May 26, 2013 |
72° Mostly Cloudy
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
And the number of heart attacks caused by second-hand smoke probably declined as well.
Remember in 2004 when Chuck Magerl claimed that the Lawrence smoking ban would run Free State Brewery out of business?
I laughed then. I still laugh now.
I remember that. For a guy who has got a lot of things right, he sure made a joke out of himself on his activism against the smoking ban. I always said back then that he was really afraid that all his employees that sat around freestate after they got off work and drank the money they made would go somewhere they could smoke and that is the he where he was going to loose money.
The thing people forget is how many people were staying out of bars because of the smoke. There's nothing like having a hard time breathing between drinks, then going home to find that your clothes and hair reek of someone else's exhaled tar. Sounds like a great time, right!
With no smoking, these people, who had been avoiding bars, have gone back. Lo and behold, they outnumber the smokers who stopped going, and business is up. Pretty simple math.
SO why not allow the bars who want to cater to smokers to do so? Does the entire universe have to revolve around how your clothes smell? Goodness gracious. If the ban has been such a huge success, why don't we allow the bars to choose? If you are correct NONE will. If you are wrong, some will, some won't.
The ban's cause is a health issue--- not only for the public, but also for the employees, who shouldn't have to be subject to carcinogens all day just to make ends meet serving food and drinks.
When referring to the smell, I was explaining why bans aren't bad for bar business, which undermines the main motivation to put profits before public health--- allowing smoking doesn't even protect profits.
Smokers can smoke as much as they want as long as their poor choices don't affect me. Second hand smoke is an assault just like a punch in the face. It raises blood sugar for diabetics. It raises everyone's blood pressure. And those are just two immediate adverse health impacts. Prolonged exposure to second hand smoke can cause cancer and other diseases. Smokers need to get over their desire to inflict harm on others and just stay in their own homes.
In other news, the sky is blue.
Hint: this is sort of like the inevitable studies to come out in a couple of years showing that increasing taxes on the rich didn't in fact kill jobs or make rich people less inclined to keep getting richer.
too bad the state run casino doesn't follow the same policies.
Maybe you smokers can stop filling up the hospitals while you drown in your own fluids or heart stops working so well. The one consistent thing with smokers is the big talk about their smoking rights but the changed tune when the are suffering the consequences.
The Meat Market closed due to gross mismanagement. Stu's? If it were that great, it would have survived. Such is the free market, pal.
Yep, I liked stus and blues as well but it was not profitable and all you republicans who preach private business, this one just didn't make enough profit to stay afloat. I do miss it though.
Wow, it seems Kansas legislators in the pocket of pharma seem to think their businesses are immune to the devastation bans cause! Must be a phenomena!
"Over 500 Minnesota bars and restaurants have closed since smoking bans were enacted in the land of 10,000+ unemployed hospitality workers.
A newly discovered official report from the State of Minnesota Auditor's Office proves what many of us against smoking bans always knew, smoking ban activists lied to the public and lawmakers when they said smoking bans were "good for business". This State of Minnesota official report found that one year after the statewide smoking ban, revenue was down on average 31.9% in bars and taverns."
Smoking bans, a large majority of which were enacted between 2002-2006, were a major contributing factor to worldwide economic meltdown:
"Over 500 Minnesota bars and restaurants have closed since smoking bans were enacted..."
Yes, and 0 bars and restaurants closed in the five years before the bans, right? ... Right?
"Smoking bans, a large majority of which were enacted between 2002-2006, were a major contributing factor to worldwide economic meltdown:"
bahahahahahahahaha you don't actually BELIEVE that, do you?
"Sunday, February 08, 2009
In the U.K. during past two years 3,382 pubs have closed since their nationwide smoking ban was enacted
.....so far this year they have been shutting at the rate of one every four hours.
Obviously, the drinks industry is quick to blame the economy for the problems but.......the fact that the one thing you cannot do in a smoking room (now) is smoke. There’s no doubt that this has had a profound effect on the licensing trade, and David Cameron must make it a top priority to overturn the ban the moment he takes office. In the meantime, however, publicans must stop whining and carefully study the antismoking rule book to find a loophole.
The rest of the Times Online article can be found online here.
The story is a tale of the tragic truth that occurs when government meddling interferes with free market trade. Pharmaceutical nicotine (Nicoderm) manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company with their partner RWJF funded lobbyists to pursue a smoking ban agenda in order to increase product sales & profits, lawmakers were happy to oblige for their own selfish reason; primarily they and their constituents; were tired of smelling like smoke....on the rare event that they actually frequented a smoking establishment."
How much does the tobacco industry pay you to scour the internet for any mention of smoking bans so you can spam forums like this?
Heh, Bozo, you know what assumptions make you?
Oh please. Health departments should stick to lies and propaganda that cannot be easily debunked by qualified economists. If smoking bans didn't hurt businesses why would business owners fight them? Surely they have better things to do than fight issues that don't make a difference to their bottom line. http://tinyurl.com/a68zpnh
Kansas Smoking Ban: A Bar Owner's Perspective
As long as everyone is bankrupt it's a "level playing field? If the government decides that blues music should be banned, do you suppose that will hurt the country music places, or just the blues clubs?
The next freedom we lose might be something YOU enjoy. It might be a ban on grilling steaks in your yard, as the chemicals in burning charcoal are the same, only more concentrated, as the chemicals in tobacco smoke. It might be burning those wonderfully fragrant candles, which have more toxins than smoking.
If you can find an unbiased (un pharma grant funded) chemist or economist in Lawrence (what's the odds?) ask them about ban damage to bars and the "chemical concentrations" in second hand tobacco smoke in a decently ventilated bar. Ask them to look at the over 150 studies, where only a small percentage show any causal connection with any disease process. And the majority of those were done in China, and funded by pharma.
The truth, I guess, is too complex for a newspaper to deal with, so they just print the propaganda handed them by pro ban, sanctimonious, unquestioned, very biased, talking heads.
We wouldn't need the government intervention if people were just more considerate. Our problem is we think the wild west is still alive and we can strut around doing whatever we want like a bunch of barbarians. The world is changing, either learn some manners or expect laws being passed to teach you manners.
Charcoal grills are illegal in some states already because of their pollution.
Come one, 1955, why don't you try to quit smoking. It will be better for your health and others around you, and think of the money you will save.
"If smoking bans didn't hurt businesses why would business owners fight them?"
Business owners fight any change, because changes induce risks, and smart business owners minimize risk when they can. That's business 101.
Bar owners had their customers, who were fine with smoke, and weren't sure if they'd still come in if there was a ban. It was a source of revenue they could count on. Owners also weren't sure that people who weren't coming in, who weren't fine with smoke, would start coming in. The uncertainty is what worried them.
As it happens, in state after state, city after city, and country after country, we see that any loss from smokers no longer going to bars has been well outweighed by the added influx of customers who welcomed the smoke-free environment. Not only for health, but also because of the nasty odor--- turns out, non-smokers didn't like going out all night and coming back reeking of other people's exhaled tar.
I guess the influx didn't happen to all those places that have closed already? Too bad.
You might want to actually read up on smoking ban losses. Google it. St Louis Federal Reserve economist Michael Pakko did a study which is not rosey, and Forbes Magazine did an article which is easy to find. Dr Michael Marlowe, economist, reported on the loss to small businesses. Ofalun, Missouri, City Councilman Jim Pepper reports 5 closed businesses in his small town. Springfield, Missouri reported 11 closed soon after the ban. Do your homework and ease up on the propaganda.
People who "want to be healthy" don't hang out at bars, kiddo, they're at the gym.
There is no influx of non smokers. But keep up the good work. You can fool some of the people some of the time.
"all those places that have closed already?"
Because bars and restaurants never closed before the ban, right?
Sometimes people are just stupid...
Add the Hutchinson Bowling alley, the R Bar, Bumpers Diner, at least six businesses in Wichita, bingo halls, two pool halls in Salina, to the closed list.
We were told that smoking bans would be good for business. That's what the paper said when they incessantly quoted pro ban talking heads. Smoking bans are very bad for small businesses who choose to cater to adult smokers. All of us knew that Lawrence with it's new crop of young party animals would be relatively unscathed by the ban, but out here, in the rest of Kansas, we are alot of older folks, who enjoy the companionship of our friends in our little bars.
By the way, I have been bartending for 40 years and I have bever seen anyone fall over dead from second hand smoke, or anything else for that matter. WHat I an seeing is little businesses, owned by Kansans, not out of state chains, closing. It makes me sick.
Mr Gossen and the Kansas Health Institute have received a fortune in grants from the "philanthropic arm" of the pharma that sells the patches and gums. Is that why he failed, in his report to the Legislature, to mention the multitude of studies showing economoc harm to bars? Je also failed in this "economic assesment" (by a non economist!) to mention that a keg of beer went from $49 ten years ago to $98 now. Case beer went up $3 since '05.
I'm not a college educated person, but I can do THIS math.
It's not enough to say that places have closed since the ban, because places closed all the time before the ban, too. You have to make a comparison of before and after, like the authors of this study did.
Also, you say the ban led to these closings, but then you offer a more plausible explanation--- the prices have shot up. I think you're on the right track. Based on that price change, I would suggest that the high prices drove customers away, not the smoking ban.
If the prices shot up and the revenue to the state stayed the same, that clearly indicates a loss. Bar owners know when their business went to poop. They know who quit coming in. You do not. You can suggest whatever mythical hypothesis comes into your head, to justify this nonsense, but it isn't flying. Kansas should be swimming in an increase of liquor and beer revenue. The 10% tax is only collected in bars and restaurants. The 8% you pay at the liquor store HAS gone up. It's the 10% that has not gone up proportionately.
I would suggest that due to the earthquake in Malaysia, that the earth tilted on it's axis and that's why it doesn't rain in Kansas. It may have also caused some bars to close.
Or, maybe it was the last lunar eclipse? Maybe you're an expert because you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night?
Before the smoking ban, any bar owner in America could have made their bar a non-smoking establishment. Personally, I never heard of such a thing, leading me to believe that a non-smoking bar was a bad business model. However, I understand the rationale behind having non-smoking bars. We've gone too far, in that I doubt there will be any serious effort made to re-introduce smoking into bars, but in my opinion, what should have been done years ago was to establish two different types of liquor licenses, one that allows smoking and one that does not. Let the owners decide for themselves, taking their cue from their customers. If the state wants to encourage certain behaviors or discourage others, simply make the smoking license more expensive. Owners would pass that cost on to their customers who will then have the freedom to go where they choose and pay the higher or lower price, according to their wishes.
Being the only non-smoking establishment is a competitive disadvantage, because in any group of friends or family the smokers are going to lobby for going to a smoking establishment. The non-smoking establishment would have to be really compelling for other reasons to be able to draw in smokers and their non-smoking friends.
That is NOT what pro ban promised! They said the non smoking place would be packed as 80% of people wanted non smoking places! So NOW you're saying that a non smoking place needs to change it's "business model" to attract non smokers?!
You said that businesses would not miss the smokers at all! You insinuated that smokers stink and they had no friends! Is there SOME story that pro ban can hang their hats on? Bans are good for some businesses and very bad for others. Those who choose to cater to adult smokers should be allowed to do that. If you don't want to go there, don't. If you don't want to work there, don't. If no one wants to go to a smoking allowed place, they will close without government intervention. Why do anti smokers want to hang around with smokers so much? Just to have something to whine about?
Why does LJW find the worst photo of anything and anybody to run with their stories?
What's the matter - doesn't the photo capture the 'glamour' well enough of someone enveloping himself and everyone around them in a vile cloud of smoke?
I love the smoking ban but I would like to know if this "study" took into consideration inflation and price increase? Prices have risen about 30% in the last 4 years. Is it a quantity of liquor sold they are looking at the or the income of liquor sold? To say businesses were not effected is a flat out lie. The increase of small businesses has boomed since the economic crash as well. This study is b.s. but please do not repeal the smoking ban.
That guy is the standard smoker for every LJW story on the ban.
Giving up freedom for a certificate for KU seems like a great idea. After all being a National anything is so prestigious and the strings attached are so inconsequential. Stay tuned for National Fat Designation.
the joys of sitting at a bar , smoking cigarette after cigarettte, getting hammered
and driving home drunk. thats the good old days
of course it is hard to respect your government for their bailout on casinos
Either ban the selling of tobacco altogether or leave adults alone in adults only businesses.
Let the owner decide. IF no one wants to go to a smokey bar, then the bar will close. That is the choice that the pro ban people will not allow as it would destroy the myth. If 20% of adults want to smoke, and 20% of bar owners want to allow it, and 85% of a bar's customers are smokers, and the other 15% don't care, then who are these incessant whiners and why do they insist of hanging around where they don't want to be and where they are NOT wanted as customers? Maybe they need a shrink?
We all get to pay for the end results, generally worsen by the combination of smoking and drinking on a person. The government is suppose to set the rules, everyone is playing by them (except the government but this is Kansas) so if you are a good business person it shouldn't matter since everyone is playing by the same rules. I haven't noticed the bar business in Lawrence lacking clientele so it is a non-issue. Good thing is it supposedly closed down the mobsters out in west Lawrence, the Hereford House.
the bar owners are to blame,they do not want to be the bad or good guys,
and make you hate the city instead of them.
like everyone else they want it all
the only worse gutless wonders are the legistlators that ban smoking here
but not at casinos. like how much sense does that make
I would like to point out that just because a business establishment shut down since the smoking ban does not mean it shut down because of the smoking ban.
The main effect the ban had on me was that I had to breath a lot more second-hand smoke
as I walked down Mass St.
I worked for some years in a small business where my boss smoked. I got fierce headaches and had to take allergy medication. No allergy medication since and don't get headaches. And don't try to be "helpful" and say "get another job." At that time, as now, jobs were hard to come by.
But isn't that just what Gov. Brownback told women to do who wanted their employers to cover the cost of birth control? Get another job?
Sorry...I usually agree with you, but I couldn't keep from using the comparison...I just think that with some things, business owners should be able to make their own decisions, without being dictated to by the state...
If they don't want anyone to smoke, anwhere at all, then why don't they make it illegal?
They don't make it illegal and not one of them even advocates for a legal age for possession and use because nobody actually wants people to stop smoking and new generations to not start. Not the governments that collect handsome taxes to fill the general coffers, nor Big Pharma that repeatedly sells their snake oil to those people who try to quit but keep relapsing, and certainly not anti-smoker advocates and researchers that would lose their ''do-gooder'' grants and research money.
I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't stating an opinion, just saying what happened to me. Second-hand smoke made me sick to the point of having to be medicated, both for allergies and headaches. I tried for a long while to get another job---and finally did.
Since I rarely go to bars and never to restaurants that allow smoking, the ban actually caused me to breath more second-hand smoke as I walked along Mass St. with all the smokers now outside. Eventually I left Lawrence (not because of that) and now I live in a place where smoking is very rare and I appreciate that very much.
The overwhelming success of this ban points to those who promoted it as pure visionaries able to see beyond all the "smoke screens" the opponents to public health could manufacture. I never was involved one way or the other but now that I can go out and see how much more pleasant restaurants and night clubs are, I have to hand it to those who figured that out before I did.
Well paid, pharma funded visionairies. Otherwise known as grant sponging lobbyists.
there there now, your comment has no affect on the "good" this ban has created for the betterment of everyones health. Sour grapes sour grapes sour grapes
You go to bars to better your health? Really?
I don't go to bars to smoke cigarettes and when their is no cigarette smoke my health is all the better for it as are all the other people there. Did you know that the bars I go to have kitchens. They do and very good ones at that. Have you ever heard of a "Chef"???
i could never figure out why people that didnt smoke had such a desire
to go places that others smoked?? it always seemed like some mission to me.
like women wanting to join mens clubs.
There wasn't any choice. All bars permitted smoking, so if one wanted to go have a drink, one had to put up with the smoke.
You'd think that if no-smoking bars were a viable business model at least some bars would have gone smoke-free before the totalitarian smoking ban, no? If they didn't it's because people intolerant to smoke to the point of refusing to visit smoke-friendly venues are the minority that doesn't generate too much revenue. If it were otherwise, the free market would have adjusted on its own with many more non-smoking venues.
So what's next, government dictated menus in braille to serve the minority of blind people who want to go to restos, or government mandated perfume free places to accommodate the minority who are intolerant to scents? When can we expect a government mandated peanut-free or lactose-free hospitality industry to accommodate those employees and customers mortally allergic to them and bars with no music or sound whatsoever to accommodate those suffering from tinnitus?
We know an alleged free society is seriously ill when the minority is given preference over the majority at the detriment of free choice and business rights....fueled by billions of corporate money from Big Pharma that has every interest to force people to keep trying their virtually useless cessations products over and over and over. Nice repeat business when you can foster the right climate to propel its sales. And their marketing even suggests that one sticks a patch up one's arm or chew one of their indecently expensive gums when at places where you can't smoke. Unless of course you prefer gobbing down their killer drug Chantix which can do you in a lot faster than tobacco!
"We know an alleged free society is seriously ill when the minority is given preference over the majority at the detriment of free choice and business rights."
Smokers haven't been in the majority in the U.S. in nearly 50 years.
Smokers indeed haven't, but neither have been intolerant anti-smokers and the fact that you could not find a non-smoking bar in Kansas (as you say) proves it. And although democratic values include looking after all minorities, the anti-smoker minority wants it ALL for themselves and with tons of money from government and Big Pharma they are winning. But I dare hope not for very long since an ever increasing number of people are waking up to the anti-smoker industry shenanigans.
And now there is no choice.
I'm a bass player and singer who gave up cigarettes 35 years ago. I know many musicians and singers who love the smoking ban in restaurants and other public places. We can play gigs and participate in jams and never go home afterward with our instruments and clothing reeking of cigarette smoke. The ban protects our health, a direct benefit that extends our days as amateur or professional players.
Before Lawrence's ban went into effect, one night I went to a local bar that was hosting a blues jam. I put my name on the performers list then sat down to wait my turn The bar was packed with smokers. When I got called up to sing, I stepped to the microphone and hard as I tried, no sound would come out my mouth. The secondhand smoke was so thick that my throat involuntarily closed down, like happens to people trapped inside a burning building.
No song is worth performing if it means musicians get exposed to health and safety hazards. If you'd like to see a music venue operated correctly and profitably, where having fun includes health protections for musicians and non-smokers plus a generous outdoor area for folks who smoke, then stop in at Slow Ride in North Lawrence. It's a model for how to do it right.
Yeah, those generous outdoor areas work really well when it's 20 degrees outside...
Fresh off the press: One of so many examples of businesses closing because of smoking bans. http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=758532
Guess what cyza, just because a bar was poorly run and went out of business, it doesn't mean the owner can now claim it was the smoking ban. The steakhouse out west in lawrence was a business plan for disaster and and that idiot claimed it was the smoking ban that cause him to close. He got busted for this idiotic crap and had to go hide his head in the sand because of it. Keep trying.
Huh huh. The Springfield bar my link points to has been operating successfully for the last 20 years and only started being poorly run right after the smoking ban which caused it to fold in. Oh these coincidences will never stop to amaze me ;-)
It has been noted that 80% of the population does not smoke. It is also noted that smoking has not been banned across the board.
Several new drinking establishments have opened. Considering there are only so many retail drinking dollars available in any community some will close as more and more come on the scene.
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand. Many non-smokers smoke socially only when having a drink so the 80 - 20 ratio no longer applies when it comes to drinking establishments and it is no wonder it is those establishments that suffer the most from smoking bans. There is a biological explanation for this: Nicotine has the tendency to offset the effects of alcohol therefor people can hold more alcohol when they smoke and this is precisely why smoking is so prevalent in alcoholics. Look it up.
And WE know they are lying. And the KHI knows we know. They also know that newspapers only print pro ban propaganda.
Considering that only 20% of the country smokes, you are the minority, so maybe us non smokers like it that you are stuck at home or outside. There is no right to smoke. It's an addiction as bad or worse than heroin. If that wasn't true, then smokers wouldn't have a problem. They would go to the bar have a good time, then go home and have a smoke. They just can't go that long without a cigarette. I love chocolate, but I've gone weeks without eating it. I'll bet you can't do that with your cancer sticks.
Addiction, habit, perversion, it still doesn't answer why you need ALL the bars to yourself?
Nothing is keeping smokers from going to bars. They just can't smoke indoors while they're there.
Oh yes, the classical argument from the anti-smoker playbook : it is not the smoker, it is the smoke. Much like saying that one has nothing against gays as long as they don't demonstrate their affection in front of me or my children, nothing against Muslims as long as they don't get on their knees and pray in my vicinity, nothing against fat people as long as they don't take up too much room beside me, but it still doesn't answer the question why private businesses that want to cater to such preferences, rituals, addictions, habits etc... should be prohibited from doing it.
So governments can intervene as long as the targeted group is a minority that the majority dislikes? That's just disturbing...
I also certainly hope that addiction is a valid criterion either. That would dismiss things like caffeine and alcohol. Ever seen someone detox off of those? Not pretty.
It is not a question of targeting the minority. It is not letting a minority make things miserable and unhealthy for others. That is different.
If you did not like the environment of a bar that allowed smoking, you were welcome not to go there. It would have been your choice to make yourself miserable. I do not go to bars because I find the noise level unpleasant, but I am certainly not going to agree with any legislation aimed at stopping that.
As for it being unhealthy, tell me the answer to this: at what level does exposure to second hand smoke become a health risk?
The answer to that question depends upon how many cases of cancer among non-smokers are acceptable, it's a proportional thing. Plus, infections of the ear, lung, and throat among non-smokers are a problem too. How many cases of those diseases among non-smokers are acceptable?
tomatogrower - Sure, I can go without cancer sticks for a few weeks. I did it once for over seven years, and once since Sept 29, 2000.
Say a prayer for me (if you do that) that I can keep it up.
And neither does it answer why you think you can demand from government to coerce a private business to cater to YOUR preferences. Do you feel the same for sushi bars if you don't like sushi or do you just go to the nearest hamburger joint instead?
If you were talking about a hookah bar instead of an alcohol bar your argument might have some validity.
Neither the hookah bar, the alcohol bar or the sushi bar belong to you or to the public and you are free to go or not go to any of them. What you're not free of doing is deciding how they run their business and to whose preferences they want to cater to providing it's within a legal frame. Unless of course you believe in a bully society where the state dictates the rules for everyone whether private or public. Is this the type of America you want to live in? Keep cheering totalitarian laws (just because they suit your preferences, for now) but remember how your mindless selfishness will have contributed to create the police state we are marching into steadily and surely.
Businesses have been subject to regulation by the state since the concept of the state was implemented. A free and fair market is impossible without a regulatory framework for all to operate in. That does not qualify as being in a police state and is insulting to those who have lived or died in one. Now loosen your foil hat and cut back on the coffee and cigarettes before you blow a gasket.
You really are fast asleep having no clue of how ever increasing laws, rules and regulations are stifling both the economy and the people, aren't you? Apart from your freedom to think as you feel and express it (for what good it does!) there are citizens under tyrannical rulers that have more freedoms to go on with their daily lives and businesses as they see fit than our so called western democracies. Oh sure they won't jail you for breaking most of these petty and less petty laws in the books but they will tax you and fine you till you bleed. And if you don't pay they WILL jail you in the end.
And yes, businesses are under a juggernaut of regulations mostly to suck taxes and fines out of them but none so absurd as to outright forbid them to cater to an adult clientele that consents to exercise a perfectly legal activity that nobody has to indulge in unless one wants to.
so a state organization did a study on a state law, and we are supposed to buy into that?
I suppose king brownback assigned the positions on the study. not accepting this for a second
THe Khi is NOT a state organization. They are unafilliated with the government of Kansas. They report themselves to be a "non profit" organization. THey receive big money in grants from groups who make big money from the sales of patches and gums due to smoking bans. Most "non profit" lobby groups use the state name in their title so they appear to be associatied with the government. They are not. They say they are unbiased. "Tobacco Free Kansas" is another good example of a money making non profit lobby group!
Now that they know it doesn't affect business, why are the casinos still exempt?
I too would like to know why STATE RUN casinos are exempt.. What about the health of the workers at the casino? Their lives are not worth as much as restaurant/bar workers? What about tabacco shops? They still allow smoking there. We need more stringent regulation NOW!!
AH yes, the progressive march towards a healthier world. Nevermind the little details, like nearly every state economy having to bolster itself with an ever increasing tax on tobacco. But, when Big Tobacco is shut down, much to the delight of the health-minded folk, I wonder how the states will fare.
Just fine I presume. The only thing you need to worry about is if the farm subsidy facet is turned off. That is the only reason you can still afford to be republican.
If smoking bans are all about the workers (as they want you to believe) why does OSHA beg to differ?
OSHA's position on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS):
OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.
Anybody who's interested in this should look at the link provided above.
It does more to advance the cause of nonsmoking in public places than anything I've seen so far.
The ridiculous use of huge type and many exclamation points combined with the self-admittedly "one sided" opinions presented show a certain level of over-emotionality, almost rising to hysteria.
I didn't read much of it, but what I read included no actual studies, but rather the author's presentation and critique of them.
People who are addicted to substances, and nicotine is a highly addictive substance, often show an inability to think logically about issues involving them, which makes sense, since they're hooked on them, and feel they need them, even though that's not objectively true.
A moment's reflection and common sense reveals that cigarette smoke contains carcinogenic substances, and that can't be good for anybody.
Thanks but no thanks.
A few quick questions:
Do you smoke?
Do you feel you need to smoke?
Do you understand that's not accurate, and that there's no objective need to smoke?
Is smoking good for you, bad for you, or neutral in it's effect?
Is second hand smoke good for you, bad for you , or neutral in it's effect?
The same could be said for alcohol and any number of other indulgent acts. Would you support an alcohol ban? There's no need to drink alcohol, drinking alcohol is bad for you and secondary effects of drinking too much alcohol are drunk driving, spousal abuse, rape, suicide, murder, assault and manslaughter. We don't even need to have a bogus study to prove or argue these facts.
The obvious difference between drinking and smoking is that alcohol doesn't travel through the air from your body to mine if you're drinking and I'm not.
Alcohol abuse is a real problem in our society, but I don't think that banning alcohol is the way to go, any more than I think we should outright ban cigarettes, or drugs. But, we should be sensible in our public policy - I wouldn't want meth or crack smokers smoking in restaurants any more than I want cigarette smokers doing that.
No question about it..... smoke invades the privacy of others. All that is required is being under the same roof as the tobacco smoke.
Tobacco smoke flows freely and travels throughout a structure no matter what thus invading the privacy of other customers no matter how far away from the source. No smoking sections were a joke simple as that. Nice try but a joke.
Smokers were the minority in many establishments. One thing is for certain smokers and non smokers love their brew and other beverages that bring on relaxation. This is being documented most everyday by the busy activity at Free State Brewery and other favorite hangouts.
Had the powers that be agenda been to ban serving alcohol in public establishments another
American revolution likely would have been reborn in the streets, city hall and in the halls of congress. Things would get noisy and rowdy.
Run Free State Brewery out of business. Doubtful. Powerful local investment,good food and great brew = no way.
I believe Chuck Magerl was convinced that the Free State environment could be cleaned by way of a host of mechanical filtering devices. This could get expensive. No doubt Chuck Magerl did much research before bringing that to the table. For all we know Chuck Magerl might have been right.
However I believe tobacco smoke far too renegade thus beyond being captured and thrown out the door. This family was pleased with the ousting of tobacco smoke and yes we do go out more often.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·