aren't arguing that. Reading comprehension on the fritz again?


Why does the club feel that laws do not apply to it ?

Maybe cause the law says it doesn't:


This chapter is not intended to restrict smoking in private facilities which are occasionally open to the public except upon the occasions when the facility is open to the public.

Now the state says that the next part of the chapter, about banning smoking in places of employment, overrides this. Which is strange, since the bit I quoted above says no part of the whole chapter can prevent smoking in a private club when it is not open to the public.

The state's definition of place of employment:

RCW 70.160.020 (3)
"Place of employment" means any area under the control of a public or private employer which employees are required to pass through during the course of employment, including, but not limited to: Entrances and exits to the places of employment, and including a presumptively reasonable minimum distance, as set forth in section 6 of this act, of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited; work areas; restrooms; conference and classrooms; break rooms and cafeterias; and other common areas. A private residence or home-based business, unless used to provide licensed child care, foster care, adult care, or other similar social service care on the premises, is not a place of employment.


Just so you know, the whole law on this, of which I posted various sections, is called Chapter 70.160 RCW:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.160


Perhaps instead of writing moronic government employees , you should write moronic club board members thinking they are special and exempt from the law .

So you're for prostrating ourselves before any government law, no matter how stupid or oppressive? You wouldn't have been too supportive of Rosa Parks, huh, what with thinking she's special and exempt from the law? The idea that the government should spend time trying to force stretch a law to force people to comply with no real reason other than the government wants to is hazardous to liberty and the rights of a populace, not to mention stupid on the part of the government.

DDTAAWLWM,B



No one should be allowed to smoke, period.

And you support Ron Paul?! :inquisitive:


But people think they have some "right" to it.

Those silly people and there rights. Why should they be able to engage in a consensual business transaction and then commit an action that does minimal harm to others?



The argument that "if they dont like it, they dont have to go" is bullocks, because there are still employees, delivery personnel, inspectors, etc who will have to visit the club and be subjected to poisonous fumes.

For what, five minutes? Employees who work there knew it was smoking when they started, and nobody's stopping them from quitting. It's not like we had no smoking places even before the ban.


I'm all for this master plan of making smoking so onerous and inconvenient, if still as such legal, that as few people as possible are willing to put up with the hassle and just don't do it in the first place. Something similar seems to have been the basic guideline of urban planning in the city I live in for years on in regards to private traffic, which is also something I applaud.
:inquisitive:

So you're alright with the government deciding what's good for you and what isn't, and then doing all it can short of banning it to control your actions? Not a big fan of liberty, then?

Crazed Rabbit

[Zaknafien]

Liberty is not about destructive actions that kill people, my friend. I am in the majority of the population, by which our laws are made and our nation governed. We dont want to be subjected to noxious fumes even for "5 minutes". Sorry.

[Tribesman]

No.

That's why I said it doesn't. But of course you can't resist trolling, even when obviously wrong:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: wrong rabbit , it is covered because it is a workplace...
since the bit I quoted above says no part of the whole chapter can prevent smoking in a private club when it is not open to the public.
.....errrr......its a workplace ........
ITS A WORKPLACE (just incase your reading is on the fritz):dizzy2:
its all there in the intent Rabbit ......The people of the state of Washington recognize that exposure to second-hand smoke is known to cause cancer in humans. Second-hand smoke is a known cause of other diseases including pneumonia, asthma, bronchitis, and heart disease. Citizens are often exposed to second-hand smoke in the workplace, and are likely to develop chronic, potentially fatal diseases as a result of such exposure. In order to protect the health and welfare of all citizens, including workers in their places of employment, it is necessary to prohibit smoking in public places and workplaces.

So for a final obviously wrong fritzed up attempt at "incorrect" trolling
ITS A WORKPLACE
Understand yet ?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Liberty is not about destructive actions that kill people, my friend. I am in the majority of the population, by which our laws are made and our nation governed. We dont want to be subjected to noxious fumes even for "5 minutes". Sorry.
I agree, take this example, there is a kid who never smokes but his parents do, whose rights take presedence his parents right to enjoy themselves or his right to be healthy... and not smell...

It is far easyer and fairer for the default to be no smoke and that people who chose to smoke have to go out of their way to do it, I belive that the priority should be to insure no others are harmed (I am not saying i support banning of it).

This leaves their non smoking loved ones still having to watch smoking disable/kill themselves but at least they know they arnt being harmed by their loved ones too...

(I am usually opposed to overt interference in peoples lives but i think we should stop people being hurt or killed against their will, heck we have gone to war for less)

[Husar]

Smoking isn't necessary for anyone's survival, it smells bad, it tastes like **** and most only do it because they're addicted, oh and it causes cancer, I don't really see why anyone would support it and to be honest, I get angry everytime someone lights a cigarette in front of me when I'm in the city.

That doesn't mean I hate everybody who smokes from time to time, but the people who have just left a subway train and have to light their cigs on the escalator going up are the most annoying. And then there was this cool youth who thought he'd become even cooler by smoking inside the train...I soo wanted to beat the living **** out of him.:furious3: :viking: Just to show him how uncool he is of course. ~;)

Well, this is a private club, if everybody in the club smokes or doesn't mind it, they should be fine IMO, though they should be required to let fresh air in regularly and especially when non-smoking cleaning personnel has to clean the rooms etc.

[woad&fangs]

Smoking isn't necessary for anyone's survival, it smells bad, it tastes like **** and most only do it because they're addicted, oh and it causes cancer, I don't really see why anyone would support it and to be honest, I get angry everytime someone lights a cigarette in front of me when I'm in the city.

That doesn't mean I hate everybody who smokes from time to time, but the people who have just left a subway train and have to light their cigs on the escalator going up are the most annoying. And then there was this cool youth who thought he'd become even cooler by smoking inside the train...I soo wanted to beat the living **** out of him.:furious3: :viking: Just to show him how uncool he is of course. ~;)

Well, this is a private club, if everybody in the club smokes or doesn't mind it, they should be fine IMO, though they should be required to let fresh air in regularly and especially when non-smoking cleaning personnel has to clean the rooms etc.
I agree.

[Xiahou]

Liberty is not about destructive actions that kill people, my friend. I am in the majority of the population, by which our laws are made and our nation governed. We dont want to be subjected to noxious fumes even for "5 minutes". Sorry.
Where do you live? :laugh4:
Driving down the highway will net you more "noxious fumes" than 5 minutes of second hand smoke.

I feel bad for kids who spend their lives sucking their parents' cigarette smoke, but you can't legislate good parenting. I also suspect that kids who are raised fat on junkfood with little exercise have much more serious health problems than one's who breathe a little smoke.

On topic- for a private, member's only establishment, there should be no issue. They can smoke if they want to. In fact, I say let commercial bars decide whether to allow smoking for themselves also. It's a business decision for them to make- will they lose more customers with or without smoking?

full disclosure: I don't smoke and think cigarettes stink and taste like crap.:wink:

[Crazed Rabbit]

it is covered because it is a workplace... .....errrr......its a workplace ........


How just like you to ignore the most important part of my post:


This chapter is not intended to restrict smoking in private facilities which are occasionally open to the public except upon the occasions when the facility is open to the public.

The chapter includes the bit about not smoking in a place of employment. Thus, the ban on smoking in places of employment does not apply. Simple really. Unless of course you think the law applies to things the law says it is not intended to apply to.

:logic:

I'm not surprised you ignored it, seeing as it blows your feeble trolling out of the water.

Nor did you answer my question:


So you're for prostrating ourselves before any government law, no matter how stupid or oppressive? You wouldn't have been too supportive of Rosa Parks, huh, what with thinking she's special and exempt from the law?

Crazed Rabbit

[KukriKhan]

When the US Army taught me to smoke 35 years ago, everybody smoked, except virgin spinsters who also didn't drink, cuss, or fart. That's all changed now, and it used to surprise me how quickly it did - but I'm used to that now.

What does surprise me is the vehemence of the opposition to smoking. Right here in this thread we've seen folks offer violence, incarceration, and criminalization options toward smokers.

Why is that, you think? Anyone?

[HoreTore]

Smoking isn't necessary for anyone's survival,

Husar, all that food isn't necessary for your survival. You'll do fine with just a quarter of it.

Don't need those clothes either, it's not winter yet, so no need for them to survive.

CAR?? Mankind has walked for thousands of years. That car isn't necessary at all, so I'll just take it then.

Computer? It's bad for your health to be sitting in front of it all the time. That's got to go.

[Tribesman]

How just like you to ignore the most important part of my post:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
There was something important ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



The chapter includes the bit about not smoking in a place of employment. Thus, the ban on smoking in places of employment does not apply. Simple really. Unless of course you think the law applies to things the law says it is not intended to apply to.

Oh dear rabbit you don't get it at all , the legion themselves under their own definitions rule that out , come along even if you are not a member they will help you with your paperwork at their community service outlets , the post is the community service outlet , it is open to the public when it is open , when it is not open it is closed , they can smoke when they are closed:idea2:

Have the whole chapter.......2) "Public place" means that portion of any building or vehicle used by and open to the public, regardless of whether the building or vehicle is owned in whole or in part by private persons or entities, the state of Washington, or other public entity, and regardless of whether a fee is charged for admission, and includes a presumptively reasonable minimum distance, as set forth in RCW 70.160.075, of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited. A public place does not include a private residence unless the private residence is used to provide licensed child care, foster care, adult care, or other similar social service care on the premises.

Public places include, but are not limited to: Schools, elevators, public conveyances or transportation facilities, museums, concert halls, theaters, auditoriums, exhibition halls, indoor sports arenas, hospitals, nursing homes, health care facilities or clinics, enclosed shopping centers, retail stores, retail service establishments, financial institutions, educational facilities, ticket areas, public hearing facilities, state legislative chambers and immediately adjacent hallways, public restrooms, libraries, restaurants, waiting areas, lobbies, bars, taverns, bowling alleys, skating rinks, casinos, reception areas, and no less than seventy-five percent of the sleeping quarters within a hotel or motel that are rented to guests. A public place does not include a private residence. This chapter is not intended to restrict smoking in private facilities which are occasionally open to the public except upon the occasions when the facility is open to the public.

(3) "Place of employment" means any area under the control of a public or private employer which employees are required to pass through during the course of employment, including, but not limited to: Entrances and exits to the places of employment, and including a presumptively reasonable minimum distance, as set forth in RCW 70.160.075, of twenty-five feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited; work areas; restrooms; conference and classrooms; break rooms and cafeterias; and other common areas. A private residence or home-based business, unless used to provide licensed child care, foster care, adult care, or other similar social service care on the premises, is not a place of employment.

they can smoke if they are not open and don't have any employees:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I'm not surprised you ignored it, seeing as it blows your feeble trolling out of the water.
Try again rabbit as you havn't got a leg to stand on:thumbsdown: It is not a private residence , it is not a private facility that is occasionally open to the public :idea2:
It is a business that is open to the public and has employees .

[Louis VI the Fat]

What a bunch of moronic government employees, and infringement of property rights. Sigh. Nanny-state here we come, it seems.
Rabbit, are you in favour of legalising the use of cocaine and crack when used on private property, by a private members club?

[Tribesman]

Rabbit, are you in favour of legalising the use of cocaine and crack when used on private property, by a private members club?
Only if they have guns:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh dear rabbit you don't get it at all , the legion themselves under their own definitions rule that out , come along even if you are not a member they will help you with your paperwork at their community service outlets , the post is the community service outlet , it is open to the public when it is open , when it is not open it is closed , they can smoke when they are closed

Oh really? They seem to call themselves a private facility. And by paperwork, do you mean paperwork to join their club, which is not open to just anyone from the public, but only soldiers, female relatives, and sons of soldiers?



Have the whole chapter.......

And here's the important bit:


This chapter is not intended to restrict smoking in private facilities which are occasionally open to the public except upon the occasions when the facility is open to the public.

Review:
This statement prevents the entire chapter from applying to private facilities.
The Post is a private facility.
Therefore, the chapter, which includes the ban on smoking at places of employment, does not apply.

:logic:

Are you afraid to answer my other question?

So you're for prostrating ourselves before any government law, no matter how stupid or oppressive? You wouldn't have been too supportive of Rosa Parks, huh, what with thinking she's special and exempt from the law?

Once again, tribesy, you dodge the substance of the debate and focus on bits that you can't even win.

Let me ask you a few, yes or no, questions:
Do you believe governments should ban smoking in private clubs, even if some people are employed at the club?
Is it a good use of the government's time to pursue this case?


Rabbit, are you in favour of legalising the use of cocaine and crack when used on private property, by a private members club?

No.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Rabbit, are you in favour of legalising the use of cocaine and crack when used on private property, by a private members club?

Cocaine and crack is A TINY FREAKIN' BIT more dangerous than nicotine.

[Watchman]

Then again, I'd rather deal with the side effects of their legal use than the side effects of their illegal use. Which start at nasty drug cartels and dangerously desperate addicts who somehow need to scrape together enough dough to buy their next "hit" at grossly inflated prices.

The "Prohibition effect", anyone ?

[Zaknafien]

Cocaine and crack is A TINY FREAKIN' BIT more dangerous than nicotine.

Oh, you think? Or is that just what you've been taught to think because one is taboo and the other is a multi billion dollar industry that has donated for decades to major political parties?


For example, smoking cigarettes is much more dangerous for a pregnant mother to do than smoking crack cocaine.

Hmm.:juggle2:

[Husar]

What does surprise me is the vehemence of the opposition to smoking. Right here in this thread we've seen folks offer violence, incarceration, and criminalization options toward smokers.

Why is that, you think? Anyone?
You didn't really think I'd beat someone up for smoking, did you? :inquisitive:
Though that youngster in the train was sort of calling for it since there are no smoking signs on almost every wall in subway stations.
And the smoke(depends on the kind of cigarettes though) can be really, really annoying and can destroy my appetite when I'm about to eat etc.
So even if I won't get cancer, the smoking of other people does affect my life if they do it close to me, that's why I'm against it.

[HoreTore]

Oh, you think? Or is that just what you've been taught to think because one is taboo and the other is a multi billion dollar industry that has donated for decades to major political parties?

For example, smoking cigarettes is much more dangerous for a pregnant mother to do than smoking crack cocaine.

I have yet to see someone taking an overdose of nicotine. Cocaine can kill you instantly, nicotine can't, at least not with the dosage a human being is capable of taking. Might be a different story if you inject it with a needle or something though, but who does that?

[Tribesman]

:
Oh really? They seem to call themselves a private facility.
Do they ?
Well bugger me sideways I could have sworn that they call posts like 149 community service outlets not private facilities:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



And by paperwork, do you mean paperwork to join their club, which is not open to just anyone from the public, but only soldiers, female relatives, and sons of soldiers?

Do you even have the faintest idea what you are going on about ?
It is part of their community service project , helping people with paperwork , lots and lots of it for many different things , insurance , medical , education , jobs.....hey you can even go along and get them to burn your flag , you don't have to be a member of the legion , its a public service .


And here's the important bit:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

This statement prevents the entire chapter from applying to private facilities.
The Post is a private facility.
Therefore, the chapter, which includes the ban on smoking at places of employment, does not apply.

It is not a private facility that is occasionaly open to the public , it is a private facility that is open to the public when it is open:wall:
It is not some big country house that has an open day for visitors every now and then, that would be a private facility .
It is a business that is open to the public year round and has employees year round .

You should change the title of the topic to "Legion wastes its time and money fighting a case that it cannot win"


Once again, tribesy, you dodge the substance of the debate and focus on bits that you can't even win.

Rabbit your arguement has no substance whatsoever .
I do like your attempt at Rosa parks though...hmmmm laws about racial discrimination ....laws about health of employees....nice co-relation , is that your new version of a godwin ?


Let me ask you a few, yes or no, questions:

(1)Errrr...that makes no sense , can you try again ?
(2)No , the government should sue the hell out of the post for a frivolous action and wasting the governments time and money .

[Kralizec]

Full disclosure: I smoke, and seldom frequent bars since the smoking ban.

A smoking ban for so called "horeca" establishments (bars, restaurants, etc) is slated here, the last employment sector in the Netherlands where it's still allowed. The reasoning behind it is the same as you just mentioned: everybody has the right to a smoke free workplace.

I expect that going out would be a lot less fun if I wouldn't be able to smoke anywhere- and plenty of people would agree with me. Bars should be exempt from such a ban. Since smoking is already outlawed in every other workplace, there's no way you can argue that you're forced into anything.

...besides, why the hell would somebody who dislikes smoke chose to work in a bar, where you'd encounter more smoke then in any other workplace even if there were no smoking bans?


This is probably taking this off on a tangent, but the economic impacts of smoking bans are an interesting topic for debate. Personally I don't smoke and find smoking to be such a major turnoff that I won't go out to places where there is smoking allowed. In light of recent smoking bans in Australia it appears that there is a similar view from many - however evidence is patchy with some pointing towards economic boon and some to economic curse.

Ref.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...?from=storyrhs

I'm pretty sceptical of this article. Especially this part:


"People find how wonderful smoke-free bars are - surveys have found almost half people who don't go or who go infrequently to bars and clubs cite smokiness as the reason," he said. "The fact is 80 per cent of the community is non-smoking. If the AHA . . . could see that and seize the opportunity we wouldn't be having this stand-off."

Maybe the bolded part is true, but people who are bothered enough by smoke to stay away from bars or clubs have got to be a pretty insignificant group. The reason that bar and club owners generally don't forbid smoking in their establishments is because they expect, no, know that it will cause them to make less money.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

When the US Army taught me to smoke 35 years ago, everybody smoked, except virgin spinsters who also didn't drink, cuss, or fart. That's all changed now, and it used to surprise me how quickly it did - but I'm used to that now.

What does surprise me is the vehemence of the opposition to smoking. Right here in this thread we've seen folks offer violence, incarceration, and criminalization options toward smokers.

Why is that, you think? Anyone?
A smoker by their very deffinition either doesn't mind or likes ciragette smoke, a non smoker either doesn't like it or wants to aviod it for health reasons.

Smoking isn't somthing that hurts and then just goes away, if it was I doubt there would be such a problem with it.

Now I know this can seem petty but I have seen the damage done by smoking, Yeah ive also seen people ''get away with it'' and seemingly suffer few concequences although you could never truly know if they instead just gave someone else cancer, but it still remains that smoking is a serious cause of death.

Its also the invasiveness of it, if im walking down a street and someone is smoking I can stop them I can't block them out and i guess i would see it as an invasion of my freedom, to have fresh air.

Now I can understand that being seen as precosious, but then is demanding smoking breaks all the time not too?

hasn't it also been found that cigerette smoke is far more harmful then exaust fumes?

To put this in context I wouldnt have a problem with this private club if their all smokers or dont mind. As long as the non smoking members or staff have the freedom say they do mind and not be stigmatized, when someone chooses to smoke they should be the ones that make allowances.

I definately wouldn't suggest incarceration, violence or criminalization, i just would like smokers (in general I know there are considerate smokers)
to have more respect for the complaints of non smokers. After all i like to think that if I was a smoker I would.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not a smoker, but so many of the non-smokers are ridiculously prissy about it. You have to breath it in for years for it to do any damage. The restaurant and bar laws were passed to protect the people who worked there not the patrons.

@tribesman: your argument is trivial and all you are doing is trolling.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I'm not a smoker, but so many of the non-smokers are ridiculously prissy about it. You have to breath it in for years for it to do any damage. The restaurant and bar laws were passed to protect the people who worked there not the patrons.

@tribesman: your argument is trivial and all you are doing is trolling.
Not necessary, any amount of exposure to the toxic chemicals in smoke can trigger cancer.

''Tobacco-related diseases are some of the biggest killers in the world today and are the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will suffer shortened life-spans due to smoking.[30]''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking#Social_effects

that's the equivalent of 168 September the 11ths, a year.

Like i say i wouldn't call for it to be made illegal, But i think smokers should be more considerate of non smokers, after all it was their choice to take up smoking so they should be the ones that make allowances.

[Proletariat]

...any amount of exposure to the toxic chemicals in smoke can trigger cancer.

I don't see where this is supported in that wiki article...

[Tribesman]

@tribesman: your argument is trivial and all you are doing is trolling.

No it isn't , it is directly at the core of the subject ...the laws in question and their relation to the building in question .
That is the topic isn't it ?

If you consider the subject to be something other than the state laws covering post 149 and that posts challenge the application of those laws then please inform me what the hell it is ?
If not then what are you on about ?:dizzy2:

Its simple isn't it Sasaki ....do the laws cover this business or is it exempt ?
Is this building open to the public on a reguar basis ....YES
Does it have employees ?....YES
So is it exempt ?.......NO

Now if that is trolling then you had better come up with a new definition of the word:thumbsdown:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I don't see where this is supported in that wiki article...

Directly supported? any exposure to Carcinogens can cause cancer, its just the risk that increases with increased exposure.

[Proletariat]

Pretty misleading, I'd say. Like saying that any amount of lotto playing can result in millions.

[Xiahou]

hasn't it also been found that cigerette smoke is far more harmful then exaust fumes?I'd call BS on any study that says that. Here's a test you can try at home... run a hose from your car exhaust thru the top of the window. Sit in the car with the engine running. Similarly, sit in a closed car with a chain smoker. See under which circumstance you slip into a coma and die first. :wink:


Directly supported? any exposure to Carcinogens can cause cancer, its just the risk that increases with increased exposure.We're exposed to so many supposed carcinogens throughout the average day that a little second hand smoke would be insignificant. If a whiff of cigarette smoke is enough to trigger cancer in you, you would've gotten it anyway.

[Ser Clegane]

You have to breath it in for years for it to do any damage.

I would not be too sure about that.

Scottish smoking ban leads to huge drop in heart attacks (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506730,00.html)

Granted - what is shown in the article still falls short on showing an actual causality, IMO - however, I think it provides some good indication that the statement I quoted is far from being a proven point.

I am a non-smoker and generally I do not have a problem with people having a smoke in my presence from time to time - can't say though that I will miss the smoke after smoking will be banned in bars and restaurants in Hessia starting on October 1...

[Byzantine Mercenary]

''WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 2 million older people alive today in China are likely to die from emphysema and other chronic lung diseases caused by second-hand smoke, researchers predicted on Thursday.

Their estimates are part of a series of studies showing that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, is far more common than had been recognized around the world and will present a serious problem for health officials.''

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?alias=second-hand-smoke-to-kill

''Tobacco products have no safe level of consumption''

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/tobacco/who-tobacco.htm

Second hand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4998.html

Although i will admit that this side to my argument is weaker, i still don't see why smokers shouldn't offer non smokers the choice to not be exposed to their smoke.


Pretty misleading, I'd say. Like saying that any amount of lotto playing can result in millions.
it can, anyway is not arbitrarily linking the lottery into this equally misleading?


I'd call BS on any study that says that. Here's a test you can try at home... run a hose from your car exhaust thru the top of the window. Sit in the car with the engine running. Similarly, sit in a closed car with a chain smoker. See under which circumstance you slip into a coma and die first. :wink:

I can't find the scientific american article on this il post it up when i find it. Although i don't see what carbon monoxide poisoning has to do with carcinogens :inquisitive:

EDIT: finding the article is like finding a needle in a hackstack unfortunately and i dont expect you to take my word for it however this link goes some way to backing me up

''The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust, a small Italian study finds.''

http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6312

[Watchman]

Plus doesn't your average car engine put out a rather lot more stuff, volume-wise at least, than a ciggie ? That's like comparing getting water in the face from a water gun and a high-pressure hose...

Its relevance to the unpleasant long-term side effects of secondhand smoke is of course questionable at best.

[Boyar Son]

Oh, you think? Or is that just what you've been taught to think because one is taboo and the other is a multi billion dollar industry that has donated for decades to major political parties?


For example, smoking cigarettes is much more dangerous for a pregnant mother to do than smoking crack cocaine.

Hmm.:juggle2:

I tried to make an argument against crack and weed being more dangerous than tobacco, but.... tobacco smokers seem to depend on ciggerates just as much as crack and weed smokers.

[Xiahou]

Its relevance to the unpleasant long-term side effects of secondhand smoke is of course questionable at best.
All he said was "more harmful". Nothing about long-term this-and-that. Regardless, people who live in urban areas are likely to suck in enough smog, soot, and other crud (most of which is carcinogenic) that occasional second hand smoke should be virtually insignificant. Really, way too much is being made of it.

[Husar]

It still smells bad, but then public farting isn't banned either so I'll be quiet now.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I see you've fallen back on to some argument that the Post is open to the public all the time. Funny how first you argued that private facilities can't have smoking, then that it was a workplace and so they couldn't smoke and now you say it's not private at all but a public work spot.

That's really funny, since even the state that's trying to get them to stop smoking doesn't say they are a public space. All they say is that they can't smoke since it's a place of employment, an argument I have already addressed and you yourself have stopped backing.

You register that? The state and county puts no stock in your 'its a public space' argument.

They say they are a private facility. So seeing as they
1) Know a heck of a lot more about it then you do
and
2)You haven't produced anything to support any of your arguments,
I'm going to believe them.

Crazed Rabbit

[KukriKhan]

For the sake of the reader, let's all put away our underline, bolded, super-size script "shouting", please.

[Watchman]

All he said was "more harmful". Nothing about long-term this-and-that. Regardless, people who live in urban areas are likely to suck in enough smog, soot, and other crud (most of which is carcinogenic) that occasional second hand smoke should be virtually insignificant. Really, way too much is being made of it.Now there's a brilliant and responsible argument. "You breathe in so much crap already, a little more won't hurt will it ?" Right, that's going to improve matters.

That's like saying it's okay to dump raw sewage into the ocean because it's, you know, so big and there's you know so much gunk already in there it's not going to have any effect...

See the flaw in the reasoning ? I may have to inhale a lot of nasty stuff every breath I take in the damn city (although, ever been to a big Chinese city...? That's the London Smog right there... puts things in perspective), but I see no reason why I should have to endure the intake of yet more toxins just 'cause some twit has gone and developed a hankerin' for good ole Cancer Sticks(tm).

I'm in the general opinion people should pretty much be allowed to do whatever the fig they want with themselves, so long as they leave others out of it. Smokers don't, so screw them for all I care.

[Bellum]

Liberty is not about destructive actions that kill people, my friend. I am in the majority of the population, by which our laws are made and our nation governed. We dont want to be subjected to noxious fumes even for "5 minutes". Sorry.

Exactly. So ban private transportation.


'Noxious Fumes' are an inevitable occurence in life. Like car accidents or getting hit by a meteor or getting electricuted while pluggin in your computer, or whatever.

That's not to say that someone should be allowed to smoke in your face or anything. I beleive the most sensible smoking legislation is to ban smoking within soandso ft of a nonsmoker in public places. In private places, it should be the decision of the owner. You have a choice to go where you wish. Don't go places where smoking is allowed.


Banning smoking in private establishments is against the rights of the individuals involved. The public should have no say in the matter when it does not involve places owned by the public. Your opinion on how 'evil' or 'bad' smoking is shouldn't matter. The same goes with other private activities like, say, sex, or watching TV or playing video games.

[Sir Moody]

All they say is that they can't smoke since it's a place of employment, an argument I have already addressed and you yourself have stopped backing.

... are you still reading Tribes post or are you doing what he is doing and just "shouting" at each other


Does it have employees ?....YES

that was his last post

look this is simple it isnt a "private club" by law - it is a workplace and so is not exempt to the law - the employees have the right to work in a smoke free enviroment

as an example of an ACTUAL private club, i go to a wargamming club every week - the building is privatly owned and the only people inside on gaming night are members - there are no employees so it is a Private club.

[Tribesman]

I see you've fallen back on to some argument that the Post is open to the public all the time. Funny how first you argued that private facilities can't have smoking, then that it was a workplace and so they couldn't smoke and now you say it's not private at all but a public work spot.

No Rabbit all points still stand .
It is a workplace , it is registered for tax as a workplace , it is not a private residence . It is not exempt .
It is open to the public when it is open (apart from when the public are excluded for members only meetings , but even then there are employees in attendance in theirjobcapacity so it is a workplace ) , it is not "only occasionaly" open to the public . It is not exempt .


They say they are a private facility. So seeing as they
1) Know a heck of a lot more about it then you do

No they don't , the local post apparently says they are a private club , the Legion which gives them the accreditation to run the facility under the name of the legion says it is a community service outlet . It is open to the public , it is what it is there for .
That is what the Posts are , they are the local community service outlets of the Legion .

The state and county puts no stock in your 'its a public space' argument.
So you didn't read it then , what the state said eh ?
I might help if you did read it :dizzy2:
They said the attempt by the post to redefine the club as not a public space is nonsense (so that means it is a public space eh) :yes:
They also said the posts attempt to graft different sentances of the legislation together to give another meaning when they are clearly put together and have a clear meaning is nonsense .
Lets not even go into what they say about the Posts lame appeal to the constitution of the United States and their fundamental rights as that is just toooooo funny .
They said that none of the exemptions.....let me repeat that ....none of the exemptions could be applied to the facility...all the hearings so far have come to the same conclusion havn't they .


You haven't produced anything to support any of your arguments,
I'm going to believe them.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I don't need to Rabbit , you provided all that was needed with your links :yes:
Everything that is needed is there on the Legions websites and the in legislation you yourself posted .
Perhaps you should actually read them before you try and say what you want to think they say :oops:
Try again Rabbit :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

that was his last post

look this is simple it isnt a "private club" by law - it is a workplace and so is not exempt to the law -

Good grief man, are you reading my posts?

This, specifically:

RCW 70.160.020
This chapter is not intended to restrict smoking in private facilities which are occasionally open to the public except upon the occasions when the facility is open to the public.

The part prohibiting workplace smoking is part of the chapter.



are you still reading Tribes post or are you doing what he is doing and just "shouting" at each other

I am forced to underline the main points because tribesy has a habit of ignoring them when they shoot down his trolling.


the employees have the right to work in a smoke free enviroment

Exactly. They don't have to apply at or continue working at a place that allows smoking.

CR

[Tribesman]

This, specifically:

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What do the courts say about that specifically ?
Explore the website you posted Rabbit , it would be so much easier .
One could almost call it elementary:holmes:

[Watchman]

Exactly. They don't have to apply at or continue working at a place that allows smoking.I'm not quite sure of what exactly the waiters etc. around here thought when our gov't put through the no-smoking legislation, but I'm pretty sure they would be mildly pissed off by your tone here CR.

People with rents to pay and families to feed can't pick and choose their working places as easily as you seem to think, but they are no less entitled for the same health-protection regulations than anyone else for it.

[KukriKhan]

Down here, the final nail in the coffin was when the anti-smoke campaign found/came up with numbers showing the increased health care costs caused by smoking-related disease. Insurance companies and the Healthcare industry nodded their heads when politico's projected tens of billions of dollars saved yearly if everybody stopped smoking today. Voters agreed and approved banning smoke almost everywhere, and taxing tobacco more than liquor and gasoline combined.

So, in about 5 years, the thrust of the campaign moved from
"Smoking is annoying", to
"Your smoking threatens others", to
"Your smoking is killing your wife and kids", to
(the clincher) "Your smoking costs the rest of us money".

With the millions of smokers quitting everyday, how come my health care premiums haven't decreased? They're instead up 33% over 2001.

[Lemur]

With the millions of smokers quitting everyday, how come my health care premiums haven't decreased? They're instead up 33% over 2001.
I didn't hear anything in what you described about passing the savings on to you. Sucker.

[KukriKhan]

Heh, of course. ~:smoking:

(we need a sucker smiley)

[Productivity]

Why is that, you think? Anyone?

Well I haven't gone to the extremes that you suggested but I do have a serious dislike (hatred maybe) of smoking. I've lost one family member to primary smoking and three others to passive smoking from that first member. But for smoking, they would still be allive today and I find it utterly intolerable that anybody can claim that it's a right to inflict death upon someone other than themselves.

[KukriKhan]

I'm sorry for your loss. :bow: And no one can argue with your premise

...I find it utterly intolerable that anybody can claim that it's a right to inflict death upon someone other than themselves.

Most smokers I know would be horrified at the thought that they were inflicting death on anyone with their personal habit. Rather, they've grown up with the idea that smoking was a harmless, innocuous practice; the constant and increasing drumbeat from the anti-smoking camp sounds to them more like hysterical preaching than reasoned persuasion.

Of course, in your family's case, "reasoned persuasion" was probably tried and failed years ago, so I see where you're coming from.

[Soulforged]

That isn't true is it .
Common sense.....smoking .
Smoking is a harmful chemical addiction , where does common sense come into it in this case ?

No, it's true. If there's a subject that I've investigated (as far as affitionate investigation goes) is smoking. And as far as I know there's no proof that second hand smoke is harmful in anyway. I've said this before because this topic has been discussed before. But it seems that after all that has been said and propagandized no one will listen when you say: "But look here's this piece of evidence that shows how wrong they were when they made that research". When the subject comes up on my every day life (not that it comes that often though) and I suddenly say that I can prove to the other person that smoking tabacco isn't going to get anyone killed they believe I'm crazy. The anti-tabacco attitude has reached some serious levels of fanatisms. I won't go deep on that subject because that'll be streching my point too much, but that same fanatism is what leads to people using desperate measures for situations that don't require them at all, infriging constitutional rights and generally making an issue out of a non-issue.


For example, smoking cigarettes is much more dangerous for a pregnant mother to do than smoking crack cocaine.That's pretty unbelievable, have anyway to prove it? Then again, you can come with anything against nicotine this days, like that chapter of Family Guy "Tabacco killed my mother and raped my sister".

Meanwhile, for people who want to see it, here (http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm) is that evidence I'm talking about summarized on one site. You'll even find evidence of why tabacco COULD be beneficial, even for pregnant woman.

[Samurai Waki]

Thats what I kind of admire about Montana, I know most places here have a County Wide Smoking Ban, but nobody, including the law does anything to enforce it, why bother? More important people to catch. The County can get a HELL of a lot more money issuing Traffic Tickets rather than Giving Joe Schmo Smoking a Pack of Marlboro Lights a petty love tap on the finger. Actually, I had a run in with the County Sheriff on Tuesday and he offered to buy me a beer down at the Local Bar. :laugh4:

[Blodrast]

Smoking bad for your health ? What are you smoking ?! (pun intended)
Not only do doctors endorse it - they smoke themselves -, but also they will tell you their favourite brand:
http://img104.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=40606_Camels_122_944lo.jpg

[Byzantine Mercenary]

No, it's true. If there's a subject that I've investigated (as far as affitionate investigation goes) is smoking. And as far as I know there's no proof that second hand smoke is harmful in anyway. I've said this before because this topic has been discussed before. But it seems that after all that has been said and propagandized no one will listen when you say: "But look here's this piece of evidence that shows how wrong they were when they made that research". When the subject comes up on my every day life (not that it comes that often though) and I suddenly say that I can prove to the other person that smoking tabacco isn't going to get anyone killed they believe I'm crazy. The anti-tabacco attitude has reached some serious levels of fanatisms. I won't go deep on that subject because that'll be streching my point too much, but that same fanatism is what leads to people using desperate measures for situations that don't require them at all, infriging constitutional rights and generally making an issue out of a non-issue.

That's pretty unbelievable, have anyway to prove it? Then again, you can come with anything against nicotine this days, like that chapter of Family Guy "Tabacco killed my mother and raped my sister".

Meanwhile, for people who want to see it, here (http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm) is that evidence I'm talking about summarized on one site. You'll even find evidence of why tabacco COULD be beneficial, even for pregnant woman.
If your proof comes from the smoking advocacy group forces international i am not wont to believe it, i haven't quoted non smoking advocacy groups extensively they are just as wont to be biased. Find me a new scientist or scientific American article that says that ''smoking isn't going to get anyone killed''.



Most smokers I know would be horrified at the thought that they were inflicting death on anyone with their personal habit. Rather, they've grown up with the idea that smoking was a harmless, innocuous practice; the constant and increasing drumbeat from the anti-smoking camp sounds to them more like hysterical preaching than reasoned persuasion.

Well is that not the current consensus in the scientific community, why would a horrified smoker take the risk? surely they should avoid smoking around others just in case it could be harming them?...


Down here, the final nail in the coffin was when the anti-smoke campaign found/came up with numbers showing the increased health care costs caused by smoking-related disease. Insurance companies and the Healthcare industry nodded their heads when politico's projected tens of billions of dollars saved yearly if everybody stopped smoking today. Voters agreed and approved banning smoke almost everywhere, and taxing tobacco more than liquor and gasoline combined.

So, in about 5 years, the thrust of the campaign moved from
"Smoking is annoying", to
"Your smoking threatens others", to
"Your smoking is killing your wife and kids", to
(the clincher) "Your smoking costs the rest of us money".

With the millions of smokers quitting everyday, how come my health care premiums haven't decreased? They're instead up 33% over 2001.
Any improvement in general health will take a long time to take effect, and a lot of the damage of smoking is permanent. So your premiums aren't going to suddenly drop, of course governments also have a habit of getting attached to increased revenue and will probably say they can't pass the savings on :wall:. Indeed with deduced cigarette tax revenue they may ask for more money :wall: .



Exactly. They don't have to apply at or continue working at a place that allows smoking.
CR
so the punishment for not wanting to be exposed to cigarette smoke is a reduced job pool? i really don't see why non smokers who do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke should make allowances for smokers, who have chosen the burden themselves on others with their expensive and self destructive habit.

[Zaknafien]

sure here you go


Vol. 285, Issue 3, 931-945, June 1998

FETAL NICOTINE OR COCAINE EXPOSURE: WHICH ONE IS WORSE?

Theodore A. Slotkin

Link (http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/285/3/931)

Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Despite extensive adverse publicity, tobacco use continues in approximately 25% of all pregnancies in the United States, overshadowing illicit drugs of abuse, including cocaine. The societal cost of maternal smoking is seen most readily in underweight newborns, in high rates of perinatal morbidity, mortality and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and in persistent deficits in learning and behavior.

Maternal smoking annually causes as many as 100,000 miscarriages and stillborns, tens of thousands of admissions to intensive-care units, and extensive brain damage -- a toll which dwarfs that of crack-cocaine use -- according to a new study in this month's Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

We have designed animal models of nicotine exposure to prove that nicotine itself is a neuroteratogen, thus providing a causative link between tobacco exposure and adverse perinatal outcomes. In particular, nicotine infusion paradigms that, like the transdermal patch used in man, produce drug exposure without the confounds of other components of tobacco or of episodic hypoxic-ischemic insult, have enabled a mechanistic dissection of the role played by nicotine in fetal brain damage.

Nicotine targets specific neurotransmitter receptors in the fetal brain, eliciting abnormalities of cell proliferation and differentiation, leading to shortfalls in the number of cells and eventually to altered synaptic activity. Because of the close regulatory association of cholinergic and catecholaminergic systems, adverse effects of nicotine involve multiple transmitter pathways and influence not only the immediate developmental events in fetal brain, but also the eventual programming of synaptic competence. Accordingly, defects may appear after a prolonged period of apparent normality, leading to cognitive and learning defects that appear in childhood or adolescence. Comparable alterations occur in peripheral autonomic pathways, leading to increased susceptibility to hypoxia-induced brain damage, perinatal mortality and Sudden Infant Death.

Identifying the receptor-driven mechanisms that underlie the neurobehavioral damage caused by fetal nicotine exposure provides a rational basis for decisions about nicotine substitution therapy for smoking cessation in pregnancy. In contrast to the effects of nicotine, animal models of crack cocaine use in pregnancy indicate a more restricted spectrum of effects, a reflection of differences both in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the two drugs. Notably, although cocaine, like nicotine, also targets cell replication, its effects are short-lived, permitting recovery to occur in between doses, so that the eventual consequences are much less severe.

To some extent, the effects of cocaine on brain development resemble those of nicotine because the two share cardiovascular actions (vasoconstriction) that, under some circumstances, elicit fetal hypoxia-ischemia. In light of the fact that nearly all crack cocaine users smoke cigarettes, the identification of specific developmental effects of cocaine may prove difficult to detect. Although scientists and the public continue to pay far more attention to fetal cocaine effects than to those of nicotine or tobacco use, a change of focus to concentrate on tobacco could have a disproportionately larger impact on human health.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Despite the shouting, this is a good thread.

Caveat:

I am not a smoker. I find smoking olfactorily unpleasant. I very often did choose not to go to some venue to avoid smoke. My father will be dead sometime in the next few months as a consequence of his smoking. One grandfather (ephysema from smoking, though asbestos triggered the cancer) and possibly one grandmother (breast cancer, smoking impact?) have had their lives shortened by cigarette use. I am not a fan of smoking.


Threat:

Primary smoking (of pretty much anything) has been demonstrated to have a significant negative impact on the health of a vast majority of smokers. Secondary smoking (environmental exposure) has not been demonstrated to have a negative impact in anywhere near the same degree. Most research however, does suggest (if not with the resounding numbers primary smoking demonstrates) that secondary exposure is harmful -- which also seems to make sense prima facie.


Analysis:

Most "Western" nations are embarked on a project to marginalize and eliminate smoking by eradicating opportunities to smoke. The anti-smoking crusaders, faced with the inability to attack someone's individual rights (difficult given the nature of our cultures), have instead moved the argument into the infrastructure. By turning the argument to one of protecting the rights of others, the banning of smoking in various venues, etc. has created a functional ban on smoking. It's a classic: do not ban it, simply make it systemically counter-productive to engage in.

Since a clear majority of most "Western" nations are non-smokers, this trend will continue and smoking will become even more marginalized. It will never die out completely, however, precisely because of this marginalization. It will be an act of "rebellion" to be a smoker and a minority of individuals will adopt that identity status by choosing to smoke for some period of their lives. For the mainstream, however, smoking will be a thing of the past as it will be functionally impossible in all but a very few venues.


Commentary:

I am a big fan of property rights. I loathe the homeowners association under which I am forced to live (even though the one I ended up with is as un-onerous as the breed gets). I think it would be better for all concerned if the owner of a given property could decide for themselves whether or not they would allow smoking on that property. Let people vote with their feet. Prior to any attempt to ban smoking in resteraunts etc. here in Virginia, a number of places chose to be smoke-free. Virtually without exception they started making more money than they had been previously. The ban, when it came, was more or less superfluous. I still think such a ban was wrong -- the marketplace was taking care of it just fine.

It is, however, of some concern that employees who do not smoke may not have enough "alternate venues" to participate openly in the market for their services if they are not willing to endure (or cannot endure) smoke. As I hold that my rights can be curtailed (to a reasonable extent) where and if they impinge directly upon the rights of another, I cannot dismiss out of hand efforts to ban smoking in the workplace etc. On the other hand, it does not seem logical to me that EVERY workplace must be smoke free in order to preserve the rights of an individual to market their services in a reasonably free marketplace.

I think it is poor practice for the government to limit individual rights anymore than ABSOLUTELY necessary. Pornography is an industry that adds little (and perhaps subtracts a good bit) from the human condition. Do I have a right to ban that activity? I hold suicide to be a sin. Should it be made illegal? What right have I to prevent Sir Gawain from consuming enough THC to render himself stuporous (unless he is driving a car or otherwise engaging in an activity wherein his diminished capacity might harm me or mine)?


This Club:

There is a valid legal dispute here that Tribesman and Rabbit have both touched on.

Rabbit is completely correct that the law's intent was NOT to ban smoking from a private club save when that club was opened to the public. This is fairly clear from the law's preamble as well as the basic components of the statute. The "fine print," however, may favor Tribesy.

Tribes' is pointing out that it may be considered a "workplace" if it employs non-members and therefore may fall under the law. This is probably the source of the "ban." I am not impressed by this -- I don't think that being unable to tend bar or clean up at the legion hall represents a real diminishment of the job market for those workers -- but acknowledge that this provision of the law may apply here.

Tribes' is also pointing out that it is "open to the public" in that it states that anyone seeking help with veterans paperwork etc may come in. He therefore concludes that it is functionally always open to the public and should therefore be subject to the ban. I think this argument is reaching a bit.


I wish we'd just let owners decide for themselves and consumers and employees vote with their feet. That will not, however, be what happens.

[Crazed Rabbit]

What do the courts say about that specifically ?
Explore the website you posted Rabbit , it would be so much easier .

The website with the state department's response to the Posts's initial appellant brief?

Where said response says two issues are before the court;
whether the ban on smoking in workplaces applies,
and whether said ban on workplace smoking is unconstitutional.

Nothing really about it being a public space, except in the instance of it being a private facility open to the public. Gee, I wonder why. Probably because your argument that American Legion posts are always open to the public is wrong.


They also said the posts attempt to graft different sentances of the legislation together to give another meaning when they are clearly put together and have a clear meaning is nonsense .

If the legislature wanted to prevent smoking in private facilities, or rather the initiative writers, they shouldn't have written the initiative such that being a private facility precluded one from the whole act.

It's not grafting from one paragraph to another if the line from one paragraph says it applies to the whole act.

Am I surprised the courts so far have ruled such that state power is upheld? Nope. I wouldn't be surprised if our Supreme Court, controlled by liberal nanny-staters, upheld it. That still doesn't mean it's right.



(2)No , the government should sue the hell out of the post for a frivolous action and wasting the governments time and money

So you're a supporter of the facist view. I see. Not surprised, though.


so the punishment for not wanting to be exposed to cigarette smoke is a reduced job pool?

Yeah, just like not wanting to work certain hours, not wanting to work 'dirty' jobs, etc.

CR

[Watchman]

Yeah, just like not wanting to work certain hours, not wanting to work 'dirty' jobs, etc.Indeed, just who do these servants think they are ? Scandalous.

[Fragony]

Indeed, just who do these servants think they are ? Scandalous.

People that are payed to do their jobs perhaps? If they don't like it they should get another one. Government is tresspassing here, private property is private property. This sort of intrusion is mighty creepy.

[Watchman]

I'm fairly certain something to that effect was also argued back during the Industrial Revolution.

[Fragony]

I'm fairly certain something to that effect was also argued back during the Industrial Revolution.

Well yeah, but then people had to work till they drop and slightly afterwards, the outrage because of the minor discomfort of these innocent lambs is kind of a insult to the hardhips of these people that actually had to work don't you think? Very idealist of you of course but how about a little proportionality?

[Watchman]

So you're saying that just 'cause the really vile stuff got thankfully done away with a century ago there's no reason to fix the minor points now ?

[Kralizec]

so the punishment for not wanting to be exposed to cigarette smoke is a reduced job pool? i really don't see why non smokers who do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke should make allowances for smokers, who have chosen the burden themselves on others with their expensive and self destructive habit.

I'd say that doing construction work or road maintanance is just as, if not more detrimental to your general health then breathing in a negligable amount of second hand smoke from a ventilated room.

Besides that, I can see the need for forcing most employers to create designated smoking areas. Most wouldn't do it on their own initiative, while a majority of the workforce doesn't smoke. For offices or factories it doesn't cause much trouble.
However when we're talking about a company or institution that's supposed to provide a specific service to its "customers" (bars, hotels, or better yet: private member clubs) a similarly wide reaching smoking ban harms its ability to do so.
Under this law and jurisprudence, members of a private club can't chose to smoke in their own building once they start hiring people for minor tasks. Hiring people that smoke themselves or don't mind it at all isn't an option because they can't waive this "right".

[Byzantine Mercenary]

You make a good point Seamus Fermanagh, But I am not so sure that these measures will reduce the numbers of smokers that dramatically.

In new zealand they have a smoking ban, but there are still many smokers going to clubs and many bars now have outside smoking areas or heated balconys for smokers. Now this seems like an ideal compramise realy, smokers have a number of different bars they can go to and smoke still.

Now as for the workforce question, you may say ''they can choose'' well that isnt always true. Not all places have masses of jobs indeed im sure many people here have had trouble finding work at some time or another (heck i have). If the only available job was somewhere with a smokey atmosphere then they only have one choice, work there or not at all.

If i ran a dangerous factory and someone hurt themselves, could I say ''hey you know my safety record, you coulda chosen somwhere safer''?

Again if this is a private club let them smoke away, as long as the other non smoking members don't mind. But if they have staff they have a duty to provide them with a non smoking enviroment.

I guess it all boils down to this realy, if you choose to smoke thats fine, just don't expect others to make allowances for it, it was your choice...

[Fragony]

Yep Watchman. There is idealism and perfectionism, idealists sell their house and fly to Sudan to play soccer with ex-childsoldiers, perfectionists look for the tallest building they can find and demand that the government builds another floor. Personally I think that if you accept a job at a country club you should be able to deal with a little smoke, change job not the job.

[Watchman]

And personally I fail to see why what's basically employee protection legislation shouldn't apply inside the blasted club as well. It's not exactly sovereign territory.

[Fragony]

And personally I fail to see why what's basically employee protection legislation shouldn't apply inside the blasted club as well. It's not exactly sovereign territory.

True, but there is a fine line between what's reasonable and what is not, having to deal with smoke in a club sounds pretty reasonable to me. It's private property, so it is actually kinda sovereign property in the sense that the government has no right to tell you how to run it as long as you don't break the law too much. Proportionality thingie. Blasted club, slip of the tongue? ~;)

[Kralizec]

And personally I fail to see why what's basically employee protection legislation shouldn't apply inside the blasted club as well. It's not exactly sovereign territory.

I think Tribesman is right in so far that the law does cover the club. And it's a bad law because of it.

Maybe they can pay an Indian (native American) to buy the club, I'm not entirely sure but I believe that they're exempt from state jurisdiction wich is why there are so many Indian run casinos. Alternatively they should just close the entire club to the public, hire only chain smokers and pay them sufficiently well to ensure they don't tell anybody.

[KukriKhan]

It's pretty clear to me that Bremerton's AL Post 149 will lose this case, and smoking will be banned there. The only way to avoid that would be to shut down their bar and food operations, and close the Post to all but consenting members - which would violate their own constitution and sense of duty, and they won't do.

So, the (now, elderly) warriors of Normandy, Pusan, DaNang and elsewhere will have to leave the clubhouse they bought and paid for (and still pay annual dues for) and push their walkers out to the rainey parking lot to satisfy their sinful, society-destroying habit.

That what they do here already, for 4 years now. And I sadly shake my head every time I see it - these defenders of freedom shunted to the alley.

[Watchman]

True, but there is a fine line between what's reasonable and what is not, having to deal with smoke in a club sounds pretty reasonable to me. It's private property, so it is actually kinda sovereign property in the sense that the government has no right to tell you how to run it as long as you don't break the law too much. Proportionality thingie. Blasted club, slip of the tongue? ~;)Not really, just minor annaoyance. Particularly as I'm apparently supposed to be persuaded the law should not apply there simply because it's private property, which is patently absurd - it's not an embassy or similar plot of formally sovereign real estate, which insofar as my understanding of the Westphalian state goes means it falls ultimately under state jurisdication, period.

And if the gov't then passes a law that doesn't specifically exclude private clubs like it, then it either obeys the law or finds out what "monopoly on legitimate use of force" means.

Whatever failures the US law enforcement agencies now might have regarding actually doing their jobs nonwithstanding.

[Fragony]

Not really, just minor annaoyance. Particularly as I'm apparently supposed to be persuaded the law should not apply there simply because it's private property, which is patently absurd - it's not an embassy or similar plot of formally sovereign real estate, which insofar as my understanding of the Westphalian state goes means it falls ultimately under state jurisdication, period.

And if the gov't then passes a law that doesn't specifically exclude private clubs like it, then it either obeys the law or finds out what "monopoly on legitimate use of force" means.

Whatever failures the US law enforcement agencies now might have regarding actually doing their jobs nonwithstanding.

Law isn't meant to be absolute, that is why we have judges. If the judge is a robot running his queery's, then they are screwed. If the judge is a thinking human being he will decide that this is an absurd situation that should be considered rather specifically. It seems like these guys have fallen victim by blitzkrieg-lobbyists who want to do as much damage as possible, 'nobody escapes us not even those that fought so that we may wine'. If you want do some home improvement, kindly allow me to slip a protected frog into your garden and prevent you from painting your roof.

[HoreTore]

That's like saying it's okay to dump raw sewage into the ocean because it's, you know, so big and there's you know so much gunk already in there it's not going to have any effect...

I'd rather switch "dump raw sewage" with "letting kids pee".

I think prolly is spot on with her reasoning. Come on, seriously, a cigarette every so often won't hurt you. Smoking 10-20 a day will, however. But we already know that. And yet we continue to smoke. Why? Because it's damn good, that's why!


(btw, I don't smoke, I use snus)

[Watchman]

Applying for a special exemption is another thing, although I'm under the impression legislatures tend to be a little tight-fisted about those for certain fairly obvious reasons.

But without such specific privileges I fail to perceive why they would be any less affected by the law than any other locale classified as falling under it, or why the place being private property had a thing to do with the matter. Quite a lot of real estate is private property, and there's a whole lot of laws affecting it - and it sure as heck isn't sovereign even in principle.

[Husar]

I think prolly is spot on with her reasoning. Come on, seriously, a cigarette every so often won't hurt you. Smoking 10-20 a day will, however. But we already know that. And yet we continue to smoke. Why? Because it's damn good, that's why!
It's only good once you're addicted, if you're not addicted you can feel good without it. Apart from that it smells, costs money and time and can kill. And most people smoke 10-20 a day I think, just count how often certain people leave the chat to smoke within an hour or two.:sweatdrop:

[HoreTore]

It's only good once you're addicted, if you're not addicted you can feel good without it. Apart from that it smells, costs money and time and can kill. And most people smoke 10-20 a day I think, just count how often certain people leave the chat to smoke within an hour or two.:sweatdrop:

Why do you think I started in the first place? Because it was HEAVENLY!!

[Soulforged]

If your proof comes from the smoking advocacy group forces international i am not wont to believe it, i haven't quoted non smoking advocacy groups extensively they are just as wont to be biased. Find me a new scientist or scientific American article that says that ''smoking isn't going to get anyone killed''.Not necessary. The site uses links to scientific evidence (read them if you understand formal scientific research reports), which are in no where related to them. All supposed reasearchs (EDIT: sorry I meant campaings) on USA so far are based on the same results gotten by the WHO, which if you read the page on the site, you'll know why the conclussions are biased and they're also not derivated from the research. I don't have many sources to provide you given the vast majority of people refuse to believe smoking is not as harmful as portrayed and that there's no evidence that second hand smoke is harmful at all.

Any improvement in general health will take a long time to take effect, and a lot of the damage of smoking is permanent. So your premiums aren't going to suddenly drop, of course governments also have a habit of getting attached to increased revenue and will probably say they can't pass the savings on :wall:. Indeed with deduced cigarette tax revenue they may ask for more money :wall: .There'll be no improvement mate, there are a lot of other factors that reduce health in modern society, all of those are much more dangerous than smoking.

So the punishment for not wanting to be exposed to cigarette smoke is a reduced job pool? i really don't see why non smokers who do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke should make allowances for smokers, who have chosen the burden themselves on others with their expensive and self destructive habit.I want to believe that I fight for freedom, I'm not really fighting but I try to convince everyone I can. If you want to know why I'm so sure of it, its because the government and media in general tend to explode everything out of proportion, always exagerating everything. When the WHO said that smoking increased the risk of getting lung cancer by 40% I couldn't help it but become an skeptic and then there was also world wide anti-tabacco propaganda which stated irresponsably that smoking CAUSED cancer and other deseases.

I can't do more really, if you're not in the mood for some reading, at least read the article on the WHO study and form your own conclusions.

At Zaknafien:

In light of the fact that nearly all crack cocaine users smoke cigarettes, the identification of specific developmental effects of cocaine may prove difficult to detect.Mmmm...I wonder how they can be so sure. You see this is the same problem that scientific research has when trying to stablish a causal link between smoking and cancer, is really hard to know what causes cancer, there's a lot of factors and post-mortem studies of a particular case often cannot determine wheter or not a certain factor was the cause, the same goes for the supposed cardio-vascular deseases. Everything is nebolous regarding smoking, so the best a government can do is abstain itself from restricting personal liberties.


Most research however, does suggest (if not with the resounding numbers primary smoking demonstrates) that secondary exposure is harmful -- which also seems to make sense prima facie.Why does it make sense? From my perspective I could say that the chemicals have been processed by another organism before being freed into the air that other people breath, ergo it doesn't have the same composition, ergo perhaps it's not as harmful, or not harmful at all.

[Husar]

Why do you think I started in the first place? Because it was HEAVENLY!!
I thought you said that you don't smoke?
That chewing Tobacco isn't really annoying or dangerous for anyone besides you I guess.
But what I usually get in my nose from smokers isn't heavenly in the slightest.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And personally I fail to see why what's basically employee protection legislation shouldn't apply inside the blasted club as well. It's not exactly sovereign territory.

You know, this view seems to be insulting to those employees. It's a belief that they are incapable of protecting themselves, and so need government help, like a child needs a mother.

Smoking is not some insidious undetectable poison that people are unaware of until they keel over.

People who choose to work at a bar that allows smoking know what they are doing. They are not naive children. You even insist they are too stupid to be able to waive that right. And the extremely unlikely event that the only job available is at a smoking facility, why should they be able to force their prejudice on the owner of the establishment? If employees really hate smokey environments so much, no one will work there and it will go out of business.

That would allow the people to decide, one of the best traits of capitalism, and one many people seemingly don't care for.

CR

[Husar]

Yeah, just like gasmasks are insulting to soldiers CR.

You might be forgetting that some of them cannot find another job and their options are work at a bar or sleep under a bridge.:dizzy2:

[Watchman]

The law goes equally to all, obviously specific exemptions nonwithstanding. The opinion of the employees is, in fact, somewhat irrelevant here.

Which is really sort of the point; if you did allow special exemptions just because "the employees asked to", what are the odds unscrupulous employers wouldn't pressure seven kinds of Hell out of them to do so ? I've rather little faith in the Management in these matters, given how much of the "voluntary" overtime workers do these days is factually anything but.
Now granted, we're talking about a club here and not a 1800s factory, but the principle stands all the same.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Not necessary. The site uses links to scientific evidence (read them if you understand formal scientific research reports), which are in no where related to them. All supposed reasearchs (EDIT: sorry I meant campaings) on USA so far are based on the same results gotten by the WHO, which if you read the page on the site, you'll know why the conclussions are biased and they're also not derivated from the research. I don't have many sources to provide you given the vast majority of people refuse to believe smoking is not as harmful as portrayed and that there's no evidence that second hand smoke is harmful at all.
To be honest i found the site hard to navigate loads of links and text but very few to outside sites and those that i ttied didn't work. It would take a lot to convince me that the WHO, the world bank and Universitys have united in a ''Cartel'' in order to what eliminate tobbacco? why? to be honest this reminds me of scientists teaming up to ''invent'' global warming, evolution etc, discredit the scientists so you can ignore the science...


There'll be no improvement mate, there are a lot of other factors that reduce health in modern society, all of those are much more dangerous than smoking.
have you seen a smokers lungs? have you watched a smoker gasp for breath you can't seriously be trying to say that the health effects of long term smoking are minor?
'
I accept sceptisism on Passive smoking, it isnt the easyest area to investigate but heck i would rather take a better safe the sorry apporach.


I want to believe that I fight for freedom, I'm not really fighting but I try to convince everyone I can. If you want to know why I'm so sure of it, its because the government and media in general tend to explode everything out of proportion, always exagerating everything. When the WHO said that smoking increased the risk of getting lung cancer by 40% I couldn't help it but become an skeptic and then there was also world wide anti-tabacco propaganda which stated irresponsably that smoking CAUSED cancer and other deseases.
I can understand sceptism of goverment claims thats good for a healthy society, but is there not a difference in the chance of getting smokeing between smokers and non smokers?

''Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main contributor to lung cancer. In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women).[30] Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%. Among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in non-smokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer


I can't do more really, if you're not in the mood for some reading, at least read the article on the WHO study and form your own conclusions.
I read it but couldnt find a link to the sudy that worked for me

[HoreTore]

I thought you said that you don't smoke?

True. Smoke is way to mild, not nearly enough of the good nicotine. And I rarely have a free hand, so it's impractical too.


That chewing Tobacco isn't really annoying or dangerous for anyone besides you I guess.

Tell that to me GF :juggle2:
It isn't chewing tobacco though...


But what I usually get in my nose from smokers isn't heavenly in the slightest.

Well, that is the "exhaust" of the sigarette. That's what you blow out... Try filling the tank of your car with exhaust fumes, and see how far it'll go ;)

Nicotine shock is kinda like alcohol. It gives a similar "high"(of course, way smaller).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why does it make sense? From my perspective I could say that the chemicals have been processed by another organism before being freed into the air that other people breath, ergo it doesn't have the same composition, ergo perhaps it's not as harmful, or not harmful at all.

The end of the cigarette lets off smoke as it burns.

On the other hand, there are studies that show that smokers who quit before they are 30 live as long as non-smokers. Which leads me to believe that some people are a bit hysterical about 2nd hand smoke (asking someone not to smoke next to them etc). People say smoking kills you, but everyone dies anyway. So really smoking just takes a few years off your life and if someone feels the benefits of smoking outweigh that then why shouldn't they smoke?

I think what Seamus said about letting market forces decide is the way to go. And Khukri is on point about what makes this case especially wrong.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yeah, just like gasmasks are insulting to soldiers CR.

Are you serious? You're equating soldiers in a warzone where someone is trying to kill them using fast acting poisons with being around secondhand smoke?


You might be forgetting that some of them cannot find another job and their options are work at a bar or sleep under a bridge.:dizzy2:

Oh please. That's not an issue in the US; there are shelters and welfare and unemployment benefits.


Which is really sort of the point; if you did allow special exemptions just because "the employees asked to", what are the odds unscrupulous employers wouldn't pressure seven kinds of Hell out of them to do so ?

:rolleyes:
Please. Again, you assume employees are little children who can't stand up for themselves. Look at EA; they force lots of unpaid overtime and because of it a lot of people quit regularly.

CR

[Watchman]

Are you serious? You're equating soldiers in a warzone where someone is trying to kill them using fast acting poisons with being around secondhand smoke?Actually, one rather major reason pretty much nobody's used chemical weapons against soldiers since 1918 is that A) those guys are protected and trained in countermeasures B) the crap doesn't actually work very well. Seriously. Even the nasty stuff back in the trenches only actually killed any meaningful number of people if there was a mass panic and those who had succumbed to the initial exposure were left to rot there in the poison clouds. Otherwise you could only expect to put a lot of people into recovery for a while; even without decent protective gear entire units might hold their positions and keep shooting in spite of being knee deep in some nasty :daisy: like phosgene.

They turned to mustard gas - essentially an area-denial irritant which had earlier been passed over due to its lack of killing power - simply because the gas-masks got so good the respiratory agents no longer worked worth a damn.

The nightmares modern chemistry has cooked up, like the higher-end nerve agent war gases, are of course another issue - but nobody actually uses them so...


Oh please. That's not an issue in the US; there are shelters and welfare and unemployment benefits.*snrk* By what I know nobody in their right minds leaves himself reliant on those if alternatives exist - not that unemployement tended to be most people's priority career developement in any case.


Please. Again, you assume employees are little children who can't stand up for themselves. Look at EA; they force lots of unpaid overtime and because of it a lot of people quit regularly. Assume, nothing. Do you happen to know what "little to negotiate with" means ? Particularly these days workers tend to be expendable - once they will no longer put up with the demands imposed on them, get new ones who will. Tends not be too difficult; there's usually a queue of folks hungry for a salary, indeed, often (barely) subsisting on that selfsame social security you mentioned earlier...

Trade unions and protective labour regulations came into existence specifically to rectify the imbalance in negotiating positions between the Employer and the Employee. One schmuck tends not have much else to put to the table than his work output, and there's no shortage of them.

[Husar]

Well, that is the "exhaust" of the sigarette. That's what you blow out...
After inhaling it and lots of it's friends.


On the other hand, there are studies that show that smokers who quit before they are 30 live as long as non-smokers.
That's good to know.:2thumbsup:


Which leads me to believe that some people are a bit hysterical about 2nd hand smoke (asking someone not to smoke next to them etc). People say smoking kills you, but everyone dies anyway. So really smoking just takes a few years off your life and if someone feels the benefits of smoking outweigh that then why shouldn't they smoke?
Well, everybody dies anyway, so why don't we all meet and kill one another? Last man standing is a loser.:dizzy2: ~;)
Apart from killing you, heavy smoking also lowers your effective lung volume and thus makes breathing harder, some chain smokers already get problems when there is no elevator. And then you may know these guys who always put some funky machine to their throat in order to speak like robots.:clown:


Are you serious? You're equating soldiers in a warzone where someone is trying to kill them using fast acting poisons with being around secondhand smoke?
No, but why give soldiers gas masks? If they don't like inhaling deadly poisonous gases, there are other jobs, right? They know what to expect when they sign up.:dizzy2:
Also everybody dies anyway.


Oh please. That's not an issue in the US; there are shelters and welfare and unemployment benefits.
What a nanny state.:laugh4: ~;)

[Tribesman]

Nothing really about it being a public space, except in the instance of it being a private facility open to the public. Gee, I wonder why. Probably because your argument that American Legion posts are always open to the public is wrong.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Errrrrr......Try again, what does it say ?
As for the open to the public , check the mission statement of the American Legion describing the activities of their Posts...it is an American Legion Post isn't it:idea2: It is good for gaining membership don't ya know:idea2: It is in the frigging manual about how to run a Post don't ya know. :dizzy2:


It's not grafting from one paragraph to another if the line from one paragraph says it applies to the whole act.

No , it is taking a sentance of definition 2 and trying to graft it onto a sentnce of definition 3 and attemting to say that 2 =3 ..hey to sort of use a phrase you used ...they should know..they wrote the thing....its there in the intent:idea2:



If the legislature wanted to prevent smoking in private facilities, or rather the initiative writers, they shouldn't have written the initiative such that being a private facility precluded one from the whole act.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
It doesn't , only a fool could think it does .

So now rabit , if the local leadersip think the action is crap , the national leadership think the action is crap , the judiciary think the action is crap then what basis do you have to think the case is not crap ?
Perhaps the quorum at the Post meetings was made up of acid vets from the Vietnam era who are estranged from reality .



Now then I wonder why I am familiar with anti-smoking legislation in the US and attempts to circumvent that legislation? and tere have been lots and lots of attempts , This one gets a bit of publicity because it is attatched to the Legion and flag waving morons get on the "Its Veterans" bandwagon .......
...errr..Irish...Pubs ...America....It can be got around but it is complicated..very complicated and generally involves sweeteners for the relevant officials .:yes:
In a similar way as the legislation is got around over here...a great one two weeks ago , a woman complained about people smoking in the pub .
The landlord (American as it happens) explained that the pub was closed (not open to the public), there were no employees working as the pub was closed (not exposing employees to noxious fumes) , it was his front room of his house (Private facility when it is not open)....would she like to leave or would she like another drink....she had another drink and was still there when left at 4 O'clock .

[Crazed Rabbit]

No , it is taking a sentance of definition 2 and trying to graft it onto a sentnce of definition 3 and attemting to say that 2 =3 ..hey to sort of use a phrase you used ...they should know..they wrote the thing....its there in the intent

So you're saying a statement that applies to the entire act...does not apply to the entire act?

Riigggggghhhhhhhhhht.

As for your continued whining about being open to the public, the American Legion has this to say:

The Post is the community service outlet of The American Legion and provides opportunities for social activity and mutual support among the community's veterans. Our organization will stand or fall on our abiliity to properly explain Legion programs and policies to members of the community and to successfully carry out selfless acts of service to our community, state and nation.

Post officials should strive to maintain a balance between the need to provide programs of entertainment and personal interest for members and the need for members to attend Post meetings and perform community service. As long as meetings are made attractive, members will attend. Where local activities are allowed to lag, membership will decrease. Every member of The American Legion has earned the right to belong, and in belonging has made a contribution of time and money the The American Legion can ill afford to squander.

Gee, not much about Posts being open to the public, huh? Probably why the state and county did not base their case on that.


Particularly these days workers tend to be expendable - once they will no longer put up with the demands imposed on them, get new ones who will. Tends not be too difficult; there's usually a queue of folks hungry for a salary, indeed, often (barely) subsisting on that selfsame social security you mentioned earlier...

Maybe were you live, but unemployment in the US is pretty low right now. Must be the capitalism.

CR

[Tribesman]

So you're saying a statement that applies to the entire act...does not apply to the entire act?

No Rabbit ,a definition in the act is not and cannot be grafted onto another definiton to give a new definition when they are two sepearate definitions . that is clear as the courts have ruled again and again...RRRRRIIIIIIggggghhhhtttt:dizzy2:


Gee, not much about Posts being open to the public, huh?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: try again rabbit eh , try community service outlet programs ..like form filling , legal assistance ,youth outreach , funeral arrangements , flag burning , financial assistance , employment assistance , housing assistanace , educational programs , rehabilitation...oh it just goes on and on .... they must be vey busy:sweatdrop: .....none of which are members only and all are available to the public during opening hours as required.

Probably why the state and county did not base their case on that.
Errrrr...they said it was nonsense and didn't even require any ruling....they threw it out rabbit ..they didn' t base a case on it because there was no case the Post could make on those grounds .

Rabbit your constant attempts at justification in an unjustifiable case are futile ...are you just trolling ?:inquisitive:


Face facts rabbit this case came about over people lighting up in the lounge of the post club ...they were breaking the law ..no two ways about it . It is clearly covered in the legislation .
Perhaps if they had a bigger facility and could get around the ordinace on distance, ventilation , public spaces and employees they might just have a case if they can get the regulating authorities to approve of the measures they take to comply with those laws , but as they don't and havn't they are just pissing into the wind with their tax exempt income fighting an unwinnable case.

You know all this ....
Recently in Washington state we passed a initiative banning smoking in public spaces, like bars and restaurants, even privately owned ....so what the hell are you trying to argue against ?
It does seem that you are trying to argue against something that you have said is true....not really very clever eh .
Would that be trolling that you is doing ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Whatever tribes.

Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?

CR

[HoreTore]

After inhaling it and lots of it's friends.

Well... The gas an engine "inhales" is the exhaust fumes "and a few of its friends"... But does gasoline smell like/feel like exhaust fumes?

[Husar]

Well... The gas an engine "inhales" is the exhaust fumes "and a few of its friends"... But does gasoline smell like/feel like exhaust fumes?
Do you burn the Tobacco in your lungs?:inquisitive:

Can't really say since I never ever tasted a cigarette. I just know people who did and they didn't particularly like it, especially not the first time, which makes me wonder why some others keep doing it. That's like touching a hot plate and doing it until your skin is so burned that you can't feel it anymore. ~;)

[Zaknafien]

Whatever tribes.

Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?

CR

Uh, what does being veterans have anything to do with this case? They're still just people, under the rule of law. no different than anyone else, period.

[Watchman]

Rabbit seems to imply they should be getting special privileges or something.
Maybe were you live, but unemployment in the US is pretty low right now. Must be the capitalism.The one which unscrupulously uses illegal immigrant labour to keep wages down, and then exploits the unfortunates who fall to the tender mercies of the social "security" as a wholly disposable functionally indentitured minimum-labour pool ?

Yeah, I guess that keeps the unemployement figures down all right. But I think I'll stick to our socialism as the less vile alternative.

[Fragony]

Yeah, why settle for economic freedom if you can have a mammoth government controlling every aspect of your life.

[Watchman]

I take it you're intimately familiar with the Finnish and more generally Scandinavian socioeconomic arrangement ?
Let's just say that we were the ones who imported raw materials from the USSR and exported finished products back in.

[Fragony]

I take it you're intimately familiar with the Finnish and more generally Scandinavian socioeconomic arrangement ?


Yeah, buying these girls a drink is pure madness.

[Watchman]

In-depth field research, I see.

[Fragony]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhht don't give them any ideas, they might tax watching

[Watchman]

That would be an exercise in pointlessness. They just tax the beer you're drinking - good luck evading that.

[Fragony]

True, a fin drinking beer is all over the place ~;)

[Watchman]

IMO beer might as well be declared our national cuisine, certainly.

[KukriKhan]

...Perhaps the quorum at the Post meetings was made up of acid vets from the Vietnam era who are estranged from reality...

Now then I wonder why I am familiar with anti-smoking legislation in the US and attempts to circumvent that legislation? and tere have been lots and lots of attempts , This one gets a bit of publicity because it is attatched to the Legion and flag waving morons get on the "Its Veterans" bandwagon .......
...errr..Irish...Pubs ...America....It can be got around but it is complicated..very complicated and generally involves sweeteners for the relevant officials ...

So, some folks here think 'Nam vets are acid-trippers - those that examine the 'veterans angle' on this issue are "flag-waving morons" - and the Am Legion should not enjoy IRS 501(c) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)) tax-emempt status. And that the smart answer to this dilemma is to quietly pay bribes to officials and squeaky wheels.

Maybe that works in Galway. Not here. Neither the disrespect, nor the endorsement of corruption.

[HoreTore]

Do you burn the Tobacco in your lungs?:inquisitive:

Can't really say since I never ever tasted a cigarette. I just know people who did and they didn't particularly like it, especially not the first time, which makes me wonder why some others keep doing it. That's like touching a hot plate and doing it until your skin is so burned that you can't feel it anymore. ~;)

The people who continue to smoke are generally the ones who did like it the first time ~;) It's very good when combined with alcohol...

Why do you think people spend lots on money on cuban sigars if they don't taste good? ~;)

[Soulforged]

To be honest i found the site hard to navigate loads of links and text but very few to outside sites and those that i ttied didn't work. It would take a lot to convince me that the WHO, the world bank and Universitys have united in a ''Cartel'' in order to what eliminate tobbacco? why? to be honest this reminds me of scientists teaming up to ''invent'' global warming, evolution etc, discredit the scientists so you can ignore the science...For the contrary. The campaing AGAINST smoking tabacco is similar to the whole Global Warming affair, it produces the same of effect for one (banning, extreme measures, public hysteria, ridiculous laws, and so on). My point is that nothing has been proved beyond doubt, nothing has been unchallenged regarding smoking, so there's no right for the government to produce this kind of laws, it's pure and simple tirany, it sounds like an strong word but is logically what it is.

have you seen a smokers lungs? have you watched a smoker gasp for breath you can't seriously be trying to say that the health effects of long term smoking are minor?Honestly no. Have you? I mean personally, because I've seen a lot of pictures and overstatements made with pictures, I mean lungs filled with tar...For God's sake. Couldn't it be more obvious that you're exagerating (I mean the government, they usually do that)? I have seen some smokers grasp for breath as you say, and others as healthy as a bull. I've seen overweighted persons grasp for breath, hypochondriacs, people who usually don't do any exercise, and so on. You see there's a lot of people who suffer those symptoms and many times the smoking is absent, I've noticed that most of the time people who have a sedentary life are who suffer from those symptoms you mention.

I accept sceptisism on Passive smoking, it isnt the easyest area to investigate but heck i would rather take a better safe the sorry apporach.Perhaps. As I said nothing has been proved for better or worse. The thing is that the credibility of the majority of the people, who really don't have time to concentrate in these issues, is amazing and once you train them to believe something...Well the force of custom is loud and clear, they won't believe anything about the damage of smoking not being proved. Even more it's probable that they won't believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer or other deseases, because many times, sadly, they don't know the difference between causality and an increase on the threat.

"Smoking, particularly of cigarettes, is by far the main contributor to lung cancer. In the United States, smoking is estimated to account for 87% of lung cancer cases (90% in men and 85% in women).[30] Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%. Among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in non-smokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Those numbers are way too big. People will have you believe that there are more deaths worldwide from smoking than from car accidents. I haven't met a single person in my life, nor heard, that had been diagnosed with a desease provoqued by smoking tabacco. Now following those numbers I should at least have met 8 of those cases, or 4, since the original study said that the probabilities increased by %40. But it's even funnier. As I already said, it's hard to determine the cause of any cancer, cancer is a mystirious desease, no one knows what provoques the overgrowth of cells and their malignity on most cases, so how can anyone determine that 87 cases of cancer out of 100 are caused by smoking.


I read it but couldnt find a link to the sudy that worked for meThere's no study on that link, is just an article outlining the how the WHO fooled a lot of people persuing an agenda. It's very easy to fool people these days with scientific reasearch, the great majority of them will not read the research at all, very few will understand it and even fewer will read it completly and compare what has been said on the conclusion (which was the faulty part on the report) with the body of the report. I'm between that great majority.

[Husar]

May not be safe for work. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1eAhVmKQBc)

Well, my theory is that Blazin' Blondie is a smoker...:sweatdrop:

[Slyspy]

Since the smoking ban came in here in the UK business at my pub is up, smokers are smoking less, everyone can taste the beer and the food and even the smokers go home smelling much better. I don't see the problem. There are so many benefits before you even consider the health aspects.

With regard the Legion club in question I can't see them winning, I don't think they are in the right.

Nice to see the Mods being less than moderate in this thread btw.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Uh, what does being veterans have anything to do with this case? They're still just people, under the rule of law. no different than anyone else, period.

They fought for their country and put their lives on the line, and now the government won't let them smoke in their own building.

It just makes it more disgusting.

@Watchman - are you getting your news on America through Workers of the World? Reality is different.

CR

[Tribesman]

So, some folks here think 'Nam vets are acid-trippers
Well they must be crazy to attempt he case they are attempting on the grounds they are using .

those that examine the 'veterans angle' on this issue are "flag-waving morons"
If it was a private gambling club would people be jumping on the "but its gamblers" bandwagon ...No ....they jump on the veterans bandwagon . Just because they are vets or the sons of vets or the wives of vets or honoury members it doesn't make them special and above the law .
Making them out to be something special is moronic , they are just citizens .

and the Am Legion should not enjoy IRS 501(c) tax-emempt status.
Are you reading something that isn't there ?


And that the smart answer to this dilemma is to quietly pay bribes to officials and squeaky wheels.

Nope , paying bribes would be illegal , you play ball with the officials and keep them sweet to get the exemption permits for designated arseas of your business , offering a bribe would most probably bring them straight down on you with a pile of obcure regulations that you hadn't even heard of before. Selling them hard to obtain tickets to sports events at face value is a good one , no real bribery involved at all .:2thumbsup:

Maybe that works in Galway. Not here. Thats funny , I was talking about New York:yes: whats even funnier is that one NY fire inspector flat out asked my uncle for cash to "help" with permits ...silly bugger should have checked for recorders first eh :oops:
So you were saying something Kukri:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Perhaps you should have noted this bit......Now then I wonder why I am familiar with anti-smoking legislation in the US and attempts to circumvent that legislation?


They fought for their country and put their lives on the line, and now the government won't let them smoke in their own building.

Did they , can you provide their service records ?

[KukriKhan]

You'll find no argument with me, Sir. It's been amply proved here that soldiers and veterans are ignorant scum, privilege-seeking, flag-waving, drug-addled psychos who don't know the rules of the game.


We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

I need a cigarette.

And a bath.

Kukri out.

[Tribesman]

errrrrr....
Are you reading something that isn't there ?

[Watchman]

They fought for their country and put their lives on the line, and now the government won't let them smoke in their own building.

It just makes it more disgusting.And what's the price of tea in China got to do with the matter anyway ? I don't get this weird idea some people seem to have that having once worn an uniform and held a gun, nevermind now killed people with it, somehow automatically makes you a better person or entitles you to some sort of special treatment.
It doesn't. If the gov't is nice and thoughtful enough to reimburse you for any permanent damage suffered and later give you candy in the form of some minor perks, swell, but it doesn't actually have any concrete obligation to - unless one argues on ethical grounds, but then you can argue for state pensions and whatnot with the same.


@Watchman - are you getting your news on America through Workers of the World? Reality is different.:dizzy2:
Your degree of faith in the moral integrity of the American employer and economy has been duly noted. I just can't fathom where the Hell you get it from, especially as if I recall correctly you have a tendency to speak up for issues and values which lead to anything but...

[Byzantine Mercenary]

For the contrary. The campaing AGAINST smoking tabacco is similar to the whole Global Warming affair, it produces the same of effect for one (banning, extreme measures, public hysteria, ridiculous laws, and so on). My point is that nothing has been proved beyond doubt, nothing has been unchallenged regarding smoking, so there's no right for the government to produce this kind of laws, it's pure and simple tirany, it sounds like an strong word but is logically what it is.
From the disscussions we have had in the past, i remember your an anarchist right? so for you all government is tyranny? in which case this is more a clash of ideals (although i do not agree with all state intervention)


Honestly no. Have you? I mean personally, because I've seen a lot of pictures and overstatements made with pictures, I mean lungs filled with tar...For God's sake. Couldn't it be more obvious that you're exagerating (I mean the government, they usually do that)? I have seen some smokers grasp for breath as you say, and others as healthy as a bull. I've seen overweighted persons grasp for breath, hypochondriacs, people who usually don't do any exercise, and so on. You see there's a lot of people who suffer those symptoms and many times the smoking is absent, I've noticed that most of the time people who have a sedentary life are who suffer from those symptoms you mention.
personally? no... but there is a lot that i havn't seen personally, but that never the less i believe to exist. air, republicans etc.

I don't see why the evidence is unreliable, especially when it is so well spread.

Surely if more smokers then non smokers die of lung cancer etc, then thats the truth barring a massive conspiracy?


Perhaps. As I said nothing has been proved for better or worse. The thing is that the credibility of the majority of the people, who really don't have time to concentrate in these issues, is amazing and once you train them to believe something...Well the force of custom is loud and clear, they won't believe anything about the damage of smoking not being proved. Even more it's probable that they won't believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer or other deseases, because many times, sadly, they don't know the difference between causality and an increase on the threat.

What we are talking about is science though, science does not tollerate false facts, sooner or later they are exposed. For instance if they based all science on the idea that tuberculosis doesnt harm people.

There would be so much evidence pointing to that being wrong, that sooner or later a bright spark will come along and say: ''hey look, we can explain the illnesses in places with tuberculosis better if we assume tuberculosis actually does harm people...''


That's exactly what I'm talking about. Those numbers are way too big. People will have you believe that there are more deaths worldwide from smoking than from car accidents. I haven't met a single person in my life, nor heard, that had been diagnosed with a desease provoqued by smoking tabacco. Now following those numbers I should at least have met 8 of those cases, or 4, since the original study said that the probabilities increased by %40. But it's even funnier. As I already said, it's hard to determine the cause of any cancer, cancer is a mystirious desease, no one knows what provoques the overgrowth of cells and their malignity on most cases, so how can anyone determine that 87 cases of cancer out of 100 are caused by smoking.
I have, many in fact...

It all boils down to this, proportionally more smokers die of lung cancer and other smoking related diseases then non smokers its that simple


There's no study on that link, is just an article outlining the how the WHO fooled a lot of people persuing an agenda. It's very easy to fool people these days with scientific reasearch, the great majority of them will not read the research at all, very few will understand it and even fewer will read it completly and compare what has been said on the conclusion (which was the faulty part on the report) with the body of the report. I'm between that great majority.
I would realy like to see the study, surely as somwhone who doubts the government so much you would understand my caution around possible bias i want a study from an unbiased scientific group. Currently all of such studys of which i have heard have all pointed to smoking as a cause of lung cancer...

[Watchman]

AFAIK the connection between smoking and assorted nasty lung ailments was one of those things that was only first noticed when statistical analysis techniques had developed to the point that allowed the processing of the data of entire populations. That turned up what is AFAIK called statistical connection, and when the matter was then researched in detail...

There'a a fair bit of other issues that only became apparent on large-scale analyses which pointed out causal connections in what were earlier thought to be just isolated cases.

[Kralizec]

With regard the Legion club in question I can't see them winning, I don't think they are in the right.

Of course they're not going to win. They're the victim of a law that had a good intention behind it, but goes far beyond reason.

Watchman, you have argued that the law is all-binding, but besides that the rest of your argument seems to revolve around the frankly bizarre notion that it's in the employers' best interest to expose their workers to smoke, and because of that the helpless proletarians should be protected.

I'll just quote myself here:

I can see the need for forcing most employers to create designated smoking areas. Most wouldn't do it on their own initiative, while a majority of the workforce doesn't smoke. For offices or factories it doesn't cause much trouble.
However when we're talking about a company or institution that's supposed to provide a specific service to its "customers" (bars, hotels, or better yet: private member clubs) a similarly wide reaching smoking ban harms its ability to do so.
Under this law and jurisprudence, members of a private club can't chose to smoke in their own building once they start hiring people for minor tasks.

[Soulforged]

BM (Byzantine Mercenary ~;)) , to make a long story short and save a lot of discussion here. Regarding the matter, and without considering the law of the USA, what do you think of the legal issue? I mean the one on the background (Do you think smoking should be freely allowed, not allowed at all, or some point in the middle?).

As for me being anarchist, I'm more anarchist on philosophy than anything else, I'm not actively seeking the overthrow of every State around the world, I don't have the time or the will to do that. It does affect my ideology though, but what I said was just from skepticism, independently from my political tendencies.

[Watchman]

...the rest of your argument seems to revolve around the frankly bizarre notion that it's in the employers' best interest to expose their workers to smoke, and because of that the helpless proletarians should be protected.I do not recall arguing so. I do recall arguing that it might very well be in the employers' interests to not give a damn about what their employers are or aren't exposed to (eg. because the clients wish to keep smoking indoors), and that they're perfectly capable of subtly 'persuading' (essentially by the threat of losing their jobs) their employees into "ignoring" any such exposure and/or also pleading the authorities on their behalf.

In other words, as such no different from any other workplace hazard issue.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And what's the price of tea in China got to do with the matter anyway ? I don't get this weird idea some people seem to have that having once worn an uniform and held a gun, nevermind now killed people with it, somehow automatically makes you a better person or entitles you to some sort of special treatment.
It doesn't. If the gov't is nice and thoughtful enough to reimburse you for any permanent damage suffered and later give you candy in the form of some minor perks, swell, but it doesn't actually have any concrete obligation to - unless one argues on ethical grounds, but then you can argue for state pensions and whatnot with the same.

The government only exists because of brave people who sacrifice that others may live free. Our nation only exists because of them.

And does the government then have the integrity to let these vets smoke in their own building? We are not talking about perks, we talking about the government simply leaving these men alone. And they can't even do that, they can't let simply ignore these men and let them relax by themselves. We force them outside to smoke in the cold while sitting in their wheelchairs, after all they have given us.

Noone is harmed, yet the government still insists on controlling them.

It is a disgusting philosophy that demands control of man, even if for his own good it is no less a tyranny.


Your degree of faith in the moral integrity of the American employer and economy has been duly noted. I just can't fathom where the Hell you get it from, especially as if I recall correctly you have a tendency to speak up for issues and values which lead to anything but...

It is interesting that the only alternative you can see to someone supporting broad state regulation of working is someone who thinks that.

I have no more faith in employers than I do employees; I trust both only to do that which is best for them. Will they clash? Certainly, and they will make decisions based on their personal preferences.

For whatever reason, you cannot accept that, and want instead to enforce your ideas on people. Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that employers would commit atrocities on their workers if they were allowed to, and that employees are too stupid or childlike to do anything about it.

An antiquated and classist bit of marxist logic, even more wrong today than when he lived.

CR

[Watchman]

Noone is harmed, yet the government still insists on controlling them.Except, you know, the staff of the establishement exposed to cigarette smoke.
But I guess they don't count.


Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that employers would commit atrocities on their workers if they were allowed to, and that employees are too stupid or childlike to do anything about it.My argument is based on the fact that if they're allowed to employers tend to exploit seven kinds of Hell out of their employees, and all other things being equal the latter aren't in much of a position to do much about it unless they have A) organization (ie. strenght in numbers) B) the law to fall back to.

Seriously now, given what Management-Labour relations have sometimes been like in the US within as short a time as the last hundred years, for an example, I'm having a hard time comprehending your beef with worker-protecting legislation.

[Xiahou]

Except, you know, the staff of the establishement exposed to cigarette smoke.
But I guess they don't count.What if they're smokers?


My argument is based on the fact that if they're allowed to employers tend to exploit seven kinds of Hell out of their employees, and all other things being equal the latter aren't in much of a position to do much about it unless they have A) organization (ie. strenght in numbers) B) the law to fall back to.Or C)You live in a country that's running near full-employment, where just about anyone can find a job, particularly unskilled jobs like food-service. :wink:

[Productivity]

What if they're smokers?

JOB ADVERTISEMENT - Non-smokers need not apply. You tell me whatswrong with that...


Or C)You live in a country that's running near full-employment, where just about anyone can find a job, particularly unskilled jobs like food-service. :wink:

Tying laws and policy and their degree of implementation to economic conditions is crazy. You set precedents etc. that are enforced when the conditions change, but don't apply to those conditions, not to mention the difficulty to actually tie any of this to accepted defintions.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Except, you know, the staff of the establishement exposed to cigarette smoke.
But I guess they don't count.

What if they don't care? Oh, wait, you don't care what they think, you still want to control what they do.


My argument is based on the fact that if they're allowed to employers tend to exploit seven kinds of Hell out of their employees, and all other things being equal the latter aren't in much of a position to do much about it unless they have A) organization (ie. strenght in numbers) B) the law to fall back to.

Or - gee! - quit. Businesses that treat their employees well will stay in business. Your nightmares about management don't exist; such people can't make it.


Seriously now, given what Management-Labour relations have sometimes been like in the US within as short a time as the last hundred years, for an example, I'm having a hard time comprehending your beef with worker-protecting legislation.

I have a problem with any legislation that infringes on property rights or on the rights of people to engage in a business transaction.*

CR

*generally

[Xiahou]

JOB ADVERTISEMENT - Non-smokers need not apply. You tell me whatswrong with that...Will be around smokers and smoking.That sounds much better.

[Watchman]

What if they don't care? Oh, wait, you don't care what they think, you still want to control what they do.And what if they actually do ? Plus it's not their doings that are being affected by the legislation, in the case you forgot.

Or - gee! - quit. Businesses that treat their employees well will stay in business. Your nightmares about management don't exist; such people can't make it.Bollocks. Do you perhaps genuinely think that people actually work so much overtime - often unpaid - because they want to rather than because it has been subtly (or not) made clear to them they'd better give their all to their work if they don't want, you know, someone more competent (as in, docile) replacing them ? Same thing.

Or that all the funny laws about maximum work hours, minimum wages, work safety etc. were drafted for fun ?

I have a problem with any legislation that infringes on property rights or on the rights of people to engage in a business transaction.Yeah, I've certainly noticed which side you favour in the equation.


Or C)You live in a country that's running near full-employment, where just about anyone can find a job, particularly unskilled jobs like food-service.And this would be your argument for exempting this particular workplace from the law in question ? By that logic, shouldn't smoking in that McDo's they might land a crap job in then be allowed too because, you know, workers who don't like it "can find another job" and customers who don't like it "can go somewhere else" ?

Nevermind now the dodgy character of the US "full employement".

[Crazed Rabbit]

And what if they actually do ? Plus it's not their doings that are being affected by the legislation, in the case you forgot.

Then they sure as hell have no right to force their preferences on the people employing them.


Bollocks. Do you perhaps genuinely think that people actually work so much overtime - often unpaid - because they want to rather than because it has been subtly (or not) made clear to them they'd better give their all to their work if they don't want, you know, someone more competent (as in, docile) replacing them ? Same thing.

Then they are making a choice to work those hours instead of going after a different job. They made the choice that the compensation is enough for them to continue working there.


Or that all the funny laws about maximum work hours, minimum wages, work safety etc. were drafted for fun ?

Those were drafted in the beginning of the last century. Think maybe times have changed a bit? Of course, that would be admitting Marx is no longer applicable.


Yeah, I've certainly noticed which side you favour in the equation.

I favor equality. It's your fault if you think that means favoring one side.


And this would be your argument for exempting this particular workplace from the law in question ? By that logic, shouldn't smoking in that McDo's they might land a crap job in then be allowed too because, you know, workers who don't like it "can find another job" and customers who don't like it "can go somewhere else" ?

Yes. However, I haven't seen a McDonalds that allowed smoking because they've judged it to not be good for their company.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

Then they sure as hell have no right to force their preferences on the people employing them.So you're saying the governement has no business regulating work conditions ?

Then they are making a choice to work those hours instead of going after a different job losing their jobs.Fixed.

They made the choice that the compensation is enough for them to continue working there.If there now even is a compensation in the first place. Are you saying it's not essentially coercion ?

Those were drafted in the beginning of the last century. Think maybe times have changed a bit? I've yet to see much evidence of it; what has changed is that the Management has indeed been reined in in the meantime - and primarily by the combination of Labour action and legislation - and what hasn't is that the Management will still screw over their employees six ways to Sunday for fun and profit if they think they can get away with it. Just take a look at the working conditions in the plants migrated to the Third World to see the point. Or the wide enough use of illegal immigrant and other "shady" labour to circumvent inconvenient standards and expenses.

Of course, that would be admitting Marx is no longer applicable.Most of the non-prophetic part of Marx (ie. the actual economic analysis and theory rather than heady Victorian political fantasies) remains perfectly applicable, if only in modified form, so far as I know.

I favor equality. It's your fault if you think that means favoring one side.Not really, since the positions of power concerned are by default unequal (to the benefit of the Management) and your brand of "equality" really seems to mainly involve hostility to the measures that have been built up to even the odds...

Yes. However, I haven't seen a McDonalds that allowed smoking because they've judged it to not be good for their company.And why would that be, one wonders ?

[Kralizec]

If there now even is a compensation in the first place. Are you saying it's not essentially coercion ?

Right now it looks like the Dutch teachers' union is going on strike soon, one of the underlying causes being the increasing unpaid overtime (ironically, we're not even talking about the private sector here). It's not exactly unheard of. I've never heard though of a union organising a strike to persuade employers to adopt a non-smoking policy, or even negotiating to that effect.


I've yet to see much evidence of it; what has changed is that the Management has indeed been reined in in the meantime - and primarily by the combination of Labour action and legislation - and what hasn't is that the Management will still screw over their employees six ways to Sunday for fun and profit if they think they can get away with it. Just take a look at the working conditions in the plants migrated to the Third World to see the point. Or the wide enough use of illegal immigrant and other "shady" labour to circumvent inconvenient standards and expenses.

OTOH, unions are populist movements that have to drag in as many rights and priviliges for their members (almost invariably to the detriment of the employer) to maitain their raison d'etre.


Most of the non-prophetic part of Marx (ie. the actual economic analysis and theory rather than heady Victorian political fantasies) remains perfectly applicable, if only in modified form, so far as I know.

Disagree strongly, but that would be a topic in itself.


Not really, since the positions of power concerned are by default unequal (to the benefit of the Management) and your brand of "equality" really seems to mainly involve hostility to the measures that have been built up to even the odds...

It's not as if Unions couldn't go on strike to demand smoke free work places. The majority of the workforce just doesn't care enough either way to be bothered. Laws like these are the product of anti-smoke lobbyists, not a class-motivated efffort to "even the odds".


And why would that be, one wonders ?

That would be for the benefit of the customers. Incidentally, you don't have to be a non-smoker to dislike smoke when you're eating.

Conversely, some establishments better satisfy their customers by allowing them to smoke. If it were allowed, you could actually look for a job that allowed you to light a cigarette now and then...but we wouldn't want that, would we?

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you're saying the governement has no business regulating work conditions ?

No, I'm not. They can stop hazards that people don't have the opportunity to make a informed choice about.


If there now even is a compensation in the first place. Are you saying it's not essentially coercion ?

It's part of all business. If you try to turn the real world into a padded playpen, you'll get the same results you get from children.



I've yet to see much evidence of it; what has changed is that the Management has indeed been reined in in the meantime - and primarily by the combination of Labour action and legislation - and what hasn't is that the Management will still screw over their employees six ways to Sunday for fun and profit if they think they can get away with it.

And employees won't? American car unions have forced every penny they could out of their companies and dragged them down.

Why, for you, is it only management that can do wrong?


Not really, since the positions of power concerned are by default unequal (to the benefit of the Management)

Oh, you mean the people who are paying out the money?


and your brand of "equality" really seems to mainly involve hostility to the measures that have been built up to even the odds...

Because I loath government measures to control people, instituted by people who want the government to legislate what they should be negotiating for.

In short, they are using force to make the other side comply in their negotiations.

That's not to say I oppose all regulations.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

Bah. You're all hysterical and hypocritical.




There. I said it.

[Ironside]

Honestly no. Have you? I mean personally, because I've seen a lot of pictures and overstatements made with pictures, I mean lungs filled with tar...For God's sake. Couldn't it be more obvious that you're exagerating (I mean the government, they usually do that)? I have seen some smokers grasp for breath as you say, and others as healthy as a bull. I've seen overweighted persons grasp for breath, hypochondriacs, people who usually don't do any exercise, and so on. You see there's a lot of people who suffer those symptoms and many times the smoking is absent, I've noticed that most of the time people who have a sedentary life are who suffer from those symptoms you mention.

Ever heard about COPD? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPD)


Perhaps. As I said nothing has been proved for better or worse. The thing is that the credibility of the majority of the people, who really don't have time to concentrate in these issues, is amazing and once you train them to believe something...Well the force of custom is loud and clear, they won't believe anything about the damage of smoking not being proved. Even more it's probable that they won't believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer or other deseases, because many times, sadly, they don't know the difference between causality and an increase on the threat.

So war isn't dangerous for soldiers because they only make an increase of threat and not the actual killing?


That's exactly what I'm talking about. Those numbers are way too big. People will have you believe that there are more deaths worldwide from smoking than from car accidents. I haven't met a single person in my life, nor heard, that had been diagnosed with a desease provoqued by smoking tabacco. Now following those numbers I should at least have met 8 of those cases, or 4, since the original study said that the probabilities increased by %40. But it's even funnier. As I already said, it's hard to determine the cause of any cancer, cancer is a mystirious desease, no one knows what provoques the overgrowth of cells and their malignity on most cases, so how can anyone determine that 87 cases of cancer out of 100 are caused by smoking.

For personal refence, I've had 2 family members die of lung cancer, both oddly enough from a smoking home. But that doesn't really say anything due to the small statistical sample (5 family members has died during my life-time).

Anyway, I find it awfully odd that especially the US tobacco industry payed millions (billions?) to hide what thier own studies had concluded, if smoking didn't contain a considerble risk of early death due to smoking. :inquisitive:



And employees won't? American car unions have forced every penny they could out of their companies and dragged them down.

Why, for you, is it only management that can do wrong?

So the American car industry has started to go bad because of the workers preventing them from building cars that sell? :idea2:
Or has the American industry ended up in this situation because they've lost the market for other reasons and then having the added burden of union demands from the time were the US car market were a bit better?

I do admit that there's balance in all things. Too hard to fire an employee will make it much harder to get employed in the first case (because tohe company don't want to get stuck with an incompetent employee), while too easy will give the company the opportunity to hint that you'll need to work quite a bit extra unless you want to get replaced.


Oh, you mean the people who are paying out the money?

Profit= income - expenses.

And are you claiming that the one that I'm dependent on giving me my salary are in the dependent position?


I have no more faith in employers than I do employees; I trust both only to do that which is best for them.

And for the employer it's to maximaze profit...


For whatever reason, you cannot accept that, and want instead to enforce your ideas on people. Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that employers would commit atrocities on their workers if they were allowed to, and that employees are too stupid or childlike unable to do anything about it.

And your idea seems to be that the option of quitting is always a perfectly valid option. That's only true if the market is close to perfect balance, or suffering shortage of workers of your expertice.


It's part of all business. If you try to turn the real world into a padded playpen, you'll get the same results you get from children.

So in the real world, the goal is for the employer to uhm, "utilize" thier resources to the maximum?


Or C)You live in a country that's running near full-employment, where just about anyone can find a job, particularly unskilled jobs like food-service.
And here I thought that it was the illegal immigrants job ~;) .

Now you should ask yourself the question of why the illegal immigrant gets employed in the first place. It's those pesky worker rights...

[Byzantine Mercenary]

BM (Byzantine Mercenary ~;)) , to make a long story short and save a lot of discussion here. Regarding the matter, and without considering the law of the USA, what do you think of the legal issue? I mean the one on the background (Do you think smoking should be freely allowed, not allowed at all, or some point in the middle?).

At a private club with private members on private property, i see no probelm with it as long as considersation is shown as to whether the people in the vicinity are happy with them smoking. If they have staff i think the club should make sure that the staff are not exposed to it out of courtesy. But this needent be a big problem, an outdoor heated smoking balcony/patio would legally suffice in this situation wouldnt it?

The ideal for me would be that smoking would be freely allowed, but that all smokers would naturally show considersation of whether the people in the vicinity are happy with them smoking, and in the case of smoking parents that they in the very least dont smoke around their kids, but preferabley dont smoke in the house/car either as smokeing leaves a nasty smelly ressidue.
But at the moment although many smokers do that there are still many that don't so i would advocate legislation to incourage this. Perhaps if smoking around someone who has said they don't want the smoker to was a low level of harrasment?

I see smoking as an unnessisary cause of preventable death. But i have no problem with someone smoking themselves, even though they do put a burden on the healthcare system as a whole i agree that its their choice. However i will not accept other people being detrimentally effected by their choice.

[Productivity]

That sounds much better.

It's commonly accepted that employers are not allowed to place their employees near poisonous chemicals and it is also commonly accepted that there are a lot of rights that employees cannot contract themselves out of. Your advertisement makes as much sense as "JOB ADVERTISEMENT - Will be around mercury."

Cigarette smoke should not be dealt with in any different way to any other job hazard analysis. I work in the hydrocarbons industry, if we were required to send workers into an atmosphere similar to that of the average bar we would be legally obligated to have them set up with full respirator equipment. There are significant hazards associated with working in smoke filled environments and exposing employees to that level of risk should be treated in exactly the same way as it has been treated for every other industry - it should be stopped.

[Zaknafien]

The government only exists because of brave people who sacrifice that others may live free. Our nation only exists because of them.

Actually, the government exists becuase a group of wealthy tax evaders decided to overthrow their own government to set up their own oligarchy to protect their land and intrests. You should read history some time. There was no "so others may live free" about it.




And does the government then have the integrity to let these vets smoke in their own building? We are not talking about perks, we talking about the government simply leaving these men alone. And they can't even do that, they can't let simply ignore these men and let them relax by themselves. We force them outside to smoke in the cold while sitting in their wheelchairs, after all they have given us.

Id like you to show any evidence that they've 'given us' anything. Unless one of them is a civil war vet, they didnt protect my national security in any way or bring freedom to any Americans.



Noone is harmed, yet the government still insists on controlling them.


On the contrary, anyone who enters the buidling of smokers is harmed, be it an employee, a delivery person, a high school student doing community service with a vet.



For whatever reason, you cannot accept that, and want instead to enforce your ideas on people. Your whole argument seems to be based on the idea that employers would commit atrocities on their workers if they were allowed to, and that employees are too stupid or childlike to do anything about it.

You're the one trying to enforce your ideas on people mate. You think poison is OK, and everything should just leave it alone. Well, its not OK, and now there are enough of us to stand up for it not being OK.

[Soulforged]

Ever heard about COPD? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPD)Yep, you mean this (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/copd.htm).

So war isn't dangerous for soldiers because they only make an increase of threat and not the actual killing?Mmmm...I never made the suggestion that anything is not dangerous if it's not the cause of the danger, in fact it would have been illogical. But now that you bring the subject... No, war doesn't kill anyone, people kill other people, usually with fire weapons. And there's always a causal link between the killer and the dead.

For personal refence, I've had 2 family members die of lung cancer, both oddly enough from a smoking home. But that doesn't really say anything due to the small statistical sample (5 family members has died during my life-time).It's hard to talk about family members when speaking of death, it's a touchy subject. But you see that there never was a causal link stablished between smoking and the lung cancer, if they were passive smokers then I can't really say anything for sure. But that's really beyond the point, is in fact this lack of security that makes this legislation irrational.

Anyway, I find it awfully odd that especially the US tobacco industry payed millions (billions?) to hide what thier own studies had concluded, if smoking didn't contain a considerble risk of early death due to smoking.Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory? As far as I know the companies would kindly pay anyone who legally acted against them to avoid a trial, but that doesn't come close to your suggestion.

Thanks for the answer BM. :bow:

EDIT: Spelling

[Tribesman]

We force them outside to smoke in the cold while sitting in their wheelchairs, after all they have given us.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: So it isn't enough for you to to claim that they all fought and risked their lives without any evidence to support it ....now you are putting them in wheelchairs and out in the cold too for good measure.:drama3:
aww the poor wheelie riders ... though it seems there is a bit of a lack of wheelchairs in the Posts photo album isn't there . hmmmmm...standing around in shorts and t-shirts , perhaps they left the wheelchairs indoors and were saving them for when the weather turned bad .
So now rabbit , since you cannot show how the law should not apply in this case are you going for a really lame (sorry Gregoshi) baseless emotional appeal ?

[Ironside]

Yep, you mean this (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/copd.htm)

I was rather considering that little tidbit of it being very rare outside the category called smokers...


Mmmm...I never made the suggestion that anything is not dangerous if it's not the cause of the danger, in fact it would have been illogical. But now that you bring the subject... No, war doesn't kill anyone, people kill other people, usually with fire weapons. And there's always a causal link between the killer and the dead.


It's hard to talk about family members when speaking of death, it's a touchy subject. But you see that there never was a causal link stablished between smoking and the lung cancer, if they were passive smokers then I can't really say anything for sure. But that's really beyond the point, is in fact this lack of security that makes this legislation irrational.

I think I'll run with better examples: Working in a factory handling white lead or a mercury mine were considered a practical death sentance. Yet there's not really a casual link, only one heck of a correlation.

And that's the whole point of statistical research, you find out correlations and then eliminates all other possible factors to get a casual link.

Statistics by themself are horrible to predict happenings in the induvidal case, making cancer (that basically works as a statistic disease) extremly hard to get a casual link with it. If you need 6 speciffic genetical errors to happen in a speccific order in a cell to bypass the body's defences and the 5 first are caused by the same thing and the last one came at random, what gave you cancer?


Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory? As far as I know the companies would kindly pay anyone who legally acted against them to avoid a trial, but that doesn't come close to your suggestion.


Sadly I can't find speciffic examples on that, my googlefu isn't high enough. But I do recall that the biggest case was made into a movie. All I found was mentionings of company memos.
That 70 years of research showing the same thing would be false feels a bit odd though. :inquisitive:
That said, I do know that passive smoking is on weaker ground than active smoking (in the category damaging, yes, but how much do you need to actually make a difference in the end?) according to scientiffic research and can't rule out that others have drawn false conclusions from other studies.

[Soulforged]

I was rather considering that little tidbit of it being very rare outside the category called smokers...Warning for the rest of the discussion!!! I never said smoking wasn't dangerous for the active smoker, I said that the numbers showing how dangerous it actually is were "drawed", or "dibujados" on my own terminology.

I think I'll run with better examples: Working in a factory handling white lead or a mercury mine were considered a practical death sentance. Yet there's not really a casual link, only one heck of a correlation.There's a causal link (note: causal, not casual, it's important to make the difference here mate)!! If you handle lead without the proper protection you'll certainly suffer some kind of lead poisoning. However if that were the case with smoking tabacco, two subjects of the same characteristics should suffer the same effects always if they smoke the same cigars on the same conditions. That hasn't been shown on any study about smoking effects.

And that's the whole point of statistical research, you find out correlations and then eliminates all other possible factors to get a casual link. Of course, but at some point you've to stablish it if you want to have credibility (some posts before I posted credibility, when I wanted to say CREDULITY). Many hypotesis, conjectures and all manner of conclussions based on statistical studies have been handled in the past, none has remained unchallenged, except for the primary WHO study, which was forced to shown, again, "drawed" conclusions when the work of the scientist that performed it was just right.

Statistics by themself are horrible to predict happenings in the induvidal case, making cancer (that basically works as a statistic disease) extremly hard to get a casual link with it. If you need 6 speciffic genetical errors to happen in a speccific order in a cell to bypass the body's defences and the 5 first are caused by the same thing and the last one came at random, what gave you cancer?The six factors are the cause. But abstractions aside, it's still pretty hard to stablish what causes cancer.

Sadly I can't find speciffic examples on that, my googlefu isn't high enough.But I do recall that the biggest case was made into a movie. All I found was mentionings of company memos.
That 70 years of research showing the same thing would be false feels a bit odd though. :inquisitive:
That said, I do know that passive smoking is on weaker ground than active smoking (in the category damaging, yes, but how much do you need to actually make a difference in the end?) according to scientiffic research and can't rule out that others have drawn false conclusions from other studies.You mean "The Insider" starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino, directed by Michael Mann. Technically a good movie with no soul (as all Micheal Mann movies). The problem is (and sorry in advance if that's not the movie you're refering to, but is the only one I can remember), that that movie is about exactly what I've said, a person working for a tabacco company wishes to come forward about the dangers of smoking, if I remember it well the trial goes wrong and then he goes to the press, but my memory might be failing.

[Watchman]

What Wiki sez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insider_%28film%29). It's not like the tobacco industry - like apparently all major industries in the US - didn't mount a long and bitter if ultimately futile rearguard action against inconvenient inquiries and legislation. As was until only very recently being done in the case of global warming and climate change by the oil industry and whoever else now was concerned.

And given the track record of outright thuggery and dirty play by the Management in the US in general, I'm perfectly willing to believe a whole lot of crap about them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

tribesy, why don't you answer my question?


Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?


So it isn't enough for you to to claim that they all fought and risked their lives without any evidence to support it

I did not.


now you are putting them in wheelchairs and out in the cold too for good measure.
aww the poor wheelie riders ... though it seems there is a bit of a lack of wheelchairs in the Posts photo album isn't there .

Or perhaps I was referring to all such groups in Washington state. Hmm, let's see, is there more than one veteran's post in this state? Yes? Might some of them use wheelchairs? Very likely. Does it get cold in Washington state? Yes. Does it rain often? Yes.


So now rabbit , since you cannot show how the law should not apply in this case are you going for a really lame (sorry Gregoshi) baseless emotional appeal

If you had actually read the discussion instead of just skimming for some bit to troll, you would've seen I was arguing from a property rights perspective and the base philosophy that the government is best which interferes least.

Hmm, lot's of evidence of that, in the form of numerous posts regarding employees and employer's rights, several people involved in the discussion, yet you seem totally unaware, like a deer blinking at oncoming headlights. Yup, looks like trolling.

CR

[Tribesman]

tribesy, why don't you answer my question?

Is it a business yes , should it comply with laws governing places of business yes
..there you go Rabbit .



I did not.

Ahem.....
They fought for their country and put their lives on the line, and now the government won't let them smoke in their own building.
errrrr...can you provide their service records or is there some imaginary criteria that you have to be a veteran who actually fought and risked their lives to get membership .


Or perhaps I was referring to all such groups in Washington state.
Oh so you are not refering to the people this topic is about or the case this topic is about ...now its people in wheelchairs in the rain:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


If you had actually read the discussion instead of just skimming for some bit to troll, you would've seen I was arguing from a property rights perspective
Which is why you havn't got a leg to stand on , because property rights don't even come into it , it is a health and safety issue covering businesses , private or public ownership of the business is entirely irrelevant .You spent too much effort incorrectly trying to show that it wasn't a public facility and then tried the "its veterans" card for patriotic appeal follwed by awwww wheelchairs in the cold for emotional appeal .

But here have a question yourself , with the full appeal factor .~;)
If a one legged veteran who sustained his injury saving his country and comrades in battle owns a farm , does that farm have to comply with health and safety regulations and all relevant legislation pertaining to the agricultural industry even if it is cold and raining ...or is he and his farm exempt from the law?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is it a business yes , should it comply with laws governing places of business yes

Did I ask that? No, let's go over it again shall we...
Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?

No, I asked if there should be such a law.


errrrr...can you provide their service records or is there some imaginary criteria that you have to be a veteran who actually fought and risked their lives to get membership .

You said I said that all of them fought in wars. When I said 'they' (not 'they all') I was clearly referring only to those who had fought. Really, tribesy.


Oh so you are not refering to the people this topic is about or the case this topic is about

Hmm, this post is in Washington, and I said I was referring to all groups in Washington. Gee, that would mean I was referring to this post.


Which is why you havn't got a leg to stand on , because property rights don't even come into it , it is a health and safety issue covering businesses ,

awww, tribesy. I feel sorry for you. You just try your best to make yourself feel big. You wallow in ad homenims like a pig in muck, you selectively quote bits of arguments and then respond as though that was the whole argument. Like I only talked about property rights and not everything else I really did write about.

That's the hilarious bit, isn't it? But then, I've never understood the mind of a troll. Can you not see the rest, or do the opportunities for trolling just pop out in front of everything else?



the "its veterans" card for patriotic appeal follwed by awwww wheelchairs in the cold for emotional appeal

Now did I say the law is bad because they are veterans or it's bad for everyone, and simply more disgusting because they are veterans? Now, don't answer quick, because you may answer wrong. Heck, your best bet would be to not answer at all, just silently reflect. ~;p


Id like you to show any evidence that they've 'given us' anything. Unless one of them is a civil war vet, they didnt protect my national security in any way or bring freedom to any Americans.

Soldiers don't make policy. Perhaps you should remember that.

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?

The fact that they are veterans is irrelevant, the fact that the building is privately owned is irrelevant .


You said I said that all of them fought in wars. When I said 'they' (not 'they all') I was clearly referring only to those who had fought. Really, tribesy.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hmm, this post is in Washington, and I said I was referring to all groups in Washington. Gee, that would mean I was referring to this post.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

The fact that they are veterans is irrelevant, the fact that the building is privately owned is irrelevant .

You still haven't answered the question. Is a case of not wanting to or not being able to?

CR

[HoreTore]

The fact that they are veterans is irrelevant, the fact that the building is privately owned is irrelevant .

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Please Tribesy, now you're simply nitpicking, and, well, making yourself look like an arse.

[Watchman]

Say Rabbit, all your earlier talk about "making choices" made me wonder... why's it you don't seem to account for it as an "informed choice" the vets just, you know, stopped smoking ? It's not exactly a healthy habit to begin with...

[Ironside]

There's a causal link (note: causal, not casual, it's important to make the difference here mate)!! If you handle lead without the proper protection you'll certainly suffer some kind of lead poisoning. However if that were the case with smoking tabacco, two subjects of the same characteristics should suffer the same effects always if they smoke the same cigars on the same conditions. That hasn't been shown on any study about smoking effects.

Hmm, spelling mistake :oops:

I think I'll do this instead. You're arguing that "Smoking causes cancer" is not certain to be correct and the WHO study is flawed, correct?
I'm not that in the mood of going into deep arguing that smoking does affect persons in the same way (that it does in multiple ways), but we're limiting it to that two identical twins smoking the same amount and living in the same way won't always get cancer close to eachother in time?

But I'll mention that considering any advanced biological matter to behave exactly the same to prove a connection isn't going to lead you very far. Even identical poisoning of identical twins will only give you simular results, not identical ones and for smaller dosages over longer time periods it's much worse.


The six factors are the cause. But abstractions aside, it's still pretty hard to stablish what causes cancer.


The cause of cancer is induvidual cells that have done a rebellion against the oppressive collective cell hive, all in the name of freedom! :laugh4:

Seriously though, it depends on how deep you want to get it in perfect detail. If the correlation acts like a causation, does it matter from a pratical viewpoint? The problem gets solved either way.

I already said above about how you use statistical research to get down to what correlation acts like a causation, and as cancer is a very statistical disease it's hard to not using statistical methods on it and get anything useful out of it.

[Kralizec]

Say Rabbit, all your earlier talk about "making choices" made me wonder... why's it you don't seem to account for it as an "informed choice" the vets just, you know, stopped smoking ? It's not exactly a healthy habit to begin with...

Stopping with smoking because otherwise the government doesn't allow you to continue running your club's activities does't exactly amount to a free choice.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Stopping with smoking because otherwise the government doesn't allow you to continue running your club's activities does't exactly amount to a free choice.

Exactly. It is not a choice if the government says 'stop or else'.

CRf

[Tribesman]

Please Tribesy, now you're simply nitpicking, and, well, making yourself look like an arse.
What is there to nitpick about Hore ? Rabbit has been repeatedly wrong from the very start yet he has insisted and insisted again that he is correct , every time he is shown to be wrong he attempts to change tack , but then comes straight back on the same tack or even digs a bigger wrong path .

As for the question he wants answered (not the Rosa Parks one:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: )...
Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?
...it is entirely irrelevant , it is a business , it is covered by business regulations regardless of who owns it , be it privately owned or State owned ....so unless Rabbit can pull out of a hat some obscure reason why a business should not have to comply with regulations concerning business premises he is just spitting into the wind with absolutelty no basis to support his position .
Since Rabbit obviously by now knows he is spitting into the wind but won't see enough sense to turn around he resorts to bollox about wheelchairs and people risking their lives as an emotional appeal .

But hey lets give him a chance eh .
If there was a privately owned hospital , caring for veterans in wheelchairs or worse who had gone through hell risking their lives in somewhere like Iraq should that hospital be exempt from government legislation or should it have to comply with government legislation ?

[Watchman]

Stopping with smoking because otherwise the government doesn't allow you to continue running your club's activities does't exactly amount to a free choice.They don't, if you missed it. You're not just allowed to smoke indoors there (unless I missed something essential about the gist of the legislation). So put this way - if going outside to have your cancer stick now was such an ordeal as Rabbit's emotional-appeal rhetoric claims (you know - wheelchairs, rain etc.), isn't that just your "informed choice" to keep smoking despite the inconvenience ?

I don't see where their choice in the matter were any different from the choice the staff have regarding whether they want to work in a smoking establishement or not.

Just pointing that out. Why should the hired help be the only ones making "choices" ?


And what Tribesy said about being covered by regulations as much as any other.

[Crazed Rabbit]

it is entirely irrelevant , it is a business , it is covered by business regulations regardless of who owns it , be it privately owned or State owned ....so unless Rabbit can pull out of a hat some obscure reason why a business should not have to comply with regulations concerning business premises he is just spitting into the wind with absolutelty no basis to support his position .

Good grief man, how obtuse can a person be?

Did I ask if people have to comply with laws? No, I asked if there should be such a law in the first place.


Do you think the government should ban these veterans from smoking in their privately owned building?
'Do you think' - ie. your opinion on this - 'the government' - referring to the state government of Washington State - 'should' - inquiring as what you believe the government's course of action should be - 'ban these veterans' - the matter of what the government should or should not do in regards to legally forcing the veterans - 'from smoking in their privately owned building' - the central issue in regards to what the government should or should not do to these veterans.

I can't for the life of me see where you get ideas about business regulations or not complying with them.

I said before:

You still haven't answered the question. Is a case of not wanting to or not being able to?

I can see it was a case of not being able to. But no matter, let's see how many posts it takes you to answer. So far the count is four posts since you popped up in this thread again.

Gentlemen, place your bets. 2-1 for 10 posts total, and 7-1 for never being able to.


They don't, if you missed it. You're not just allowed to smoke indoors there (unless I missed something essential about the gist of the legislation). So put this way - if going outside to have your cancer stick now was such an ordeal as Rabbit's emotional-appeal rhetoric claims (you know - wheelchairs, rain etc.), isn't that just your "informed choice" to keep smoking despite the inconvenience ?

Like people have an informed choice about paying taxes - pay them or go to jail? You're not making a free choice if the government forces you to have to make that choice.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

Yes, there's a whole lot of laws telling people what they can't or can do even in the privacy of their own home. I don't get to run a meth lab here for example, or set up a bonfire in the living room. Scandalous.
Life's like that. I wouldn't recommend trying to live without either laws or a governement to enforce them however.

Also, do recall the gov't isn't particularly singling out these vets or anything - they (or rather, their whatchamacallit clubhouse thingy) just doesn't happen to be excluded from the law, so that's that.

[Kralizec]

They don't, if you missed it. You're not just allowed to smoke indoors there (unless I missed something essential about the gist of the legislation). So put this way - if going outside to have your cancer stick now was such an ordeal as Rabbit's emotional-appeal rhetoric claims (you know - wheelchairs, rain etc.), isn't that just your "informed choice" to keep smoking despite the inconvenience ?

My post was in response to this one of yours:

why's it you don't seem to account for it as an "informed choice" the vets just, you know, stopped smoking ?

They shouldn't be forced to chose between their club activities or smoking inside their own private building.
As for the argument that you'd have to ban smoke in all workplaces to ensure that noone is unwillingly forced to inhale it, there are plenty of people willing to do janitorial or administrative work in a building even if there's a faint trace of smoke. The government should have exceptions to this ban, including clubs like these.
You, while you've carefully avoided saying it, would be perfectly happy if smoking became a felony no matter what the situation is.


I don't see where their choice in the matter were any different from the choice the staff have regarding whether they want to work in a smoking establishement or not.

Just pointing that out. Why should the hired help be the only ones making "choices" ?

Because the hired ones are hired. They're paid for a specific purpose, if they can't handle the negligable of smoke they can work at the McDonalds (and before you spout any bleeding heart nonsense about the plight of the working class, it's not as if doing menial work at a private membership club is a glorious career)
The vets on the other hand, it's a club, wich they are financing for their personal entertainment (partially, anyway) and they should be able to smoke there as much as they damn well please.



And what Tribesy said about being covered by regulations as much as any other.

Tribes, and you to an extent, have been hiding behind "it's the law, and with the way it's writen it covers them as well" since this thread started.
The whole point is that it's a bad law, it unrightfully forbids club members to smoke in their private club, and pays not a bit of consideration to the fact that some people might not care a fecking bit if they're exposed to a wee bit of smoke.

[Watchman]

As for the argument that you'd have to ban smoke in all workplaces to ensure that noone is unwillingly forced to inhale it, there are plenty of people willing to do janitorial or administrative work in a building even if there's a faint trace of smoke.
---
The whole point is that it's a bad law, it unrightfully forbids club members to smoke in their private club, and pays not a bit of consideration to the fact that some people might not care a fecking bit if they're exposed to a wee bit of smoke.Now I can't vouch for Tribesy (doubly so as I haven't the foggiest of how his mind actually works...), but the reason I'm so sceptical of these "voluntary exceptions" is that A) they're not nearly always as voluntary as the ideal scenario would have it, but have their hand forced by their circumstances B) it sort of waters down the whole law.

And more to the point, yes there indeed exist quite a few laws which prohibit me from endangering my health in diverse ways irrespective of my voluntariness in the matter.

And incidentally around here I'm pretty sure smoking indoors is nowadays prohibited virtually everywhere (except for example the air-conditioned small rooms long-distance trains have for the purpose), certainly in all public spaces, enterprises and whatever, and possibly up to and including your own home (go to the balcony) although I don't really remember since the matter never comes up in my personal life.
Yes, our governement is indeed sort of tired of paying for the respiratory ailments and sundry out of the national healthcare system.

Seems to be working quite fine, too. The active smokers whine occasionally but the rest - which is to say the easy majority of the population - pretty much ignores that.


You, while you've carefully avoided saying it, would be perfectly happy if smoking became a felony no matter what the situation is.Incorrect. I'm opposed to criminalizing smoking, and IIRC have repeatedly said as much; I'm much too well aware of the history of the Prohibition and for that matter the drug trade for anything else. I'm all for such harmful vices being made as inconvenient and onerous to engage in as humanly possible however, so that only people truly dedicated for the habit actually bother...
Minimizes the issues rather neatly, I'd say.


Because the hired ones are hired. They're paid for a specific purpose, if they can't handle the negligable of smoke they can work at the McDonalds (and before you spout any bleeding heart nonsense about the plight of the working class, it's not as if doing menial work at a private membership club is a glorious career)
The vets on the other hand, it's a club, wich they are financing for their personal entertainment (partially, anyway) and they should be able to smoke there as much as they damn well please.So what you're saying is basically that the Hired Help aren't entitled to the same protections as other workers in the service industry ?
Why ?
The reasonings you've given thus far have all the validity of "they're paid for a specific purpose, if they can't handle the negligible amount of harmful chemical vapors around the vats they can work at the McDonald's"... summarily rejected for reasons that ought to be bloody obvious.

Unless you have a pretty strong case for the vets' ciggie smoke being somehow purer and less potentially harmful to people than that encountered in other establishements...?


Tribes, and you to an extent, have been hiding behind "it's the law, and with the way it's writen it covers them as well" since this thread started.Because it does. The primary argument we've been having is whether it should, and obviously at least me an' Tribesy don't see why not.
Ciggie smoke is ciggie smoke, no matter whose dog-end it comes from and where it is produced. If the Legislative has gone through all the appropriate proceedings to pass a law for the protection of employees and whoever in public establishements yadda yadda from it, then until further notice it applies to the veterans' clubs as well and should as well - exposure is exposure period. Employees, visitors, non-smoking clients et multiple cetera are just as covered by the relevant legislation against it there as anywhere else.

As for "not caring", yeah, well, they "didn't care" about DDT or active smoking either... back in the day.

[Tribesman]

Like people have an informed choice about paying taxes - pay them or go to jail? You're not making a free choice if the government forces you to have to make that choice.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No rabbit people have a fundamental right to pay as little tax as they are legally allowed to , its all to do with exemptions , remember exemptions ...they are the thing you wrongly claimed this business was entitled to .


I can see it was a case of not being able to. But no matter, let's see how many posts it takes you to answer.
Can you show any reason whatsoever why the government shouldn't ?
It appears you are basing everything on some myth that you call property rights .


They shouldn't be forced to chose between their club activities or smoking inside their own private building.

They have the choice , they can alter their private building and business to avail of the exemption . If they don't then they have to comply with the law .


The whole point is that it's a bad law, it unrightfully forbids club members to smoke in their private club
Is it a bad law ? Why ?
How can it unrightfully forbid something when there is no fundamental right to do it in the first place ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

*click*
Five posts.


I'm all for such harmful vices being made as inconvenient and onerous to engage in as humanly possible however, so that only people truly dedicated for the habit actually bother...

What really strikes me is how some lefties will cry out government oppression, but then turn and demand government oppression of something they don't like.


And more to the point, yes there indeed exist quite a few laws which prohibit me from endangering my health in diverse ways irrespective of my voluntariness in the matter.

And there are many jobs where danger can not be legislated out. Commercial diving, for instance, and any number of jobs are more dangerous than secondhand smoke.


Ciggie smoke is ciggie smoke, no matter whose dog-end it comes from and where it is produced.

It's an overhyped and overblown danger, one that is pursued for political, not scientific reasons.

CR

[Watchman]

What really strikes me is how some lefties will cry out government oppression, but then turn and demand government oppression of something they don't like.And might I entreat you to treat me to a concrete and relevant example, preferably involving myself, instead of such lukewarm blanket mutterings ?

And there are many jobs where danger can not be legislated out. Commercial diving, for instance, and any number of jobs are more dangerous than secondhand smoke.Which is relevant how ?

It's an overhyped and overblown danger, one that is pursued for political, not scientific reasons.And would you happen to have a single rational argument as to why it should not be treated as a "just to be on the safe side" issue given the well-known unpleasant qualities of inhaled cigarette smoke ? That stuff's pretty much toxic, period; it is hardly a stretch to limit the populace's exposure to it to the barest minimum

[Tribesman]

*click*
Five posts.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Awwww rabbit don't you know that your irrelvant "question" has already been answered ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: No not the Rosa Parks one the other silly one :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


What really strikes me is how some lefties will cry out government oppression, but then turn and demand government oppression of something they don't like.


How on earth is it government oppression ?


And there are many jobs where danger can not be legislated out. Commercial diving, for instance
What a silly thing to say , have you any idea at all how much safety legislation there is covering commercial diving .:dizzy2:

Kralezic , you are on about rights and choice , these people choose to join the club , they choose to have it open to the public , they chose to make it a licensed establishment ,they chose to have employees ...no one forced them , they made their choices if they don't like what their choice entails then they should choose something else .

Rabbits rubbish about property rights is absolute bollox , there are no rights without responsibilities , the responsibility in this case is that the property , its owners and its customers are obliged to be incompliance with the relevant legislation .

[Crazed Rabbit]

*click*
Six posts.



And would you happen to have a single rational argument as to why it should not be treated as a "just to be on the safe side" issue given the well-known unpleasant qualities of inhaled cigarette smoke ? That stuff's pretty much toxic, period; it is hardly a stretch to limit the populace's exposure to it to the barest minimum

If we legislated everything to on the safe side, we'd all be walking to work and living in padded houses, and candy would be banned.

We could reduce many deaths in automobile accidents by severely restricting the speed, we could require a lifeguard at each private pool because of all the children that drown in them.

Or we could just let people choose and acknowledge that different lifestyles have different consequences. But then we'd have to recognize that citizens are adults who can take care of themselves.

CR

[Watchman]

I notice your arguments seem to have degenerated into imaginary hyperboles now.

You wouldn't happen to have something more... solid and reality-derived in stock ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

People can limit their own exposure to cigarette smoke, especially considering secondhand smoke is an overblown danger. They don't need the government to do it for them.

CR

[Tribesman]

You wouldn't happen to have something more... solid and reality-derived in stock ?
Are you being incredibly optimistic Watchman , rabbit went off half cocked on the subject and has been mis-firing ever since .

[Crazed Rabbit]

*click*
Seven posts.

CR

[Tribesman]

*click*
Seven posts.

Interesting Rabbit , are you simply trolling or are you just going out of your way to show that you cannot read very well .

Still I suppose you have to do something to pass the time due to the fact your points have not stood up at all .:oops:

[Banquo's Ghost]

The last few posts seem to indicate the thread has run its course and is in danger of degeneration.

If someone has a burning point to make, feel free to PM me and I'll re-open the thread. Otherwise, thanks everyone for the intriguing discussion.

:closed: